From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 8" Subject: Reprinted from the Journal of Developmental Education Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 08:41:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.ncde.appstate.edu/resources/reports/documents/10_Recommendations_Article.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7601.17609
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Incorporate Writing into the Curriculum
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.
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.
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.
References
Abell, A.M. (1894). =
Rapid=20
reading: Advantages and methods. Educational Review, =
8,=20
283-286.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, =
=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.
Simpson, M.L., Hayes, =
C.G.,=20
& Stahl, N.A. (1989). PORPE: A validation study. Journal of=20
Reading, =
33, 22-29.
Simpson,=20
M.L., Hayes, C.G., Stahl, N.A., Connor, R.T., & Weaver, D. (1988). =
An=20
initial validation of a study strategy system. Journal of=20
Reading Behavior, 20, =
149-180.
=20
Simpson, M.L., & Nist, S.L. (1984). PLAE: A model for planning =
successful=20
independent learning. Journal of Reading, 28, =
218-223.
Simpson, M.L., & =
Nist, S.L.=20
(1990a). Textbook annotation: An effective and efficient study strategy =
for=20
college students. Journal of=20
Reading, 34, 122-131.
Simpson, M.L., & =
Nist, S.L.=20
(1990b, December). A situational analysis of=20
academic tasks. =
Paper presented at the National =
Reading=20
Conference, Miami, FL.
Simpson, M.L., & =
Nist, S.L.=20
(1992). Toward defining a comprehensive assessment model for college =
reading.=20
Journal of=20
Reading, =
35, 452-458.
Simpson, M.L., Nist, =
S.L., &=20
Kirby, K. (1987). Ideas in practice: Vocabulary strategies designed for =
college=20
students. Journal of=20
Developmental Education, 11(2),=20
20-24.
Simpson, M.L., Stahl, N.A., & =
Hayes, C.G.=20
(1988). PORPE: A comprehensive study strategy utilizing self-assigned =
writing.=20
Journal of=20
College Reading and =
Learning,=20
22, 51-55.
=20
Stahl, N.A, Brozo, W.G., & Gordon, B. (1984). The professional =
preparation=20
of college reading and study skills specialists. In G.H. McNinch (Ed.),=20
Reading Teacher Education-Fourth Yearbook of=20
the American Reading =
Forum (pp.=20
47-50). Athens, =
GA: American=20
Reading Forum.
=20 Stahl, N.A., Brozo, W.G., & Simpson, M.L. (1987). Developing college = vocabulary: A content analysis of instructional materials. Reading Research and Instruction, = 26,=20 203-221.=20
Stahl, N.A., & =
Henk, W.A.=20
(1986). Tracing the roots of textbook-study systems: An extended =
historical=20
perspective. In J.A. Niles (Ed.), Solving=20
Problems in Literacy: Learners, Teachers @ Researchers-35th Yearbook of=20
the National Reading Conference =
(pp.=20
366-373). =
Rochester, NY: The=20
National Reading Conference.
Stahl, N.A., Hynd, C.R., & =
Brozo, W.G.=20
(1990). The development and validation of a comprehensive list of =
primary=20
sources in college reading instruction. Reading Horizons, 31, =
22-34.
Stahl, N.A., King, =
J.R., &=20
Henk, W.A. (1991). Enhancing students' notetaking through systematic,=20
self-directed training and evaluation procedures. Journal of=20
Reading, 34, =
614-623.
Stone, C.W., & =
Colvin, C.=20
(1920). Study as a source of motive in educational psychology. Journal of=20
Educational =
Psychology, 11,=20
348-354.
Taylor, B.M., & =
Berkowitz,=20
S. (1980). Facilitating children's comprehension of content area =
material. In M.=20
Kamil & A. Moe (Eds.), Perspectives on reading and =
instruction (pp.=20
64-68). =
Washington, DC:=20
National Reading Conference.
Thomas, J.W., & =
Rohwer, W.D.=20
(1986). Academic studying: The role of learning strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21,=20
19-41.
Weinstein, C.E., & Rogers, B.T. =
(1984,=20
April). Comprehension monitoring: The =
neglected=20
learning strategy. Paper=20
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research =
Association, New=20
Orleans, LA.
=20
Zimmerman, B.J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the =
key=20
subprocesses? Contemporary Educational =
Psychology, 11,=20
307-313.
Norman A. Stahl
Michele L. =
Simpson
Christopher G. =
Hayes