Reprinted from the Journal of Developmental = Education

Reprinted from the = Journal of Developmental=20 Education, Volume 16, Issue 1, Fall, 1992.=20

Ten=20 Recommendations from Research for Teaching High-Risk College=20 Students=20

by Norman A. Stahl, Michele L. = Simpson, and=20 Christopher G. Hayes

ABSTRACT: Finding practical ideas about = college=20 reading that have been drawn from theory and research is difficult for = most=20 veteran instructors, but it is even more difficult for the beginner = unaware of=20 professional organizations and journals. This problem of dissemination = is=20 exacerbated by the fact that there are very few formal university = programs that=20 focus on the training of college reading specialists. = Consequently, the=20 authors of this article decided to generate a list of their own "best = ideas"=20 that they have culled from their years of teaching college reading. = These 10=20 ideas, though not comprehensive, represent a synthesis of research and=20 theory. More importantly, they are ones that have made a = difference in the=20 performance of the authors' students. In addition, the authors have = purposely=20 cited many scholarly sources in order to provide an extensive = bibliography for=20 colleagues new to the field.

=20 Formal college reading and study programs have been with us since the = early days=20 of the 20th century when schools such as Harvard (Moore, 1915), the = University=20 of Chicago (National Society for the Study of Education [NSSE], 1920), = and the=20 University of Illinois (Stone & Colvin, 1920) observed the need to = promote=20 students' advanced reading and learning skills. Furthermore, over the = past=20 century more than 600 texts and workbooks have been published for use by = instructors and students in college reading programs (Stahl, Hynd, & = Brozo,=20 1990). Of equal importance, reports of research with college readers = dating back=20 to the Victorian Era (Abell, 1894) can be found in the literature. = Hence, the=20 profession has a time-honored history of program development, curriculum = innovation, and published research of which we can be proud.=20

On the other hand, the primary = vehicles for=20 disseminating pertinent theory, research, and practical teaching ideas = have been=20 rather diffuse and have changed routinely over the years. = Moreover, the=20 profession has yet to develop the same rigorous training requirements = and=20 credentialing generally expected of our peers in elementary or secondary = education. Although recently several =93generalist=94-oriented degree = programs=20 focusing on developmental education have evolved, formal training = programs at=20 the level of the terminal degree are all but nonexistent for the college = reading=20 and learning professional.

Indeed, many of us serving in the = college=20 reading and learning field entered through a side door and developed = expertise=20 through a self-help program based on personal reading, conference = attendance,=20 peer interaction, etc. (see Mealey, 1991; Simpson, 1983; Stahl, Brozo, = &=20 Gordon, 1984 for discussion). While we each may have a background in = reading=20 pedagogy, in most cases the focus of our initial training was at the = elementary=20 or secondary levels since credentialing programs typically ignore the = special=20 needs of the college learner.

=20 As an example of this assertion, recently one = of the=20 authors was talking with a colleague new to teaching high-risk college = students.=20 She had never heard of this journal, nor the other journals sponsored by = organizations such as the International Reading Association, the College = Reading=20 Association, or the College Reading and Learning Association. Her = experience=20 reminded us again that the first few years of teaching in a college = reading and=20 learning program can be overwhelming. Practical ideas enmeshed with = theory and=20 research are difficult to find for most veterans, but even more = difficult for=20 the beginner who is unaware of professional organizations and journals. = So we=20 decided to create our own "best ideas" for our new colleagues and for = other=20 interested novices. Though not comprehensive, these 10 ideas have made a = difference in our teaching of college students. We present these ideas = in an=20 order that moves from broader conceptualizations of pedagogy to the more = practical concerns of the educational program. =

Adopt a Cognitive-Based Philosophy=20

Many=20 college programs either explicitly or implicitly emphasize a deficit = model of=20 reading instruction drawn from the diagnostic-compensatory movement. In = this=20 case, the short-term goal becomes teaching students specific skills that = they=20 have not yet mastered (i.e., recognizing the main idea or the author's = tone of a=20 selection). The long-term goal becomes student improvement on a = standardized=20 reading test such as the ubiquitous Nelson Denny Reading Test or a state = mandated reading exam as used in Texas, Georgia, New Jersey, etc. = Unfortunately,=20 many students can learn to excel on reading tests to the degree = necessary to=20 exit a developmental program but still not fully function as independent = learners in the academic milieu of higher education. That is, the = teaching of=20 discrete reading skills rarely transfers to students' immediate and real = tasks=20 (i.e., the mastery of concepts and complex principles in their college = courses).=20 More importantly, the deficit model can stigmatize and demoralize = college=20 freshmen who are eager to leave the trappings of high school and begin=20 college-level work. The cognitive model has proven to be an effective=20 alternative to the deficit model.

Most=20 cognitive psychologists maintain that effective learning is more the = result of=20 internal structures and processes than of external influences such as = materials,=20 teachers, and instructional sequences (Resnick, 1981). The cognitive = model=20 posits that college students are, or should be, active participants in = control=20 of their learning; they are self-regulated, autonomous, and good = strategy users=20 (Harri-Augstein, Smith, & Thomas, 1982; Pressley, 1986; Thomas & = Rohwer,=20 1986; Zimmerman, 1986). Common to all these labels is the operational = definition=20 of effective independent learners as those who plan, implement, and = control the=20 study strategies that enhance learning. Since most college students are = not=20 efficient and effective independent learners (Weinstein & Rogers, = 1984), the=20 most logical goal for college reading and learning programs would be to = teach=20 students a repertoire of strategies and tactics that will prepare them = for the=20 tasks and texts they encounter in college.

Students need to learn more than = how to=20 develop and when to employ the strategies, however. They also need to = learn how=20 to transfer specific strategies to the particular academic literacy = demands of=20 each course. Indeed, without effective training for transfer, college = reading=20 and learning courses face the very real danger of standing in isolation = from the=20 academic disciplines and of remaining mired in the deficit model.=20

Use a=20 Course Model that Stresses Transfer

Strategy transfer occurs more = naturally when=20 students have a chance to practice the newly learned strategies on their = own=20 texts and with tasks perceived to be "real." In many mandated = reading=20 courses, such as developmental studies programs or bridge programs, = typically=20 students are not enrolled concurrently in a credit-bearing, content-area = course=20 that allows for this transfer. Hence, instructors should consider = teaching=20 strategies through a simulations model (King, Stahl, & Brozo, 1984; = Nist=20 & Hynd, 1985).

The goal=20 of such a model is to replicate the tasks and texts of a typical = required, lower=20 division course (e.g., history, psychology). Because the transfer = mandates close=20 simulation of the chosen course, students must purchase the course's = textbook=20 and supplemental materials. Then throughout the simulation experience, = they must=20 read and study the chapters as the instructor teaches the = domain-specific study=20 strategies. Students can also receive practice in taking lecture notes = with=20 appropriate videotaped lectures or guest lectures from professors who = regularly=20 teach the targeted course. During the lecture presentations, the = instructor=20 should model good notetaking strategies on an overhead projector. The = end point=20 of the simulation experience is passing an examination like that = encountered in=20 a regular course. When students exit the simulation course, they take = with them=20 a physical product (annotated text, lecture notes), a cognitive product = (greater=20 prior knowledge and experience), and several domain-specific and general = study=20 strategies.

For students enrolled concurrently = in=20 credit-bearing, content-area courses, the learning specialist should = implement=20 an instructional model that permits each student to become a strategic = learner=20 with the content and the materials encountered in a course of his or her = own=20 selection. Throughout the term as each learner is introduced to and = practices=20 with various strategies and tactics, he or she develops a portfolio of = materials=20 (e.g., course notes, concept cards, graphic organizers, process guides, = course=20 exams) demonstrating the mastery of the content course's goals and also = the=20 development of the individual's successful repertoire of learning=20 strategies.

While at first glance it may appear = that the=20 number of possible student choices for a target course might make this = model=20 unwieldy, the realities of the undergraduate curriculum for the lower = division=20 student greatly limit the breadth of courses in which one may enroll. = Hence, our=20 experience suggests most students will elect to employ the strategies = and=20 tactics you introduce to a handful of introductory, survey courses such = as=20 Psychology 100, Sociology 100, Anthropology 100, U.S. History 100, etc. = In fact,=20 we have discovered that the range of options is so limited that the = instructor=20 may easily introduce forms of cooperative learning through the = constitution of=20 content-specific cluster groups and learning triads or dyads.=20

=20 A second model for promoting transfer of = learning=20 strategies for students enrolled in content classes involves the = development of=20 more formal ties between the academic program and reading/learning = strategy=20 course. Over the past = decade this=20 model has been labeled either supplemental instruction (Martin, 1980), = adjunct=20 or paired courses (Mallery & Bullock, 1985), the language study = model=20 (Sartain et al., 1982), or the learning counseling model (Garfield & = McHugh,=20 1978). Basic to all of these models is the premise that the content of = the=20 reading or learning strategy instruction or mentoring is tied to a=20 credit-bearing course that freshmen or sophomores typically take (e.g., = biology,=20 geography, or history). The instructor of the reading and learning = strategies=20 does not teach the content of the content course nor supplant the role = of the=20 professor in presenting the content. =20 Rather, the reading/learning specialist teaches processes and = strategies=20 necessary to succeed in the targeted course in seminars or sessions held = outside=20 of class. These specially arranged sessions may be voluntary or = required,=20 depending upon the institution and the professor involved with the=20 program.

While the=20 new member of our profession may not be in a position to implement such = a=20 program initially, there is value in being cognizant of the "paired = course"=20 program (Bullock & Madden, 1986) that limits enrollment in a rather=20 traditional yet theme-oriented (e.g., psychology, sociology) study = strategies=20 course to those students enrolled in the respective academic speciality. = Since=20 all the students in a particular section are going through similar = academic=20 experiences, study strategy training can be focused on specific tasks = and thus=20 can improve the possibility of transfer. Regardless of which models of = course=20 delivery are employed, the measures of success must focus on the = transfer of=20 learning strategy training. Hence, we present our next idea or=20 recommendation.

Use Reliable, Process-Oriented Assessment = Procedures=20

Many=20 college reading programs rely on standardized reading tests to place = students in=20 programs and to assess their strengths and weaknesses after placement = (Simpson=20 & Nist, 1992). In addition, these tests are often used to evaluate = the=20 success of a program by determining whether the students significantly = improve=20 their reading level or their comprehension and vocabulary scores. In = some=20 situations, the standardized test may even determine whether students = can exit=20 the mandated program. Rather than an over-reliance upon standardized = measures=20 that are typically product orientated, instructors should consider the = use of=20 assessment procedures that reflect the reading/learning tasks students = will be=20 required to undertake in lower division courses. One way such = process-oriented=20 assessment can be accomplished is through simulation of a typical = learning=20 process.

=20 In undertaking = this=20 simulation, the instructor might distribute to students an introductory = chapter=20 from a sociology text on a Monday with the assignment to prepare for an=20 objective and essay examination over the material on Friday. Then on = exam day=20 the instructor would collect the chapter and materials the student used = for=20 study, ask the students to summarize briefly how they studied and for = how long,=20 and then administer the examination under normal exam conditions. Before = handing=20 in the examination, students could report what grade or percentage they = think=20 they will receive on the exam (Sartain et al., 1982). Thus, the = instructor has=20 collected a variety of process information from the students: (a) copies = of=20 their chapters, which may reveal any markings; (b) tangible products of = their=20 self-selected strategies such as maps, outlines, jot lists, etc.; (c)=20 self-reports on their method(s) of study; and (d) measures of their=20 metacognitive awareness of performance.

To=20 evaluate the students' processes of study, instructors can use = checklists=20 enumerating the attributes of effective text marking and study = strategies (i.e.,=20 mapping, charting). For instance, Simpson and Nist (1990a) have = developed one=20 checklist for text annotation that allows the instructor to determine = whether=20 the students use text structure to identify and organize superordinate = and=20 subordinate ideas and whether they translate information into their own = words.=20 Similarly, Stahl, King, and Henk (1991) have developed a checklist for=20 evaluating lecture notes. These checklists, based on cognitive theory = and=20 research, allow the instructor to quickly evaluate student-generated = materials=20 and thus to see strengths, = needs,=20 and patterns in an organized manner.

=20 To evaluate the products of study, instructors = can score=20 the objective and essay questions, noting differences in scores between = the two=20 measures. In addition, a holistic evaluation of the essay could provide = an=20 additional measure of students' abilities to articulate a clear = understanding of=20 content and relationships among superordinate and subordinate ideas. The = results=20 of these process and product assessments can then be shared with = students in=20 small groups or in individual conferences.

However,=20 if after mastering successful studying processes the students still earn = low=20 test scores, the problem may not be ability to implement strategic = learning or=20 to draw upon metacognitive awareness, but rather weak background = knowledge of=20 the subject being tested. Such is not an unusual situation with = developmental=20 learners who underwent a secondary school experience that left them=20 underprepared or misprepared for the academic literacy demands of = postsecondary=20 learning. Naturally, then, the learning specialist must think of ways to = help=20 students develop a broadened worldview supportive of college = success.=20

Broaden=20 Conceptual Background Knowledge

Most=20 students required to take a college reading course can read but are not=20 efficient and effective independent learners. Because these students are = often=20 aliterate and suffer wide gaps in their prior knowledge, they are not = generally=20 prepared to read regularly, widely, or critically. Furthermore, many of = these=20 students have not been required to undertake higher level = reading/learning tasks=20 while in the secondary school (Alvermann & Moore, 1991). Hence, the=20 instructor must meet the needs of students who have both deficiencies in = content=20 knowledge and misconceptions about the learning process. Moreover, as = recent=20 research has demonstrated in a college freshman level history course = (Simpson=20 & Nist, 1990b), students may even have misconceptions about specific = content=20 areas.

Obviously, such problems cannot be overcome in = one=20 course, but instructors can intervene by promoting the habit of reading=20 extensively through the creative use of periodicals such as Newsweek, U.S. News and World = Report, or=20 Time during the weekly = classroom=20 routine. In addition to discussing selected articles, instructors or = students=20 could select general vocabulary words such as ameliorate and exacerbate or any of the = regularly used=20 idioms, allusions, and foreign terms identified and presented by Boese = (1986)=20 for study.

As=20 another alternative, instructors can provide higher level background = experiences=20 while teaching students to learn about a specific theme (e.g., =93coming = of age,=94=20 =93the American experience,=94 =93personal courage=94) or concept by = using or adapting=20 Bartholomae and Petrosky's (1986) "basic reading/basic writing" model. = In such a=20 model, basic readers undertake extensive reading of five to six texts = with a=20 similar unifying issue. Furthermore, since each text builds upon the = previously=20 read book, the student's conceptual understanding of the theme and his = or her=20 relationship to it grows in progressive degrees of sophistication. In = addition,=20 greater facility with various forms of discourse is promoted as the = student=20 moves from the more comfortable narrative forms of text to the = expository forms=20 generally encountered in lower division courses. Along with the = extensive=20 readings, the learner is expected to undertake carefully integrated = writing=20 assignments, in both formal and expressive modes. =

Such a program is indeed time = consuming for=20 all involved-both student and instructor. Still, the age-old adage is=20 true: One becomes a better reader by reading extensively. = Unfortunately,=20 many of the students enrolling in developmental course work report to us = that=20 they simply were not required to read in high school. Hence, it is not=20 surprising that the reading load encountered in college or the level of=20 vocabulary required is troubling to our students. The basic = reading/basic=20 writing model clearly helps to prepare the students for the former. Now = let us=20 turn to the latter issue.

Reconceptualize Vocabulary Development=20

Students=20 entering postsecondary education need to understand from the outset that = the=20 fundamental avenue for academic success is the ability to quickly expand = their=20 vocabulary (Simpson & Dwyer, 1991; Stahl, Brozo, & Simpson, = 1987).=20 Instructors must provide experiences that immerse students in (a) the = "language=20 of the academy" or the terminology that allows the institution to = function=20 (e.g., terms such as provost, bursar, financial aid);=20 (b) the "language = of the=20 educated" or the advanced general vocabulary used by scholars as they=20 communicate; and (c) the specialized "languages of the disciplines" = (Sartain,=20 1981) or those unique technical terms, symbols, etc. that permit = scholars within=20 a field to communicate effectively. Students also must understand that, = leaming=20 these words means more than the rote memorization of a brief definition; = it=20 implies conceptual understanding of words. With conceptual = understanding,=20 students know multiple definitions, examples, characteristics, synonyms, = and=20 antonyms and are able to apply the word and its variant forms (e.g., = zealous versus zealot) in a variety of situations (Simpson = &=20 Dwyer, 1991).

To help students master the = vocabulary in=20 the first category, instructors can draw heavily upon the institution's = printed=20 materials, particularly the college catalogue and student handbook. = Effective=20 strategies for developing greater vocabulary fluency in the second = category=20 include generative vocabulary activities such as Haggard's (1982)=20 "self-collection strategy," Beck's (personal communication, 1979) "word = of the=20 week,=94 and Pauk's (1984) "frontier system." Finally, instructors can teach = students=20 how to learn technical vocabulary by using activities such as Sartain et = al.'s=20 (1982) "technical vocabulary log for study triads" or Simpson, Nist, and = Kirby's=20 (1987) "concept cards."

Vocabulary development, like other instruction, = calls for=20 innovative teaching. But instructors may spend unnecessary time (and=20 disappointment) reinventing strategies that have already been tested. = Without=20 relinquishing their own creative expertise, instructors need to be aware = of, and=20 use, research-validated strategies.

Use=20 Research Validated Learning Strategies

Instruction with textbook study systems = (e.g.,=20 SQ3R, PQRST) has been a staple of the college reading/learning program = for over=20 50 years (Caverly & Orlando, 1991; Stahl & Henk, 1986). Still, = many of=20 the methods and strategies presented to college students have yet to be=20 validated credibly by research or have been researched with students = atypical of=20 the population served in mandated developmental courses. More research = needs to=20 be conducted with high-risk college students, especially research = concerned with=20 student processes rather than research comparing one strategy to = another.=20

While the=20 research base is not as large as with younger students, a few strategies = have=20 been validated with high-risk college students. For example, after = training=20 students to use textbook annotation, Simpson and Nist (1990a) reported=20 developmental students performed significantly better than an equivalent = control=20 group on three different content area exams. More importantly, the = annotation=20 group reported spending less time studying for those three exams. = Another=20 promising strategy, PORPE (Simpson, 1986), was developed to help = students=20 prepare for essay examinations. With PORPE, students Team to Predict potential essay = questions to=20 guide their studying; Organize key ideas that answer those predicted = questions=20 using their own words, structure, and methods; Rehearse key ideas; Practice the recall of those = key ideas=20 in self-assigned writing; and Evaluate the completeness, = accuracy,=20 and appropriateness of the essays by means of a checklist. These five = steps are=20 synergistic as they build upon each other and lead learners through the=20 cognitive and metacognitive processes essential to successful = independent=20 learning. PORPE has been validated in three investigations (Simpson, = Stahl,=20 & Hayes, 1988; Simpson, Hayes, & Stahl, 1989; Simpson, Hayes, = Stahl,=20 Connor, & Weaver, 1988) involving high-risk college students trained = to=20 employ the strategy while studying Introduction to Psychology textbook = chapter=20 excerpts. For additional descriptions of validated learning strategies = pertinent=20 to high-risk college students, see the recent International Reading = Association=20 Monograph, entitled Teaching = Reading and=20 Study Strategies at the College Level, edited by Flippo and Caverly=20 (1991).

It is not=20 enough simply to introduce students to proven strategies. As = instructors, we=20 must also be sure that we train students how to use them and how to = choose among=20 them. This is an onus that has often been overlooked as college = reading=20 specialists have attempted to provide great breadth of content = coverage but=20 often not enough depth with instruction. Let us then turn to the = training=20 issue.

Systematically Train Students to Employ = Strategies=20

One of the primary goals of the = college=20 reading instructor should be to train students to be able to select, = modify, and=20 transfer a variety of strategies to their own learning tasks. To = accomplish this=20 goal, self-control training (Brown, Campione, & Day, 1981) is = essential.=20 Students who have received self-control training not only "know" a=20 strategy, but they also have knowledge of the conditions under which the = strategy is appropriate and why it is appropriate. Paris, Lipson, and = Wixson=20 (1983) refer to this type of knowledge as conditional knowledge. In = contrast to=20 this systematic type of training is the most prevalent form of training, = labeled=20 blind training by Brown et al. (1981). Students receiving blind training = in a=20 strategy are not as likely to learn why, how, or when to use a strategy = but=20 instead tend to blindly imitate the instructor. With blind training = students=20 will not be as likely to transfer the strategies they learned to their = own=20 learning tasks.

Validated training approaches and = models=20 (Garner, 1988; King & Stahl, 1985; Nist & Kirby, 1986; Pressley, = 1986;=20 Stahl, King & Henk, 1991) are numerous, but they do agree that = instruction=20 should be direct, informed, and explanatory. In other words, students = can be=20 trained to employ a strategy if they receive intensive instruction over = a=20 reasonable period of time that is characterized by (a) strategy=20 explanations and rationales (i.e., steps/tactics, advantages, = performance=20 enhancement issues, appropriate time and use considerations); (b) = strategy=20 modeling and talk throughs by the instructor; (c) examples from real = tasks and=20 texts that students will encounter; (d) guided practice with real texts, = followed by immediate and specific feedback and correction; (e) = debriefing=20 sessions that deal with questions, student doubts, and fix-up strategies = for=20 difficult concepts; (f) frequent independent practice opportunities = across=20 appropriate texts; and (g) guidelines on how to evaluate a strategy's = success or=20 failure.

Training=20 sequences such as these can help students with the declarative and = procedural=20 knowledge about strategy use. That is, such instruction will help = students=20 learn the what, how, and why of strategy employment. Once students = master the=20 declarative and procedural knowledge of a strategy, instructors must = then=20 consider the issues of strategy control and self-regulation. With our = next idea=20 we will address this important concern. =

Promote=20 Strategy Control and Regulation

To be=20 effective independent learners, college students need to be able to = control and=20 regulate the strategies they employ. Such control is a critical = aspect of=20 metacognition that involves learners in planning, monitoring, and = evaluating a=20 plan of action across a variety of tasks and texts (Kluwe, 1987). = Unfortunately,=20 research has demonstrated consistently that most college students, and=20 particularly those at risk, lack the abilities to plan, monitor, and = evaluate=20 their own learning (Weinstein & Rogers, 1984). Practically speaking, this = means that=20 college instructors should teach their students to (a) define tasks, = establish=20 goals, and allocate resources; (b) make a plan of action that = incorporates the=20 appropriate strategies and distributes time; (c) activate and monitor = the plan=20 of action and make appropriate changes, when necessary; and (d) evaluate = their=20 plans success or failure in terms of goals and the task in order to plan = for=20 future situations. In addition, to have strategic control, students must = have a=20 repertoire of strategies to choose from so they may select and adapt the = most=20 appropriate one to the specified task and text. =

Though difficult to obtain, = strategic=20 control and regulation can be facilitated when instructors use=20 cognitive-based course models that emphasize systematic training and = realistic=20 transfer opportunities. In addition, strategies such as PLAE (Simpson = &=20 Nist, 1984) can help students and instructors operationalize these = metacognitive=20 processes. PLAE is a research driven, recursive model that involves = students in=20 four stages of mastering strategy control and regulation. In stage 1, Preplanning, students define = the task=20 and set performance goals by answering a set of guiding questions. In = stage 2,=20 Listing, students list the = most=20 appropriate strategies and construct a task-specific study plan that = outlines=20 their specific goal for each study session, the amount of time they = predict it=20 will take to reach their goal, and where they will study. In stage 3, Activating, students = implement and=20 monitor the plan, making adjustments if their plans are not working. = Stage 4, Evaluation, occurs after = students have=20 received their test scores. Students evaluate their performance by = diagnosing=20 errors and looking for patterns of strengths and weaknesses. Students = then use=20 this information as they plan for subsequent tasks (e.g., exams). PLAE = has been=20 successful with high-risk college students in improving their = metacognition and=20 test performance across a variety of content areas (Nist & Simpson,=20 1989). =20

Strategies such as PLAE are among the most = valuable=20 students can learn. But learning how to use them effectively also = requires time=20 and practice. Unfortunately many developmentallevel students may = not be=20 motivated to expend such effort until they encounter immediate success = with and=20 benefits from the strategies they are learning in the reading and = learning=20 class. A number of other strategies offer more direct benefits to = college=20 learners in shorter instructional time.

Use High-Utility Strategies for Immediate=20 Acceptance

Experienced instructors realize = that many=20 students enter required reading/study strategies courses with = negative=20 attitudes about having been assigned to a "remedial" class. = Consequently, rather=20 than starting the term with processes that may take several weeks or all = term=20 for students to reap benefits from (e.g., scheduling and prioritizing=20 activities), instructors can begin by teaching a high-utility strategy = that=20 promotes immediate transfer to other course work. Instruction on how to = take=20 notes from lectures (Stahl, King, & Henk, 1991) or how to read and = remember=20 information from text through annotation (Simpson & Nist, 1990a) = provides=20 such an avenue to immediate use and probable course success. Once = students=20 realize that there is value in these strategies and develop a degree of = trust in=20 the instructor as a mentor, they are more apt to accept with equal value = those=20 techniques such as scheduling and planning activities which might seem a = bit=20 "preachie" or those methods such as multistep textbook study systems = that=20 require both time and effort to master.

Indeed,=20 being careful not to overlook the student's vantage point is of = importance in=20 designing a postsecondary reading/learning program. Yet we must be = careful not=20 to be so myopic in our desire to produce better readers and learners = that we=20 forget that there is power in integrating reading with writing = activities in the=20 developmental learning program. Many instructors, however, overlook the = value of=20 writing to teach reading, either as a step in a strategy or by = itself.=20

Incorporate Writing into the Curriculum=20

Writing=20 aids students in becoming cocreators of the texts they read, in creating = their=20 own articulated understanding of content material, and in providing a = means of=20 monitoring and revising that understanding (Hayes, Stahl, & Simpson, = 1991).=20 For instance, to elicit background knowledge before a reading = assignment, the=20 instructor could ask students to freewrite on the general subject of the = assignment, to write down all the questions the reading passage's title = brings=20 to mind, or to skim the passage and then freewrite on what they predict = the=20 passage will say or formulate questions or objections to what they think = will=20 appear in the passage. The instructor could also ask that, as students = read,=20 they pause for 3 minutes before going on to the next main heading (or if = no=20 headings appear, after every couple of pages) to summarize what they = have just=20 read, to write down questions about what remains unclear, or to respond=20 personally to what they have read. An instructor could have students = reflect on=20 an assignment during a 10-minute writing before class discussion of key=20 concepts. Not only do such writing activities engage students in the = reading=20 material, but they afford students an opportunity to monitor their = understanding=20 and to contribute more actively and knowledgeably to discussions (Hayes, = 1990).=20 In a sense, writing about reading assignments turns the reading process = inside=20 out, exposing readers to the inescapable constructivist activity of = creating=20 meaning in and from words.

A growing=20 body of research supports the benefits of incorporating writing within = the=20 reading curriculum. Best known, perhaps, are studies showing that having = students write summaries of reading selections can improve their reading = comprehension and recall abilities (Brown, Day, & Jones, 1983; = Johnson,=20 1982; Taylor & Berkowitz, 1980). Analytic writing has proven to = engage=20 students with reading material in even more cognitively complex ways = (Langer=20 & Applebee, 1987; Marshall, 1987). Such written analysis, and its=20 concomitant thinking, leads students to forge connections among the = various=20 levels of generality in a reading passage as it also engages them in=20 (re)creating coherent text structures. Daily reading logs and directed = writing=20 activities have been shown to increase remedial college students' = reading=20 comprehension and writing abilities (Hayes, 1987). The process of = writing, then,=20 can be an effective means of making sense of the written product.=20

Conclusion

These 10=20 recommendations certainly do not begin to touch on all that a beginning=20 instructor of reading and learning strategies should know. They do = provide a=20 beginning point for the novice. At the least, they offer some practical = ideas=20 for the classroom and provide some direction for further exploration. We = also=20 hope that they reinforce a commitment to teaching reading and learning = as=20 holistic, complex processes, not as discrete, simplistic skills.=20

Professional growth is a continuing process = that comes=20 with the deliberate decision to be part of the professional community of = postsecondary reading and learning specialists. This is the = professionalism that=20 has been required of all of the nation's developmental educators whether = they be=20 serving in community colleges, liberal arts colleges, or universities or = whether=20 they be employed in developmental programs, learning assistance centers, = or=20 Educational Opportunity Programs. This is the professionalism that comes = with=20 the ongoing reading of our professional journals and literature, and = with the=20 regular attendance at and participation in the local, state, regional, = and=20 national conferences offered throughout the year. This is the = professionalism=20 that is fully formed when one understands and appreciates Manzo=92s = (1983)=20 conception that college reading and learning is both a generator of new = ideas=20 and a repository of considerable wisdom. Yet, most of all, it is a level = of=20 professionalism that comes shining through the first time you share your = own=20 pedagogical knowledge of our field with a new member of the field who = also=20 wishes to be known as a college reading and learning specialist.=20

References

Abell, A.M. (1894). = Rapid=20 reading: Advantages and methods. Educational Review, = 8,=20 283-286.=20

Alvermann, D.E.,=20 & Moore, D.W (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. = Barr, M.L.=20 Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: = Volume II=20 (pp. 951-983). New York: Longman.=20

Bartholomae, D.,=20 & Petrosky, A. (1986). Facts, artifacts and counterfacts: = Theory and=20 method for a reading and writing course. Upper Montclair, NJ : Boynton/Cook.=20

Boese, H.=20 (1986). Common allusions and foreign terms. = Redlands, CA: = Simplicity=20 Press.

Brown, A.L.,=20 Campione, J.C., & Day J.D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training = students=20 to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10, = 14-21. =

Brown, A.L., Day, = J.D., &=20 Jones, R.S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. = Child Development, 54, 968-979. =

Bullock, T,=20 & Madden, D.R. (1986). Developmental reading program innovations and = practices. In D. Lumpkin, M. Harshberger, & P. Ransom (Eds.), = Evaluation in Reading: Learning, = Teaching,=20 Administering-Sixth Yearbook of the=20 American Reading Forum (pp.=20 126-131). Muncie, IN: American Reading Forum. =

Caverly, D.C., & = Orlando,=20 V.P. (1991). Textbook study strategies. In R.A. Flippo & D.C. = Caverly=20 (Eds.), Teaching reading & study = strategies at=20 the college level (pp.=20 86-165). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.=20

Flippo, R.A.,=20 & Caverly, D.C. (1991). Teaching reading and study = strategies at the=20 college level. Newark, DE:=20 International Reading Association.

Garfield, L.,=20 & McHugh, E.A. (1978). Learning counseling: A higher education = student=20 support service. Journal of Higher Education, 19, 382-392. =

Garner, R. (1988). Metacognition and reading = comprehension.=20 Norwood, NJ: = Ablex.=20

Haggard, M.R. (1982). The = vocabulary=20 self-collection strategy: An active approach to word learning. Journal of Reading, 26, 203-207. =

Harri-Augstein,=20 S., Smith, M., & Thomas, L. (1982). Reading to learn. London: Methuen.=20

Hayes, C.G.=20 (1987). Teaching basic reading to basic writers. Journal of Reading, 31, 100-108. =

= Hayes, C.G. (1990, May). Using writing to promote reading to = learn in=20 college. Paper = presented at=20 the Annual Convention of the International Reading Association, Atlanta, = GA.=20 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322 499)=20

Hayes, C.G., Stahl, = N.A., &=20 Simpson, M.L. (1991). Language, understanding, knowledge: Theories and=20 strategies for empowering developmental students to participate in the = academy.=20 Reading Research and Instruction,=20 30, 89-100.=20

Johnson, N.S. (1982). = What do=20 you do if you can't tell the whole story? The development of = summarization=20 skills. In K.E. Nelson (Ed.), Children's language (Vol. = 5). New York:: Gardner.=20

King, J.R.,=20 & Stahl, N.A. (1985). Training and evaluating notetaking. In L.M. = Gentile=20 (Ed.), Reading Education in Texas: A = Yearbook=20 of the Texas State Council of the = International=20 Reading Association (pp.=20 115-119). Irving, TX: Texas State Council of the International Reading=20 Association.

King, J.R.,=20 Stahl, N.A., & Brozo, W.G. (1984). Integrating study skills and = orientation=20 courses. Forum for Reading. 16, 6-13. =

Kluwe, R.H.=20 (1987). Executive decisions and regulation of problem solving behavior. = In F.E.=20 Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and = understanding=20 (pp. 31-64). = Hillsdale, NJ:=20 Earlbaum.

=20 Langer, J.A., & Applebee, A.N. = (1987).=20 How writing shapes thinking: A study = of teaching and learning = (NCTE Research Report No. 22). = Urbana, IL:=20 National Council of Teachers of English.

Mallery, A.L.,=20 & Bullock, TL. (1985). Two models of developmental reading = instruction:=20 Fused or paired. In G.H. McNinch (Ed.), Reading Research in 1984; = Comprehension,=20 Computers, Communication-Fifth Yearbook of=20 the American Reading = Forum (pp.=20 87-91). Athens, GA: American Reading = Forum.=20

Manzo, A.V.=20 (1983). College reading: Past and = presenting.=20 Forum for Reading, 14, 5-16. =

Marshall, J.D. = (1987). The effects of writing on students' = understanding of literary texts. Research in the Teaching = of=20 English, 21, = 30-63. =

Martin, D.C.=20 (1980). Learning centers in professional = schools. In=20 K.V. Lauridsen (Ed.), New directions for college learning = assistance: Examining the scope of=20 learning centers.=20 San Francisco:=20 Jossey-Bass.

Mealey D.L.=20 (1991). Doctoral program guidelines for = college=20 reading instructors: A theory-based approach. Journal of=20 College Reading and = Learning,=20 23(2), 47-54. =

Moore, E.C.=20 (1915). An experiment in teaching college = students=20 how to study. School and Society, 2, 100-107. =

National Society=20 for the Study of Education. (1920). Reading instruction for college = students. In=20 New Materials of=20 Instruction-19th Yearbook of=20 the National Society for the Study=20 of=20 Education (Part I) (pp. 52-57). Bloomington, IL: Public School = Publishing=20 Company.

Nist, S.L., & = Hynd, C.R.=20 (1985). The college reading lab: An old = story with a=20 new twist. Journal of=20 Reading, 28, = 305-309. =

Nist, S.L., & = Kirby, K.=20 (1986). Teaching comprehension and study = strategies=20 through modeling and thinking aloud. Reading Research and Instruction, = 25,=20 254-264. =

Nist, S.L.,=20 & Simpson, M.L. (1989). PLAE, a validated study strategy. = Journal of=20 Reading, 33, = 182-186. =

Paris, S.G.,=20 Lipson, M.Y, & Wixson, K.K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. = Contemporary Educational = Psychology, 8,=20 293-316. =

Pauk, W=20 (1984). How to study in college = (3rd=20 ed.). Boston: = Houghton=20 Mifflin.

Pressley, M.=20 (1986). The relevance of the good strategy = user model=20 to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, = 139-161. =

Resnick, L.B.=20 (1981). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of=20 Psychology, 32,=20 659-704. =

Sartain, H.W. = (1981). The languages of=20 the disciplines.=20 Pittsburgh, PA: = University=20 of Pittsburgh and the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary = Education.=20

Sartain, H.W.,=20 Stahl, N.A., Ani, U.A., Bohn, S., Holly B., Smolenski, C.S., & = Stein, D.W.=20 (1982). Teaching techniques for the = languages=20 of=20 the disciplines. Pittsburgh, PA: University of = Pittsburgh and=20 the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.=20

Simpson, M.L. = (1983). The preparation of a college = reading=20 specialist: Some philosophical perspectives. Reading World, 22, 213-223. =

Simpson, M.L. (1986). PORPE: A writing strategy for = studying and=20 learning in the content areas. Journal of=20 Reading, 29, = 407-414

=20 Simpson, M.L., & Dwyer, E.J. (1991). Vocabulary acquisition and the = college=20 student. In R.A. Flippo & D.C. Caverly (Eds.), Teaching reading & study = strategies at=20 the college level, (pp. = 1-41). Newark, DE: International Reading=20 Association.

Norman A. Stahl,=20 Associate=20 Professor,=20 Faculty in=20 Reading, = Northern Illinois = University,=20 DeKalb, IL=20 60115-2854 =

Christopher G. = Hayes, Associate = Professor, Division of Developmental = Studies,=20 University of = Georgia, Athens,=20 GA 30602