Team 2 presents an example of how reading research has influence policy in the form of the Reading Next legislation.

1. Example for Con Position John T. Guthrie

2. READING NEXT: A VISION FOR ACTION AND RESEARCH IN MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL LITERACY Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. Alliance for Excellent Education Carnegie Corporation 2004

3. Participants and Goals Andres Henriquez, Convener Donald Deshler, David Francis, John Guthrie, Michael Kamil, James McPartland, Panel Goals Speak to policy makers Use legislators’ schema: problem—solution Accessible language Concrete recommendations for action

4. Messages ofReading Next Problems in adolescent literacy Reading is inadequate for schooling, workplace, higher education NAEP Grade 8 students; 1994; 30% above proficiency 2007; 31% above proficiency

5. Messages of Reading Next Problems in adolescent literacy 1000 students drop out of school PER DAY Lowest 25% in reading achievement are 20 times more likely to drop out

6. Messages of Reading Next Solutions Elements of successful middle school literacy instruction Not a program; not a single bullet

7. Messages of Reading Next Fifteen (15) elements of successful middle school literacy education Instructional improvements 1. Direct, explicit comprehension instruction 2. Embedded in content 3. Motivation and self-directed learning 4. Text-based collaborative learning 5. Strategic tutoring

8. Messages of Reading Next Fifteen (15) elements of successful middle school literacy education 6. Diverse texts (electronic, others) 7. Intensive writing 8. A technology component 9. Ongoing formative assessment of students

9. Messages of Reading Next Fifteen (15) elements of successful middle school literacy education Infrastructure improvements 10. Extended time for literacy 11. Professional development 12. Ongoing, summative assessment of students and programs 13. Teacher teams 14. Leadership 15. Comprehensive and coordinated

10. Research Evidence in Reading Next The evidence for these elements consists of 117 publications such as: Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 815–60).White Plains, NY: Longman. Almasi, J. F. (1995).The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 314–351. Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading”: A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350–77. Konopak, B. C., Martin, S. H., & Martin, M.A. (1990). Using a writing strategy to enhance sixth grade students’ comprehension of content material. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 19–37.

11. Research Evidence THAT COULD HAVE BEEN in Reading Next Alvermann, D. E., (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 189-208. Duffy, G., (2002). Visioning and the development of outstanding teachers. Reading Research and Instruction,41,331-344. Kamil, M., Borman, G., Dole, J., Kral, C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices. Institute of Education Sciences. USDE. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981).The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

12. Research Basefor Reading Next Presuppositions to our knowledge base We emphasize the commonalities of the cultural-historical and the scientific perspectives. Evidence is optimal when the inferences from ethnographies and experiments converge and complement.

13. Research Basefor Reading Next Cultural-historical: Activity theory Michael Cole, Sylvia Scribner, Alexei Leont'ev Literacy is a form of culturally grounded cognition. Effective literacy practices are in the cultural milieu. Cognitive systems are adapted to environmental affordances. Literacy is shaped by the beliefs, goals, and behaviors of individuals in interaction with others . Tactics: Case Studies; Ethnographies; Semiotic studies; more

14. Research Basefor Reading Next Scientific perspective: Strategic, engaged reading Literacy is best learned in rich content domains. Teaching cognitive strategies benefits learners. Students’ commitment to literacy expands their authentic practices. Teachers who scaffold processes and practices foster learning Tactics: Correlational; experiments; systematic classroom observations

15. Research Basefor Reading Next Cultural-historical and Scientific perspectives are consistent with Reading Next: (2) literacy instruction embedded in content, (3) self-directed learning, (4) text-based collaborative learning, (6) diverse texts (electronic), (10) extended time for literacy.

16. Consequences of Reading Next Eight (8) Striving Reader awards totaling $142M from 2006-2007, met criteria for successful inst. Reading Next had more than 1,000,000 downloads by May 2009

17. Limitations of Reading Next Did children’s proficiency improve? Was teachers’ capacity enhanced? Were schools more successful? Did the field of adolescent literacy learn? Unknown Not the goals of Reading Next Congressional Action

18. Conclusions from Reading Next 1. Literacy researchers (including 2 NRC members) 2. Wrote explicit guidance for policy 3. Drawing on a base of knowledge 4. Delivered to policy makers 5. In a partnership with political activists 6. Positive result of $142 M for adolescent literacy 7. Positive result of congressional recognition

19. Conclusion READING NEXT is evidence in opposition to the resolution of this debate