Adolescent literacy ranks as hottest topic in 11th annual survey
by Jack Cassidy and Drew Cassidy
This year marks the start of a new decade for the “What’s Hot” survey. It also marks an expansion of the survey; not only are we providing the list of what’s hot and what’s not, but we’re also providing a bit more discussion of some of the topics on the list.
When we began this list of hot topics, we had no idea that 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. Last year, a summary of the 2006 “What’s Hot” article appeared in the widely distributed weekly periodical, Education Week.
The 2007 list contains one extremely hot issue—adolescent literacy. Not only did all our respondents agree that this was a hot issue, but they also all agreed that it should be a hot issue.
There were also seven “very hot” topics: direct/explicit instruction; English as a second language/English-language learners; fluency; high-stakes assessment; informational texts; literacy coaches/reading coaches; and scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction. All of these topics were on the “very hot” list last year, but there were also six others that dropped off the “very hot” list, and, for at least one, the drop was precipitous. But, before we comment on some of these topics, let’s look at how this list is compiled.
This survey of literacy leaders has been conducted each year since 1996. Between April and August, 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 necessarily 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 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 with the topics rated is then published in Reading Today at the beginning of the following year.
Each year the 25 literacy leaders who responded to the list of topics the previous year are sent the previous year’s list and asked to make modifications, additions, and deletions. We enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope for them to send back their responses. If some of the literacy leaders fail to respond, they are called or e-mailed and urged to respond. For the 2007 survey, 23 of the leaders in 2006 eventually provided suggestions for additions, modifications, and deletions. Based on those suggestions, we constructed this year’s list.
Two topics from 2006 were eliminated: guided reading and literature-based instruction. Three topics were added: curriculum-based assessment, professional staff development, and response to intervention. As in the year before, many of the 2006 literacy leaders also wanted gender issues in literacy eliminated, but since that topic has been on the list for a relatively short period of time, we decided again to keep it for at least another year.
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 College Reading Association. Some editors of the major journals in the field are usually included.
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 Eastern region of the United States has approximately 27% of IRA’s individual members. Therefore, we should probably interview about seven literacy leaders from the East; this year we interviewed exactly seven literacy leaders from the East.
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. However, 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.
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 2007 than it was for 2006. A (-) indicates that the topic is less hot for 2007 than it was for 2006. An (*) indicates that the topic is new for 2007.
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 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.
The phrase response to intervention seems to be another one that is unique to the United States, and even some of our U.S. respondents were unsure of the term’s definition. Like many topics on the list, this term originated with some 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 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 response to intervention issue appears on IRA’s website at www.reading.org.
Each year we take particular note of some of the hottest topics in the field. This year adolescent literacy is “extremely hot”; all of our respondents agreed that this topic is receiving a great deal of attention. Furthermore, all of the respondents agreed that it should be receiving this attention. Since we added the “should be hot/should not be hot” columns in 2000, this is the first time everyone has agreed that a topic is “hot” and “should be hot.”
Of the seven “very hot” topics this year, all were also “very hot” last year. The “very hot” topics are: direct/explicit instruction; English as a second language/English-language learners; fluency; high-stakes assessment; informational texts; literacy coaches/reading coaches; and scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction. Except for direct/explicit instruction and high-stakes assessment, most of our respondents felt that these topics should be “hot.”
Like last year, the political situation in the United States has probably had a major influence on the hot topics. The Bush administration’s reading legislation has targeted children whose first language is not English (English as a second language/English-language learners). States and districts must also demonstrate that they are using valid and reliable measures of accountability. Sometimes, these high-stakes assessments can result in a child being retained in a given grade and could even result in an entire school district being taken over by the state.
Many of the advocated programs also make extensive use of explicit, teacher-directed instruction (direct/explicit instruction). All of the programs and methods used must demonstrate a strong scientific research base (scientifically evidence-based reading research and instruction). Using federal monies, many districts have hired literacy coaches or reading coaches to help schools and teachers implement much of this legislation.
The meta-analysis of the research done by the National Reading Panel (www.nationalreadingpanel.org) laid the groundwork for much of the reading legislation from the Bush administration. The National Reading Panel had looked at studies using scientific evidence-based research methodology and identified five areas that had sufficient research to justify drawing some positive conclusions: comprehension, fluency, phonemic awareness, phonics, and word meaning/vocabulary.
Last year four of these topics were rated “very hot,” and one (phonemic awareness) had slipped out of the “very hot” category (to the “hot” category) for the first time since we began the survey. This year, comprehension, phonics, and word meaning/vocabulary also slipped out of the “very hot” category, and phonemic awareness slipped into the “not hot” category. Only fluency remained on the “very hot” list. Perhaps, because it has been out for six years, the influence of the report of the National Reading Panel is beginning to wane.
Adolescent literacy is the only “extremely hot” topic this year, and undoubtedly the Bush administration’s legislation also contributed to the increased attention to this topic. The No Child Left Behind legislation has been extended to older students, and money has been allocated for the Striving Readers program.
Many see the term striving readers as a euphemism for struggling readers. The attention being paid to adolescents may be caused by the fact that although there has been some improvement in the reading achievement of elementary children, the same cannot be said for high school students. A more thorough discussion of the attention being paid to adolescent literacy appears in the article “What’s hot in adolescent literacy 1997–2006” published in the September 2006 issue of the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy (available online at www.reading.org).
The surprise topic on the “not hot” list is phonemic awareness. Until last year, phonemic awareness was “very hot” or “extremely hot.” Last year, for the first time since 1996, most of the respondents still agreed that it was a “hot” issue, but it was no longer “very hot.” This year most of the respondents felt it was “not hot.”
Since 2003, the majority of our respondents have felt that this topic was receiving too much attention (that is, it “should not be hot”). They may have felt that way because so much research has been done on phonemic awareness, and the National Reading Panel did find that only 18 total hours of instruction in phonemic awareness was enough for most children.
The seven coldest topics are critical literacy/reading, family literacy, gender issues in literacy, motivation, multicultural literature, preschool literacy instruction, and writing. Six of these topics (all except preschool literacy instruction) were also the coldest issues last year. The surprise addition to the “cold” list was preschool literacy instruction. Most of our respondents felt that all seven of these topics should be receiving attention.
Both phonemic awareness and preschool literacy instruction are associated with very young children. One would hope that the attention now being paid to adolescent literacy does not mean a corresponding decrease in attention being paid to the reading needs of young children.
In the early years of this survey, we would often receive communications from readers of the list suggesting 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.
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 “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 being received by some of these issues and make needed changes in their schools. Thus, in 2007, because adolescent literacy is “extremely hot” and literacy coaches/reading coaches is “very hot,” now might be the time to request a reading specialist/literacy coach for the high school level. Because informational texts are receiving attention at every level, now might be the time for primary teachers to request nonfiction for their classroom libraries. Likewise, elementary librarians might make such requests to supplement their school collections.
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; Betsy Baker, Columbia Public Schools, Missouri; Rita Bean, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; William G. Brozo, George Mason University, Virginia; Cathy Collins Block, Texas Christian University; Alan E. Farstrup, International Reading Association, Delaware; James Flood, San Diego State University, California; Linda Gambrell, Clemson University, South Carolina; F. Todd Goodson, Kansas State University; John Guthrie, University of Maryland; David Hernandez, III, Madison-Camelview School, Arizona; James V. Hoffman, University of Texas; Peggy McCardle, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Washington, D.C.; Susan Neuman, University of Michigan; P. David Pearson, University of California at Berkeley; Victoria Purcell-Gates, University of British Columbia; Timothy Rasinski, Kent State University, Ohio; D. Ray Reutzel, Utah State University; Cathy Roller, International Reading Association, Washington D.C.; Carol Minnick Santa, Montana Academy; Timothy Shanahan, University of Illinois, Chicago; Gerry Shiel, St. Patrick’s College, Dublin, Ireland; Dorothy Strickland, Rutgers University, New Jersey; and Barbara Walker, Oklahoma State University.
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 teaches at the same university. Questions or comments about this survey can be directed to jcassidy@tamucc.edu.
What’s hot, what’s not for 2007. (February 2007). Reading Today, 24(4), 1.
What’s Hot, What’s Not chart
Journals
Reading Today