What Can We Learn From Developmental Reading Research
in Postsecondary Education?
RESEARCH TO PRACTICE
Issue 2 – January/February 2005
by Deepa Rao
Download version formatted
for print
Who takes developmental reading in college?
Each year, the number of students enrolling in developmental
level courses in postsecondary education increases. In fact,
almost 42 percent of all freshmen enrolled in public 2-year colleges
were enrolled in at least one developmental course (U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004).
Developmental education refers to courses and programs that address
the needs of underprepared students and nontraditional students
who lack the reading, writing, or math skills necessary for college-level
work (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, 2003). While developmental course work can be a
great help to many first year students, research has shown that
the number of developmental courses and the kinds of developmental
courses that students take makes a difference. The success of
underprepared readers in college “is directly and significantly
related to taking and passing a reading skills course" (Cox,
Friesner, & Khayum, 2003, p. 170) and "deficiencies
in reading skills are indicators of comprehensive literacy problems
and they significantly lower the odds of a student's completing
any degree" (Adelman, 1996, p. 56) .
Much research has been done on various strategies and techniques
to help developmental readers achieve success in college-level
work. Before these strategies are implemented, two things need
to happen. First, students who take the college placement test
and place into developmental reading classes need to take the
recommended courses. Research shows that students who have the
option to skip these courses and do have a lower persistence
rate (Roueche & Roueche, 2000). Second, developmental reading
teachers need to consider their attitudes toward developmental
readers. "Teachers should always begin with the understanding
that students who need remediation are not stupid and have an
array of literacies to draw upon that can help them interrogate,
interpret, and revise dominating discourses" (Weiner, 2002,
p. 152). They need to let their students know that "they
bring a wealth of experience and insight to their work and to
their peers" (Maloney, 2003, p. 665). Once this respect
has been established for the students, strategies can be taught
more effectively to improve students' reading skills.
Research has found that underprepared students who take and pass
a remedial reading skills course "experience significantly
greater success in college over the long term compared to similarly
underprepared students who either do not take, or do not pass,
such a course" (Cox et al., 2003, p. 189). The research
also shows that remedial students who "were explicitly taught
strategic reading outperformed" remedial students who were
not. In addition students were found to transfer these skills
into more reading intensive courses (Caverly, Nicholson , & Radcliffe,
2004) .
Developmental or Remedial? What’s in a
name?
While the terms "developmental" and "remedial" are
often used interchangeably to describe the courses taken by unprepared
or underprepared students, there is a distinction. Remedial often
refers to courses that address "deficiencies in prior learning." It
addresses academic needs. Developmental education, however, refers
to the integration of personal development into the academic
coursework. Personal development may include study skills and
self-confidence (see Boylan, 2001, p. 1).
What does the research say about developmental reading
classes?
"Many [developmental] teachers seem to believe that their
goal is to focus on basic skills" but often, these skills
do not prepare students for college level work (Maxwell, 1997,
p. 11). In a general sense, basic skills instruction can be
defined as instruction that supports practice of and improvement
in discrete reading skills (Stallworth-Clark, Scott, & Nist,
1996). Research has shown that remediation in reading needs to
be more than "phonetic decoding, literal comprehension,
and a generic engagement with language and written texts" (Weiner,
2002, p. 152). Assignments need to "activate and promote
students' thoughtful interaction with textual material for various
purposes, such as for story, procedural knowledge, or resource
information" (Falk-Ross, 2002, p. 279). Research has also
shown what is considered "basic skills" varies from
institution to institution.
Who teaches developmental education in another factor.
Developmental courses are often taught by adjunct faculty who
do not have the time or the resources to further their professional
education. They may "lack training or experience in working
with adults, be uninformed about current theory, research, and
practice in the college reading field," and they may not
be aware of the reading demands of college level work (Maxwell,
1997, p. 9).
What strategies produce strategic college readers?
Selecting the text
Developmental reading students need to be exposed to the types
of texts that they will encounter in college-level courses. Their
success in college depends on their "ability to engage in
strategic reading of extensive academic or informational text" (Caverly
et. al, 2004, p. 25). In order for the developmental reader
to become literate in the "multiple discourses of the academy" students
must be exposed to various types of readings and the "politics
that inform them" (Weiner, 2002, p. 151). The text should
be relevant to the students, for example an article with a topic
the students are interested in or based on topics being covered
in other areas of the curriculum (Fischer, 2003). The texts
used in the developmental class should also "address issues
and concepts relevant to the core curriculum" of the college
(Maloney, 2003, p. 665).
Making connections
Connecting to prior learning. It is import to
tap into the student's past knowledge to build a framework for
the text. "Make as many connections as you can between the
knowledge the students possess and the subject of the text (Fischer,
2003). The texts "must also address topics from the core,
serve as exemplars of various genres, and connect to the diversity
of students' ‘backgrounds’ and ‘life experiences’" (Maloney,
2003, p. 665). If possible, there needs to be "closer interaction
between discipline-specific college faculty" and developmental
reading instructors (Cox et. al, 2003, p. 191). One recommendation
from this study is for these instructors and professors to offer
students combined curriculum courses.
Connecting reading and writing. The developmental
reading course itself is about "reading and writing about
the texts" and that "students need to develop the habit
of writing in a variety of controlled formats about what they
read" (Maloney, 2003, p. 666). Instructors need to give
students "complete, contextualized reading and writing experiences" (Lesley,
2001, p. 182). Students can keep a journal that consists of
responses to class readings, discussions, and classmates' responses.
Or, students can write down the answers to all of the questions
the instructor asks them about the readings. This allows students
to expand their skills because they have to "interpret the
question" and then determine how to write a clear answer
(Fischer, 2003). Instructors can engage their developmental
reading students in an ongoing daily dialogue about the readings
through double entry journal writing (Friedman, 1997). In this
strategy, each student creates three columns on their piece of
paper. In the first column (labeled Copy/Notes), the
students write down interesting points about the reading. In
the second column (labeled Response), students should
record why they find these points interesting. The third column
(labeled Feedback), is reserved for the instructor to
make comments and offer feedback to the student. This method
should help instructors and students understand the "deeper
meaning" of the reading process and helping the students
understand the process of critical reading.
Critical Inquiry
Another component of reading skills is this idea of "critical
inquiry." Critical inquiry refers to not only the instructor
asking questions of the students but also the students asking
questions of the readings, other students, the instructor, and
themselves. In one developmental class, students were asked two
key questions to help sum up the day's class: "What did
we do?" and "What did we learn?" (Lesley, 2001)
Asking these questions helps instructors figure out how many
of the students are "developing skills such as inference,
empathy, and critical analysis" (2001, p. 185-186). As
part of the critical inquiry process, students should be encouraged
to read the piece multiple times, make notes in the margins,
and ask questions about what they have read. The goal is to shift
the emphasis on questioning from the instructor to the students.
This will help them "to use questions as guidelines for
thinking about the text" (Maloney, 2003, p.671). Students
should also be expected to conduct self-questioning of their
own written work and assist the monitoring process of writing
(El-Hindi, 1996).
Metacognition and Self-Regulation
Metacognition can be defined as "the ability to reflect
on one's own cognitive processes" (Baker & Brown, 1984,
p. 353). What separates strong readers from those who are not
is the awareness of their reading process and problems. This
is at the heart of learners who are actively engaged and in control
of their own learning" (El-Hindi, 1996).
Various research studies have focused on metacognition to assess
its effectiveness in helping students become strong readers.
In one study, the connections between instruction in metacognitive
development and increased awareness of metacognitive skills in
order to enhance independent learning were examined. The researcher
concluded that attention to metacognitive skill development would
improve remedial reading programs (El-Hindi, 1996). In another
metacognition research study, students were provided with a checklist
of reading strategy statements that were effective and ineffective
(Caverly et al., 2004). Students used the checklist in the pre-
and post-assessment. Students checked "yes" if they
used a particular strategy and "no" if they didn't.
Caverly et al. found that "students' metacognitive awareness
of effective strategic reading tactics improved after strategic
reading instruction” (2004, p. 28).
Self-regulated learning, an aspect of metacognition, is another
factor for creating independent and strong readers. Self-regulated
learners understand their strengths and weaknesses, set reasonable
goals, and create "strategies to realize goals by monitoring
themselves rather than relying on the teacher" (Maitland,
2000, p. 26-27). Students with strong self-regulation skills
have the ability to check the outcome of their problem solving,
they plan their next steps, and monitor the "effectiveness" of
their attempts. They also test, revise, and evaluate their learning
strategies (Baker & Brown, 1984).
Conclusion
For more information on specific reading strategies, see our
upcoming Research to Practice publication on Reading
Strategies. You may also be interested in a very readable four
part series on “Critical Thinking…and the Art of
Close Reading” by Richard Paul and Linda Elder, published
in the Journal of Developmental Education (2003-2004).
The journal can be accessed online if you have a subscription
or at your local community college. And, below in More
Resources, you will find Web sites that focus on this
topic.
More Resources
Louisiana State University (LSU) Reading Strategies Course
http://crse002.lsu.edu/lac/reading/ppframe.htm
This is an online PowerPoint presentation geared towards students
and was developed by LSU's Learning Assistance Center. It helps
students identify specific weakness in their reading strategies
and comprehension. It offers examples for students to work through
to help them get a better understanding of how the strategies
work.
Reading Quest/Strategies
http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/go/readquest/strat
This Web site was put together by the Curry School of Education
at the University of Virginia. It contains almost 30 reading
comprehension strategies that come with activity suggestions
and handouts.
Study Guides and Strategies
http://www.studygs.net
This Web site is not affiliated with any particular postsecondary
or secondary institution but it contains an enormous amount of
information for the transitioning student. The Reading Strategies
section includes information on Reading Critically, Reading
Difficult Texts,as well as Taking Notes from a Textbook. This
site is updated frequently.
References
Adelman, C. (1996). The truth about remedial work: It's more
complex than windy rhetoric and simple solutions suggest. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 43(6), 56.
Baker, L. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and
reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, and P. Mosenthal
(Eds.) The handbook of reading research. New York, NY:
Longman. 353-394.
Boylan, H.R. (2001). Making the case for developmental education. Research
in Developmental Education, 12(2), 1-4. Retrieved on
January 4, 2005 from http://www.nade.net/documents/Articles/MakingtheCase.pdf.
Caverly, D.G., Nicholson,S.A. & Radcliffe, R. (2004). The
effectiveness of strategic reading instruction for college developmental
readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35(1),
25-46.
Cox, S.R., Friesner, D., & Khayum, M. (2003). Do reading
skills courses help underprepared readers achieve academic success
in college? Journal of College Reading and Learning,
33(2), 170-196.
El-Hindi, A.E. (1996). Enhancing metacognitive awareness of college
learners. Reading Horizons, 36, 214-230.
Falk-Ross, F. (2002). Toward the new literacy: Changes in college
students' reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy,45(4), 278-288.
Fischer, C. (2003). Revisiting the reader's rudder: A comprehension
strategy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,47(3),
248-256.
Friedman, A.R. (1997). Insights into the reading processes of
community college developmental readers. Research and Teaching
in Developmental Education, 13(2). ERIC document EJ544851.
Lesley, M. (2001). Exploring the links between critical literacy
and developmental reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 45(3), 180-189.
Maitland, L.E. (2000). Self-regulation and metacognition in the
reading lab. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(2),
26-36.
Maloney, W.H. (2003). Connecting the texts of their lives to
academic literacy: Creating success for at-risk first-year college
students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
46(8), 664-672.
Maxwell, M. (1997). The dismal state of required developmental
reading programs: Roots, causes and solutions. Taken from where?
(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 415 501).
Roueche J. & Roueche, S. (2000). Making remedial education work.Washington, DC: Community College Press.
Stallworth-Clark, R., Scott, J.S., & Nist, S.L. (1996). The
teaching-learning process and postsecondary at-risk reading students:
Cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and instructional variables
explaining academic performance. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New York, NY., April 8-13, 1996. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Services No. ED 394 419).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(2003). Remedial Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary
Institutions in Fall 2000, NCES 2004-010. by Basmat Parsad
and Laurie Lewis. Project Officer: Bernard Greene. Washington,
DC.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(2004). The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004-077).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Weiner, E. J. (2002). Beyond remediation: Ideological literacies
of learning in developmental classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 46(2), 150-168.
About the author
Deepa Rao has been coordinating the New England ABE-to-College
Transition Project, a project of the New England Literacy Resource
Center, World Education, Boston, since April, 2002. She provides
technical assistance to the 25 adult learning programs participating
in the project through trainings, program site visits, phone
conferences, and email exchanges. She also participated in designing
the evaluation, and developing evaluation tools and an efficient
data collection system for this project.
Prior to this Project, she worked as a GED and ESOL/Citizenship
Program coordinator and teacher in Boston. She began her adult
education career as a volunteer teacher for Americorps/City Year
Boston Program. She recently completed a Masters of Education
at Boston University's School of Education in Policy, Planning,
and Administration for Community Education. She can be reached
for comment by email at drao@worlded.org.
|
