14th annual survey reveals some "crumbling pillars" of reading instruction

By Jack Cassidy and Drew Cassidy

Fourteen years ago, when the "What's hot" surveys began, we had no expectations that they would become yearly events. The first article was only about 500 words long and appeared somewhere in the middle of Reading Today.

Despite that less than prominent placement, the article attracted notice. People talked about it; allusions were made to the findings at major conferences for literacy educators. Soon, a decision was made to make the column a yearly feature. Thus, since that first piece, the annual survey has appeared on the first page of Reading Today and has more than quadrupled in length.

The annual list has been cited in countless book chapters, journal articles, and conference presentations. It has been translated into Spanish and replicated, in slightly modified form, in the United Kingdom and Romania as well as in many states in the United States. Newspapers such as Education Week have summarized the findings and interviewed the authors.

In addition, longer discussions of the results have appeared in many journals and book chapters. For 2010, three longer articles in various educational venues are planned. One of these, an invited commentary titled "Adolescent & Adult Literacy: What's Hot, What's Not," will appear in the March issue of the International Reading Association's Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.

The hottest topics and those losing heat

This year, there are eight "very hot" topics, up from five in 2009. Five of the "very hot" topics in 2010 were also the "very hot" topics in 2009: adolescent literacy, English as a second language/English–language learners, high–stakes assessment, literacy coaches/reading coaches, and response to intervention (RTI). The other three "very hot" topics were comprehension, early intervention, and struggling/striving readers (grade 4 and above).

There are no surprises in the list of "very hot" topics. The surprise for this year centers on the topics that have "cooled off": scientific evidence–based reading research and instruction and fluency. We'll talk more about those later in the article. Of the "very hot" topics, RTI is definitely the "hottest" of the "very hot."

Explaining the survey

This survey of literacy leaders has been conducted each year since 1996. During the months of April through September, 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 to respondents that their ratings of "hot" and "not hot" do not necessarily reflect their personal interest, or lack thereof, in a given topic. Rather, the ratings refer to the level of attention that a given topic is currently receiving.

Sometimes we must remind new respondents that "hot" is not synonymous with "important." Our results would be quite different if respondents were asked, "Is this important?"

After hearing the introductory paragraph, each respondent is asked to rate a given topic as "hot" or "not hot." Each respondent is then asked if the topic "should be hot" or "should not be hot." The resulting chart, consisting of how the topics were rated, is then published in Reading Today.

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, additions, and deletions. If some of the literacy leaders fail to respond, they are called or e–mailed again and urged to respond. For the 2010 survey, 21 of the 2009 leaders eventually provided suggestions for additions, modifications, and deletions. Based on those suggestions, we constructed this year's list.

Two of the topics on the 2009 survey were eliminated. One of those topics, multicultural literature, had been on the "cold" list for some time. The other eliminated topic, direct/explicit instruction, had actually been a hot topic for many years, but last year began to cool off.

Based on input from the 2009 respondents, one topic on the 2010 list was modified, and two topics were added. The topic new literacies/media literacies was modified to be new literacies/digital literacies. Over the years that topic has undergone a number of modifications. The two topics added were differentiated instruction (which was rated "hot") and intertextuality/reading multiple texts (which was rated "not hot").

Selecting the respondents

We select each year's respondents based on a number of criteria. The first and most important criterion is that they must have a national or international perspective 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 each of IRA's most widely read 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, from Canada, and from 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 22% of IRA's individual members. Therefore, we should interview about five literacy leaders from the Southeast; this year we interviewed exactly five literacy leaders from the Southeast.

We also try to see that different job categories are represented on the list (such as teachers, college professors, and administrators) and that it is ethnically diverse. However, the main criterion for inclusion is that the literacy leader has knowledge of trends and issues at the national or international level.

Some people have assumed that "literacy leader" is synonymous with "literacy expert." However, some of those interviewed would probably not refer to themselves as "experts." Still, because of their positions or studies, they have access to a broad range of current information about issues affecting literacy.

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." A square symbol 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 2010 than it was for 2009. A (—) indicates that the topic is colder for 2010 than it was for 2009. An (*) indicates that the topic is new for 2010.

Explaining some topics

Most 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 to be of a distinctly U.S. origin 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 development 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 literacy coach is not a licensed reading specialist and/or serves more than one school. Several respondents expressed concern that literacy coaches might disappear because the term is too closely connected to the Reading First legislation.

Response to intervention (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 action.

In order to curtail the number of referrals for special education, legislation now allows for some preventive measures. Thus, a percentage of the money normally 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.

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 respondents agreeing that this topic was receiving a great deal of attention). Last year, we had the same finding.

Of the eight "very hot" topics this year, five were "very hot" in 2008 and 2009 as well: adolescent literacy, English as a second language/English–language learners, high–stakes assessment, literacy coaches/reading coaches, and RTI. The other three "very hot" topics for 2010 were comprehension, early intervention, and struggling/striving readers (grade 4 and above). Both comprehension and early intervention have periodically slipped off the "very hot" list in the last five years, but they always seem to find their way back.

As noted earlier, the hottest of the "very hot" topics this year was RTI, and close behind was adolescent literacy. In regard to adolescent literacy, the Alliance for Excellent Education (www.all4ed.org) has done much to make legislators aware of the needs of U.S. high schools and the successful efforts at reform. The organization's report Reading Next—A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy: A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York is still widely cited.

A more recent report, Time to Act: An Agenda for Advancing Adolescent Literacy for College and Career Success, identifies adolescent literacy as the key to meaningful educational reform. This report, which was released on September 15, 2009, is a culmination of a five–year study of the literacy skills of students in grades 4 through 12.

Among the characteristics of exemplary schools identified in the report is a literacy coach who devotes 100% of his or her time to coaching. Heretofore, literacy coaches have been most often associated with the primary grades. Perhaps literacy coaches will continue to be "hot" as more secondary schools make use of them. The attention being paid to adolescent literacy also explains why struggling/striving readers (grade 4 and above) is now a "very hot" topic.

Undoubtedly, the attention being directed toward RTI can be attributed to the overidentification of students for special education in the United States and the possibility of using some of the money normally allocated for special education to prevent overidentification. Unfortunately, as several respondents have noted, there is a debate over who will control the funds allocated for RTI and thus who will control the instruction. Should literacy professionals be in charge, should special educators be in control, or should the classroom teacher be in charge? One respondent remarked that he hoped that this debate would not turn into the "new reading wars."

The crumbling pillars: the cooling topics

Based on the report of the National Reading Panel (NRP), certain areas of reading instruction have been stressed for the last decade. These areas of focus were phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary.

The NRP never said these were the only areas deserving attention, nor did it even say that these were the most important components of reading instruction. The NRP report merely said that these were the areas about which there was enough good scientific research to generate some conclusions about instruction. However, many interpreted the NRP findings to mean that these areas were essential to all reading instruction. Thus, these five topics became known as the "five pillars" of reading instruction.

The mortar that held the five pillars together was scientific evidence–based reading research. In the 2010 list, for the first time in a decade, scientific evidence–based reading research and instruction is rated as "not hot."

A number of factors have probably contributed to the change. First, results of Reading First programs employing carefully controlled scientific research have failed to demonstrate the dramatic improvements in student learning that advocates predicted. Secondly, the Obama administration has emphasized innovation—not necessarily research–based instruction.

Furthermore, a recent report from the William T. Grant Foundation of New York City entitled Toward a Research Agenda for Understanding and Improving the Use of Research Evidence found that administrators and policymakers do not appear to be influenced by empirical research findings. Most of the respondents to the 2010 survey agreed that scientific evidence–based reading research and instruction "should not be hot." Apparently, they felt that, in the past, too much attention had been paid to strict scientific research.

Another of the crumbling pillars is fluency. For the first time since it appeared on the list, this topic is rated as "not hot." Thus, three of the five pillars are rated "not hot"; furthermore, respondents agree that all three "should not be hot."

The two remaining pillars, comprehension and vocabulary word meaning, were hot, and respondents generally agreed that they should be. Those in the field of literacy have long argued that these should be the major focus of all good reading instruction.

Goals of the survey

In the early years of this survey, we would often receive communications from readers alleging that publication of such material contributes to a "bandwagon effect" 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. Sometimes respondents will say a topic "should be hot" not because they are advocates of the practice but because they believe more research needs to be done on that topic.

Unfortunately, a newspaper is not the proper venue to discuss all of the subtleties in the comments of the respondents. The purpose of the survey has always 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 "what 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.

Also, educators can take advantage of the attention focused on some of these issues and make needed changes in their schools. Thus, because in 2010 adolescent literacy, RTI, and literacy coaches are "very hot," now might be the time to involve literacy coaches in the secondary schools to train classroom teachers in the use of the three–tier model before referring students for special education.

A final statement about 2010

Overall, it appears that 2010 will be a year of transition—of change. The "hot" topics that were the cornerstones of the Bush administration's policies on literacy (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and scientific evidence–based reading research and instruction) have definitely cooled off—they are "not hot." Furthermore, most of our respondents agree that they "should not be hot."

Could we be moving toward an era where the "hot" topics are those our respondents agree "should be hot"? Let's wait and see.

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, SchoolRise LLC, Hawaii; Thomas Bean, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Heather Bell, Rosebank School, New Zealand; David Bloome, The Ohio State University; Karen Bromley, Binghamton University, SUNY, New York; William G. Brozo, George Mason University, Virginia; Robert Cooter, Bellarmine University, Kentucky; Patricia A. Edwards, Michigan State University; James V. Hoffman, University of Texas; Barbara Kapinus, National Education Association, Washington, DC; Donald J. Leu, University of Connecticut; P. David Pearson, University of California at Berkeley; Taffy Raphael, University of Illinois–Chicago; Timothy Rasinski, Kent State University, Ohio; D. Ray Reutzel, Utah State University; Victoria J. Risko, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; Lori Rog Jamison, Toronto, Canada; Misty Sailors, University of Texas–San Antonio; S. Jay Samuels, University of Minnesota; Timothy Shanahan, University of Illinois–Chicago; Dorothy Strickland, Rutgers University, New Jersey; and Linda Young, Hans Herr Elementary School, Pennsylvania.

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

What's hot for 2010. (December 2009/January 2010). Reading Today, 27(3), 1, 8, 9.