What's hot for 2009

National Reading Panel influence wanes in 13th annual survey

By Jack Cassidy and Drew Cassidy

The survey of literacy leaders to determine the hottest topics in the field began 13 years ago, and the results have appeared every year since then in Reading Today, the membership newspaper of the International Reading Association (IRA). When this project began, no one knew it would receive so much attention.

Comments come from classroom teachers, administrators, publishers, and college professors. The list is used as an introduction in university courses on literacy trends and issues and as a basis for staff development in schools. The list has been translated into Spanish, summarized in local newspapers, and cited in countless journal articles and books. In the United States, the survey has been replicated using literacy leaders from individual states. The survey has been replicated both in the United Kingdom and Romania, with slightly modified topics.

The hottest topics and those losing heat

During the early part of this decade, the report of the National Reading Panel (www.nationalreadingpanel.org) seemed to be a major determinant of many of the "hot" topics on the "What's Hot" list (see the chart). That situation has definitely changed, but more about that later.

This year there were, once again, no "extremely hot" topics, but there were five "very hot" topics-down from nine "very hot" topics last year. These five "very hot" topics were: adolescent literacy, English as a second language/English-language learners, high-stakes assessment, literacy coaches/reading coaches, and Response to Intervention (RTI). All of these "very hot" topics were on the "very hot" list last year.

The topics that were "very hot" last year and now are merely "hot" include early intervention, fluency, informational texts, and scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction. Three of those topics (early intervention, fluency, and scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction) are generally associated with the report of the National Reading Panel.

The survey

This survey of literacy leaders has been conducted since 1996. From April through October, 25 literacy leaders are interviewed, either in person or by phone. All are read a standard 178-word paragraph defining "hot" and "not hot." It is also explained that their ratings of "hot" and "not hot" do not necessar-ily reflect their personal interest, or lack thereof, in a given topic. Rather, the ratings refer to the level of attention a given topic is currently receiving.

After hearing the introductory paragraph, each respondent is asked to rate a topic as "hot" or "not hot." Each respondent also is asked if the topic "should be hot" or "should not be hot." The results charting how the topics were rated is published in Reading Today at the beginning of the following year.

Constructing the survey

Each year, the 25 literacy leaders who responded to the list of topics the previous year are sent that year's list and asked to make modifications, addi-tions, and deletions. For the 2009 survey, 22 of the 2008 leaders provided input. Based on their suggestions, we constructed this year's list.

Three of the topics on the 2008 survey were eliminated. One of those, family literacy, had been on the "cold" or "extremely cold" list for some time. Several respondents stated that another topic, reading/learning disabilities, was now being considered topically under RTI. Finally, gender issues in literacy long had been a target for removal.

Based on input from the 2008 respondents, two topics from the 2008 list were modified, and two topics were added. The topic critical literacy/reading was modified to be critical reading and writing, and the topic motivation was changed to motivation/engagement. The two topics that were added were adult literacy and literacy and adolescent boys. One might argue that this last topic is merely a modification of gender issues in literacy, but we decided that it was sufficiently different to classify it as a new topic.

Selecting the respondents

We select each year's respondents based on certain criteria. The first and most important criterion is that they must have a national or international per-spective on literacy. Thus, we often select those who are on the boards of prominent literacy organizations such as IRA, the National Reading Conference, and the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers. Some editors of the major journals in the field are usually included. We always try to get at least one editor from three IRA journals: The Reading Teacher, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, and Reading Research Quarterly.

We also select respondents from various geographical areas in the United States, Canada, as well as outside North America. The percentage of IRA members in a given area determines the number of literacy leaders we interview from that area. For instance, the Southeastern region of the United States has approximately 20% of IRA's individual members. Therefore, we should probably interview about five literacy leaders from the Southeast; this year, we interviewed exactly five literacy leaders from the Southeast.

In assembling our list, we also try to see that different job categories are represented (such as teachers, college professors, and administrators) and that the list is ethnically diverse. Nonetheless, the main criterion for inclusion in the respondent group is that the literacy leader has knowledge of trends and issues at the national or international level.

Reading the chart

The chart shows what the literacy leaders think is "hot" or "not hot" as well as what they think "should be hot" and "should not be hot." One square in a column indicates that a majority of those interviewed gave a particular response; we call these topics "hot" or "not hot." Two squares indicate that at least 75% of those surveyed gave a particular response; we call those topics "very hot" or "cold." Three squares indicate 100% agreement; we call these topics "extremely hot" or "extremely cold."

On the chart a ( ) indicates that the topic is hotter for 2009 than it was for 2008. A (-) indicates that the topic is less hot for 2009 than it was for 2008. An ( ) indicates that the topic is new for 2009.

Explaining some topics

Most of the topics listed on the chart are self-explanatory, although sometimes a given respondent can have his or her individual definition for a topic. However, several terms that appear distinctly to have originated in the United States require a bit more explanation.

A literacy coach or reading coach is a reading professional who focuses on providing staff development in reading/language arts to teachers. Literacy coaches or reading coaches do this by modeling appropriate strategies, observing in classrooms, conferring with teachers, and conducting staff develop-ment seminars.

Ideally, the literacy coach works in only one school and is a certified reading specialist. Unfortunately, in many instances, this is not the case; the liter-acy coach is not a licensed reading specialist and/or serves more than one school. Several respondents expressed fear that literacy coaches may be eliminated because the concept of literacy coaching is too closely connected to the Reading First legislation.

The phrase RTI seems to be another term that is unique to the United States. Like many topics on the list, this term originated with U.S. legislative ac-tion. In order to reduce the number of referrals for special education, legislation now allows for some preventive measures. Thus, a percentage of the money usually allocated for special education can now be used for quality in-class instruction; if that intervention does not work, some short-term, small-group, or individual intervention may be initiated, possibly by a reading specialist. If that does not work, the third level of intervention is more long-term in nature and could involve referral to a special education class.

This model is sometimes referred to as the three-tier model, but it is not the only model. A more thorough discussion of the RTI issue appears on IRA's website at www.reading.org and in the article by IRA's RTI Commission on page 1.

Some hot issues

Each year we take particular note of some of the hottest topics in the field. This year no topic received the "extremely hot" designation (i.e. all of our re-spondents agreeing that a topic was receiving a great deal of attention.) Of the five "very hot" topics this year, all were "very hot" last year. The "very hot" topics for 2009 are: adolescent literacy, English as a second language/English-language learners, high-stakes assessment, literacy coaches/reading coaches, and RTI. Of these, the hottest of the "very hot" topics were adolescent literacy and RTI.

The excessive high school dropout rate in the United States, coupled with some discouraging scores by U.S. adolescents on international assessments of literacy, have undoubtedly contributed to the attention adolescent literacy is receiving. On a positive note, the Alliance for Excellent Education (www.all4ed.org) has done much to make legislators aware of the needs of American high schools and of some successful reform efforts that have been undertaken.

Undoubtedly, the attention being directed toward RTI can be attributed to the over identification of students for special education in the United States, and the possibility of using some of the money usually allocated for special education to actually preventing over identification.

NCLB, Reading First, and NRP influence wanes

The meta-analysis of reading research done by the National Reading Panel (NRP; www.nationalreadingpanel.org) laid the groundwork for much of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Reading First legislation of the George W. Bush administration. The National Reading Panel looked at studies using scientific evidence-based research methodology and identified five areas that had been sufficiently researched to justify drawing some positive conclusions: comprehension, fluency, phonemic awareness, phonics, and word meaning/vocabulary. These five aspects of reading became known as the five "pillars" of reading instruction.

Most literacy leaders have expressed concern that these five pillars were being perceived by some people as equally important. Generally, comprehen-sion and word meaning/vocabulary were understood by those in the field of reading to be much more important than the other three "pillars." Luckily, com-prehension and word meaning/vocabulary remain "hot," and virtually all our respondents agreed that they "should be hot." This year, phonics and phone-mic awareness are again on the "not hot" list, and fluency and scientific evidence-based research and instruction changed from "very hot" to "hot."

Many researchers long have argued that different types of research should be considered besides the experimental, randomly assigned control group studies generally associated with the notion of scientific evidence-based research. Most of our respondents believe that both fluency and scientific evi-dence-based reading research and instruction "should not be hot." Direct/explicit instruction, which is often associated with Reading First legislation, has now dropped to the "not hot" list.

The "cold" topics

The five coldest topics on the 2009 list are adult literacy, motivation/engagement, multicultural literature, teacher education for reading, and writing. Three of these topics (motivation/engagement, multicultural literature, and writing) were also the coldest issues last year. The surprise addition to the list is teacher education for reading. IRA had hoped to direct attention to this topic with the awarding of the Certificate of Distinction for quality undergraduate and licensure reading programs that prepare elementary and secondary classroom teachers (www.reading.org). Perhaps, as more educators become aware of the certificate, teacher education for reading will move into the "hot" column.

Using the survey as an advocacy tool

In the early years of this survey, we often heard from readers who believed that publication of the "What's hot" list would contribute to a "bandwagon ef-fect" with researchers and teachers focusing only on the hottest topics. We always took pains to make sure that the term "hot" was not synonymous with the word "important." That distinction became clearer when we added the "should be hot" and "should not be hot" columns in 2000. However, even the reasons for the "should be hot" and "should not be hot" responses are varied.

For instance, one of the literacy leaders stated that although he was not an advocate of high-stakes assessment, he believed that the topic "should be hot" because more research was needed on the effects of high-stakes assessment. Space constraints in Reading Today preclude discussing the subtleties of the respondents' comments.

The purpose of the survey always has been to acquaint readers with those issues that are receiving attention, thus perhaps encouraging them to investigate these topics in more depth. We also hope that the discrepancies between the "hot" list and the "should be hot" list will encourage our readers to be more active advocates for the best literacy practices in their own schools and political arenas.

Educators can take advantage of the attention being received by some of these issues and make needed changes in their schools. Thus, because in 2009 adolescent literacy, RTI, and literacy coaches are "very hot," now might be the time to involve literacy coaches in the secondary schools. It might also be a good time to involve literacy coaches in training classroom teachers in the use of the three-tier model before referring students for special education.

A final statement about 2009

Overall, it appears that there is very little change in the "What's Hot" list for 2009 from the 2008 list. Perhaps, 2009 can best be characterized as the "wait and see year." Wait and see what changes the global economy will have on education in general and literacy instruction in particular. Wait and see what education initiatives of the Obama presidency will be funded. Wait and see what kind of educational research will emerge.

Jack Cassidy, a former IRA president, is director of the Center for Educational Development, Evaluation, and Research (CEDER) and associate dean for graduate studies for the College of Education at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. Drew Cassidy formerly taught at the same university. Questions or comments about this survey can be directed to jack.cassidy@tamucc.edu.

Editor's note: For the second year in a row, the National Literacy Trust has conducted a United Kingdom version of the "What's hot, what's not" survey. For further information, visit www.literacytrust.org.

Survey respondents

Participants in this year's survey were Sherry Alleman, Stacy Middle School, Massachusetts; Richard Allington, University of Tennessee; Donna Alvermann, University of Georgia; Kathryn H. Au, University of Hawaii; Betsy Baker, Columbia Public Schools, Missouri; Rita Bean, University of Pittsburgh; Thomas Bean, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Heather Bell, Rosebank School, New Zealand; David Bloome, The Ohio State University; Michael Bowden, British Columbia, Canada; William G. Brozo, George Mason University, Virginia; Robert Cooter, Bellarmine University, Kentucky; Patricia A. Edwards, Michigan State University; Alan Farstrup, International Reading Association, Delaware; James V. Hoffman, University of Texas; Barbara Kapinus, National Education Association, Washington, DC; Donald J. Leu, University of Connecticut; Maryann Manning, University of Alabama-Birmingham; P. David Pearson, University of California at Berkeley; Timothy Rasinski, Kent State University, Ohio; D. Ray Reutzel, Utah State University, Cathy Roller, International Reading Association, Washington, DC; Timothy Shanahan, University of Illinois-Chicago; Dorothy Strickland, Rutgers University, New Jersey; and Barbara Walker, Oklahoma State University.

What's hot for 2009. (February/March 2009). Reading Today, 26(4), 1, 8, 9.