The Adult Reading Components Study
From LiteracyTentWiki
A discussion was held in late May, 2006 on the National Insttiute for Literacy Special Topics Discussion List about the new Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS). Guest researchers Rosalind Davidson and John Strucker answered questions about the ARCS and the ARCS web page designed for teachers (www.nifl.gov/readingprofiles). All messages were posted to specialtopics@nifl.gov and can be found as archives at http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/2006/date.html.
From: djrosen@comcast.net
Subject: [SpecialTopics 2] ARCS discussion to begin soon: E-mail your Questions
Date: May 18, 2006 2:10:34 PM EDT
Special Topics List Colleagues,
On May 23rd we will begin the discussion on the Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS). Please send your questions about the study, about how the ARCS was done, how it is or can be used, about the ARCS Web page, or other ARCS-related questions to:
specialtopics@nifl.gov
The questions will be posted beginning on May 23rd.
You will find a 30-minute video panel discussion with ARCS researchers Rosalind Davidson and John Strucker, and practitioners Kay Vaccaro and Jane Meyer at
http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/webcasts/20040204/webcast02-04.html
This video panel introduction is also available on DVD from the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy [ http://www.ncsall.net/?id=24 ] or from the National Institute for Literacy. (Send a request for the Adult Readiing Components Study (ARCS) Panel (free) DVD to: info at nifl.gov Be sure to include your mailing address.)
Other ARCS introductory materials include:
1. Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS) [PDF document] by John Strucker and Rosalind Davidson http://www.ncsall.net/?id=27 (ninth item down)
2. How the ARCS Was Done http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/op_arcs.pdf
3. Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS) http://www.ncsall.net/?id=27#arcs
I look forward to seeing your questions.
David Rosen
djrosen1@comcast.net
From: djrosen@comcast.net
Subject: [SpecialTopics 3] Welcome to the Special Topics List
Date: May 22, 2006 3:30:46 PM EDT
Dear Colleague,
You have subscribed to the Special Topics Discussion List sponsored by the National Institute for Literacy. Our first topic is the Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS). Our guests are Dr. John Strucker and Dr. Rosalind Davidson, the researchers on this study. The discussion will begin tomorrow, Tuesday May 23rd.
A good discussion depends on your active participation. I hope you will read some of the background articles, and/or look at the video panel discussion, and that you will then post questions for our guests. To post a question, e-mail it to:
SpecialTopics@nifl.gov
If for some reason you have a question you would like me to ask on your behalf, or if you need technical assistance, my e-mail is below.
Here are some resources that might be a good introduction to this topic:
1. You will find a 30-minute video panel discussion with ARCS researchers Rosalind Davidson and John Strucker, and practitioners Kay Vaccaro and Jane Meyer at
http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/webcasts/20040204/webcast02-04.html
This video panel introduction is also available on DVD from the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy [ http:// www.ncsall.net/?id=24 ] or from the National Institute for Literacy. (Send a request for the Adult Readiing Components Study (ARCS) Panel (free) DVD to: info at nifl.gov Be sure to include your mailing address.)
Other ARCS introductory materials which might be a good introduction include:
2. "What Silent Reading Tests Alone Can't Tell You", the precursor to the website that will be discussed. http://www.ncsall.net/index.php?id=456
3. Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS) [PDF document] by John Strucker and Rosalind Davidson http://www.ncsall.net/?id=27 (ninth item down)
4. How the ARCS Was Done http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/op_arcs.pdf
5. Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS) http://www.ncsall.net/?id=27#arcs
I look forward to seeing your questions and to having you participate in the discussion.
All the best,
David Rosen
Special Topics List Moderator
djrosen@comcast.net
From: djrosen@comcast.net
Subject: [SpecialTopics 4] The ARCS discussion begins
Date: May 23, 2006 5:01:44 AM EDT
Special Topics List Colleagues,
Let's begin the discussion with some introductions.
My name is David Rosen. I am the moderator of this new Special Topics list sponsored by the National Institute for Literacy. I have worked in adult literacy education as a teacher, program administrator, staff development center director, researcher, and now as an independent consultant. I founded and moderated the National Literacy Advocacy electronic list and was for ten years its moderator. It's great to be back in the saddle again!
This discussion list is a little different from the other National Institute discussion forums in that it will open for each topic and then close down for awhile until the next topic begins. So there will be a flurry of messages for the next few days and then, between discussions, no messages for awhile. If you are only interested in this topic you can unsubscribe after the discussion. Or you can wait to see what the next topic is before deciding. There will be one topic every four-five weeks, from now through September.
Our first topic, as you know, is the Adult Reading Components Study. I asked our guests, researchers John Strucker and Rosalind Davidson, to write a little bit about themselves, and here's what John sent:
"Ros and I are both reading teachers by trade - Ros with decades of experience from K through adult, and I with 11 years teaching adult reading and ESL at a community-based ABE program. For the last 10 years while doing research at NCSALL, we have also been the co- directors of the Harvard Adult Reading Lab, which has helped us to stay in direct touch with adult learners and practitioners-in-training.
The Adult Reading Components Study (ARCS) is very much a product of our obsessive focus on teaching. We gave 676 ABE learners in seven states the same diagnostic reading tests that we use in our reading lab. And, we gave similar tests to 279 ESOL learners, including tests of Spanish literacy to Spanish speakers.
We then did a computer cluster analysis of the 955 learners' individual reading profiles to identify <instructionally meaningful> profiles, 10 for ABE and 6 for Spanish-speaking ESOL. Note our emphasis on <instructionally meaningful>. All of these assessments are practical tests that teachers can actually use to figure out students' strengths and needs in reading - with the sole purpose of planning effective, efficient instruction.
We hope that our ARCS profiles will help teachers to better understand the diverse instructional needs of the adult learners they meet and to use that understanding to improve the quality of instruction. To that end, Ros designed an interactive website < http://www.nifl.gov/readingprofiles/ > that shows practitioners how to create and interpret reading profiles. Practitioners can enter a learner's reading test scores into the site, and it will calculate which of the ARCS-derived profiles best fits that student. There are even some instructional suggestions for each profile.
So if you think you'd like to talk about reading and reading instruction with a couple of incorrigible old-school reading wonks, you should enjoy this week's discussion. We are certainly looking forward to talking to you!"
Welcome John and Ros. We look forward to hearing your responses to a wide range of questions. Everyone: questions -- and follow-ups -- can be sent in any time between now and Tuesday, May 30th. The discussion will continue until Wednesday, May 31st.
David J. Rosen
Special Topics List Moderator
djrosen@comcast.net
From: EMReddy@aol.com
Subject: [SpecialTopics 5] questions for ARCS discussion
Date: May 21, 2006 2:20:09 PM EDT
Hello John and Ros. I'm looking forward to this discussion. Here are some questions I am interested in hearing about:
1. Given your findings about the varied reading profiles of adult learners and given the reality of classrom structures in ABE, where it is rare to be able to set up separate classes for students whose profiles are similar, what would you suggest for classroom management strategies that meet students' needs? Have you observed ABE classrooms where reading instruction was done effectively?
2. What policy recommendations would you make to improve the practices and outcomes of reading instruction?
3. Specifically for second language learners, how important or useful is it to explicitly assess and teach an understanding of English morphology? How much does an understanding of English morphology influence their comprehension of text? I am curious about this because of my personal experience reading in languages in which my vocabulary is limited. I find that an understanding of the structure of the language helps me to derive at least a basic meaning from the text even when I do not understand many of the words.
Mina Reddy
SABES/World Education
Boston
From: IraY@lacnyc.org
Subject: [SpecialTopics 6] ARCS Question
Date: May 22, 2006 11:31:47 AM EDT
Hi David,
Here's my question about the ARCS:
Is there a tension between the skills-based interventions supported by the ARCS and an approach to reading instruction that emphasizes using authentic materials or developing curriculum around particular content? If not, can our guests give examples of how to do both simultaneously? Thanks.
Ira Yankwitt, Director
Professional Development/
NYC Regional Adult Education Network
Literacy Assistance Center
32 Broadway, 10th Floor
NY, NY 10004
212-803-3356
Ken Appelt kappelt at coe.tamu.edu
Mon May 22 17:37:59 EDT 2006
I have seen an increase in materials that recommend readers be matched to the difficulty of the text they are reading based on their reading comprehension. The idea is that we adjust the reading level of the material so that students read materials challenging enough to improve their reading skills and vocabulary, but not so difficult to cause frustration. At first glance, this seems reasonable. I saw this first in Accelerated Reader materials a decade ago and now in materials from Lexile.
However, the ARCS shows that a general reading comprehension score by itself does not give a clear picture of a reader's skills; we must look at the components to determine what areas of study will help the reader improve.
How useful do you feel matching students and texts is? Can it be helpful in some situations and not in others? Is it too restrictive as to what students are allowed to read? What are we to make of the "readability" measures?
Ken Appelt
Professional Development Specialist
Texas Center for the Advancement of Literacy and Learning
Texas A&M University
800-441-READ (7323)
FAX (979) 845-0952
website: www-tcall.tamu.edu
kappelt at coe.tamu.edu
From: jn@cloudworld.co.uk
Subject: [SpecialTopics 8] ARCS Mini-course - "whole word" approach deprecated
Date: May 3, 2006 11:19:13 AM EDT
Hello all,
I have just subscribed to this new list, and could only see a single message so far - a test message. To get the ball rolling, I had a look at the ARCS mini-course, to see how it squared up with experience in the UK.
I am concerned by advocacy for teaching whole word recognition on the "Sight words" page: http://www.nifl.gov/readingprofiles/MC_Sight_Words.htm But in this same page there is this telling passage:
[quote] Because most adult poor readers have difficulty with letter-sound skills, they tend to use a whole word recognition approach much more than do children who are reading at the same level.RR Whole word recognition only works if the words are mastered sight words. The result of continued reliance on whole word "recognition" instead of phonetic skills when decoding unfamiliar words is guessing and misreading. [end quote]
I agree with that deduction. Moreover I claim that teaching letter-sound skills to adults, as for children, means no effort need be spent on whole word recognition! The teaching of whole word recognition as an approach was in the now deprecated Searchlights model of the UK National Literacy Strategy. It leads indeed to much guesswork and error. It has no doubt contributed to the failure of 20% children to learn to read. On the other hand, experience with teaching synthetic phonics shows that rapid recognition of whole words arises naturally from rapid decoding which gradually increases automaticity. The use of multiple modalities should be applied to the phonics instruction that gives the rapid decoding ability, rather than to whole word recognition as ARCS proposes.
Synthetic phonics, with multimodal techniques, was used in the Clackmannanshire study, where all 300 children were taught to read successfully in a few months, and by the end of Primary School their average reading age was over three years ahead of their chronological reading age. This result has caused the government to change tack on literacy, and advocate the introduction of synthetic phonics "first and fast" in all primary schools.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
John Nissen
Cloudworld Ltd - http://www.cloudworld.co.uk
http://www.cloudworld.co.uk/teaching-synthetic-phonics.htm
Tel: +44 208 742 3170 Fax: +44 208 742 0202
Email: info@cloudworld.co.uk
From: ylerew@aol.com
Subject: [SpecialTopics 9] ARCS questions
Date: May 22, 2006 10:17:50 PM EDT
Here are a couple of initial questions about ARCS:
1. Was the age of the adult students a factor? Were older or younger adults more commonly found in any cluster of reading skill? What implications might there be for practitioners working with older adults versus younger adults?
2. There was mention made that teachers perceived the Spanish literacy skills of their students (native Spanish speakers) to be lower than their actual skill level in Spanish. Why do you think this disconnect between perception and reality exists? How could ESOL practice be improved to capitalize on the native language reading skills?
Thanks
Yvonne Lerew
From: lterrill@cal.org
Subject: [SpecialTopics 10] Patterns of Word Recognition Errors
Hi, David, Rosalind, and John,
I read Rosalind and John's NCSALL Research Brief "Patterns of Word Recognition Errors Among Adult Basic Education Native and Nonnative Speakers of English" (available on the NCSALL Web site). Because I have taught reading to both native and nonnative speakers, I have a sense of the differences in the errors, but I wonder if you could give some comparative examples of the word recognition errors for each group?
Thanks,
Lynda Terrill
lterrill@cal.org
From: Holly.Dilatush-Guthrie@ccs.k12.va.us
Subject: [SpecialTopics 11] Re: Thoughts, questions
Date: May 22, 2006 3:53:55 PM EDT
(from "What Silent Reading Tests Alone Can’t Tell You")“In urban and suburban areas, small programs might consider merging to create larger, more versatile centers.”
I’d like to suggest that we broaden this thought -- Implications – Distance Learning supplements? There are so many well-developed practice and lessons and support sites for student and teacher use.
I envision (and would love to try my hands at) a DL position where my task was to meet f2f at least once, and then to “meet” (virtually or physically – via virtual office hours, telephone, recorded exchanges, snail mail even, etc.) once a month with all learners in our program.
At first meeting, step 1 of a plan as recommended by the classroom teacher and/or assessor would be discussed with a learner, and an assignment (collaboratively with the student) a goal for completion of computer-based activity/lesson/responses/reports/assignments – with tutorials, language lab assistance, discussed – possibly enrollment in a several step curriculum/program, perhaps as simple as one link to a quiz that the student will use over and over until confidence is gained, and then a new further outreach challenge site assigned… with documented individual goals – short and longterm, addressed.
with all students enrolled in a learning center Moodle site – (http://www.Moodle.org for info – Moodle is a wonderful CMS course management system, free – designed by educators for educators), with peer to peer buddy systems incorporated – with spaces for small subgroups (reading comprehension, vocabulary, spelling, phonics, etc.) and encourage each student to participate in at least one, but as many as they wish, of these groups.
I’m short of time today, but would love to expound on these ideas – I see real potential in Moodles – to engage, to teach technology skills, to teach communication skills, to support, to involve an ever-expanded network of support systems, to encourage global awareness and connections – much more!
So, a question, is there research to support (or conversely, to dissuade) more melding of adult ESL and GED classes? I’ve taught both, and had ESL learners in GED classes – with mixed successes, and certainly concur with the FOB article (What Silent Reading Tests Alone Can’t Tell You) findings – that there are “very mixed, uneven patterns of strengths and needs.” It’s been interesting to me to observe the disconnect teachers feel (between GED and ESL), whereas the more I taught both, the more parallels and similarities I noted. So many resources billed as “GED/ABE” or “ESL” that are not frequently shared, could, in my humble opinion, enhance collaborative efforts, enhance teacher awareness, enhance student success, enhance cross-cultural competencies.
Targeted intervention helps, but adult education is so much more.
Comments? Am I way off topic here? I think reading instruction, as with all instruction, will see more and more distance learning (DL) connections in the future.
"No matter what our attempts to inform, it is our ability to inspire that will turn the tides."
Holly Dilatush
ESL distance learning, Dialogue Cafe, Volunteer coordinator
Charlottesville City Schools Adult Learning Center
1000 Preston Ave., Suite D
Charlottesville VA 22903
(434) 245.2815 office
(434) 960.7177 cell/mobile
http://theHsmile.org ['home' to several Moodle CMS (course management systems/virtual classrooms)]
http://www.Charlottesville-ESL.org
From: bgiven@gmu.edu
Subject: [SpecialTopics 12] question
Date: May 22, 2006 5:48:24 PM EDT
This may be a bit premature, but I'd like to know more about the specific assessment tools used for ARCS and what the training was for teachers who administered them. Or did a trained psychometrician conduct the assessments?
Thanks,
barb given
From: wrmuth@vcu.edu
Subject: [SpecialTopics 13] Grouping Students
Date: May 23, 2006 12:55:32 AM EDT
Greetings John & Ros,
Congratulations for providing the field with an interesting and useful framework for improving our understanding of reading, reading instruction, and literacy learning. Because the ARCS work synthesizes so much – phonology, vocabulary, reading rate, comprehension, assessment, learner “types,” reading patterns, classroom management, instructional grouping, etc. – it is hard to know where to begin the conversation! My questions relate to the implications of ARCS for grouping students in the classroom, assuming that some adult literacy classrooms/programs will be organized according to reading component profiles: (1) The role of reading rate/fluency. The ARCS profiles are most easily recognized as patterns primarily shaped by two broad component areas: print and meaning. So why bother measuring reading rate? Would it make a difference in the way teachers grouped their students if some were slower readers than others? Will it be difficult for slower readers to keep up with faster ones, even if their reading profiles (print versus meaning component skills and levels) otherwise look the same? (2) Permanent versus fluid groupings. Do you think adult literacy learners will be characterized by one profile “type” that more or less permanently defines their learning; or, on the other extreme, do you think these profiles will be dynamic and shift frequently as learners progress through the program? (3) Staff development and classroom management. An ARCS-organized program may require some practitioners to organize their learners in new ways, such as in small groups. Are you finding this to be so as you work to implement ARCS-based instruction? As we plan to implement reading components strategies, how much attention should be given to classroom management? Thank you, John & Ros, for your help. Sorry to hit you with so many questions; please feel free to answer only those you think are most appropriate for this forum. And keep up the great work!
Bill Muth
William R. Muth, PhD
Assistant Professor, Reading Education and Adult Literacy
Virginia Commonwealth University
(804) 828-8768
From: djrosen@comcast.net
Subject: [SpecialTopics 14] Flurry of Questions about the ARCS
Date: May 23, 2006 5:45:54 AM EDT
ARCS discussion participants,
Thanks to all who have posted these great questions. Our guests, John Strucker and Rosalind Davidson, will be looking them over and responding as they can over the next several days, perhaps grouping similar questions. Please post your questions -- and follow-up questions -- through Tuesday, May 30th.
David J. Rosen
Special Topics List Moderator
djrosen@comcast.net
From: gprice@famlit.org
Subject: [SpecialTopics 15] ARCS question
Date: May 23, 2006 10:09:55 AM EDT
As an adult education instructor in both a lab setting and a homogeneous (based on TABE scores) classroom setting, I am concerned with the application of the ARCS recommendations in these settings, so my questions may seem a little more specific than others that have been posted thus far.
After doing initial assessments and using those figures in the "Match a Profile" section, the profile could indicate that a student needs more instruction in phonemic awareness and/or phonological awareness. You recommend using the Test of Auditory Analysis Skills (TAAS) and the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised to do further evaluation in these areas.
If, for whatever reason (cost, training, personnel), instructors do not have accessibility to these assessments, but want to move ahead with their instruction, what materials or what instructional strategies do you recommend they use to build students' phonemic awareness and phonological awareness skills?
Some instructors may feel they do not have time to administer each of the assessments needed to provide scores for the "Match a Profile," but think they can use one or two to assess their students' needs. Do you subscribe to the "a little is better than none" idea? Which assessment(s) do you think would prove most advantageous, beyond the silent reading comprehension, to the greatest number of students——Word Recognition, Spelling, Word Meaning or Oral Reading Rate?
Gail J. Price
Multimedia Specialist
National Center for Family Literacy
325 West Main Street, Suite 300
Louisville, KY 40205
Phone: 502 584-1133, ext. 112
Fax: 502 584-0172
From: john_strucker@harvard.edu
Subject: [SpecialTopics 16] Re: questions for ARCS discussion
Date: May 23, 2006 2:49:49 PM EDT
Hi Mina,
I'll respond to your questions in the text below.
Hello John and Ros. I'm looking forward to this discussion. Here are some questions I am interested in hearing about:
1. Given your findings about the varied reading profiles of adult learners and given the reality of classrom structures in ABE, where it is rare to be able to set up separate classes for students whose profiles are similar, what would you suggest for classroom management strategies that meet students' needs?
This question comes up a lot! The ARCS showed that this variation of reader profiles you refer to is especially great among GE 4-8 adult intermediates. First, however, before going any further, I want to stress that we have to do everything we can to discourage the "one-room schoolhouse approach" to adult ed that forces learners with a range of diverse profiles into one generic class. Only large, comprehensive adult education centers can offer the range of classes needed to accommodate the diverse range of reader profiles. In urban and suburban areas where students are fairly concentrated, there's no good reason to have a bunch of small centers, each offering a few multi-level classes at each site. Whatever it takes to change this (e.g., putting our classes at centrally-located community college campuses, merging smaller centers into larger ones, or having one small center concentrate on GED, while another offers only intermediate levels, and yet another only beginners' classes) - we have to find a way to offer the range of classes people need and deserve. In urban areas, my feeling is that the only ESOL beginners who are new immigrants really need a small center right in their neighborhood. These folks definitely need a place that's not only geographically close but also has lots of people working at it who share their home language and culture. Everybody else - ABE, intermediate and above ESOL, and GED - would be better served by bigger learning centers that could offer economies of scale. They would also afford our learners other amenities that adults at community colleges regularly get - like modern media/computer labs with professional tech support, student lounge areas, student book stores and libraries, adequate parking, onsite child care, etc.
As you note, however, multi-level classes unfortunately remain the norm in many places in the US. In these classes, the best we can hope for is: 1) the teacher is trained to recognize the different learner profiles and to know about their different needs; 2) the teacher has a range of appropriate materials readily at her disposal; 3) the teacher has enough prep time to plan four or more lessons per class, and 4) the teacher has help - in the form of trained volunteers or paid instructional aides - who can work with small groups of students to give them lessons and activities that will help them to learn efficiently.
Again, I want to emphasize that multi-level classes are a poor, second-best alternative, one that should not be tolerated much less encouraged anywhere except in rural areas.
Have you observed ABE classrooms where reading instruction was done effectively?
Heck yes! We have a very talented group of teachers in our field, and they do fantastic work under the circumstances. In my experience, ABE and ESOL teachers also respond extremely well to in-service training, possibly better than K-12 teachers in general. Most of our teachers have the skill set they need, or they could quickly acquire it. But as it is set up now the system doesn't get the most from our teachers' talent.
2. What policy recommendations would you make to improve the practices and outcomes of reading instruction?
Bigger, better-equipped centers (as discussed above)and a permanent, well-compensated practitioner workforce. If you have those two things, then teacher training will pay off even more than it does currently, because practitioners will be able to stay in the field long enough to make full use of the training and improve upon it based on their experience and sharing of knowledge.
3. Specifically for second language learners, how important or useful is it to explicitly assess and teach an understanding of English morphology? How much does an understanding of English morphology influence their comprehension of text? I am curious about this because of my personal experience reading in languages in which my vocabulary is limited. I find that an understanding of the structure of the language helps me to derive at least a basic meaning from the text even when I do not understand many of the words.
Mina, I think you are right about this last point, but I don't know of much ESOL research that focuses on this. NCSALL's Steve Reder would be a good person to ask about this. However, I think ELL research has looked at this from time to time, and that research supports your position. As an aside, in general, I think those of us in ABE/ESOL can probably learn a lot by looking more at ELL research.
John Strucker, EdD
Nichols House 303
Harvard Graduate School of Education
7 Appian Way
Cambridge, MA 02138
617 495 4745
617 495 4811 (fax)
Discussion Continued on The Adult Reading Components Study 2
