In this article, Timothy and Cynthia Shanahan argue that "disciplinary literacy" — advanced literacy instruction embedded within content-area classes such as math, science, and social studies — should be a focus of middle and secondary school settings. Moving beyond the oft-cited "every teacher a teacher of reading" philosophy that has historically frustrated secondary content-area teachers, the Shanahans present data collected during the first two years of a study on disciplinary literacy that reveal how content experts and secondary content teachers read disciplinary texts, make use of comprehension strategies, and subsequently teach those strategies to adolescent readers. Preliminary findings suggest that experts from math, chemistry, and history read their respective texts quite differently; consequently, both the content-area experts and secondary teachers in this study recommend different comprehension strategies for work with adolescents. This study not only has implications for which comprehension strategies might best fit particular disciplinary reading tasks, but also suggests how students may be best prepared for the reading, writing, and thinking required by advanced disciplinary coursework.

S A quantitative meta‐analysis evaluating the effects of phonemic awareness (PA) instruction on learning to read and spell was conducted by the National Reading Panel. There were 52 studies published in peer‐reviewed journals, and these contributed 96 cases comparing the outcomes of treatment and control groups. Analysis of effect sizes revealed that the impact of PA instruction on helping children acquire PA was large and statistically significant (d = 0.86). PA instruction exerted a moderate, statistically significant impact on reading (d = 0.53) and spelling (d = 0.59). Not only word reading but also reading comprehension benefited. PA instruction impacted reading under all the conditions examined although effect sizes were larger under some conditions. PA instruction helped various types of children: normally developing readers as well as at‐risk and disabled readers; preschoolers, kindergartners, and first graders; low socioeconomic status children as well as mid‐high SES. PA instruction improved reading, but it did not improve spelling in disabled readers. PA instruction was more effective when it was taught with letters than without letters, when one or two PA skills were taught than multiple PA skills, when children were taught in small groups than individually or in classrooms, and when instruction lasted between 5 and 18 hours rather than longer. Classroom teachers were effective in teaching PA to their students. Effect sizes were larger for studies using more rigorous experimental designs, with rigor assessments drawn from Troia (1999). In sum, PA instruction was found to make a statistically significant contribution to reading acquisition. [See also a letter to the editors regarding this article, and the first author's response: http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.37.2.1] Un meta‐análisis cuantitativo que evaluó los efectos de la instrucción en conciencia fonémica (CF) sobre el aprendizaje de la lectura y la escritura fue llevado a cabo por el Panel Nacional de Lectura (National Reading Panel). Se tomaron 52 estudios, publicados en revistas con referato, que aportaron 96 casos en los que se comparó el resultado de los grupos de tratamiento y de control. El análisis de las magnitudes del efecto reveló que el impacto de la instrucción en CF sobre el desarrollo de la CF en los niños fue grande y estadísticamente significativo (d = 0.86). La instrucción en CF ejerció un impacto moderado, estadísticamente significativo en la lectura (d = 0.53) y escritura (d = 0.59). No sólo se benefició la lectura de palabras, sino también la comprensión lectora. La instrucción en CF impactó en la lectura, en todas las condiciones examinadas, sin embargo las magnitudes del efecto fueron mayores en algunas condiciones. La instrucción en CF ayudó a distintos tipos de niños: lectores de desarrollo normal, lectores de riesgo y lectores con dificultades; niños de jardín, preescolar y primer grado; niños de NSE bajo y niños de NSE medio‐alto. La instrucción en CF mejoró la lectura pero no la escritura en los lectores con difi...

Based on concerns about the increasing numbers of English Language Learners in U.S. schools and the documented academic underperformance of this group, particularly in the domain of literacy, the federal government provided funding for a panel of experts to synthesize the knowledge base in the field and provide recommendations for future research. In 2006, the long awaited and much heralded

No abstract

No abstract