DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 353 567
CS 011 174
AUTHOR Alvermann, Donna E.; Guthrie, John T.
TITLE Themes and Directions of the National Reading
Research Center. Perspectives in Reading Research,
No. 1.
INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;
National Reading Research Center, College Park,
MD.
SPONS AGENCY
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
Jan 93
CONTRACT 117A20007
NOTE 25p.
PUB TYPE
Reports Descriptive (141) Viewpoints
(Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.) (120)
EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
Elementary Secondary Education; *Literacy; *Mission
Statements; Program Descriptions; Reading
Achievement; *Reading Instruction; *Reading Research;
*Research Needs; *Research Projects
IDENTIFIERS America 2000; *National Reading Research Center;
Reading Motivation
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the National Reading Research
Center (NRRC), a federally funded center that intends to carry out
research to discover what promotes readers' engagement in literacy
activities, foster their critical thinking and strategic learning,
and prepare them to meet the challenges of a technological age. The
paper describes the mission of the NRRC, perceived needs in reading
research, the people in the NRRC, research programs in the NRRC
(embracing instruction, learning, assessment, and professional
development), planned collaborations and activities, and forthcoming
products and publications. The paper concludes that the NRRC research
agenda incorporates the goals and problems identified in the America
2000 plan. Twenty-four references, a list of the members of the NRRC
national advisory board, and a list of the 41 research projects at
NRRC are attached. (RS)
*******************************************.:***************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
Themes and Directions
of the National Reading Research
Center
Donna E. Alvermann
University of
Georgia
John T. Guthrie
University of Maryland College Park
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Oft.ce of Educational Research and Improvement
EDJUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
FiThis document hag been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating .t
C Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality
Points of vie* or opinions stated rn this 1.1oCu
meat do nol necessarily represent oftictal
OE RI positron or policy
NRRC
National
Reading Research
Center
?i[ST COPY
r!
r
PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH, NO.1
January 1993
2
NRRC
National Reading Research Center
Themes and Directions
of the National Reading Research Center
Donna E. Alvermann
University of Georgia
John T. Guthrie
University of Maryland College Park
PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH, NO. 1
January 1993
The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Project of the University of Georgia and University
of Maryland.
It was supported under the Educational Research and Development Centers Program
(PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.
Department of Education. The findings and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or
policies of the National Reading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the
U.S. Department of Education.
NRRC
National
Reading Research
Center
Executive Committee
Donna E. Alvermann, Co-Director
University of Georgia
John T. Guthrie, Co-Director
University of Maryland College Park
James F. Baumann, Associate Director
University of Georgia
Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate Director
University of Maryland College Park
Peter P. Afflcrbach
University of Maryland
Sherrie Gibney-Sherman
Athens-Clarke County Schools, GA
James T. Hoffman
University of Texas at Austin
G. Michael Pressley
University of Maryland College Park
Paula J. Schwanenflugel
University of Georgia
Publications Advisory Board
David Reinking, Receiving Editor
University of Georgia
Linda Baker, Tracking Editor
University of Maryland Baltimore County
Linda C. DcGroff
University of Georgia
Betty P. Shockley
Fowler Drive Elementary School, Athens, GA
Anne P. Sweet, Ex-Officio
Office of Educational Research and improvement,
U.S. Department of Education
Louise M. Tomlinson
University of Georgia
Louise F. Waynant
Prince George's County Schools, MD
Allan L. Wigfield
University of Maryland College Park
NRRC Staff
Barbara F. Howard, Office Manager
Melissa M. Erwin, Senior Secretary
University of Georgia
Dorothy H. Reid, Office Manager
Rhonda Graves, Accountant
University of Maryland College Park
National Advisory Board
Phyllis W. Aldrich
Saratoga Warren Board of Cooperative Educational
Services, Saratoga Springs, NY
Arthur N. Applebee
State University of New York, Albany
Ronald S. Brandt
Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development
Marsha T. DcLain
South Carolina Department of Education
Carl A. Grant
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Walter Kintsch
University of Colorado at Boulder
Robert L. Linn
University of Colorado at Boulder
Luis C. Moll
University of Arizona
Carol M. Santa
School District No. 5, Kalispell, MT
Anne P. Sweet
Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
U.S. Department of Education
Louise Cherry Wilkinson
Rutgers University
Technical Writer and Production Editor
Susan L. Yarborough
University of Georgia
NRRC - University of Georgia
318 Aderhold
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia 30602-7125
(706) 542-3674
Fax: (706) 542-3678
INTERNET: NRRCQuga.cc.uga.cdu
NRRC - University of Maryland College Park
2102 J. M. Patterson Building
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742
(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625
INTERNET: [email protected]
About the National Reading Research Center
The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) is
funded by the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education to
conduct research on reading and reading instruction.
The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the
University of Georgia and the University of Mar. land
College Park in collaboration with researchers at
several institutions nationwide.
The NRRC's mission is to disco cr and document
those conditions in homes, schools, and communities
that encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic.
lfelonv readers. NRRC researchers are committed to
adeancinn the development of instnn:tional pro2rams
sensitive to the cognitive,
sociocultural,
and
motivational ':rotors that affect children's success in
reading. NRRC researchers from a variety of
disciplines conduct studies with teachers and students
from widely diverse cultural and soeioeconorni,
backgrounds in prekindergarten through grade 12
classrooms. Research projects deal with the influence of
family and family-s.;hool
interactions on the
development of literacy: the interaction of sociocultural
factors and motivation to read; the impact of literature-
based reading pig grams on reading achivernent; the
effects of reading strategies instruction on
comprehension and critical thinking in literature,
science, and history; the influence of innovative group
participation structures on motivation and learnini:: the
potential of comput-r technology to enhance literacy;
and the development of methods and standards for
alternative literacy assessments.
The NRRC is further committed to the participation
of teachers as full partners in its research. A better
understanding of how teachers view the development of
literacy, how they use knowledge from research, and
how they approach change in the classroom is crucial to
improving instruction. To further this understanding,
the NRRC conducts school-based research in which
teachers explore their
own philosophical and
pedagogical orientations and trace their professional
growth.
Dissemination is an important feature of NRRC
activities.
Information on NRRC research appears in
several formats. Research Reports communicate the
results of original research or synthesize the findings of
several lines of inquiry. They are written primarily for
researchers
studying various areas of reading and
reading instruction. The Perspective Series presents a
wide range of publications, from calls for research and
commentary on research and practice to first-person
accounts
of experiences
in schools. hisuctictial
Resources include curriculum materials, instructional
quid-
and materials for professional growth, designed
prim.ily for teachers.
For more information about the NRRC's research-:
projects and other activities, or to have your name
added to the mailing list, please contact:
Donna E. Alverrnann.
National Reading Research Center
318 Aderhold Hall
University of Ge.orgis.
Athens, GA 30602-7125
(706) 542-3674
John T. Guthrie, Co-Director
National Reading Research Ceqtar
2102 J. M. Patterson Building
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 405-8035
Preface
This perspective describes the National Reading Research Center
(NRRC)
its mission, people, research programs, collaborations,
forthcoming products, publications, and activities. Although we write
as cc-directors of the NRRC, we wish to
acknowledge the thinking
of our university- and school-based colleagues, who in their roles as
investigators contributed substantively to the design of the NRRC. In
the end, of course, we take full responsibility for any omissions or
imperfections in our writing.
Donna E. Alvermann
University of Georgia
John T. Guthrie
University of Maryland College Park
t)
National Reading Research Center
Universities of Georgia and Maryland
Perspectives in Reading Research, No. 1
January 1993
Themes and Directions of
the National Reading Research Center
Donna E. Alvermann
University of Georgia
John T. Guthrie
University of Maryland College Park
The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) is a
five-year $7.7-million cooperative agreement between
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement
in the U.S. Department of Education and a consortium
of the University of Georgia and the University of
Maryland College Park.
The NRRC is the singular
federally
funded
research
center
charged
with
expanding the knowledge base on children's and
adolescents' acquisition of reading proficiency and the
use of that proficiency to learn from text.
The co-
directors of the NRRC are Donna E. Alvermann of the
University of Georgia and John T. Guthrie of the
University of Maryland College Park.
James F.
Baumann
(Georgia)
and
Patricia
S. Koskinen
(Maryland) are the associate directors.
Six of the
NRRC's 41
projects are
at sites
other than the
University of Georgia and the University of Maryland.
These Affiliated Scholar Projects are located at the
University of Washington, Seattle, WA; San Diego
State University, San Diego, CA; the University of
Texas, Austin, TX; "lark Atlanta University, Atlanta,
GA; the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA;
and Rutgers
University,
New Brunswick,
NJ.
Together these sites provide a diverse set of schools,
communities, and homes in which to carry out the
NRRC's research agenda.
THE NRRC'S MISSION
One of the national goals proposed for American
education by former President George Bush is that by
the year 2000, every adult American will be literate,
1
possess the skills to compete in a global economy, and
be prepared to exercise the rights and responsibilities
of citizenship. To assist the achievement of thi.. goal
of nationwide literacy, the NRRC must acknowledge
and address four pervasive problems.
First and foremost is the well-documented problem
that too many Americans lack the ability and desire to
read and write.
Scholars whose work
peals to a
broad spectrum of political views generally agree that
as a nation we are less literate than we could or should
be (Langer, Applebee, Mullis, & Foertsch, 1990;
Ravitch, 1985). Too many Americans lack essential
reading skills (Kirsch & Jungeblut, 1986; National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), and an
astonishing proportion of students lacks the broad
range of literacy skills needed for their own learning
and productive participation in society (The Secretary's
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills [SCANS],
1991).
Too many students who can read choose to
avoid the printed word, even at their peril (Foertsch,
1992). We will address this problem by carrying out
research
to
discover what
promotes
readers'
engagement in literacy activities, fosters their critical
thinking and strategic leaming, and prepares them to
meet the challenges of a technological age.
A second problem is the crisis in equity. It is time
to acknowledge and confront the persistent disparity in
the reading achievement of mainstream and ron-
mainstream students in the United States. Clearly, we
are failing to meet the literacy needs of today's socially
and culturally diverse student population. To assist in
altering this situation, we will conduct research that
HST CSPY AVAILCIE
2
Donna E. AJVCIN412 and John T. Guthrie
explores sociocultural issues in literacy
achievement
and how best to address them in classrooms,
homes,
and communities across the country.
A third problem is the nature of current
reading
instruction. Although the last two decades
have seen
significant advances in our understanding
of the
reading process and how to teach reading,
this
understanding has not had widespread impact on
classroom practice (Alvermann & Moore,
1991;
Wendler, Samuels, & Moore, 1989).
With few
exceptions, reading instruction today looks
remarkably
similar to that of the 1950s, with a
basal reader
program,
three
ability-level
groups,
a
student
workbook, and an end-of-the-year standardized test.
Why is this the case?
We believe that efforts to
disseminate research on reading instruction
have been
hampered by findings that do not address
teachers'
questions about the complexities of teaching
students to
read in actual classrooms.
Consequently, we will
involve teachers as full participants in
research, and we
will establish permanent research sites
in the schools.
The
fourth
problem
is
the prevalence
of
decontextualized reading research. We know a great
deal about how typical readers process
information in
carefully controlled situations, but relatively
little about
how they construct meaning in the contexts
in which
they are usually required to read.
Consequently, we
will focus the greater portion of our
efforts on research
that makes a difference in
school-based settings.
Recognizing the need for a reality check on
what
teachers view as worthy of research, we
conducted a
national poll of teachers in which we
asked respondents
to identify and rank problems
warranting research.
The results
of the poll (O'Flahavan, Gambrell,
Guthrie, Stahl, Baumann, & Alvermann,
1992) indicate
that teachers' first priority is
finding ways to motivate
students and create an interest in
reading.
This
priority, as stated by teachers, led
directly to what we
have come to call an engagement
perspective for our
research.
Engagement Perspective
According to a recent publication by
the National
Academy a Education (1991),
"the
interests
of
students, institutions, and society as a
whole may be
better served by discovering more
productive forms of
engagement with learning' (p.
39).
Research has
documented that a reader's engagement with texts is a
strong predictor of her or his success in reading
(Morrow & Weinstein,
1986),
while additional
evidence shows that children play a role in their own
educational development by the choices they make
about how to spend their time (Scar: & McCartney,
1983).
At the National Reading Research Center, our
overarching goal is to study how to cultivate highly
engaged,
self-determining
readers
who
are
the
architects of their own Irtarning.
Our research is
unified by an engagement perspective, which is based
on
the
assumption
that
students
acquire
the
competencies and motivations to read for diverse
purposes, such as gaining knowledge,
performing a
task,
interpreting an author's perspective,
sharing
reactions to stories and informational texts, escaping
into the literary world, or taking social and political
action in response to what is read.
Highly engaged
readers are motivated, knowledgeable, and socially
interactive.
An engagement perspective, which is congruent
with highly respected views on reading acquisition and
instruction, recognizes the social nature of cognition
and is useful for addressing the problems that currently
stand as roadblocks to achieving nationwide literacy.
It is also a useful heuristic for ensuring that
the
NRRC's research agenda is coherent and responsive to
the multiple and intersecting needs of students, parents,
policymakers, and teachers.
Research Objectives
Guided by an engagement perspective and solidly
grounded in
the best
thinking of teachers and
researchers in reading, investigators at the National
Reading Research Center will pursue the following
objectives:
Describe the growth of students' motivation to read
at home and in school.
Extend the knowledge base on the cognitive
processes of reading by relating
these processes to
social and motivational dimensions of instruction.
Chronicle
the effects
of long-term
strategy
instruction on the motivational and cognitive
NATIONAL READING RESEARCH
CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN READING
RESEARCH, NO. 1, IANUA:Y 1993
The National Reading Research Center
development of students of diverse cultures
and abilities.
Describe and develop social,
cognitive, and
language bridges from home to school for
emergent readers.
Explore how schools appropriate technology to
enhance literacy and increase the amount and
diversity of students' independent reading.
Study
the influences
that
innovative
social
participation
patterns
have
on
literary
interpretation,
higher
order
thinking
during
content area reading, and sustained motivation for
sharing books.
Examine and design new literature-based curricula
and
instruction
for
first-
and
second-grade
learners, emphasizing programs for students who
are placed at-risk for reading failure.
Trace knowledge acquisition during reacling in
science, math, geography, and history classes in
collaboration with teachers ii these content areas.
Evaluate alternative reading assessments, establish
standards for teacher-based assessments, and
develop policy-based alternative assessments.
Affirm our commitment to collaborative research,
which
enables
us
to define
and
describe
professional development in teacher-researcher
communities, preservice education, and local
school system initiatives.
Our vision for he NRRC is based on the belief
that there should be a dynamic, reciprocal relationship
between theory and practice
that theory can inform
practice and practice can enlighten theory.
When
teachers engage in research, posing problems, and
examining their own work, there is inherently a bridge
between theory and practice.
Teacher inquiry
develops ownership of the research questions, enhances
the
credibility
of
the
findings,
and
fosters
dissemination. Therefore, NRRC activities will enlist
teachers as collaborative researchers and establish
permanent research sites where university- and school-
3
based investigators plan, conduct, synthesize, and
report research.
PERCEIVED NEEDS IN READING RESEARCH
Prior to publishing the Request for Proposals for the
National Reading Research Center in 1991, officials in
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement
in the U.S. Department of Education commissioned six
nationally known literacy experts to write conceptual
papers on the direction of future research in reading.
These experts represented the research interests of both
university- and school-based educators.
Their six
chapters
ii;;ini part of a forthcoming book titled
Reading Research into the Year 2000 (Lawrence
Erlbaum,
publisher).
The
present
research
perspective, which is derived from the final chapter in
the forthcoming book, was originally a response to the
six commissioned authors' articulation of perceiver
needs in reading research.
Social Contexts of Literacy Instruction
Although instructional research has documented that
many cognitive strategies, such as predicting, drawing
inferences, and summarizing, can be taught explicitly,
it has shed little light on how these strategies can be
incorporated systematically into classroom routines.
Children who possess
the
appropriate
cognitive
strategies for comprehending what they read may not
use those strategies in actual classroom situations.
Why? Lack of motivation?
Little or no interest in
reading? Inability to transfer strategic knowledge?
In their search for answers to this multifaceted
question, researchers have begun to look beyond
unidimensional models of readers' internal processes,
which ignore real world constraints. They have found
that reading, like all other cognitive acts, occurs within
a social and cultural context.
Brown, Collins, and Duguid (cited in Beck, in
press) point Out that "classroom practices have been
criticized specifically for decontextualizing knowledge
and skills, stripping them of the cultural and physical
supports of the disciplinary practices in which they are
actually used." Anderson (in press) calls for "studies
(that] examine the social contexts of early literacy,"
while Sulzby (in press) notes the need to study
individual differences across age groups in diverse
NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN READING RI....)EARCH,
NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
4
Donna E. Alwnnann and John T. Guthrie
social,
linguistic, and cultural settings. Clearly,
researchers have begun to see cognitive acts in reading
and reading instruction as socially situated. However,
questions about the extent to which different social
contexts mediate reading and writing instruction remain
unanswered.
Developmental Nature of Reading and Writing
In order to understand fully how children learn to read
and write, researchers generally agree on the need to
study that process from preschool onward through the
secondary school years. However, while they see the
preK-12 span as an appropriate time for exploring
children's emergent literacy abilities, their interaction
with adults in intergenerational and home literacy
activities,
and their
transition from emergent
to
conventional readers and writers, they disagree as to
where the emphasis should be placed in studying the
development of literate behavior.
For example, Beck (in press) and Anderson (in
press)
favor studies
that
investigate how whole
language approaches and phonemic awareness affect
children's acquisition of reading.
Sulzby (in press)
would emphasize studies that explore "when literacy
begins and what counts as literacy."
Mosenthal (in
press) and Scroggins (in press) stress research that
takes into account the need for equality of learning
opportunities for all students regardless of race, ethnic,
or socioeconomic background.
And Monahan (in
press), who believes that there is presently too little
attention to middle and secondary school literacy
development, advocates research on how to motivate
students
to become strategic
readers
capable of
integrating reading, writing, speaking, and listening
across the content areas.
Regardless
of their
differences,
researcherb
generally agree that in this decade investigating how
student: learn to read and write is certain to offer new
challenges to researchers. Culturally and linguistically
diverse classrooms, social unrest, changes in family
structure, and tensions within the research community
itself are but a few of the factors that will influence
how studies are planned, conducted, analyzed, and
reported.
Disparities in Reading Achievement
In seeking to explain disparities in reading
achievement, researchers in the past may have been too
quick to point to problems with language, experience,
and differences in school and family values. Scroggins
suggests a close examination of the assumptions
underlying explanations for low reading achievement so
that if previous assumptions no longer hold, thcy can
be discarded. A revised understanding of the reasons
for low reading achievement could conceivably lead to
more equitable achievement for all.
Scroggins is not alone in recommending that
researchers turn their attention towards those students
who are struggling to become literate. Other authors
also address the
need to study long-term and
theoretically based instructional interventions such as
Reading Recovery (Deford, Lyons, & Pinnell, 1991)
and Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
Scroggins, however, focuses on the needs of inner-city
children, stressing the importance of developing and
assessing the effectiveness of literacy materials that fit
urban lifestyles, that challenge and enrich every child's
learning, and that represent the literature of African
Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians.
She also calls for research on parental involvement in
the education of urban children.
Research/Practice Relationship
In the past, reading reseaiehers have tended to design
their studies around theoretical concerns rather than
actual classroom situations, according to Mosenthal (in
press).
They have assumed that teachers can be
convinced "that their problems and goals are similar (if
not identical) to the problems and goals ... investigated
by reading researchers." As a result of this center-to-
periphery approach
to agenda setting, Mosenthal
argues, "researchers have ignored the real problems
and goals which they purportedly are entrusted to solve
and facilitate."
This approach to research also has
social and political connotations. As Mosenthal notes,
previous reading research has been conducted mostly
by middle-class European American researchers and
has focused largely on white readers, so the goals and
problems of readers in minority groups have been all
but neglected.
NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
The National Reading Research Center
It
is generally agreed, however, that reading
research has had some effect on classroom practice.
Anderson (in press) notes the influence of concepts like
story grammar, schema, phonemic awareness, and
automaticity on reading education.
Beck (in press)
points out that teachers no longer view reading as a
process for getting meaning from the printed page.
They now see it as an interactive process in which
readers construct meaning, using both information in
the text and their own experiences.
Although Monahan (in press) and Scroggins (in
press)
acknowledge
the
abundance
of
research
recommendations
for
improving the
teaching of
reading, as teachers, they are deeply concerned about
the need for greater implementation of what is already
known. Monahan suggests that one way to solve the
implementation problem is for teachers themselves to
become
researchers
who
investigate their
own
classroom practices and act on what they find.
This
suggestion coincides with Mosenthal's call
for the
involvement of teachers in setting reading research
agendas.
Technology
Broadened definitions of literacy, or multiple literacies
as some have described them, remind us that we live
in a rapidly changing world where limited access to
traditional texts does not necessarily equal limited
access to the information presented in those texts. As
Sulzby (in press) points out, even children from the
most print-impoverished homes are likely to have
access to computer games, videotapes, and home
videocassette players.
Yet, she notes, "[researchers]
have tended to ignore software development or treat it
as atheoretical ... [despite its] great power to define the
literacies that chile -en experience."
Technology's
ability to captivate the imaginations of reader; and
writers has not been fully explored, particularly in
terms of its potential for changing students' responses
to literature. Nor is there sufficient research on how
textual information might be presented and learned
differently in electronic and printed forms.
It
is teachers who determine how effectively
computers are used to enhance a classroom's literacy
curriculum. Teachers with little interest in computers
may ignore computer-based instruction, unless, as
Monahan (in press) suggests, they are encouraged to
5
participate in professional development seminars that
actively involve them in the medium. Research on the
uses of technology in the classroom, according to
Monahan, should focus on developing or refining
strategies that highlight the teacher-as-thinker model of
instruction.
Learning Subject Matter from Texts
and Other Materials
The ability to learn from subject matter texts and other
print materials is a mark of one's independence as a
literate person. It is also an indication that one is able
to think critically and draw reasonable conclusions
about the information presented in texts or other
media. Never in our history has the need for critical
readers been greater; yet, as Anderson (in press) points
out, "evidence continues to appear that students do not
reason well about written material."
In attempting to
identify the forces that may conspire against students'
attainment of higher order literacy, Anderson considers
several possibilities, the most basic of which is that
"there simply are not well-worked out and widely
recognized
instructional
strategies for
promoting
critical thinking within the field of reading."
Like
Beck (ii press), he places a high priority on research
that could be used in improving students' ability to
read and think critically about extended and multiple
text presentations.
We suspect that a dearth of appropriate and widely
recognized instructional strategies for fostering critical
thinking is not the only force conspiring against
students' success in learning from subject matter texts.
Motivation to read complex expository prose about
topics with little or no relevance for their everyday
lives must surely be low for most students. Beck (in
press) recognizes the problem of low motivation when
she recommends that
researchers
"continue both
cognitive and
motivational work on
developing
techniques to encourage students' active engagement
with text." Monahan shows a similar recognition in her
recommendation
that
researchers
concentrate on
helping middle and secondary school readers develop
strategies for coping with conceptually dense texts.
In summary, the perceived needs in reading
research, as they were defined by six nationally known
experts, are reflected in the NRRC's research agenda.
NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH, NO.
1, JANUARY 1993
6
Donna E. Alvemiann and John T. Guthrie
Moreover, these perceived needs echo the theoretical
grounding for the NRRC's research objectives.
PEOPLE IN THE NRRC
Tice NRRC is fortunate to have both diversity in
scholarship and diversity in human resources.
Our
strong commitment to teacher involvement and cultural
diversity is demonstrated in our investigators, both
university- and school-based, our National Advisory
Board,
and
the
many
individuals
and groups
participating in our research.
Principal Investigators
At this time, the NRRC has a total of 71 investigators
working on 41 different projects.
The investigators
comprise a representative cross-section of the research
interests and methodologies necessary for moving
literacy research forward into the year 2000.
The university-based researchers
represent an
array
of disciplines and hail
from colleges
of
education, child and family development, and arts and
sciences. Most have their doctorates in areas such as
reading education, psychology, educational psychology,
elementary education, English/language arts education,
and curriculum and instruction.
Most have been
involved in long-term externally funded research
projects.
Some have been Fulbright Scholars, while
others have been invited scholars at major research
institutions in the U. S. and abroad.
Our university-based researchers also have a
strong record of involvement with public schools and
educational agencies. They have had many successful
collaborations with classroom teachers, an important
characteristic given the NRRC's emphasis on school-
based
research
(see
later
section
on teacher
involvement).
Teacher Involvement
As previously noted, when findings from research on
literacy
instruction
stem from
the
concerns
of
researchers rather than teachers, there is little chance
that the research will make lasting differences in
classroom practice. The same holds true for research
conducted outside of classrooms in laboratory-like
settings or in artificially contrived settings within
schools. Consequently, the NRRC seeks to avoid what
Mosenthal (in press) calls the "center -to- periphery"
approach
to
agenda
setting, whereby researchers
identify the problems they want to research without
involving teachers in the research process.
We are
committed to including teachers as full participants in
the design, implementation, interpretation, evaluati.m,
and dissemination of the NRRC's research. More than
30 percent of the NRRC's investigators are classroom
teachers,
district-level
curriculum
coordinators,
administrators,
or
members of
state
boards
of
education. Approximately 85 percent of our projects
involve teachers and students working in their schools,
while the remaining 15 percent involve home, library,
community center, and book club settings. In addition,
most of the NRRC's graduate research assistants have
been classroom teachers, and four of the National
Advisory Board members represent teachers' interests.
The National Advisory Board
The eleven members of the NRRC's National Advisory
Board
complement
the
research
interests
and
methodologies represented in the NRRC. The Board
meets annually with investigators
to
review our
accomplishments and contribute to the evolving vision
of the NRRC.
Its members include experts in the
areas of literary theory, measurement, textual analysis,
sociolinguistics, multicultural education, large- and
small-scale assessment,
et iural anthropology, and
school administration.
(See Appendix A for list of
National
Advisory
Board
members
and
their
affiliations.)
Cultural Diversity
We believe that the inclusion of researchers from
diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds is vital to the
ultimate success of the NRRC's mission, especially if
the NRRC is
to
address
inequities
in reading
achievement.
Currently, 15 percent of the first two
years' projects include investigators who are members
of minority groups. We plan to expand this number in
the last three years of the grant, and other minority
scholars may join projects in Year 2.
Among the host of individuals who have agreed to
collaborate
in
the NRRC's research
are many
Hispanic, Asian, and African Americans.
They
include classroom teachers and their students, school
N..TIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN
READING RESEARCH, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
The National Reading Research Center
administrators, state and local level policymakers, and
graduate and undergraduate research assistants.
The
NRRC is committed to recruiting graduate research
assistants
from colleges
and universities
that
historically have had
percer.tages of minority
students.
In addition, we have established links with
the University of Georgia's National Center for the
Gifted and Talented whose mission is to identify gifted
students
in
underserved
populations
and create
curricula that address these students' lives.
RESEARCH PROGRAMS IN THE NRRC
The NRRC's research embraces four major program
areas: (a) instruction, (b) learning, (c) assessment, and
(d) professional development. (See Appendix B for a
complete
listing
of these
projects
and
project
investigators.)
The first three program areas were
identified by the U. S. Department of Education's
Office of Educational Research and Improvement in
consultation with
the various
constituencies and
individuals interested in improving literacy.
This
consultation process included holding roundtabies at
major education research conferences, commissioning
the book Reading Research into the Year 2000, and
soliciting comments from the public at large through
advertisements placed in highly visible publications that
appeal to researcher and teacher audiences.
The NRRC added the fourth program area on
professional development because we believe that
successful instruction, learning, and assessment in
reading must engage teachers as well as learners.
Although many of our instruction,
learning, and
assessment projects include aspects of professional
development, they do not study directly how teachers
become engaged in their own professional growth or
how their
engagr-nent
influences
their
beliefs,
knowledge, and actions. Research that is not informed
by practice stands little chance of changing practice,
especially when teachers' beliefs are at odds with the
theories underlying the proposed changes (Richardson,
Anders,
Tidwell, & Lloyd,
1991).
Moreover,
traditional professional development activities will not
change
instruction
if they
overlook
teachers'
philosophical and pedagogical orientations to reading
and fail to include teachers as active participants in the
change process (Gitlin, 1990).
Instruction
7
The 15 research projects in this program area comprise
four interrelated strands of inquiry:
(a) literature and
early
reading, -(b)
comprehension
and cognitive
strategies, (c) knowledge -rich contexts, and (d) social
contexts of literacy instruction.
In the first strand, literature and early reading,
researchers are studying the sociocultural, cognitive.
and motivational aspects of reading instruction for the
emergent and primary grade reader.
These studies
focus on literature-based reading programs, whole
language approaches, and th^ principles of Reading
Recovery lessons primarily as they apply in low-
income and inner-city classrooms. One study follows
a cohort of students from first through third grades to
determine how changes in literacy programs and
literacy instruction affect students' growth in literacy.
It includes teachers in small and large school districts
located in rural and urban areas that serve students of
both high and low socioeconomic status.
second strand, comprehension and cognitive
strategies, emphasizes year-long strategy instruction in
which teachers attempt to replicate in their regular
classrooms
the
comprehension
strategies
that
researchers have found effective under experimental
conditions.
These studies incorporate a mix of
instructional
alternatives,
including
transactional
strategy
instruction,
comprehension
monitoring,
literature
discussion
groups,
sensory
impression
training, repeated readings, directed reading activities,
and dialogical thinking-reading lessons. They examine
how strategies empower students to select challenging
reading and learning tasks. One study involves parents
and grandparents in discussion groups designed to
develop elementary students' critical reading abilities.
Researchers in the third strand, knowledge-rich
contexts,
are focusing
on
content
area
reading
instruction in science, history, and geography at the
middle and secondary school levels.
They will
describe how various models of concept-centered
reading instruction support stuuents' cognitive, social,
and motivational development. In one study, a science
teacher,
reading
specialist,
and
university-based
researcher have designed a year-long
"hands-on"
science curriculum in which Chapter I students are
NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH, NO.
1, JANUARY 1993
"""n rrnv AvPP 4r.1 c
I
8
Donna E. Alvermann and John T. Guthrie
taught how to generate questions about an observed
phenomenon and then search for the answers using a
variety of print sources (textbooks,
trade books,
reference
books, and
illustrations).
The study
examines how students learn to select books and
materials
to
fit
their
interests and satisfy
their
curiosities.
One aim of the investigation is to map
^hanges in children's intrinsic motivations for reading
over the year. Year 2 of the study will evaluate
the
model
after
it
has been implemented
in
eight
classrooms across three schools.
The goal of the fourth strand, secial contexts of
literacy instruction, is to introduce innovative social
participation structures that can lead to higher order
thinking and sustained motivation for reading. These
participation structures include student-led (as distinct
from teacher-led)
discussions of expository texts,
cross-age peer tutoring, and computer-based
reading
and writing activities aimed at increasing the amount
and diversity of students' independent reading. The
studies embrace a cross-section of K-12 rural, urban,
and suburban classrooms that range from low to high
in the socioeconomic and cultural diversity of their
student populations.
In one study, university student
athletes who have
difficulty
reading
will
tutor
elementary students who have been placed at-risk for
reading failure. The study seeks to determine whether
a
tutor'ng program
that
includes
instruction
in
phonemic awareness, story writing, and the reading of
children's literature can improve the reading skills and
attitudes of both the tutors and the children they work
with.
Learning
The research projects in this program area can be
divided into three strands:
(a) emergent literacy and
language development, (b) motivation for reading, and
(c) learning subject matter from text.
Each of these
strands is supported by the engagement perspective and
the fundamental assumption that learning to read and
write, as well as learning from reading and writing,
depends critically on having ready access to print-rich
environments.
That access can be provided by the home, school,
or community. However, not all
students have equal
access to print-rich environments, as
the studies in the
emergent literacy and language development
strand will
demonstrate. A four-year longitudinal study will follow
students from low-income African American families,
low-income white families, and middle-income white
families as they move from pre-kindergarten through
second grade. The goal of the study is to specify more
completely the variety of contexts and processes that
contribute to the development of literacy.
In another
longitudinal study with low-income families, two
school-based researchers will describe how three-way
dialogue journals involving themselves, their students,
and their students' parents affected the students'
literacy
development
and
the
family school
relationship.
One clear message from the Maryland-Georgia
national poll of teachers is that research is needed on
how children develop motivation for reading. Working
from
the
perspective
that
engaged
readers
use
sophisticated reading strategies according to their
motivations for doing so, researchers in this strand
seek to discover what those motivations are and how to
channel them for improved learning.
For example, a
five-year longitudinal study involving 7th- and 8th-
grade students as coresearchers will follow the student
participants through high school for the purpose of
examining conditions that support or impede students'
continuing impulse to learn.
Another study will
investigate why librarians traditionally have been left
out of the dialogue on literacy and learning, a curious
fact given that access to libraries is known to have a
positive effect on children who come from print-
impoverished en' onments (Guthrie & Greaney,
1991).
The third strand, learning subject matter from text,
explores the importance of providing students with
ready access to print-rich environments, particularly
within middle and secondary school content area
classrooms. Some types of texts
the story problem,
for instance
have characteristics that require students
to use specialized strategies if they are to learn from
them. Other texts that require strategic reading include
multiple documents on the same topic (used, for
example, in history classes), computer-presented texts,
and texts varying widely in quality and accuracy.
Researchers will examine these types of texts and the
effects they have on students' learning. In one study,
the researcher
is examining multicultural literature
using a typology of ethnic identity to see what effects
positive and negative depictions of various ethnic
NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN
READING RESEARCH, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
The National Rlading Research Center
9
groups have on students' engagement in learning from
this literature.
Assessment
The distinguishing characteristic of the NRRC's
research on assessment is its emphasis on studying
assessment from the perspective of the t-st user as well
as the test developer. The studies in this program area
focus on two questions:
(a) how do alternative
performance-based reading assessments compare to
traditional standardized reading tests? and (b) how do
alternative performance-based assessments influence
the instruction and learning of children who are having
difficulty learning to read?
In addressing standards for alternative assessments,
one team of researchers will investigate their design,
validity, reliability, usefulness, and the ease with which
the results can be reported and interpreted.
Another
team will observe and interview teachers, students,
parents, and administrators both in inner-city and
suburban schools to determine how reading assessment
information relates to their views of students, schools,
and literacy instruction, and their own beliefs about
achievement in reading. A third team is examining
portfolio assessments to determine which aspects of
reading,
writing,
thinking, and social
interaction
portfolios are likely and unlikely to measure.
The alternative assessments central to the National
Assessment of Educational Progress and the New
Standards Project are also being studied in generi.--
form. In qualitative studies of schools and surveys of
state-wide practices, the goals, contents, formats, and
administrative contexts of these large-scale assessments
are being examined in terms of their relation to
instruction.
Other researchers
are conducting a
national
survey
of
research-based
performance
assessment tools for
the purpose of compiling an
annotated reference source on alternative reading
assessments.
Professions)! Development
The research projects in professional development
reflect the view that traditional staff development
workshops often fail to produce significant and lasting
changes in classroom practices because they ignore
teachers' philosophical and pedagogical orientations
and/or they fail to involve teachers in the change
process.
The studies in this strand also reflect an
engagement perspective on professional development in
the assumption
that instruction,
learning,
and
assessment in literacy-related activities must engage
teachers as well as learners.
Of the five studies concerned with professional
development,
three
are
longitudinal,
with
one
scheduled to last five years.
The five-year study,
presently underway, is in partnership with the League
of Professional Schools (discussed later).
Currently,
this study has two of its four components in place: the
elementary whole language component (in two county
schools) and the community literacy program. Still to
be initiated
are
a middle or secondary
school
component and a preschool education program.
In
working
out
the rationale
for the
elementary
component, teachers
in both schools
established
increasing students' motivation to read as their highest
priority. Another longitudinal study will explore how
teachers' beliefs and knowledge about teaching literacy
change over time and how this change may influence
their instructional decisions, assessments, and actions.
A third professional development project will show
how information learned in district-level professional
development courses is incorporated into teachers'
instructional repertoires.
The remaining two studies
have a multicultural emphasis.
One is designed to
establish the cultural knowledge base necessary for
guiding preservice teachers as they modify an existing
curriculum to achieve a better fit with the reading
attitudes and interests of inner-city African American
children.
The other explores how teachers develop
understandings of literacy instruction for multicultural
populations by participating in book clubs where they
read and discuss contemporary fiction written by
authors from the same cultural backgrounds as their
students.
PLANNED COLLABORATIONS
AND ACTIVITIES
For research to be implemented it must first be
perceived as relevant to the people who will use it and
benefit from it. We believe the best way to ensure
such
relevancy is
to maintain
a two-way
communication between the NRRC and teachers,
school
administrators,
reading
and
curriculum
specialists, professional organizations, policymakers,
NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH, NO.
1, JANUARY 1993
10
Donna E. iiivertnann and John T. Guthrie
parents, and children.
To establish this two-way
communication, we have several collaborative projects
and related activities already underway; others will be
initiated during the second year of the grant.
These
current activities can be grouped into three categories:
(a) school networks, (b) professional organizations and
conferences,
and (c)
written
and
electronic
communications.
Following is a sampling of the
activities from each of these categories.
School Networks
To facilitate the substantial amount of research that will
be conducted with school-based researchers, the NRRC
plans
to
collaborate
with
interested
schools
in
establishing school research centers.
The school
research centers will provide places for university- and
school-based research teams to plan, implement,
analyze, interpret, and report their research. They will
provide a daily source of information from the field.
Site selection criteria will be sensitive to the need for
school research centers that reflect diversity in both
teacher and student populations.
Researchers at the University of Maryland have a
history of long and fruitful working relationships with
the
schools
in
their
state
and
in the
Greater
Washington, DC
area.
Currently,
Maryland
researchers are working with teachers in their area to
develop teacher-researcher communities. Participating
teachers convene with university researchers to study
their own teaching and to reflect on the processes of
literacy learning.
Beliefs and actions about reading
and instruction are reevaluated by all members of the
community, leading to a heightened sense of teacher
professionalism.
The NRRC is also in the process of forming an
active partnership with The League of Professional
Schools.
League schools are committed to shared
governance and to implementing
educational practices
that enhance teaching and learning opportunities for
faculty and students across a wide spectrum of school
structures.
Currently comprised of 50 schools with
2,000 K-12 teachers, the League has been recognized
for the past two years as one of the top 10 educational
collaborations in the United States by the National
Business/Higher Education Alliance.
The League's
director, Carl Glickman, is on faculty at the University
of
Georgia
and
is
interested
in
establishing
collaborative research projects with the NRRC.
A team of researchers from the NRRC has been
invited to enter a dialogue on how it might become
involved in The Carter Center Atlanta Project, which
is former President Jimmy Carter's plan for improving
conditions in the inner city.
Currently, the project
targets 12 high schools where literacy is low end
dropout rates, violence, and alienation are high.
Several university-based researchers in the NRRC
have close working ties with the Writing Projects
Network and Teaching-as-a-Researching Profession.
Both
networks
support
long-established
teacher
research projects and the dissemination of findings
from those projects. These networks will also provide
speakers from across the U.S. for the NRRC's fire
conference in February 1993.
Professional Organizations and Conferences
One way of reaching out to and being reached by
school-based personnel is through special sessions at
professional meetings and conferences. Consequently,
the NRRC plans to solicit input from the field through
innovative forums resembling the town meeting. The
town meeting format will allow us to share information
about the NRRC's mission and research -in- progress
while simultaneously gathering information about
teachers' concerns and questions. Teams of school-
and university-based researchers from the NRRC will
moderate these town meetings and share what they
have learned with their colleagues back home.
Many
educators
belong
to
professional
organizations that do not usually disseminate literacy
research through their conferences or publications. To
reach this audience, we have contacted the directors of
large umbrella groups like the National Education
Association to seek their collaboration in disseminating
resource materials on literacy development.
The NRRC is planning a national conference for
February 12-13, 1993, at the University of Georgia.
The conference theme is developing engaged readers
through
family-,
school-,
and
community-based
research. Teachers, researchers, and key policymakers
from the state and national levels will be involved.
The meeting will have a highly interactive format and
will give participants the opportunity to respond to
NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN
READING RESEARCH, NO. 1, JANUARY
1993
1 o
The National Reading Research Center
ideas presented at the conference and
introduce their
own questions and concerns.
Currently there are plans
to include a teleconference segment
in which people at
distant sites can interact "live" with the presenters
and
participants in Georgia. Through conferences such as
this one, we expect to establish collaborations
that will
become part of Years 3, 4, and 5 of the grant.
Written and Electronic Conununications
Prior to developing and submitting a proposal to
OERI
for the National Reading Research Center, we
polled
a
stratified
sample of 1,000
literacy
educators,
comprised mostly of classroom teachers and
reading
specialists, to seek their opinions on what issues
and
problems warranted further research. The results were
used to inform our research agenda.
We plan to
continue this poll in order to maintain a sense
of how
the NRRC is meeting the needs of its
constituents.
During the second year of the grant, we
plan to
publish an NRRC newsletter that will be
available by
subscription
to
a
wide
audience
of
educators,
policymakers, and other interested parties.
The
newsletter will feature questions and issues
taken from
the NRRC's electronic networks
(discussed later),
regular columns by teams of NRRC
university- and
school-based
researchers
across
the country, and
research-based
suggestions geared
to
teachers
in
elementary, middle, and secondary schools.
Two electronic bulletin boards will
provide the
communication links necessary for collaborations
to
occur between the NRRC
and the field. One is an in-
house system
linking
the NRRC's school-
and
university-based researchers at all of its sites across
the
country; this electronic forum is
currently in operation
for the majority of NRRC researchers.
The NRRC
plans to initiate a se-ond electronic
bulletin board that
will permit anyone in the U. S.
equipped with a
microcomputer and access to one of
several on-line
networks (e.g., BITNET, INTERNET,
ON-LINE
AMERICA) to interact with NRRC
personnel.
An
NRRC staff member will be responsible
for providing
an updated listing and
description of the NRRC's
resources.
Questions directed to the NRRC will be
acknowledged in
several ways, including personal
responses and information on
how to obtain access to
research findings.
FORTHCOMING PaODUCTS
AND PUBLICATIONS
11
The NRRC's dissemination plan is geared to meet a
variety of audiences for whom reading research is
of
vital interest.
In addition to the usual technical
research reports and articles, we plan to produce
teacher - oriented resources and demonstration
videos.
These products
will
be
advertised
through
the
publications of various professional associations. We
will also communicate directly through annual book-
length syntheses of scholarly work on literacy teaching
and learning, and through regularly published
research
highlights and policy briefs.
Research Reports
Investigators will submit reports of their research,
written in a scholarly fashion but as free from
jargon
as possible to make them
accessible to a variety of
audiences.
These reports will be sent to the NRRC
Publications Advisory Board, which is charged
with
ensuring high standards of research and writing.
After
review and acceptance by the Board, the reports
will
be made available to the public through the
NRRC for
a small fee to cover
the costs of production and
mailing.
Teacher-Oriented Resources
We are
especially committed to putting relevant
research findings into the hands of as many teachers as
possible, in formats they will find immediately
useful.
We plan to produce an array of resources to support
teachers in teaching reading. For example,
researchers
at the NRRC will generate prototypes
of performance
assessment tasks in reading.
Then, based on teacher
piloting, the prototypes will be revised and
published.
Workshops on the use of these prototypes
will be
conducted at regional and national conferences.
Demonstration Videos
Several of the NRRC's researchers
will produce
demonstration videotapes as part of their
classroom-
based research projects.
These tapes will depict
teaching and learning situations that focus on
the
motivational, cognitive, and social aspects of
literacy
NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER,
PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH, NO.
I, JANUARY
1993
12
Donna E. Alwrmann and John T. Guthrie
development.
Videos
illustrating
instructional
practices,
social
interactions,
and
print-rich
environments that support the engaged reader will
become tools for further research, for practical use in
classrooms,
and
for
professional
development
activities.
These videotapes will vary in quality
depending on their projected use as stand clones
(professionally produced tapes) or work-in-progress
kinds of tapes.
Books
The NRRC will publish books that synthesizes research
on an important issue or theme. The first volume will
focus on the engagement perspectis e of literacy
teaching and learning.
It will include the thinking of
university- and school-based researchers at the NRRC
as well as the ideas of nationally recognized experts
in
government, children's literature, and sociocultural
matters.
Research Highlights
Information about the NRRC's network of professional
collaborations,
research
findings,
products,
instructional materials, conferences, books, journal
articles, videos, and policy briefs will be available
through published research highlights. The NRRC will
have a regular column in The Reading Teacher devoted
to these highlights. We also plan to contribute similar
items
to
the
publications of other
professional
organizations as well as to publications read by parents
(e.g., Parents Magazine), librarians, school board
members, and policymakers at the state and national
level.
In addition, the research highlights will be
available
through one or more of the NRRC's
electronic networks.
Policy Briefs
The NRRC staff will produce policy-related research
briefs and respond to the questions of legislators and
other decision makers.
Because those involved with
public policy often prefer face-to-face dialogues, the
NRRC will sponsor meetings at the University of
Maryland College Park campus and in the Washington
D.C. area.
THE NRRC: REFLECTING AND
TRANSCENDING PROJECTIONS
We believe the NRRC research agenda incorporates
exceedingly well the goals and problems identified in
former President Bush's America 2000 plan.
The
NRRC's agenda also addresses the perceived needs in
reading research as outlined in the forthcoming book,
Reading Research into the Year 2000 (Sweet &
Anderson, in press).
The NRRC agenda builds on the work of many
researchers.
In some instances it goes beyond the
recommendations of the six literacy experts who wrote
in Reading Research into the Year 2000. Because of
the important contributions researchers in previous
decades have made in illuminating the reading process,
the NRRC is able to devote most of its research efforts
to investigating the intricacies of how children in
prekindergarten through high school socially construct
knowledge from printed materials in a variety of home,
school, and community contexts.
Finally, the NRRC's agenda reflects the many
hours of collaboration, and especially the insights,
contributed by our colleagues and coreseschers in
schools and state departments of education throughout
the United States. Without their constant influence and
sometimes not so gentle reminders, we would have
been less sensitive to the need for research tnat
addresses
literacy
development
as
it is
truly
experienced
in
the homes,
classrooms,
and
communities students inhabit.
To this group of
educators and to all those who contributed to the
national poll that informed our engagement perspective
on reading, we pledge to work toward fulfilling the
agenda that has been set out for us.
Refereoces
Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W.
(1991). Secondary
school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson,
& P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol. 2) (pp. 951-983). New York: Longman.
Anderson, R. C. (in press). The future of reading research.
In A. P. Sweet & J. 1. Anderson (Eds.), Reading research
into the year 2009. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beck, I.
I. (in press).
On reading:
A survey of recent
research and proposals for the future.
In A. P. Sweet &
J.
f. Anderson (Eds.), Reading research into the year
2000. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN READING
RESEARCH, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
The National Reading Research Center
Deford, D. E., Lyons, C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1991). Bridges
to
literacy:
Learning from
Reading
Recovery.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Foertsch, M. A. (1992, May). Reading in and out of school:
Factors influencing the literacy achievement of American
students in grades 4, 8, and 12 in 1988 and 19k) (Vol 2).
Washington DC:
National Center
for Education
Statistics.
Gitlin, A.
(1990).
Educative research, voice, and school
change. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 443-466.
Guthrie, J. T., & Greaney, V. (1991). Literacy acts. In R.
Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2) (pp.
68-96). New York: Longman.
Kirsch, I., & Jungeblut, A. (1986). Literacy: Profiles of
America's young adults.
Princeton, NJ:
Educational
Testing Service.
Langer, J. A., Applebee, A. N., Mullis,
I. V. S., &
Foertsch, M. A. (1990). Learning to read in our nation's
schools: Instruction and achievement in 1988 at grades
4, 8, and 12.
Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing
Service.
Monahan, J. (in press). A reading research agenda into the
year 2000.
In A. P. Sweet & J.
I. Anderson (Eds.),
Reading research into the year 2000.
Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Morrow, L. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (1986). Encouraging
voluntary reading: The impact of a literature program on
children's use of library centers.
Reading Research
Quarterly, 21, 330-346.
Mosenthal, P. (in press).
Understanding agenda setting in
reading research.
In A. P. Sweet & J.
I. Anderson,
(Eds.), Reading research into the year 2000.
Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
National Academy of Education. (1991). Research and the
renewal of education. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
National Commissior on Excellence in Education. (1983).
A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.
Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
O'Flahavan, J., Garr'irell, L. B., Guthrie, J., Stahl, S.,
Baumann,
J.
F., & Alvcrmann,
D. E.
(1992,
August/September).
Poll
results guide activities of
research center. Reading Today, p. 12.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, '.. L.
(1984).
Reciprocal
teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring
activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Ravitch, D. (1985).
The schools we deserve: Reflections
on the educational crises of our times. New York:
Basic
Books.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C.
(1991).
The relationship between teachers' beliefs and
13
practices in reading comprehension instruction. American
Educational Research Journal, 28,559-586.
The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills
(SCANS). (1991, June). What work requires of schools:
A SCANS report for America 2000.
Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Labor.
Scary, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their
own environments: A theory of genotype - environment
effects.
Child Development, 54, 424-435.
Scroggins, S. I.
(in press).
A reading agenda for at-risk
students: The practitioner speaks out. In A. P. Sweet &
J.
I. Anderson (Eds.), Reading research into the year
2000. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sulzby, E. (in press). Literacy's future for all our children:
Where is research in reading comprehension leading us?
In A. P. Sweet & J. I. Anderson (Eds.), Reading research
into the year 2000. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sweet, A. P., & Anderson, J.
I.
(in press).
Making it
happen:
Setting the federal research agenda.
In A. P.
Sweet and J. I. Anderson (Eds.), Reading research into th,.
year 2000. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaurn.
Wendler, D., Samuels, S. J., & Moore, V. K.
(1989).
Comprehension instruction of award-winning teachers,
teachers with
master's degrees, and other teachers.
Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 382-401.
NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH,
NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
1ST COPY AVAU
`7,
Appendix A
NRRC National Advisory Board
Phyllis W. Aldrich
Coordinator for Gifted and Talented
Saratoga Warren Board of
Cooperative Educational Services
Henning Road
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Arthur N. Applebee
School of Education #113
State University of New York, Albany
Albany, New York 12222
Ronald S. Brandt, Editor
Educational Leadership
Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development
1250 Pitt Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-1403
Marsha T. De Lain
South Carolina State
Department of Education
1429 Senate Street
Room 604, Rutledge Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Carl A. Grant
School of Education
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Teacher Education Building
225 North Mills Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Walter Kintsch
Institute of Cognitive Science
University of Colorado at Boulder
Muenzinger Building
Campus Box 344
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0344
Robert L. Linn
School of Education
University of Colorado at Boulder
Campus Box 246
Boulder, Colorado 80309
Luis C. Moll
Division of Language, Reading, and
Culture
College of Education
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Carol M. Santa
School District #5
Kalispell Public Schools
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Anne P. Sweet
Office of Educational Research and
Improvement
U.S. Department of Education
555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20208
Louise Cherry Wilkinson, Dean
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers University
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Appendix B
Research Projects at NRRC
Instruction
Literature and early reading
The Impact of Independent Reading and Writing on Reading Achievement, Attitude and Use of
Literature in Urban Youth
Lesley Mandel Morrow, Rutgers University
Improving Reading Instruction for At-Risk 1st- and 2nd-Grade Students: Extending Reading Recovery
Principles Into the Regular Classroom
John O'Flahavan, Shelley Wong, University of Maryland College Park
An Examination of the Activities in a Whole Language Beginning Reading Program
Lee Gilds', Steven A. Stahl, Anthony D. Pellegrini, University of Georgia
First-Grade Reading Instruction: Teachers and Students in Transition
James V. Hoffman, University of Texas at Austin
Comprehension and cognitive strategies
The Effects of Long-Term Comprehension Instruction
Michael Pressley, University of Maryland College Park
Ted Schuder, Montgomery County Schools., Maryland
Joan Coley, Western Maryland College, Westminster, Maryland
Tommie DePinto, Carroll County Schools, Maryland
Mary Ehen Lewis, Kennedy institute School, Baltimore, Maryland
Teacher-Led Comprehension Instruction: Unanswered Questions and Next Steps
James F. Baumann, University of Georgia
Entering the Secondary World of Text: Sensory Impressions, Comprehension, and Motivation to
Read
Linda B. Gambrell, University of Maryland College Park
Debra Miller, Howard County Schook . Maryland
Fluency Based Classroom Organizational Models
Steven A. Stahl, University of Georgia
Reading Instruction That Promotes Critical Thinking
Michelle Commeyras, University of Georgia
B-1
1EST COPY AVAILABLE
B-2
Knowledge-rich contexts
Concept-Centered Reading Instruction in Science, History, and Geography
John Guthrie, Rnhel Grant, University of Maryland College Park
Lois Bennett, Mary Ellen Rice, Calverton Elementary School, Beltsville, Maryland
Misconceptions in Science: Classroom Influences on Learning Counter-Intuitive Information
From Science Texts
Cynthia Hynd, Donna E. Alvermann, University of Georgia
Understanding Science:
Strategic Use of Analogies and Models
Shawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia
Social Contexts of Instruction
Readers
Cognitive, arld Motivational Dc,.tfIC:pr.:en! in Vaned Group Di,:Lus on Str...kture.
Donna E. Alvermann. University of Geor:;ia
John O'Flahavan. University of Aforia,ui Colici.e Park
Incree-sing the 1(e-2:ling ?roficiency of Low- Literate Adults and At-Risk Childr,.,n
Connie Suet. University of Virginia
Using Technology to Enhance Social Interaction for Reading and Writing
David Reinking. Tom Reeves, University of Georgza
Valerie Garfield. Cumming Elementary School, Cumming, Georgia
Learning
Emergent Literacy and Language Delelopment
Onidren''; Ein..r_enl Literacy Experiences in the
Coritc.-4ts .f Home and School
Linda Baker, Susan Sonnenscheiu, Robert Serpeil, University of Maryland Baltimore Cou,a
Family Process eh and the Development cf Sibling Literacy in Rural Black Families
Gene H. Brody, Zolinda Stoneman. Univer.%ity of Georgia
Extending the Literate Community: Home to School, School to Home
Betty Shockley, Fowler Drive Elementary School, Athens, Georgia
JoBeth Allen, University of Georgia
Barbara Michalove, Fowler
rive Elemental). School, Athens, Georgia
Reading and Writing in a Bilingual Classroom: Implications for Literacy Development
Olivia Saracho, University of Maryland College Park
Semantic Processing During Children's Reading
Paula Schwanenflugel, University of Georgia
Development of Knowledge of the Internal State Lexicon
William S. Hall, Dana J. Nude, James Booth, University of Maryland College
Park
Motivation for reading
Motivational Patterns in Children's Literacy Development
Linda B. Gambrell, University of Maryland College Park
Students' Percept;ons of Their Own Reasons and Purposes for
Being or Not Being Involved
in Literacy Activities: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study of Student
Motivation Toward Literacy
Penny Oldfather, University of Georgia
Metacognition and Interest as Predictors of Learning Through Reading
Martha Carr, University of Georgia
The Role of Libraries in Reading Instruction and the Development
of Lifelong Readers
Linda DeGroff, University of Georgia
Learning Subject Matter from Text
Using Revision Techniques to ImprOve Content Area Textbooks
Br.oe K. Britton,
University of Georgia
Locating Specific information in Textbooks: Understanding and Instructing
Search Processes
in Reading
M. Jean Dreher, University of Maryland College Park
The Role of Comprehension Strategies in Mathematical Problem Solving
Denise Muth, University of Georgia
How People Learn From Multiple Texts: A Processing Perspective
Cynthia Hynd, Steven A. Stahl,
University of Georgia
Building a Model of Reading Electronic Texts
David Reinking, University of Georgia
An Investigation of the Effects of Instructional Interaction With Reading Materials
Categorized
by a Typology of Ethnic Identity
Louise M. Tomlinson, University of Georgia
Assessment
Improving Instruction and Learning for At-Risk Children Through Performance-Based
Reading
Assessment
William Schafer, John T. Guthrie, Peter Afflerbach, University of Maryland
College Park
Jay McTighe, Bob Gabrys, Barbara Kapinus, Hannah Kruglanski, Maryland
Departmeru of
Education, Baltimore, Maryland
Denise Borders, Susan Spath, Baltimore City Schools, Baltimore, Maryland
Louise Waynant, Prince George's County Schools, Upper Marlboro, Maryland
OM COPY Al
B-4
Literacy Portfolio Assessment
Sheila Valencia, University of Washington
Developing Standards for New Assessments in Reading
Barbara Kapinus, Hannah Kruglanski, Maryland Department of Education, Baltimore, Maryland
Michelle Commeyras, University of Georgia
The Communication and Interpretation of Reading Assessment Information
Peter Afflerbach, University of Maryland College Park
Professional Development
Teacher Development Within a Teacher Research Community Devoted to Reading
Instruction for
Elementary At-Risk Students
John O'Flahavan, University of Maryland College Par*
Jane Litchko, Jackson Road Elementary School, Silver Springs, Maryland
Teacher Development in School-Based Research Communities: Exploring
Whole Language Instruction
for All Students
JoBeth Allen, Steve White, Tom Valentine, Joel Taxel, Donna Alvermana,
University of Georgia
Case Studies and School-Based Research in a Foxfire Model Teacher Training
Program in
Secondary School Literacy
Sally Hudson-Ross, Dana L. Fox, University of Georgia
Connie Zimmerman, Atlanta Skyline Network, Atlanta, Georgia
Patti Heitmuller, Kate Kirby, Gwirusett County Public Schools, Georgia
Teachers' Implementation of Authentic Reading Through Interdisciplinary
Instruction in the Elementary
School
Sherrie Gibney-Sherman, Athens-Clarke County School District, Athens,
Georgia
Factors Influencing the Reading Status of Inner-City African
American Children
Ruby L. Thompson, Gloria Mixon, Lou Beasley, Clark Atlanta
University
Teachers' Growth in Understanding Literacy Development, Multiculturalism,
and Literacy Instruction
for Multicultural Populations
James Flood, Dianne Lapp, San Diego State University,
California
NRRC
BEST COPY AVAILABLF
National
Reading Research
Center
318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 3i
2102 J.M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland,
;
5. t)
