The Adult Reading Components Study 2
From LiteracyTentWiki
From: john_strucker@harvard.edu
Subject: [SpecialTopics 17] Re: ARCS Question
Date: May 23, 2006 3:14:29 PM EDT
--On Monday, May 22, 2006 11:31 AM -0400 Ira Yankwitt <IraY at lacnyc.org> wrote:
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
Hey Ira,
Great question! I really don't see a necessary contradiction between focusing on skills in isolation (e.g., word recognition, oral reading, vocabulary, etc.) and using authentic materials in context, especially for oral reading, vocabulary, and comprehension. The trick in using any materials (authentic or otherwise) is to make sure that they are at the appropriate level of challenge for the learners - not too easy and not too difficult. At a minimum, this means doing readability checks on the texts to verify their levels.
In addition, I think many of the skills activities are inherently "unauthentic" (I.e., How could there be an "authentic" word list of vowel digraphs, or signal words?). Nevertheless (< - check out the signal word!) teachers should feel free to introduce and work on skills in isolation - as long as learners have ample opportunities to try out and take chances with those skills in real text. As my former NCSALL colleague Vickie Purcell Gates used to explain: Teaching reading is like teaching swimming - part of the class should be spent at the "side of the pool" working on kicking, strikes, and breathing in isolation. But it all has to be integrated in the "middle of the pool" when students put together kicking, strokes, and breathing to actually swim. My mentor Jeanne Chall always insisted that for most struggling readers (like our students) the skills need to be taught directly and in isolation. But she also insisted that our students will never really master the skills unless they also have the opportunity to integrate them into the real activity of reading for meaning.
As a final observation, I would say that finding materials that students regard as authentic is important, but that alone can never trump two fundamental pedagogical principles: 1) focusing on the right components of reading for a given profile and 2) using material that's at the right level of challenge within each component. Side of the pool/middle of the pool - we can and should do both.
John Strucker, EdD
From: john_strucker@harvard.edu
Subject: [SpecialTopics 18] Re: Patterns of Word Recognition Errors
Date: May 23, 2006 3:17:17 PM EDT
--On Monday, May 22, 2006 3:01 PM -0400 Lynda Terrill <lterrill at cal.org> wrote:
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
Hi Lynda,
At least in the hard copy version, Ros and I gave examples of readers' errors - possibly in the appendix. If the version you have doesn't have these example, call or email us and we'll send you a photocopy.
Best,
John
John Strucker, EdD
From: john_strucker@harvard.edu
Subject: [SpecialTopics 19] Re: Matching readers to text difficulty
Date: May 23, 2006 3:25:45 PM EDT
--On Monday, May 22, 2006 4:37 PM -0500 Ken Appelt <kappelt at coe.tamu.edu> wrote:
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
Hi Ken,
As you allude to, Ros and I would argue that you should match the level of challenge of the materials for <each separate component>, not just silent comprehension. So for example, someone who has realtive strength in vocabulary but also has a severe word recognition problem like "Richard", whom I wrote about some years ago <http://www.ncsall.net/index.php?id=456> would need GE 7-8 in vocabulary instruction, but perhaps GE 3-4 for oral reading and word recognition.
As an aside, in our Adult Reading Lab, Ros and I have not found Lexiles as useful or accurate at estimating text difficulty as more traditional readability formulae such as the Fry or Dale-Chall. I'd be interested in other people's experience with this.
John Strucker, EdD
From: korber@centerforliteracy.org
Subject: [SpecialTopics 20] Re: Flurry of Questions about the ARCS
Date: May 23, 2006 11:32:03 AM EDT
What a great discussion topic! The ARCS project has been one of a few factors that have caused some programs in our organization to revisit diagnostic assessment as a tool for providing quality instruction. However, I have found some challenges that I would like to hear opinions on. Given the resources in the field of adult education, the bottom line of some of these challenges is dollars.
1. Not all adult ed programs are staffed with teachers (or volunteer tutors) who are comfortable with teaching beginning reading skills that relate to phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency instruction. In the K-12 world of education, this level of remediation is done by reading specialists, folks who have spent years being educated in the field of reading and on the implementation of appropriate assessments and strategies for such remediation. In my opinion, this should have a huge impact on the planning and delivery of professional development. 2. Grouping students homogenously (by skill level), so that you can best match teacher strengths with students' areas of weakness, is not always an option when you have to fill classes to meet your numbers goal for students served. 3. Resources (time, human, financial) for providing one-on-one assessment is quite limited, if it exists at all. Not all classes have access to computers for individualized assessment.
Without a doubt, I see the value in the project! I believe targeted instruction of skills, particularly for students with low reading levels, is imperative. Our organization works with E3 (Employment, Education, Empowerment) Centers which are youth centers for disconnected out-of-school youth (particularly those returning from placement centers). We also contract with the Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation to provide literacy services to people participating in the Maximizing Participation Project. The adults in this project are working to overcome multiple barriers to coming off of welfare. In both of these projects, we built in the use of the Woodcock Johnson Diagnostic Battery of Reading. At the E3 Centers we were afforded the luxury of staffing the low level literacy class with reading specialists and in the MPP class we were not. This meant a lot of time and resources went into training the staff at the MPP site on assessment and interpretation of results, and then the use of appropriate instructional strategies based on those results.
I would love to see this type of assessment used with our volunteer tutoring programs and in community classes where students are TABEing below the the 6th grade level. However, for all of the reasons above, the implementation of such a plan is quite challenging.
Stephanie Korber
Program Manager - Learning Differences and Youth Initiatives
Center for Literacy
Philadelphia, PA
From: kvaccaro@hcde-texas.org
Subject: [SpecialTopics 21] Re: ARCS question
Date: May 23, 2006 1:11:05 PM 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
Gail,
John and Ros may disagree with me, but when an adult student comes to you and cannot read, a little is better than nothing. By taking the lowest reading profile and trying some of the recommended instructional options, the student may make gains and lead you to other areas in need of remediation. The adult students with whom I have used that philosophy have made some gains on silent reading (TABE) scores, but their self esteem has definitely improved and motivation to try more challenging materials has emerged. However, it does require concentrated selection of reading material on the teacher’s part.
V. Kay Vaccaro
Program Coordinator
Adult Education Division
Harris County Department of Education
713-692-6216
FAX 713-695-1976
From:Maricel G. Santos
Subject: SpecialTopics 22] ARCS questions
Date: Tue May 23 14:15:18 2006
Dear John and Ros and members of the NIFL special-topics listserve --
Greetings from San Francisco...
I use John and Ros' articles on the ARCS in my graduate ESL teacher training classes at San Francisco State University. My students are grateful for the practical utility and the instructional value of the ARCS assessments. They bring their knowledge via practicum courses to ESL teachers in the field, who are hungry for this kind of guidance about adult reading development. However, I find that my students often want to know what an ARCS-infused curriculum looks like in practice. This is something I know less about... for example, what would an ESL curriculum that blended ARCS assessments with project-based or content-based learning (e.g., health literacy or vocational job training) look like? I'm interested in hearing John and Ros' thoughts on curricular possibilities, as well as from other adult educators who have made use of the ARCS system in their curriculum. And would it be possible to share these curricula on line?
Thanks again, John and Ros. Looking forward to reading everyone's postings.
Maricel Santos
Asst. Professor
English Department/ MA TESOL Program
San Francisco State University
1600 Holloway Ave
San Francisco, CA 94132
415-338-7445 (work)
From: john strucker
Subject: [SpecialTopics 23] Re: ARCS questions
Date: Tue May 23 15:40:25 2006
--On Monday, May 22, 2006 10:17 PM -0400 ylerew at aol.com wrote:
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?
Yvonne,
I'll let Ros handle your first question about age. I take a stab at your second question below.
I think it's pretty straightforward - most of the time we never test students' literacy abilities in their native languages, even though research tell us that for adults, native language literacy is very important for second language acquisition. For Spanish, NL literacy is easy to assess using the Woodcock-Munoz, among other tests. For other languages it's much harder. My Harvard colleague Catherine Snow once suggested that the USDOE should assemble a bunch of computer-administered tests in the various languages spoken by most US ESOL students. If the computer administered and scored the tests, we would know how well a person reads, say Mandarin, without ever knowing a word of that language.
The whole point of this is that if someone has relatively high literacy in their native language, they might learn English more efficiently if it were taught more like English as a Foreign Language (EFL) - making use the students's pre-existing literacy and incipient English reading as tools for second language learning. Instead we tend to start everybody off with survival-emphasis-oral.aural skills only ESOL. But this probably only necessary as a dominant mode of instruction for folks with low native language literacy. This topic ought to set off a hornet's nest!!
John Strucker, EdD
Nichols House 303
Harvard Graduate School of Education
7 Appian Way
Cambridge, MA 02138
617 495 4745
617 495 4811 (fax)
From: Lynda Terrill
Subject: [SpecialTopics 25] Re: Patterns of Word Recognition Errors
Date: Tue May 23 15:39:32 2006
Hi, John,
The research brief I downloaded at http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/brief_strucker.pdf is a two-pager that summarizes the findings about the errors related to the native and nonnative speakers, but I don't see an appendix. If there is a link to other information, please send, or I would appreciate a photocopy.
Thanks so much.
Lynda Terrill
Technical Assistance and Web Coordinator
Center for Adult English Language Acquisition
Center for Applied Linguistics
4646 40th St, NW
Washington, DC 20016
lterrill at cal.org
202-362-0700
From: john strucker
Subject: [SpecialTopics 24] Re: Patterns of Word Recognition Errors
Date: Tue May 23 15:45:45 2006
Hi Lynda,
Since you're at CAL, you might already have <Scientific Studies in Reading V. 6, #3> 2002, pp 298-315 in your library. If not, write back, and we'll send you a photocopy.
Best,
John
From: David Rosen
Subject: [SpecialTopics 26] Welcome to those who have just joined the ARCS discussion
Date: Tue May 23 16:22:45 2006
Dear colleague,
If you have just joined the ARCS discussion and would like to "catch up", or if you want to be sure if your message has been posted, all the posted messages are archived at http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/ specialtopics/2006/date.html
David J. Rosen
Special Topics List Moderator
djrosen at comcast.net
From: Ajit Gopalakrishnan
Subject: [SpecialTopics 27] ARCS Questions
Date: Tue May 23 19:20:46 2006
Thanks David for arranging this conversation. Thanks also to the researchers for their willingness to engage in this forum and for taking the time to answer our questions.
In order to better understand the ARCS results and their implications, I would like to learn what it means for an adult learner to be assigned a grade equivalent (GE) score for the reading components. For example, does a 4th grade equivalent score in alphabetics imply that the adult has mastered the alphabetics skills generally expected of 4th graders as outlined in several K-12 state content standards OR does the grade equivalent score imply that the adult learner's skills in alphabetics are similar to that of “other” 4th graders who may or may not be performing at the expected standards?
Has any follow up research been conducted with the students who participated in the creation of these profiles to document their future successes/challenges e.g. achievement of high school diploma/GED, postsecondary education, or in employment situation?
Thank you.
Ajit Gopalakrishnan
agopalakrishnan at yahoo.com
From: bgiven at gmu.edu
Subject: [SpecialTopics 27] Re: Patterns of Word Recognition Errors
Date: Wed May 24 08:02:31 2006
Is it permissible to put the appendix online for others of us who would like it? barb given
Barbara K. Given, Ph.D.
Director, Adolescent and Adult Learning Research Center
Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study, and
Director, Center for Honoring Individual Learning Diversity, an International Learning Styles Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
Fax: 703-993-4325
Ph: 703-993-4406
From: john strucker
Subject: [SpecialTopics 28] Re: Flurry of Questions about the ARCS
Date: Wed May 24 12:03:24 2006
Hi Stephanie,
I'll respond to your questions in the text of your note below. But as a preface, let me say a little about the "philosophical premises" of the ARCS. Ros and I believe very strongly in learner-centered instruction in reading. It has to start with diagnostic assessments to find out which components are relatively strong and which are not so strong - and what are the optimal levels at which to begin instruction in each component. With struggling readers - whether children or adults - there's no other responsible way to go. That was true when Jeanne Chall and Florence Roswell pioneered this approach back in the 1930s and 1940s at their lab at CCNY, and it remains true today.
While you are right that the "barrier is dollars", that doesn't mean that we should be shy about advocating for the approach of diagnostic teaching, whether we're talking to fellow practitioners, local program administrators, or policy makers at the state and national level. I'm so obsessive about this that I'd almost be willing to argue that every additional penny that comes into the field should be spent on this area above all others. Otherwise, we end up wasting our own talents, wasting the precious time of the learners, and wasting what little money the taxpayers give us. In my opinion, as more and more states move toward ABE/ESOL certification, 70% of the required courses and competencies should be in how one diagnoses adult readers' strengths and needs and what techniques to use in in teaching to those strengths and needs. What limited funds there are should be almost exclusively in those areas. The math experts would probably give a similar response if we asked them about training for ABE math.
--On Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:32 AM -0400 Stephanie Korber <korber at centerforliteracy.org> wrote:
What a great discussion topic! The ARCS project has been one of a few factors that have caused some programs in our organization to revisit diagnostic assessment as a tool for providing quality instruction. However, I have found some challenges that I would like to hear opinions on. Given the resources in the field of adult education, the bottom line of some of these challenges is dollars. 1. Not all adult ed programs are staffed with teachers (or volunteer tutors) who are comfortable with teaching beginning reading skills that relate to phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency instruction. In the K-12 world of education, this level of remediation is done by reading specialists, folks who have spent years being educated in the field of reading and on the implementation of appropriate assessments and strategies for such remediation. In my opinion, this should have a huge impact on the planning and delivery of professional development.
In my experience both as a practitioner and educator of teachers, ABE/ESOL teachers are very quick at picking up how to teach reading. In my opinion, phonics and fluency instruction are actually easier for teachers to learn to teach well (and therefore potentially cheaper to learn) than some aspects of vocabulary, comprehension, and writing.
In an ideal world, the main burden of our adult learners' reading instruction would never be borne by volunteers. Volunteers can be very effective <supplementing> professional teaching - but only if they are working in direct support of professionals who have the time to train and supervise them properly.
Yes, in K-12 struggling readers who are just like our students only younger are taught by folks with master's degrees in reading and or special ed. Again, to work effectively with adult struggling readers, all of us in the field would have master's level training in reading with substantial cross-training in ESOL, given that many of today's ABE students are former ESOL students.
2. Grouping students homogenously (by skill level), so that you can best match teacher strengths with students' areas of weakness, is not always an option when you have to fill classes to meet your numbers goal for students served. 3. Resources (time, human, financial) for providing one-on-one assessment is quite limited, if it exists at all. Not all classes have access to computers for individualized assessment. Without a doubt, I see the value in the project! I believe targeted instruction of skills, particularly for students with low reading levels, is imperative. Our organization works with E3 (Employment, Education, Empowerment) Centers which are youth centers for disconnected out-of-school youth (particularly those returning from placement centers). We also contract with the Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation to provide literacy services to people participating in the Maximizing Participation Project. The adults in this project are working to overcome multiple barriers to coming off of welfare. In both of these projects, we built in the use of the Woodcock Johnson Diagnostic Battery of Reading. At the E3 Centers we were afforded the luxury of staffing the low level literacy class with reading specialists and in the MPP class we were not. This meant a lot of time and resources went into training the staff at the MPP site on assessment and interpretation of results, and then the use of appropriate instructional strategies based on those results. I would love to see this type of assessment used with our volunteer tutoring programs and in community classes where students are TABEing below the the 6th grade level. However, for all of the reasons above, the implementation of such a plan is quite challenging.
As far as you point goes about centers not being able to offer range of classes to meet the needs of the various adult profiles Ros and I identified in the ARCS, I discussed that in my response to Mina yesterday. In brief - we should be moving away from small one-room-schoolhouse centers in favor of centers that are large enough to offer the minimal range of classes our learners need. The only exception - rural areas. And, in rural areas, well-designed individualized distance learning with interactive technology may prove to be better than small sparsely attended physical centers.
The W-J is a great battery of reading and language tests, but it's more expensive compared to others, requires a bit more training to administer, and has a bunch of subtests that I've always felt were primarily designed to aid K-12 special ed teachers' decision making. We get a lot of mileage out of the DAR (which will soon come out with a FormB) in our adult reading lab, but if you already have people trained in the W-J, that's a fantastic test.
From: Jim Williams
Subject: [SpecialTopics 31] Re: Flurry of Questions about the ARCS
Date: Wed May 24 13:38:13 2006
Thank you for this valuable discussion. I would like to comment on an E-mail posted earlier from Stephanie Korber. Specifically she referred to the fact that it is most difficult to implement certain aspects of reading instruction when faced with a limited budget along with a staff of teachers and volunteers who are often not trained nor comfortable teaching phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency instruction. I have struggled for years with this issue. I am a former English teacher and remedial reading teacher at an inner- city high school in Atlanta, Georgia. For years I also operated a reading clinic during after-school hours. Older students and adults with basic reading skill deficiencies often require huge amounts of time to master basic skills. Meeting once or twice a week with a tutor is a very long, arduous, and uncertain path in terms of the student ever becoming an independent reader.
Teachers in the upper grades and adult literacy instructors usually do not have a background in teaching phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency instruction. Reading specialists do, but there are few of them available in many programs. So many teachers/tutors avoid an area they don't feel comfortable addressing, and instead of focusing on basic skill instruction instead focus upon teaching comprehension strategies instead. But the research is clear that in fact if these struggling students are ever to become independent readers, then they require mastery in the basic skills mentioned above. As the ARCS study indicates, adults reading below the GED level seem to freeze at somewhere in the middle school years which tends to be the very point schools quit focusing upon learning to read and instead focus upon reading to learn. Adults who continue to struggle as readers need intensive, systematic, and direct instruction. And yet because of the time involved to provide this intensive remediation, and the lack of training teachers and volunteers receive, often this critical area is neglected.
Fortunately the solution is available now with technology. Print and audio lessons which teach phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency for adults can be found online. Students are able to work independently at a computer or in conjunction with a teacher/tutor. A computer-based method of delivery, when offered at a price that is within an organization's budget, enables virtually any organization to teach effectively critical reading skills to students while at the same time providing a method whereby staff can receive training as well.
Without direct access to online learning or perhaps a video-based format of instruction, the kind of intensive training which is required to train staff and to teach basic reading skills to students is simply outside the economic reach of many organizations, particularly adult literacy organizations who rely heavily upon volunteer tutors. I can think of no other effective and sustainable solution to this issue than a computer-based model of delivering instruction.
Jim Williams
Email address: jw at weallcanread.com
Web address: www.weallcanread.com
From: john strucker
Subject: [SpecialTopics 29] Re: Grouping Students
Date: Wed May 24 15:44:37 2006
Hi Bill,
Nice to hear from you! But you're busted as an expert! For those who don't know Bill, I'd like to point out that he is a very accomplished reading researcher in his own right who actually did a an excellent version of the ARCS with inmates in the Federal Corrections system. Bill, I'll respond to your questions within your text below.
--On Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:55 AM -0400 "William R Muth/FS/VCU" <wrmuth at vcu.edu> wrote:
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?
Two of our ARCS profile clusters (see attachments) - Cluster 6 at the Intermediate Level and Cluster 10 at the Beginner Level - were actually distinguished from other nearly identical neighboring clusters by having very slow reading rates and unusual difficulty with rapid automatized naming (RAN). Based on clinical experience, Ros and I have found that people with this rate difficulty profile still have difficulty improving their reading rate even after they've patched up their word recognition ability. They respond much more slowly to fluency instruction than other folks at the same level. There may not be enough of these learners with severe rate problems at one time to justify creating a whole class solely for them, but teachers need to know about them because they respond more slowly to instruction - and it's not because they're lazy or inattentive. They appear to need more practice and exposure not just to phonics principles but also to syllable types and new vocabulary words.
The general area fluency instruction in the classroom doesn't seem to present a big problem for teachers. Yes, people will read at different rates even within a profile type, but the same techniques of round robin oral reading, repeated reading, and choral reading seem to work with them. As long as somewhat faster readers are patient and supportive when listening to a slower readers during round robin reading, it usually goes pretty well. And, even the people who have the most trouble increasing their rate can still improve their comprehension by improving their smoothness and expression (prosody) in oral reading.
(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?
This is an important point that Jeanne Chall also wondered about when I first showed her some adult profiles way back in 1995. Would profiles change as people improved? We just don't know. We really need a longitudinal study to explore that. We do know from the work of Maggie Bruck and others that people who are dyslexic are capable of improving their comprehension to quite a high level if they get the right instruction; but even when this happens, they they continue to have severe difficulty at the phoneme (letter-sound) and word level, and they continue to have very poor spelling. At the other extreme, an ESOL learner with initially weak English vocabulary is likely to improve in that (and with that to improve in comprehension as well) until her or his abilities approach those of native speakers.
(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?
I covered those points in my response to Mina yesterday. Briefly, if a teacher is forced to teach a multi-level, multi-profile class, she needs to have accurate diagnostic information on the various learner profiles present; she has to know what to do with each profile; she needs a range of materials in each component; she needs prep time to plan three, four, or five separate lessons for the one class; and finally, she needs a well-trained volunteer or professional instructional aide to help her carry out the several distinct lessons within the one class period.
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 3
