MD. SPONS AGENCY - ed

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 93CONTRACT 117A20007NOTE 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; ReadingAchievement; *Reading Instruction; *Reading Research;*Research Needs; *Research Projects

IDENTIFIERS America 2000; *National Reading Research Center;Reading Motivation

ABSTRACTThis paper describes the National Reading Research

Center (NRRC), a federally funded center that intends to carry outresearch to discover what promotes readers' engagement in literacyactivities, foster their critical thinking and strategic learning,and prepare them to meet the challenges of a technological age. Thepaper describes the mission of the NRRC, perceived needs in readingresearch, the people in the NRRC, research programs in the NRRC(embracing instruction, learning, assessment, and professionaldevelopment), planned collaborations and activities, and forthcomingproducts and publications. The paper concludes that the NRRC researchagenda incorporates the goals and problems identified in the America2000 plan. Twenty-four references, a list of the members of the NRRCnational advisory board, and a list of the 41 research projects atNRRC are attached. (RS)

*******************************************.:***************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

Themes and Directionsof the National Reading Research Center

Donna E. AlvermannUniversity ofGeorgia

John T. GuthrieUniversity of Maryland College Park

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOft.ce of Educational Research and Improvement

EDJUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

FiThis document hag been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating .t

C Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

Points of vie* or opinions stated rn this 1.1oCumeat do nol necessarily represent oftictalOE RI positron or policy

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

?i[ST COPY r! r

PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH, NO.1

January 1993

2

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

Themes and Directionsof the National Reading Research Center

Donna E. AlvermannUniversity of Georgia


PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH, NO. 1

January 1993

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Project of the University of Georgia and Universityof 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 orpolicies of the National Reading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or theU.S. Department of Education.

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Peter P. AfflcrbachUniversity of Maryland

Sherrie Gibney-ShermanAthens-Clarke County Schools, GA

James T. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

G. Michael PressleyUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula J. SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Publications Advisory BoardDavid Reinking, Receiving EditorUniversity of Georgia

Linda Baker, Tracking EditorUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Linda C. DcGroffUniversity of Georgia

Betty P. ShockleyFowler Drive Elementary School, Athens, GA

Anne P. Sweet, Ex-OfficioOffice of Educational Research and improvement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise M. TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Louise F. WaynantPrince George's County Schools, MD

Allan L. WigfieldUniversity of Maryland College Park

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerMelissa M. Erwin, Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Dorothy H. Reid, Office ManagerRhonda Graves, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, NY

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, Albany

Ronald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment

Marsha T. DcLainSouth Carolina Department of EducationCarl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Walter KintschUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Robert L. LinnUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5, Kalispell, MT

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Technical Writer and Production EditorSusan L. YarboroughUniversity of Georgia

NRRC - University of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: NRRCQuga.cc.uga.cdu

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park2102 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: [email protected]

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) isfunded by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education toconduct research on reading and reading instruction.The NRRC is operated by a consortium of theUniversity of Georgia and the University of Mar. landCollege Park in collaboration with researchers atseveral institutions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to disco cr and documentthose conditions in homes, schools, and communitiesthat encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic.lfelonv readers. NRRC researchers are committed toadeancinn the development of instnn:tional pro2ramssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, andmotivational ':rotors that affect children's success inreading. NRRC researchers from a variety ofdisciplines conduct studies with teachers and studentsfrom widely diverse cultural and soeioeconorni,backgrounds in prekindergarten through grade 12

classrooms. Research projects deal with the influence offamily and family-s.;hool interactions on thedevelopment of literacy: the interaction of socioculturalfactors and motivation to read; the impact of literature-based reading pig grams on reading achivernent; theeffects of reading strategies instruction oncomprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learnini:: thepotential of comput-r technology to enhance literacy;and the development of methods and standards foralternative literacy assessments.

The NRRC is further committed to the participationof teachers as full partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of how teachers view the development ofliteracy, how they use knowledge from research, andhow they approach change in the classroom is crucial toimproving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical andpedagogical orientations and trace their professionalgrowth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRC

activities. Information on NRRC research appears inseveral formats. Research Reports communicate theresults of original research or synthesize the findings ofseveral lines of inquiry. They are written primarily forresearchers studying various areas of reading andreading instruction. The Perspective Series presents awide range of publications, from calls for research andcommentary on research and practice to first-personaccounts of experiences in schools. hisuctictialResources include curriculum materials, instructionalquid- and materials for professional growth, designedprim.ily for teachers.

For more information about the NRRC's research-:projects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alverrnann.National Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of Ge.orgis.Athens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Ceqtar2102 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege 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 writeas cc-directors of the NRRC, we wish to acknowledge the thinkingof our university- and school-based colleagues, who in their roles asinvestigators contributed substantively to the design of the NRRC. Inthe end, of course, we take full responsibility for any omissions orimperfections in our writing.



t)

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and MarylandPerspectives in Reading Research, No. 1January 1993

Themes and Directions ofthe National Reading Research Center



The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) is afive-year $7.7-million cooperative agreement betweenthe Office of Educational Research and Improvementin the U.S. Department of Education and a consortiumof the University of Georgia and the University ofMaryland College Park. The NRRC is the singularfederally funded research center charged withexpanding the knowledge base on children's andadolescents' acquisition of reading proficiency and theuse of that proficiency to learn from text. The co-directors of the NRRC are Donna E. Alvermann of theUniversity of Georgia and John T. Guthrie of theUniversity of Maryland College Park. James F.Baumann (Georgia) and Patricia S. Koskinen(Maryland) are the associate directors. Six of theNRRC's 41 projects are at sites other than theUniversity of Georgia and the University of Maryland.These Affiliated Scholar Projects are located at theUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA; San DiegoState University, San Diego, CA; the University ofTexas, 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 theNRRC's research agenda.

THE NRRC'S MISSION

One of the national goals proposed for Americaneducation by former President George Bush is that bythe year 2000, every adult American will be literate,

1

possess the skills to compete in a global economy, andbe prepared to exercise the rights and responsibilitiesof citizenship. To assist the achievement of thi.. goalof nationwide literacy, the NRRC must acknowledgeand address four pervasive problems.

First and foremost is the well-documented problemthat too many Americans lack the ability and desire toread and write. Scholars whose work peals to abroad spectrum of political views generally agree thatas a nation we are less literate than we could or shouldbe (Langer, Applebee, Mullis, & Foertsch, 1990;Ravitch, 1985). Too many Americans lack essentialreading skills (Kirsch & Jungeblut, 1986; NationalCommission on Excellence in Education, 1983), and anastonishing proportion of students lacks the broadrange of literacy skills needed for their own learningand productive participation in society (The Secretary'sCommission on Achieving Necessary Skills [SCANS],1991). Too many students who can read choose toavoid the printed word, even at their peril (Foertsch,1992). We will address this problem by carrying outresearch to discover what promotes readers'engagement in literacy activities, fosters their criticalthinking and strategic leaming, and prepares them tomeet the challenges of a technological age.

A second problem is the crisis in equity. It is timeto acknowledge and confront the persistent disparity inthe reading achievement of mainstream and ron-mainstream students in the United States. Clearly, weare failing to meet the literacy needs of today's sociallyand culturally diverse student population. To assist inaltering this situation, we will conduct research that

HST CSPY AVAILCIE

2 Donna E. AJVCIN412 and John T. Guthrie

explores sociocultural issues in literacy achievementand how best to address them in classrooms, homes,and communities across the country.

A third problem is the nature of current readinginstruction. Although the last two decades have seensignificant advances in our understanding of thereading process and how to teach reading, thisunderstanding has not had widespread impact onclassroom practice (Alvermann & Moore, 1991;

Wendler, Samuels, & Moore, 1989). With fewexceptions, reading instruction today looks remarkablysimilar to that of the 1950s, with a basal readerprogram, three ability-level groups, a student

workbook, and an end-of-the-year standardized test.Why is this the case? We believe that efforts todisseminate research on reading instruction have beenhampered by findings that do not address teachers'questions about the complexities of teaching students to

read in actual classrooms. Consequently, we willinvolve teachers as full participants in research, and we

will establish permanent research sites in the schools.

The fourth problem is the prevalence ofdecontextualized reading research. We know a greatdeal about how typical readers process information incarefully 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 motivatestudents 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 ofstudents, 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 astrong predictor of her or his success in reading(Morrow & Weinstein, 1986), while additionalevidence shows that children play a role in their owneducational development by the choices they makeabout how to spend their time (Scar: & McCartney,1983).

At the National Reading Research Center, ouroverarching goal is to study how to cultivate highlyengaged, self-determining readers who are the

architects of their own Irtarning. Our research isunified by an engagement perspective, which is basedon the assumption that students acquire thecompetencies and motivations to read for diversepurposes, such as gaining knowledge, performing atask, interpreting an author's perspective, sharingreactions to stories and informational texts, escapinginto the literary world, or taking social and politicalaction in response to what is read. Highly engagedreaders are motivated, knowledgeable, and sociallyinteractive.

An engagement perspective, which is congruentwith highly respected views on reading acquisition andinstruction, recognizes the social nature of cognitionand is useful for addressing the problems that currentlystand as roadblocks to achieving nationwide literacy.It is also a useful heuristic for ensuring that theNRRC's research agenda is coherent and responsive tothe multiple and intersecting needs of students, parents,policymakers, and teachers.

Research Objectives

Guided by an engagement perspective and solidlygrounded in the best thinking of teachers andresearchers in reading, investigators at the NationalReading Research Center will pursue the followingobjectives:

Describe the growth of students' motivation to readat home and in school.

Extend the knowledge base on the cognitiveprocesses of reading by relating these processes tosocial and motivational dimensions of instruction.

Chronicle the effects of long-term strategyinstruction 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 culturesand abilities.

Describe and develop social, cognitive, andlanguage bridges from home to school foremergent readers.

Explore how schools appropriate technology toenhance literacy and increase the amount anddiversity of students' independent reading.

Study the influences that innovative social

participation patterns have on literaryinterpretation, higher order thinking duringcontent area reading, and sustained motivation forsharing books.

Examine and design new literature-based curriculaand instruction for first- and second-gradelearners, emphasizing programs for students whoare placed at-risk for reading failure.

Trace knowledge acquisition during reacling inscience, math, geography, and history classes incollaboration with teachers ii these content areas.

Evaluate alternative reading assessments, establishstandards for teacher-based assessments, anddevelop policy-based alternative assessments.

Affirm our commitment to collaborative research,which enables us to define and describeprofessional development in teacher-researchercommunities, preservice education, and localschool system initiatives.

Our vision for he NRRC is based on the beliefthat there should be a dynamic, reciprocal relationshipbetween theory and practice that theory can informpractice and practice can enlighten theory. Whenteachers engage in research, posing problems, andexamining their own work, there is inherently a bridgebetween theory and practice. Teacher inquirydevelops ownership of the research questions, enhancesthe credibility of the findings, and fostersdissemination. Therefore, NRRC activities will enlistteachers as collaborative researchers and establishpermanent research sites where university- and school-

3

based investigators plan, conduct, synthesize, andreport research.

PERCEIVED NEEDS IN READING RESEARCH

Prior to publishing the Request for Proposals for theNational Reading Research Center in 1991, officials inthe Office of Educational Research and Improvementin the U.S. Department of Education commissioned sixnationally known literacy experts to write conceptualpapers on the direction of future research in reading.These experts represented the research interests of bothuniversity- and school-based educators. Their sixchapters ii;;ini part of a forthcoming book titledReading Research into the Year 2000 (LawrenceErlbaum, publisher). The present researchperspective, which is derived from the final chapter inthe forthcoming book, was originally a response to thesix commissioned authors' articulation of perceiverneeds in reading research.

Social Contexts of Literacy Instruction

Although instructional research has documented thatmany cognitive strategies, such as predicting, drawinginferences, and summarizing, can be taught explicitly,it has shed little light on how these strategies can beincorporated systematically into classroom routines.Children who possess the appropriate cognitivestrategies for comprehending what they read may notuse those strategies in actual classroom situations.Why? Lack of motivation? Little or no interest inreading? Inability to transfer strategic knowledge?

In their search for answers to this multifacetedquestion, researchers have begun to look beyondunidimensional models of readers' internal processes,which ignore real world constraints. They have foundthat reading, like all other cognitive acts, occurs withina social and cultural context.

Brown, Collins, and Duguid (cited in Beck, inpress) point Out that "classroom practices have beencriticized specifically for decontextualizing knowledgeand skills, stripping them of the cultural and physicalsupports of the disciplinary practices in which they areactually used." Anderson (in press) calls for "studies(that] examine the social contexts of early literacy,"while Sulzby (in press) notes the need to studyindividual 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 readingand reading instruction as socially situated. However,questions about the extent to which different socialcontexts mediate reading and writing instruction remainunanswered.

Developmental Nature of Reading and Writing

In order to understand fully how children learn to readand write, researchers generally agree on the need tostudy that process from preschool onward through thesecondary school years. However, while they see thepreK-12 span as an appropriate time for exploringchildren's emergent literacy abilities, their interactionwith adults in intergenerational and home literacyactivities, and their transition from emergent toconventional readers and writers, they disagree as towhere the emphasis should be placed in studying thedevelopment of literate behavior.

For example, Beck (in press) and Anderson (inpress) favor studies that investigate how wholelanguage approaches and phonemic awareness affectchildren's acquisition of reading. Sulzby (in press)would emphasize studies that explore "when literacybegins and what counts as literacy." Mosenthal (inpress) and Scroggins (in press) stress research thattakes into account the need for equality of learningopportunities for all students regardless of race, ethnic,or socioeconomic background. And Monahan (inpress), who believes that there is presently too littleattention to middle and secondary school literacydevelopment, advocates research on how to motivatestudents to become strategic readers capable ofintegrating reading, writing, speaking, and listeningacross the content areas.

Regardless of their differences, researcherbgenerally agree that in this decade investigating howstudent: learn to read and write is certain to offer newchallenges to researchers. Culturally and linguisticallydiverse classrooms, social unrest, changes in familystructure, and tensions within the research communityitself are but a few of the factors that will influencehow studies are planned, conducted, analyzed, andreported.

Disparities in Reading Achievement

In seeking to explain disparities in readingachievement, researchers in the past may have been tooquick to point to problems with language, experience,and differences in school and family values. Scrogginssuggests a close examination of the assumptionsunderlying explanations for low reading achievement sothat if previous assumptions no longer hold, thcy canbe discarded. A revised understanding of the reasonsfor low reading achievement could conceivably lead tomore equitable achievement for all.

Scroggins is not alone in recommending thatresearchers turn their attention towards those studentswho are struggling to become literate. Other authorsalso address the need to study long-term andtheoretically based instructional interventions such asReading Recovery (Deford, Lyons, & Pinnell, 1991)and Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).Scroggins, however, focuses on the needs of inner-citychildren, stressing the importance of developing andassessing the effectiveness of literacy materials that fiturban lifestyles, that challenge and enrich every child'slearning, and that represent the literature of AfricanAmericans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians.She also calls for research on parental involvement inthe education of urban children.

Research/Practice Relationship

In the past, reading reseaiehers have tended to designtheir studies around theoretical concerns rather thanactual classroom situations, according to Mosenthal (inpress). They have assumed that teachers can beconvinced "that their problems and goals are similar (ifnot identical) to the problems and goals ... investigatedby reading researchers." As a result of this center-to-periphery approach to agenda setting, Mosenthalargues, "researchers have ignored the real problemsand goals which they purportedly are entrusted to solveand facilitate." This approach to research also hassocial and political connotations. As Mosenthal notes,previous reading research has been conducted mostlyby middle-class European American researchers andhas focused largely on white readers, so the goals andproblems of readers in minority groups have been allbut neglected.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993


It is generally agreed, however, that readingresearch has had some effect on classroom practice.Anderson (in press) notes the influence of concepts likestory grammar, schema, phonemic awareness, andautomaticity on reading education. Beck (in press)points out that teachers no longer view reading as aprocess for getting meaning from the printed page.They now see it as an interactive process in whichreaders construct meaning, using both information inthe text and their own experiences.

Although Monahan (in press) and Scroggins (inpress) acknowledge the abundance of researchrecommendations for improving the teaching ofreading, as teachers, they are deeply concerned aboutthe need for greater implementation of what is alreadyknown. Monahan suggests that one way to solve theimplementation problem is for teachers themselves tobecome researchers who investigate their ownclassroom practices and act on what they find. Thissuggestion coincides with Mosenthal's call for theinvolvement of teachers in setting reading researchagendas.

Technology

Broadened definitions of literacy, or multiple literaciesas some have described them, remind us that we livein a rapidly changing world where limited access totraditional texts does not necessarily equal limitedaccess to the information presented in those texts. AsSulzby (in press) points out, even children from themost print-impoverished homes are likely to haveaccess to computer games, videotapes, and homevideocassette players. Yet, she notes, "[researchers]have tended to ignore software development or treat itas atheoretical ... [despite its] great power to define theliteracies that chile -en experience." Technology'sability to captivate the imaginations of reader; andwriters has not been fully explored, particularly interms of its potential for changing students' responsesto literature. Nor is there sufficient research on howtextual information might be presented and learneddifferently in electronic and printed forms.

It is teachers who determine how effectivelycomputers are used to enhance a classroom's literacycurriculum. Teachers with little interest in computersmay ignore computer-based instruction, unless, asMonahan (in press) suggests, they are encouraged to

5

participate in professional development seminars thatactively involve them in the medium. Research on theuses of technology in the classroom, according toMonahan, should focus on developing or refiningstrategies that highlight the teacher-as-thinker model ofinstruction.

Learning Subject Matter from Textsand Other Materials

The ability to learn from subject matter texts and otherprint materials is a mark of one's independence as aliterate person. It is also an indication that one is ableto think critically and draw reasonable conclusionsabout the information presented in texts or othermedia. Never in our history has the need for criticalreaders been greater; yet, as Anderson (in press) pointsout, "evidence continues to appear that students do notreason well about written material." In attempting toidentify the forces that may conspire against students'attainment of higher order literacy, Anderson considersseveral possibilities, the most basic of which is that"there simply are not well-worked out and widelyrecognized instructional strategies for promotingcritical thinking within the field of reading." LikeBeck (ii press), he places a high priority on researchthat could be used in improving students' ability toread and think critically about extended and multipletext presentations.

We suspect that a dearth of appropriate and widelyrecognized instructional strategies for fostering criticalthinking is not the only force conspiring againststudents' success in learning from subject matter texts.Motivation to read complex expository prose abouttopics with little or no relevance for their everydaylives must surely be low for most students. Beck (inpress) recognizes the problem of low motivation whenshe recommends that researchers "continue bothcognitive and motivational work on developingtechniques to encourage students' active engagementwith text." Monahan shows a similar recognition in herrecommendation that researchers concentrate onhelping middle and secondary school readers developstrategies for coping with conceptually dense texts.

In summary, the perceived needs in readingresearch, as they were defined by six nationally knownexperts, are reflected in the NRRC's research agenda.


6 Donna E. Alvemiann and John T. Guthrie

Moreover, these perceived needs echo the theoreticalgrounding for the NRRC's research objectives.

PEOPLE IN THE NRRC

Tice NRRC is fortunate to have both diversity inscholarship and diversity in human resources. Ourstrong commitment to teacher involvement and culturaldiversity is demonstrated in our investigators, bothuniversity- and school-based, our National AdvisoryBoard, and the many individuals and groupsparticipating in our research.

Principal Investigators

At this time, the NRRC has a total of 71 investigatorsworking on 41 different projects. The investigatorscomprise a representative cross-section of the researchinterests and methodologies necessary for movingliteracy research forward into the year 2000.

The university-based researchers represent anarray of disciplines and hail from colleges ofeducation, child and family development, and arts andsciences. Most have their doctorates in areas such asreading education, psychology, educational psychology,elementary education, English/language arts education,and curriculum and instruction. Most have beeninvolved in long-term externally funded researchprojects. Some have been Fulbright Scholars, whileothers have been invited scholars at major researchinstitutions in the U. S. and abroad.

Our university-based researchers also have astrong record of involvement with public schools andeducational agencies. They have had many successfulcollaborations with classroom teachers, an importantcharacteristic given the NRRC's emphasis on school-based research (see later section on teacherinvolvement).

Teacher Involvement

As previously noted, when findings from research onliteracy instruction stem from the concerns ofresearchers rather than teachers, there is little chancethat the research will make lasting differences inclassroom practice. The same holds true for researchconducted outside of classrooms in laboratory-likesettings or in artificially contrived settings withinschools. Consequently, the NRRC seeks to avoid what

Mosenthal (in press) calls the "center -to- periphery"approach to agenda setting, whereby researchersidentify the problems they want to research withoutinvolving teachers in the research process. We arecommitted to including teachers as full participants inthe design, implementation, interpretation, evaluati.m,and dissemination of the NRRC's research. More than30 percent of the NRRC's investigators are classroomteachers, district-level curriculum coordinators,administrators, or members of state boards ofeducation. Approximately 85 percent of our projectsinvolve 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 havebeen classroom teachers, and four of the NationalAdvisory Board members represent teachers' interests.

The National Advisory Board

The eleven members of the NRRC's National AdvisoryBoard complement the research interests andmethodologies represented in the NRRC. The Boardmeets annually with investigators to review ouraccomplishments and contribute to the evolving visionof the NRRC. Its members include experts in theareas of literary theory, measurement, textual analysis,sociolinguistics, multicultural education, large- andsmall-scale assessment, et iural anthropology, andschool administration. (See Appendix A for list ofNational Advisory Board members and theiraffiliations.)

Cultural Diversity

We believe that the inclusion of researchers fromdiverse racial and ethnic backgrounds is vital to theultimate success of the NRRC's mission, especially ifthe NRRC is to address inequities in readingachievement. Currently, 15 percent of the first twoyears' projects include investigators who are membersof minority groups. We plan to expand this number inthe last three years of the grant, and other minorityscholars may join projects in Year 2.

Among the host of individuals who have agreed tocollaborate in the NRRC's research are manyHispanic, Asian, and African Americans. Theyinclude classroom teachers and their students, school

N..TIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, PERSPECTIVES IN READING RESEARCH, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993


administrators, state and local level policymakers, andgraduate and undergraduate research assistants. TheNRRC is committed to recruiting graduate researchassistants from colleges and universities thathistorically have had percer.tages of minoritystudents. In addition, we have established links withthe University of Georgia's National Center for theGifted and Talented whose mission is to identify giftedstudents in underserved populations and createcurricula that address these students' lives.

RESEARCH PROGRAMS IN THE NRRC

The NRRC's research embraces four major programareas: (a) instruction, (b) learning, (c) assessment, and(d) professional development. (See Appendix B for acomplete listing of these projects and projectinvestigators.) The first three program areas wereidentified by the U. S. Department of Education'sOffice of Educational Research and Improvement inconsultation with the various constituencies andindividuals interested in improving literacy. Thisconsultation process included holding roundtabies atmajor education research conferences, commissioningthe book Reading Research into the Year 2000, andsoliciting comments from the public at large throughadvertisements placed in highly visible publications thatappeal to researcher and teacher audiences.

The NRRC added the fourth program area onprofessional development because we believe thatsuccessful instruction, learning, and assessment inreading must engage teachers as well as learners.Although many of our instruction, learning, andassessment projects include aspects of professionaldevelopment, they do not study directly how teachersbecome engaged in their own professional growth orhow their engagr-nent influences their beliefs,knowledge, and actions. Research that is not informedby practice stands little chance of changing practice,especially when teachers' beliefs are at odds with thetheories underlying the proposed changes (Richardson,Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991). Moreover,traditional professional development activities will notchange instruction if they overlook teachers'philosophical and pedagogical orientations to readingand fail to include teachers as active participants in thechange process (Gitlin, 1990).

Instruction

7

The 15 research projects in this program area comprisefour interrelated strands of inquiry: (a) literature andearly reading, -(b) comprehension and cognitivestrategies, (c) knowledge -rich contexts, and (d) socialcontexts of literacy instruction.

In the first strand, literature and early reading,researchers are studying the sociocultural, cognitive.and motivational aspects of reading instruction for theemergent and primary grade reader. These studiesfocus on literature-based reading programs, wholelanguage approaches, and th^ principles of ReadingRecovery lessons primarily as they apply in low-income and inner-city classrooms. One study followsa cohort of students from first through third grades todetermine how changes in literacy programs andliteracy instruction affect students' growth in literacy.It includes teachers in small and large school districtslocated in rural and urban areas that serve students ofboth high and low socioeconomic status.

second strand, comprehension and cognitivestrategies, emphasizes year-long strategy instruction inwhich teachers attempt to replicate in their regularclassrooms the comprehension strategies thatresearchers have found effective under experimentalconditions. These studies incorporate a mix ofinstructional alternatives, including transactionalstrategy instruction, comprehension monitoring,literature discussion groups, sensory impressiontraining, repeated readings, directed reading activities,and dialogical thinking-reading lessons. They examinehow strategies empower students to select challengingreading and learning tasks. One study involves parentsand grandparents in discussion groups designed todevelop elementary students' critical reading abilities.

Researchers in the third strand, knowledge-richcontexts, are focusing on content area readinginstruction in science, history, and geography at themiddle and secondary school levels. They willdescribe how various models of concept-centeredreading instruction support stuuents' cognitive, social,and motivational development. In one study, a scienceteacher, reading specialist, and university-basedresearcher have designed a year-long "hands-on"science curriculum in which Chapter I students are


"""n rrnv AvPP 4r.1 cI

8 Donna E. Alvermann and John T. Guthrie

taught how to generate questions about an observedphenomenon and then search for the answers using avariety of print sources (textbooks, trade books,reference books, and illustrations). The studyexamines how students learn to select books andmaterials to fit their interests and satisfy theircuriosities. One aim of the investigation is to map^hanges in children's intrinsic motivations for readingover the year. Year 2 of the study will evaluate the

model after it has been implemented in eightclassrooms across three schools.

The goal of the fourth strand, secial contexts ofliteracy instruction, is to introduce innovative socialparticipation structures that can lead to higher orderthinking and sustained motivation for reading. Theseparticipation structures include student-led (as distinctfrom teacher-led) discussions of expository texts,cross-age peer tutoring, and computer-based readingand writing activities aimed at increasing the amountand diversity of students' independent reading. Thestudies embrace a cross-section of K-12 rural, urban,and suburban classrooms that range from low to highin the socioeconomic and cultural diversity of theirstudent populations. In one study, university studentathletes who have difficulty reading will tutorelementary students who have been placed at-risk forreading failure. The study seeks to determine whethera tutor'ng program that includes instruction inphonemic awareness, story writing, and the reading ofchildren's literature can improve the reading skills andattitudes of both the tutors and the children they workwith.

Learning

The research projects in this program area can bedivided into three strands: (a) emergent literacy andlanguage development, (b) motivation for reading, and(c) learning subject matter from text. Each of thesestrands is supported by the engagement perspective andthe fundamental assumption that learning to read andwrite, as well as learning from reading and writing,depends critically on having ready access to print-richenvironments.

That access can be provided by the home, school,or community. However, not all students have equalaccess to print-rich environments, as the studies in theemergent literacy and language development strand will

demonstrate. A four-year longitudinal study will followstudents from low-income African American families,low-income white families, and middle-income whitefamilies as they move from pre-kindergarten throughsecond grade. The goal of the study is to specify morecompletely the variety of contexts and processes thatcontribute to the development of literacy. In anotherlongitudinal study with low-income families, twoschool-based researchers will describe how three-waydialogue journals involving themselves, their students,and their students' parents affected the students'literacy development and the family schoolrelationship.

One clear message from the Maryland-Georgianational poll of teachers is that research is needed onhow children develop motivation for reading. Workingfrom the perspective that engaged readers usesophisticated reading strategies according to theirmotivations for doing so, researchers in this strandseek to discover what those motivations are and how tochannel them for improved learning. For example, afive-year longitudinal study involving 7th- and 8th-grade students as coresearchers will follow the studentparticipants through high school for the purpose ofexamining conditions that support or impede students'continuing impulse to learn. Another study willinvestigate why librarians traditionally have been leftout of the dialogue on literacy and learning, a curiousfact given that access to libraries is known to have apositive 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 withready access to print-rich environments, particularlywithin middle and secondary school content areaclassrooms. Some types of texts the story problem,for instance have characteristics that require studentsto use specialized strategies if they are to learn fromthem. Other texts that require strategic reading includemultiple documents on the same topic (used, forexample, in history classes), computer-presented texts,and texts varying widely in quality and accuracy.Researchers will examine these types of texts and theeffects they have on students' learning. In one study,the researcher is examining multicultural literatureusing a typology of ethnic identity to see what effectspositive and negative depictions of various ethnic


The National Rlading Research Center 9

groups have on students' engagement in learning fromthis literature.

Assessment

The distinguishing characteristic of the NRRC'sresearch on assessment is its emphasis on studyingassessment from the perspective of the t-st user as wellas the test developer. The studies in this program areafocus on two questions: (a) how do alternativeperformance-based reading assessments compare totraditional standardized reading tests? and (b) how doalternative performance-based assessments influencethe instruction and learning of children who are havingdifficulty learning to read?

In addressing standards for alternative assessments,one team of researchers will investigate their design,validity, reliability, usefulness, and the ease with whichthe results can be reported and interpreted. Anotherteam will observe and interview teachers, students,parents, and administrators both in inner-city andsuburban schools to determine how reading assessmentinformation relates to their views of students, schools,and literacy instruction, and their own beliefs aboutachievement in reading. A third team is examiningportfolio assessments to determine which aspects ofreading, writing, thinking, and social interactionportfolios are likely and unlikely to measure.

The alternative assessments central to the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress and the NewStandards Project are also being studied in generi.--form. In qualitative studies of schools and surveys ofstate-wide practices, the goals, contents, formats, andadministrative contexts of these large-scale assessmentsare being examined in terms of their relation toinstruction. Other researchers are conducting anational survey of research-based performanceassessment tools for the purpose of compiling anannotated reference source on alternative readingassessments.

Professions)! Development

The research projects in professional developmentreflect the view that traditional staff developmentworkshops often fail to produce significant and lastingchanges in classroom practices because they ignoreteachers' philosophical and pedagogical orientationsand/or they fail to involve teachers in the change

process. The studies in this strand also reflect anengagement perspective on professional development inthe assumption that instruction, learning, andassessment in literacy-related activities must engageteachers as well as learners.

Of the five studies concerned with professionaldevelopment, three are longitudinal, with onescheduled to last five years. The five-year study,presently underway, is in partnership with the Leagueof Professional Schools (discussed later). Currently,this study has two of its four components in place: theelementary whole language component (in two countyschools) and the community literacy program. Still tobe initiated are a middle or secondary schoolcomponent and a preschool education program. Inworking out the rationale for the elementarycomponent, teachers in both schools establishedincreasing students' motivation to read as their highestpriority. Another longitudinal study will explore howteachers' beliefs and knowledge about teaching literacychange over time and how this change may influencetheir instructional decisions, assessments, and actions.

A third professional development project will showhow information learned in district-level professionaldevelopment courses is incorporated into teachers'instructional repertoires. The remaining two studieshave a multicultural emphasis. One is designed toestablish the cultural knowledge base necessary forguiding preservice teachers as they modify an existingcurriculum to achieve a better fit with the readingattitudes and interests of inner-city African Americanchildren. The other explores how teachers developunderstandings of literacy instruction for multiculturalpopulations by participating in book clubs where theyread and discuss contemporary fiction written byauthors from the same cultural backgrounds as theirstudents.

PLANNED COLLABORATIONSAND ACTIVITIES

For research to be implemented it must first beperceived as relevant to the people who will use it andbenefit from it. We believe the best way to ensuresuch relevancy is to maintain a two-waycommunication between the NRRC and teachers,school administrators, reading and curriculumspecialists, professional organizations, policymakers,


10 Donna E. iiivertnann and John T. Guthrie

parents, and children. To establish this two-waycommunication, we have several collaborative projectsand related activities already underway; others will beinitiated during the second year of the grant. Thesecurrent activities can be grouped into three categories:(a) school networks, (b) professional organizations andconferences, and (c) written and electronic

communications. Following is a sampling of theactivities from each of these categories.

School Networks

To facilitate the substantial amount of research that willbe conducted with school-based researchers, the NRRCplans to collaborate with interested schools in

establishing school research centers. The schoolresearch centers will provide places for university- andschool-based research teams to plan, implement,analyze, interpret, and report their research. They willprovide a daily source of information from the field.Site selection criteria will be sensitive to the need forschool research centers that reflect diversity in bothteacher and student populations.

Researchers at the University of Maryland have ahistory of long and fruitful working relationships withthe schools in their state and in the GreaterWashington, DC area. Currently, Marylandresearchers are working with teachers in their area todevelop teacher-researcher communities. Participatingteachers convene with university researchers to studytheir own teaching and to reflect on the processes ofliteracy learning. Beliefs and actions about readingand instruction are reevaluated by all members of thecommunity, leading to a heightened sense of teacherprofessionalism.

The NRRC is also in the process of forming anactive partnership with The League of ProfessionalSchools. League schools are committed to sharedgovernance and to implementing educational practicesthat enhance teaching and learning opportunities forfaculty and students across a wide spectrum of schoolstructures. Currently comprised of 50 schools with2,000 K-12 teachers, the League has been recognizedfor the past two years as one of the top 10 educationalcollaborations in the United States by the NationalBusiness/Higher Education Alliance. The League'sdirector, Carl Glickman, is on faculty at the University

of Georgia and is interested in establishingcollaborative research projects with the NRRC.

A team of researchers from the NRRC has beeninvited to enter a dialogue on how it might becomeinvolved in The Carter Center Atlanta Project, whichis former President Jimmy Carter's plan for improvingconditions in the inner city. Currently, the projecttargets 12 high schools where literacy is low enddropout rates, violence, and alienation are high.

Several university-based researchers in the NRRChave close working ties with the Writing ProjectsNetwork and Teaching-as-a-Researching Profession.Both networks support long-established teacherresearch projects and the dissemination of findingsfrom those projects. These networks will also providespeakers from across the U.S. for the NRRC's fireconference in February 1993.

Professional Organizations and Conferences

One way of reaching out to and being reached byschool-based personnel is through special sessions atprofessional meetings and conferences. Consequently,the NRRC plans to solicit input from the field throughinnovative forums resembling the town meeting. Thetown meeting format will allow us to share informationabout the NRRC's mission and research -in- progresswhile simultaneously gathering information aboutteachers' concerns and questions. Teams of school-and university-based researchers from the NRRC willmoderate these town meetings and share what theyhave learned with their colleagues back home.

Many educators belong to professionalorganizations that do not usually disseminate literacyresearch through their conferences or publications. Toreach this audience, we have contacted the directors oflarge umbrella groups like the National EducationAssociation to seek their collaboration in disseminatingresource materials on literacy development.

The NRRC is planning a national conference forFebruary 12-13, 1993, at the University of Georgia.The conference theme is developing engaged readersthrough family-, school-, and community-basedresearch. Teachers, researchers, and key policymakersfrom the state and national levels will be involved.The meeting will have a highly interactive format andwill give participants the opportunity to respond to


1 o


ideas presented at the conference and introduce their

own questions and concerns. Currently there are plansto include a teleconference segment in which people atdistant sites can interact "live" with the presenters andparticipants in Georgia. Through conferences such asthis one, we expect to establish collaborations that willbecome 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 readingspecialists, to seek their opinions on what issues and

problems warranted further research. The results wereused to inform our research agenda. We plan tocontinue this poll in order to maintain a sense of howthe NRRC is meeting the needs of its constituents.

During the second year of the grant, we plan topublish an NRRC newsletter that will be available by

subscription to a wide audience of educators,policymakers, and other interested parties. Thenewsletter 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, andresearch-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 thatwill permit anyone in the U. S. equipped with amicrocomputer 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'sresources. Questions directed to the NRRC will beacknowledged in several ways, including personalresponses and information on how to obtain access to

research findings.

FORTHCOMING PaODUCTSAND PUBLICATIONS

11

The NRRC's dissemination plan is geared to meet avariety of audiences for whom reading research is ofvital interest. In addition to the usual technicalresearch reports and articles, we plan to produceteacher - oriented resources and demonstration videos.

These products will be advertised through the

publications of various professional associations. Wewill also communicate directly through annual book-length syntheses of scholarly work on literacy teachingand 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 jargonas possible to make them accessible to a variety ofaudiences. These reports will be sent to the NRRCPublications Advisory Board, which is charged withensuring high standards of research and writing. Afterreview 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 andmailing.

Teacher-Oriented Resources

We are especially committed to putting relevantresearch findings into the hands of as many teachers aspossible, in formats they will find immediately useful.

We plan to produce an array of resources to supportteachers in teaching reading. For example, researchers

at the NRRC will generate prototypes of performanceassessment tasks in reading. Then, based on teacherpiloting, the prototypes will be revised and published.Workshops on the use of these prototypes will beconducted at regional and national conferences.

Demonstration Videos

Several of the NRRC's researchers will producedemonstration videotapes as part of their classroom-

based research projects. These tapes will depictteaching 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 instructionalpractices, social interactions, and print-richenvironments that support the engaged reader willbecome tools for further research, for practical use inclassrooms, and for professional developmentactivities. These videotapes will vary in qualitydepending on their projected use as stand clones(professionally produced tapes) or work-in-progresskinds of tapes.

Books

The NRRC will publish books that synthesizes researchon an important issue or theme. The first volume willfocus on the engagement perspectis e of literacyteaching and learning. It will include the thinking ofuniversity- and school-based researchers at the NRRCas well as the ideas of nationally recognized experts ingovernment, children's literature, and socioculturalmatters.

Research Highlights

Information about the NRRC's network of professionalcollaborations, research findings, products,instructional materials, conferences, books, journalarticles, videos, and policy briefs will be availablethrough published research highlights. The NRRC willhave a regular column in The Reading Teacher devotedto these highlights. We also plan to contribute similaritems to the publications of other professionalorganizations as well as to publications read by parents(e.g., Parents Magazine), librarians, school boardmembers, and policymakers at the state and nationallevel. In addition, the research highlights will beavailable through one or more of the NRRC'selectronic networks.

Policy Briefs

The NRRC staff will produce policy-related researchbriefs and respond to the questions of legislators andother decision makers. Because those involved withpublic policy often prefer face-to-face dialogues, theNRRC will sponsor meetings at the University ofMaryland College Park campus and in the WashingtonD.C. area.

THE NRRC: REFLECTING ANDTRANSCENDING PROJECTIONS

We believe the NRRC research agenda incorporatesexceedingly well the goals and problems identified informer President Bush's America 2000 plan. TheNRRC's agenda also addresses the perceived needs inreading 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 manyresearchers. In some instances it goes beyond therecommendations of the six literacy experts who wrotein Reading Research into the Year 2000. Because ofthe important contributions researchers in previousdecades have made in illuminating the reading process,the NRRC is able to devote most of its research effortsto investigating the intricacies of how children inprekindergarten through high school socially constructknowledge from printed materials in a variety of home,school, and community contexts.

Finally, the NRRC's agenda reflects the manyhours of collaboration, and especially the insights,contributed by our colleagues and coreseschers inschools and state departments of education throughoutthe United States. Without their constant influence andsometimes not so gentle reminders, we would havebeen less sensitive to the need for research tnataddresses literacy development as it is trulyexperienced in the homes, classrooms, andcommunities students inhabit. To this group ofeducators and to all those who contributed to thenational poll that informed our engagement perspectiveon reading, we pledge to work toward fulfilling theagenda that has been set out for us.

Refereoces

Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondaryschool 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 researchinto the year 2009. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beck, I. I. (in press). On reading: A survey of recentresearch and proposals for the future. In A. P. Sweet &J. f. Anderson (Eds.), Reading research into the year2000. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.



Deford, D. E., Lyons, C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1991). Bridgesto 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 Americanstudents in grades 4, 8, and 12 in 1988 and 19k) (Vol 2).Washington DC: National Center for EducationStatistics.

Gitlin, A. (1990). Educative research, voice, and schoolchange. 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 ofAmerica's young adults. Princeton, NJ: EducationalTesting Service.

Langer, J. A., Applebee, A. N., Mullis, I. V. S., &Foertsch, M. A. (1990). Learning to read in our nation'sschools: Instruction and achievement in 1988 at grades4, 8, and 12. Princeton, NJ: Educational TestingService.

Monahan, J. (in press). A reading research agenda into theyear 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). Encouragingvoluntary reading: The impact of a literature program onchildren's use of library centers. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 21, 330-346.

Mosenthal, P. (in press). Understanding agenda setting inreading 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 ofresearch center. Reading Today, p. 12.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, '.. L. (1984). Reciprocalteaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoringactivities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.

Ravitch, D. (1985). The schools we deserve: Reflectionson 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. AmericanEducational 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 theirown environments: A theory of genotype - environmenteffects. Child Development, 54, 424-435.

Scroggins, S. I. (in press). A reading agenda for at-riskstudents: The practitioner speaks out. In A. P. Sweet &J. I. Anderson (Eds.), Reading research into the year2000. 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 researchinto the year 2000. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sweet, A. P., & Anderson, J. I. (in press). Making ithappen: 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.


1ST COPY AVAU `7,

Appendix A

NRRC National Advisory Board

Phyllis W. AldrichCoordinator for Gifted and TalentedSaratoga Warren Board of

Cooperative Educational ServicesHenning RoadSaratoga Springs, New York 12866

Arthur N. ApplebeeSchool of Education #113State University of New York, AlbanyAlbany, New York 12222

Ronald S. Brandt, EditorEducational LeadershipAssociation for Supervision and

Curriculum Development1250 Pitt StreetAlexandria, Virginia 22314-1403

Marsha T. De LainSouth Carolina State

Department of Education1429 Senate StreetRoom 604, Rutledge BuildingColumbia, South Carolina 29201

Carl A. GrantSchool of EducationUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonTeacher Education Building225 North Mills StreetMadison, Wisconsin 53706

Walter KintschInstitute of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of Colorado at BoulderMuenzinger BuildingCampus Box 344Boulder, Colorado 80309-0344

Robert L. LinnSchool of EducationUniversity of Colorado at BoulderCampus Box 246Boulder, Colorado 80309

Luis C. MollDivision of Language, Reading, and

CultureCollege of EducationUniversity of ArizonaTucson, Arizona 85721

Carol M. SantaSchool District #5Kalispell Public SchoolsKalispell, Montana 59901

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and

ImprovementU.S. Department of Education555 New Jersey Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20208

Louise Cherry Wilkinson, DeanGraduate School of EducationRutgers University10 Seminary PlaceNew 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 ofLiterature in Urban Youth

Lesley Mandel Morrow, Rutgers University

Improving Reading Instruction for At-Risk 1st- and 2nd-Grade Students: Extending Reading RecoveryPrinciples 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 ProgramLee Gilds', Steven A. Stahl, Anthony D. Pellegrini, University of Georgia

First-Grade Reading Instruction: Teachers and Students in TransitionJames V. Hoffman, University of Texas at Austin

Comprehension and cognitive strategies

The Effects of Long-Term Comprehension InstructionMichael Pressley, University of Maryland College ParkTed Schuder, Montgomery County Schools., MarylandJoan Coley, Western Maryland College, Westminster, MarylandTommie DePinto, Carroll County Schools, MarylandMary Ehen Lewis, Kennedy institute School, Baltimore, Maryland

Teacher-Led Comprehension Instruction: Unanswered Questions and Next StepsJames 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 ParkDebra Miller, Howard County Schook . Maryland

Fluency Based Classroom Organizational ModelsSteven A. Stahl, University of Georgia

Reading Instruction That Promotes Critical ThinkingMichelle Commeyras, University of Georgia

B-1

1EST COPY AVAILABLE

B-2

Knowledge-rich contexts

Concept-Centered Reading Instruction in Science, History, and GeographyJohn Guthrie, Rnhel Grant, University of Maryland College ParkLois Bennett, Mary Ellen Rice, Calverton Elementary School, Beltsville, Maryland

Misconceptions in Science: Classroom Influences on Learning Counter-Intuitive InformationFrom Science Texts

Cynthia Hynd, Donna E. Alvermann, University of Georgia

Understanding Science: Strategic Use of Analogies and ModelsShawn 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:;iaJohn 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,.,nConnie Suet. University of Virginia

Using Technology to Enhance Social Interaction for Reading and WritingDavid Reinking. Tom Reeves, University of GeorgzaValerie 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 SchoolLinda Baker, Susan Sonnenscheiu, Robert Serpeil, University of Maryland Baltimore Cou,a

Family Process eh and the Development cf Sibling Literacy in Rural Black FamiliesGene H. Brody, Zolinda Stoneman. Univer.%ity of Georgia

Extending the Literate Community: Home to School, School to HomeBetty Shockley, Fowler Drive Elementary School, Athens, GeorgiaJoBeth Allen, University of GeorgiaBarbara Michalove, Fowler rive Elemental). School, Athens, Georgia

Reading and Writing in a Bilingual Classroom: Implications for Literacy DevelopmentOlivia Saracho, University of Maryland College Park

Semantic Processing During Children's ReadingPaula Schwanenflugel, University of Georgia

Development of Knowledge of the Internal State LexiconWilliam S. Hall, Dana J. Nude, James Booth, University of Maryland College Park

Motivation for reading

Motivational Patterns in Children's Literacy DevelopmentLinda B. Gambrell, University of Maryland College Park

Students' Percept;ons of Their Own Reasons and Purposes for Being or Not Being Involvedin Literacy Activities: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study of Student Motivation Toward Literacy

Penny Oldfather, University of Georgia

Metacognition and Interest as Predictors of Learning Through ReadingMartha Carr, University of Georgia

The Role of Libraries in Reading Instruction and the Development of Lifelong ReadersLinda DeGroff, University of Georgia

Learning Subject Matter from Text

Using Revision Techniques to ImprOve Content Area TextbooksBr.oe K. Britton, University of Georgia

Locating Specific information in Textbooks: Understanding and Instructing Search Processesin Reading

M. Jean Dreher, University of Maryland College Park

The Role of Comprehension Strategies in Mathematical Problem SolvingDenise Muth, University of Georgia

How People Learn From Multiple Texts: A Processing PerspectiveCynthia Hynd, Steven A. Stahl, University of Georgia

Building a Model of Reading Electronic TextsDavid Reinking, University of Georgia

An Investigation of the Effects of Instructional Interaction With Reading Materials Categorizedby a Typology of Ethnic Identity

Louise M. Tomlinson, University of Georgia

Assessment

Improving Instruction and Learning for At-Risk Children Through Performance-Based ReadingAssessment

William Schafer, John T. Guthrie, Peter Afflerbach, University of Maryland College ParkJay McTighe, Bob Gabrys, Barbara Kapinus, Hannah Kruglanski, Maryland Departmeru of

Education, Baltimore, MarylandDenise Borders, Susan Spath, Baltimore City Schools, Baltimore, MarylandLouise Waynant, Prince George's County Schools, Upper Marlboro, Maryland

OM COPY Al

B-4

Literacy Portfolio AssessmentSheila Valencia, University of Washington

Developing Standards for New Assessments in ReadingBarbara Kapinus, Hannah Kruglanski, Maryland Department of Education, Baltimore, MarylandMichelle Commeyras, University of Georgia

The Communication and Interpretation of Reading Assessment InformationPeter Afflerbach, University of Maryland College Park

Professional Development

Teacher Development Within a Teacher Research Community Devoted to Reading Instruction for

Elementary At-Risk StudentsJohn 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 StudentsJoBeth 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 inSecondary School Literacy

Sally Hudson-Ross, Dana L. Fox, University of GeorgiaConnie Zimmerman, Atlanta Skyline Network, Atlanta, GeorgiaPatti Heitmuller, Kate Kirby, Gwirusett County Public Schools, Georgia

Teachers' Implementation of Authentic Reading Through Interdisciplinary Instruction in the Elementary

SchoolSherrie Gibney-Sherman, Athens-Clarke County School District, Athens, Georgia

Factors Influencing the Reading Status of Inner-City African American ChildrenRuby L. Thompson, Gloria Mixon, Lou Beasley, Clark Atlanta University

Teachers' Growth in Understanding Literacy Development, Multiculturalism, and Literacy Instruction

for Multicultural PopulationsJames Flood, Dianne Lapp, San Diego State University, California

NRRC

BEST COPY AVAILABLF

NationalReading ResearchCenter

318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 3i2102 J.M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland,

;5. t)

MD. SPONS AGENCY - ed

Documents

Transcript of MD. SPONS AGENCY - ed