Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research

Rona F. Flippo,Thomas W. Bean

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781317245155
• Édition: 3
• Sujet: Personal Development
• Sous-sujet: Writing & Presentation Skills

The most comprehensive and up-to-date source available for college reading and study strategy practitioners and administrators, the Third Edition of the Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research reflects and responds to changing demographics as well as politics and policy concerns in the field since the publication of the previous edition. In this thorough and systematic examination of theory, research, and practice, the Handbook offers information to help college reading teachers to make better instructional decisions; justification for programmatic implementations for administrators; and a complete compendium of both theory and practice to better prepare graduate students to understand the parameters and issues of this field. The Handbook is an essential resource for professionals, researchers, and students as they continue to study, research, learn, and share more about college reading and study strategies. Addressing current and emerging theories of knowledge, subjects, and trends impacting the field, the Third Edition features new topics such as disciplinary literacy, social media, and gaming theory.

Part I
Framework

Eric J. Paulson
TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY

As I write this section introduction, I am reminded of the use of the word “framework” as a metaphor for a number of things – it can be the structure upon which a house is built, a lens through which political events are understood, the theoretical basis upon which a research study is planned. At its most basic level, a framework is something that allows a thing to be and to be understood. Answering even a seemingly straightforward question in our field – “what is reading,” for example – requires identification and application of a theoretical framework before the question can even be understood. That is, a framework helps us decide what we should consider when seeking to answer questions in our field – or what the questions even should be. In fact, in the context of this book, one could think of a framework as providing both the impetus and the material to aid in answering the question “What should we consider when considering college reading?”

And the chapters in this section provide copious material for such consideration. In their chapter titled History, Norman A. Stahl and James R. King ensure that perspectives on college reading scholarship are not limited to the temporally local but include awareness of where we came from and what has been done before. In their chapter, College Reading, Eric J. Paulson and Jodi P. Holschuh weave together foundational, theoretical, and instructional domains of literacy instruction in postsecondary contexts. Tara L. Parker’s chapter, Policy Issues, provides important understandings about how developmental education is influenced by, and exists within, the policies and practices observed at local, regional, state, and other levels. In Theodore S. Ransaw and Brian J. Boggs’s chapter, Student Diversity, the authors provide information on a range of important aspects of diversity in postsecondary education. And finally, in their chapter titled Social Media, Barbara Guzzetti and Leslie Foley discuss the intersection of literacy and social media, and ways of understanding participatory literacy in a digital age. With such an impressive breadth and depth of chapters, I anticipate that this framework section provides an abundance of things to consider when considering college reading research.

1
History

Norman A. Stahl
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

James R. King
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

College reading has been an established field within reading research and pedagogy for over a century. In fact, according to Manzo (1983), college reading is both a generator of new ideas and a repository for considerable wisdom. Yet, to this day, college reading receives scant respect compared to other subfields of literacy. It is ironic then that many noteworthy scholars in reading research and pedagogy (see Israel & Monaghan, 2007; Robinson, 2002) wrote about college readers and/or college reading and study strategy instruction (e.g., Guy Buswell, William S. Gray, Nila B. Smith, Ruth Strang, Miles Tinker, George Spache, Francis Robinson) such that much of our historical, if not foundational, understandings of basic reading processes rest on research conducted with college readers.

It is equally ironic that our professional associations (e.g., International Literacy Association (ILA), Literacy Research Association (LRA), Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers (ALER), and College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) were founded with the major instigation from college reading professionals. Given this legacy, it remains a paradox why the specialization of college reading is an intellectual pariah, confined to the liminal spaces of the discipline of Reading/Literacy.

In any quest for parity in the reading profession, the onus continues to be on current and future college reading professionals to learn of the field’s contributions to reading research and pedagogy (Armstrong, 2012; Stahl, Boylan, Collins, DeMarais, & Maxwell, 1999). That being the case, the purpose of this chapter is to provide postsecondary reading specialists with opportunities to learn of the field’s rich heritage. In addition, the chapter discusses one’s responsibility to help the field of college reading grow in stature by undertaking historical work.

Resources for Historical Study of Literacy Instruction

The history of any field can be viewed through a multitude of lenses of primary and secondary historical sources. Too often, reading educators have relied solely on Smith’s American Reading Instruction (1934b, 1965, 1986, 2002). Such limited source selection is tunnel vision that begs two questions. The first question to be satisfied is “Does a distinct body of historical resources exist for the field of Reading?” The answer to this question is “yes.” Important works on the history of literacy are increasingly available as both book-length texts and articles in impactful journals (Stahl & Hartman, 2011). The second question is “Does such a body of historical resources exist for the more specific area of college reading research and praxis?” As this third Handbook edition comesto press, the answer continues to be only a qualified “yes” as this affirmation relies not only on the field of literacy but also on the allied fields of developmental education and learning assistance.

In an earlier call to undertake historical research in college reading, Stahl, Hynd, and Henk (1986) proposed that three categories of historical materials were available for study. The first category included chronicles synthesizing numerous primary and secondary sources (e.g., Leedy, 1958). The second category was comprised of summaries or time lines that highlighted major events or trends in the field (e.g., Maxwell, 1979). The third category was made up of texts and monographs that had earned a place of historical importance in the field (e.g., Ahrendt, 1975). In reviewing the extant historically oriented sources, it was obvious that the literature was sparse. Furthermore, Stahl et al. (1986) suggested that this dearth of materials might explain why college reading specialists tended to overlook the field’s history when designing curricula, developing programs, writing texts, and conducting research. In retrospect, the lack of supportive literature may also be related to low prestige.

Now, three decades after Stahl et al. (1986), it is useful to revisit the corpus of resources available to researchers and practitioners who are interested in the history of college reading and study strategy instruction. In reviewing these works, two of the categories (historical chronicles, and historical summaries and time lines) will be redeployed, along with a category from the first edition of this Handbook for historical writings that investigate specific topics (e.g., study strategies), specific historical eras, and organizational/institutional histories. Finally, in this current chapter, we discuss the methods of interpretive biography (Denzin, 1989), including oral histories, autobiographies, and biographies of leaders in the field. This organizational scheme reveals the field’s breadth of historical knowledge as well as its place within the larger field of literacy theory, research, and praxis.

Historical Chronicles

The first category of historical sources is comprised of doctoral dissertations drawing extensively on primary and secondary sources. In all but one case, the historical work was but one component in each dissertation, again indicating the lack of specific focus on historical accounts of literacy. Six of the studies (Bailey, 1982; Blake, 1953; Heron, 1989; Leedy, 1958; Shen, 2002; Straff, 1986) focus directly on college reading instruction. A seventh study (Brier, 1983) investigates academic preparedness for higher education.

A seminal, historical work for the field is the dissertation undertaken by Leedy (1958). Through the extensive use of primary sources along with secondary sources (total n = 414), Leedy traced the role of reading, readers, reading materials, and reading/learning programs in American higher education from 1636 to 1958. From this massive undertaking, Leedy (1958) put forth two important conclusions. First, the college reading improvement programs circa 1958 were the result of a slow but orderly evolution in the recognition of the importance of reading’s role in postsecondary education. Second, reading programs were implemented over the years because both students and representatives of the institutions recognized that ineffective reading and study skills created problems in academic achievement. Leedy’s historical work is to college reading as American Reading Instruction (Smith, 2002) is to the overall field of Reading – not surprising as Nila B. Smith served on Leedy’s dissertation committee. An analysis of Leedy’s work is found in Stahl (1988).

Four other dissertations provide major historical reviews or historical analyses of the literature in the field. Blake (1953) examined the historical, social, and educational forces that promoted the growth of college reading and study skills programs during the first 50 years of the 20th century. Blake’s work was part of an analysis of the program at the University of Maryland, as augmented with a national survey of programs.

Straff (1986) undertook a historical analysis of selected literature on college reading (n = 74 sources) to determine what research, theory, and praxis was covered from 1900 to 1980. The intent of this inquiry was to provide a foundation for future program development. His overall findings were similar to Leedy’s (1958): (1) College reading programs grew at a slow and deliberate pace over that 80-year period, and (2) this purposeful growth reflected disparate, local needs in contrast to a coordinated national movement. Straff also stated that the field had grown in both quantity and quality. He concluded that the literature had matured from the simple acknowledgment of reading/study problems in higher education to the discussion of the implementation of programs to research on the effectiveness of programs. Still, this literature review led Straff to believe that over the first eight decades of the 20th century, there was little credible research on program rationales, instructional objectives, student populations, curricula, staffing, reading behaviors, funding sources, and shifts in societal priorities, suggesting that there was little upon which to base recommendations for program development in college reading.

Heron (1989) considered the historical context for then current postsecondary reading requirements, the particular needs of at-risk college readers, and the instructional levels and approaches employed by 89 college reading programs. Her research analyzed resources dating from 1927, which she reviewed through the lens of Chall’s developmental reading theory (Chall, 1983). The study led to multiple conclusions, including that (1) the reading requirements in higher education had increased dramatically over the history of American higher education; (2) reading proficiency in college was dependent upon reading skills and strategies as well as domain-specific knowledge; (3) reading problems of college students spanned Chall’s developmental stages, and these deficiencies were compounded by lack of knowledge and language of the academic discourses; (4) programs could be categorized by Chall’s development levels; and (5) historically, lower-level programs emphasizing diagnosis and skills (Chall’s stages one–three) were decreasing in number, whereas higher-level programs emphasizing content strategies and critical reading (stages three and four) were increasing in number. Bridge programs, such as the developmental education model (stages one through four), were also increasing in number but more slowly than those designated as the higher-level programs. Heron also noted that published reports containing appropriate qualitative descriptions of instructional techniques as well as acceptable quantitative measures of the effectiveness of instructional methods were uncommon.

Within this category of historical chronicles, we also include the dissertation undertaken by Bailey (1982). Bailey’s critical analysis summarized, classified, and evaluated 170 research studies from 31 different journals published between 1925 and 1980. While this work cannot be called a true historical study, it does provide an extensive annotated bibliography and is, therefore, an important reference source for the college reading field. Furthermore, researchers interested in reading rate, technology (precomputer), teaching methods, test-taking skills, note-taking, textbook study methods, listening, instructional materials, vocabulary, physical factors, comprehension, or combined methods may find Bailey’s categorical analysis of the research to be of value.

Shen (2002) provided a historical survey of the field, beginning with our progenitors prior to 1900. She then traversed five eras, with attention directed to the social context impacting college reading as well as the psychological theories and reading research during each respective time period. The three purposes of the content analysis were to (1) examine the physical and content features of the texts, (2) trace the changes in textbooks, and (3) determine the relationships between text features and the development of theory, research, and practice.

Shen’s analyses of 88 college reading and study strategy texts lead to 10 conclusions: (1) Authors tended to be experts in their respective fields; (2) textual features did not increase in relation to the size of the book; (3) texts had more in common than in difference; (4) the number of physical features in texts expanded across the eras; (5) common physical features across the eras included introductions, heads and subheads, indexes, student exercises/questions, illustrations, and charts; (6) common topics included attention, dictionary use, test-taking skills, vocabulary mastery, reading rate, note-taking, and mathematics; (7) text features’ prominence varied during different eras; (8) early college reading texts introduced many skills/strategies found in texts currently on the market; (9) some textbooks integrated the era-oriented research and best practice; and (10) topics in the texts tended to draw from psychology and education.

Finally, Brier (1983, 1984) undertook a historical narrative that explored the actions undertaken by the newly formed Vassar College and an equally new Cornell University between 1865 and 1890 to meet the academic needs of underprepared, college-aged students. This dissertation draws from primary sources to document the controversy that developed when both institutions enrolled a sizable number of students requiring preparatory instruction, often in basic skills, in order to achieve academic success. While Vassar College responded by developing a preparatory program, Cornell University referred students elsewhere for assistance. Brier demonstrates conclusively that issues associated with modern open-door and special admissions programs have been of concern in higher education for well over a century. The study also underscores the historical nature of the devaluing of college reading by some and the meeting of the challenge by others. (See Arendale, 2001, 2010 and White, Martirosayin, & Wanjohi, 2009, 2010a, 2010b for additional coverage of preparatory programs.)

Before moving on to another classification of texts, we would be remiss if we did not cover Smith’s dissertation (1934a), which later evolved into four editions of American Reading Instruction (Smith, 1934b, 1965, 1986, 2002). It was an important contribution for the era in which it was released, and reprintings continue to have great impact (Stahl, 2002). College reading instruction is integrated into Smith’s discussions. Still, finding information about the history of college reading often requires a working knowledge of each era’s scholarship on the college reading field as well as the situated relationship the field had with other reading specializations, such as secondary school reading and adult reading, along with shared topics, such as eye-movement research or linguistic/literacy interfaces.

The individual strengths of the documents in the category of historical chronicles are found in the depth and/or breadth of coverage by ea...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Contributors
• PART I Framework
• PART II Reading Strategies
• PART III Study Skills and Strategies
• PART IV Programs and Assessment
• Compendium: Commercially Available Reading Tests Reviewed
• Afterword
• Author Index
• Subject Index