Teaching and Learning in Reading

Authored by: Donna E. Alvermann , Jill Fitzgerald , Michele Simpson

Handbook of Educational Psychology

Print publication date:  May  2006
Online publication date:  November  2012

Print ISBN: 9780805849370
eBook ISBN: 9780203874790
Adobe ISBN: 9781135283520

10.4324/9780203874790.ch19

 Download Chapter

 

Abstract

Our goal in writing this chapter for the second edition of the Handbook of Educational Psychology has been to document, interpret, and critique the research on teaching and learning in reading published between January 1996 and February 2004 in refereed journals. Prior to beginning our search for suitable articles, we agreed on a set of common search procedures (keywords, databases) and developed criteria that would provide guidance when we had to make decisions about which articles to include or exclude. Those criteria can be found in Table 19.1. Briefly, they allude to our intention to limit our review to research reported in peer-refereed journal articles (not books, chapters, literature reviews, or tech reports) on reading instruction that took place in “regular” classrooms spanning kindergarten through college. The “regular classroom” stipulation was on the setting and not the participants. For instance, if a study reported on students with learning disabilities taught in a mainstream classroom, the study was included; but if a study reported on students with learning disabilities taught in a resource room or pullout program, the study was not included. Further, because we sought to differentiate our chapter from one being developed on a similar topic and coauthored by Michael Pressley and Karen Harris (see Chapter 12 of this volume), we defined reading instruction as that which focuses on teacher action or teacher-student interaction during a classroom reading instruction. Table 19.1.

Criteria for Inclusion/Exclusion of Studies

Include

Exclude

Journal articles only

Tech reports, dissertations, theses, ERIC docs, books, book chapters, monographs, evaluation studies

Publication dates between January 1996 and February 2004

Span of grade/age levels is kindergarten through adult

Preschool

Focus is on regular classroom reading instruction. The stipulation here is upon the setting, not the participants. For instance, students with learning disabilities being taught in a mainstream classroom are included here.

Supplementary reading instruction efforts—not including: “tutoring,”

Reading Recovery or similar supplementary interventions Reading instruction that takes place in “special education” setting. For instance, students with learning disabilities taught in Resource room setting are not included.

Focus is on classroom teacher reading instruction. The stipulation here is that the research focuses on teacher action or teacher-pupil interaction, not upon a “packaged” program

Re “whole language” or “dual language” programs, include if researchers report a teacher using either of these as her instruction.

Studies of “pre-packaged programs”

Focus is on classroom teacher reading instruction. The stipulation here again is that the research focuses on teacher action or teacher-pupil interaction, not solely on student learning.

For experiments or quasi-experiments, the study has to have a control or comparison group or normative data.

Where comparison groups are used, need to be more than four subjects.

For quasi-experiments, must be pretesting of outcomes of interest (with the exception of regression discontinuity designs).

For correlational studies, samples have to have 20 subjects or more Criteria for rigor in qualitative work is dependent upon the particular paradigm used. However, in general, reports of qualitative research should contain all of the following:

Detail how the study was done (e.g., an audit trail); reveal multiple perspectives and/or other forms of complexity

Show researcher reflectivity; address alternative explanations (how this is done varies greatly by genre)

Present primary data, quotes, stories, scenes, and so on

State conclusions about what has been learned, that is, show evidence of learning from the study rather than the study validating the author’s original beliefs

Point to how the “learnings” relate to a wider discourse (G. Noblit, personal communication, January 18, 2004).

Studies of student learning in reading where no teacher instruction is studied.

Studies of reading assessment where no teacher instruction is studied.

 Cite
Search for more...
Back to top

Use of cookies on this website

We are using cookies to provide statistics that help us give you the best experience of our site. You can find out more in our Privacy Policy. By continuing to use the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.