 | |
| Norm Stahl |
Literacy is a requisite for obtaining almost any type of post-secondary
degree or certification.
If you are learning to be a plumber, for example, you will need to read to understand your local codes and regulations. If you are learning to be a nurse, you will need to read to acquire new techniques and procedures. If you want to be a lawyer, you will need to read about case law.
You get the idea: reading is important in education, and consequently, throughout one’s life.
However, not every student has the same level of reading skill. Many students who are identified as not being “college reading-ready” find themselves at a disadvantage in their courses, because almost all college courses require reading and, in many cases, the reading is difficult and technical.
But what is the best way for educators, students, and policy makers to help students read and understand course materials? What constitutes reading readiness for college? What are the literary demands placed on students?
According to Dr. Norm Stahl, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the Literacy Education Department at NIU, “We need to first understand the culture of reading and the reading demands in different classrooms and institutions in higher education. Such knowledge may help institutions prepare students for the reading rigors of their chosen occupational paths.”
Stahl, a founding member of CISLL, and his colleagues have recently completed a research project on just that: understanding education practices in developmental reading (DR) and career technical education (CTE) courses.
DR courses are designed to prepare students judged not to possess the literacy skills necessary to achieve academic success in community college- or university-level classes, such as CTE and General Education (GE) courses.
CTE courses, which are primarily offered at community colleges, prepare students for certificates and degrees in technical and professional fields (e.g., criminal justice, welding, business, culinary arts, etc.). GE courses at a four-year-college make up the foundation of an undergraduate degree, before students take upper-level classes in their chosen major.
Stahl’s study was completed with Dr. Sonya Armstrong, another CISLL alumnus who is now at Texas State University.
Other contributors include Dr. James King from the University of South Florida, Dr. M. Joanne Kantner from Kishwaukee College, Dr. Mary Perkins from Elgin Community College, Betsy Sobin from Illinois Valley Community College, and Ruth Dalrymple from Texas State University.
“We wanted to know how literacy is addressed in both DR and CTE classrooms. This is important because in some cases, students who are deemed to have lower literacy skills are placed in DR courses either as prerequisites to, or concurrently with, CTE courses. We need to know how these courses relate to and align with each other in order to best help the students succeed,” remarked Stahl.
In the study, DR and CTE instructors and students at three community colleges were interviewed and surveyed on a number of topics, including how literacy demands are met in their respective courses. In addition, observational data were collected in multiple CTE and DR classes. Data analysis focused on the concerns, attitudes, challenges, and practices regarding the culture of reading and reading instruction in each setting.
One important finding that emerged from the study was that there was little curricular alignment between DR and CTE courses. For example, many DR instructors appeared not to know that the reading demands in CTE courses can be heavy.
“It’s difficult to advance as an educational community in such a silo-like environment, in which instructors in these two areas know little of what the other is doing,” explained Stahl.
The researchers also found differences in course formats and text types. DR classes tended to use discussion and multiple types of texts (such as novels and workbooks), whereas CTE courses tended to have a lab/shop format with a single textbook (such as a technical manual) that is used across multiple semesters.
But faculty of DR and CTE courses shared some attributes, such as feeling like second-class citizens in the institution.
They also both perceived students’ attitudes towards reading as negative, despite that more than half of the students reported reading at least 75% of the course material.
Both types of instructor also tended to treat reading as a fairly monolithic skill, believing that the same reading strategies can be used across courses and disciplines. However, DR instructors, in an attempt to prepare students for a variety of GE courses, did utilize more discipline-specific, content-field literary practices.
In contrast, instructors in CTE courses rarely veered away from a monolithic view of reading.
In fact, believing their students to be largely aliterate, many CTE faculty used “work-arounds” to help their students understand the course material because they assumed texts would simply go unread. These work-arounds included PowerPoint slides, instructor-prepared lecture notes, and study guides.
Based on their results, the authors posit some recommendations for educational practice, research and scholarship, including:
You can read the full list of recommendations in the fullreport.
If you are learning to be a plumber, for example, you will need to read to understand your local codes and regulations. If you are learning to be a nurse, you will need to read to acquire new techniques and procedures. If you want to be a lawyer, you will need to read about case law.
You get the idea: reading is important in education, and consequently, throughout one’s life.
However, not every student has the same level of reading skill. Many students who are identified as not being “college reading-ready” find themselves at a disadvantage in their courses, because almost all college courses require reading and, in many cases, the reading is difficult and technical.
But what is the best way for educators, students, and policy makers to help students read and understand course materials? What constitutes reading readiness for college? What are the literary demands placed on students?
According to Dr. Norm Stahl, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the Literacy Education Department at NIU, “We need to first understand the culture of reading and the reading demands in different classrooms and institutions in higher education. Such knowledge may help institutions prepare students for the reading rigors of their chosen occupational paths.”
Stahl, a founding member of CISLL, and his colleagues have recently completed a research project on just that: understanding education practices in developmental reading (DR) and career technical education (CTE) courses.
DR courses are designed to prepare students judged not to possess the literacy skills necessary to achieve academic success in community college- or university-level classes, such as CTE and General Education (GE) courses.
CTE courses, which are primarily offered at community colleges, prepare students for certificates and degrees in technical and professional fields (e.g., criminal justice, welding, business, culinary arts, etc.). GE courses at a four-year-college make up the foundation of an undergraduate degree, before students take upper-level classes in their chosen major.
Stahl’s study was completed with Dr. Sonya Armstrong, another CISLL alumnus who is now at Texas State University.
Other contributors include Dr. James King from the University of South Florida, Dr. M. Joanne Kantner from Kishwaukee College, Dr. Mary Perkins from Elgin Community College, Betsy Sobin from Illinois Valley Community College, and Ruth Dalrymple from Texas State University.
“We wanted to know how literacy is addressed in both DR and CTE classrooms. This is important because in some cases, students who are deemed to have lower literacy skills are placed in DR courses either as prerequisites to, or concurrently with, CTE courses. We need to know how these courses relate to and align with each other in order to best help the students succeed,” remarked Stahl.
In the study, DR and CTE instructors and students at three community colleges were interviewed and surveyed on a number of topics, including how literacy demands are met in their respective courses. In addition, observational data were collected in multiple CTE and DR classes. Data analysis focused on the concerns, attitudes, challenges, and practices regarding the culture of reading and reading instruction in each setting.
One important finding that emerged from the study was that there was little curricular alignment between DR and CTE courses. For example, many DR instructors appeared not to know that the reading demands in CTE courses can be heavy.
“It’s difficult to advance as an educational community in such a silo-like environment, in which instructors in these two areas know little of what the other is doing,” explained Stahl.
The researchers also found differences in course formats and text types. DR classes tended to use discussion and multiple types of texts (such as novels and workbooks), whereas CTE courses tended to have a lab/shop format with a single textbook (such as a technical manual) that is used across multiple semesters.
But faculty of DR and CTE courses shared some attributes, such as feeling like second-class citizens in the institution.
They also both perceived students’ attitudes towards reading as negative, despite that more than half of the students reported reading at least 75% of the course material.
Both types of instructor also tended to treat reading as a fairly monolithic skill, believing that the same reading strategies can be used across courses and disciplines. However, DR instructors, in an attempt to prepare students for a variety of GE courses, did utilize more discipline-specific, content-field literary practices.
In contrast, instructors in CTE courses rarely veered away from a monolithic view of reading.
In fact, believing their students to be largely aliterate, many CTE faculty used “work-arounds” to help their students understand the course material because they assumed texts would simply go unread. These work-arounds included PowerPoint slides, instructor-prepared lecture notes, and study guides.
Based on their results, the authors posit some recommendations for educational practice, research and scholarship, including:
- Promote and maintain greater communication across programs. DR instructors need to know about the literary demands in CTE courses, and CTE instructors should know the goals and limitations of DR courses.
- Develop contextualized reading courses. Reading instruction should be based on the texts used in the courses, including those in CTE courses.
- Consider CTE traditions in developing student learning outcomes. Institutions should recognize the literacies and learning approaches in CTE courses and incorporate them into developing instructional student learning outcomes.
You can read the full list of recommendations in the fullreport.
Notes:
Dr. Stahl is an expert on literacy who has authored over 125 publications, served on numerous advisory boards, and been elected to governing positions within several professional organizations.
Dr. Stahl will speak about this project during a Show-and-Share to be held Friday, February 22 at 3:00 in room 506 of the Holmes Student Center. Other speakers at that event will be Dr. Alecia Santuzzi, the Director of Research Methodology Services, and Dr. Kristine Wilke, the Director of the Jerry L. Johns Literacy Clinic.
Dr. Stahl is an expert on literacy who has authored over 125 publications, served on numerous advisory boards, and been elected to governing positions within several professional organizations.
Dr. Stahl will speak about this project during a Show-and-Share to be held Friday, February 22 at 3:00 in room 506 of the Holmes Student Center. Other speakers at that event will be Dr. Alecia Santuzzi, the Director of Research Methodology Services, and Dr. Kristine Wilke, the Director of the Jerry L. Johns Literacy Clinic.
