2. 职称英语
  3. What’s Hot, What’s Not for 2006 This year marks not

What’s Hot, What’s Not for 2006 This year marks not

游客2023-07-26  8
问题                         What’s Hot, What’s Not for 2006
    This year marks not only the 50th anniversary of IRA but also the 10th year of the "What’s hot" survey. Therefore, in addition to looking at what’s "hot" for 2006, we also devote’ some attention to changes in the field that have occurred since we began the "hot" list.
List contains 14 "very hot" topics
    The 2006 list contains 14 "very hot" topics, more than any list since we began. However, no one topic was listed as "extremely hot". The 14 "very hot" topics were: adolescent literacy, comprehension, direct/explicit instruction, early intervention, English as a second language/ English-language    learners,    fluency,    high-stakes assessment,    informational texts,    literacy coaches/reading coaches, phonics, political/ policy influences on literacy,    preschool literacy instruction, scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction, and word meaning/ vocabulary. Before we comment on some of these topics, let’s look at how this list is compiled.
The survey
    This survey of literacy leaders has been conducted each year since 1996. Between May and September, 25 literacy leaders are interviewed, either in person or by phone. All are read a standard 178-word paragraph defining "hot" and "not hot". Basically, "hot" refers to the level of attention a given topic is currently receiving. It is also explained that their ratings of "hot" and "not hot" do not necessarily reflect their personal interest, or lack thereof, in a given topic.
    After hearing the introductory paragraph, each respondent is asked to rate a given topic as "hot" or "not hot". Each respondent is then asked if the topic "should be hot" or "should not be hot". The resulting chart with the topics rated appears in the December/January issue of Reading Today.
Constructing the survey
    Each year the 25 literacy leaders who had responded to the list of topics the previous year are sent the previous year’s list and asked to make modifications, additions, and deletions. We enclose a self-addressed stamped envelope for them to send back their responses. If some of the literacy leaders fail to respond, they are called or c-mailed and urged to respond. For the 2006 survey, 24 of the 2005 leaders eventually provided suggestions for additions, modifications, and deletions. Based on those suggestions, we constructed this year’s list.
    Two topics from 2005 were eliminated: decodable text and scripted instruction. One topic was added, critical literacy/reading. Like the year before, many of the 2005 literacy leaders also wanted gender issues in literacy eliminated, but because that topic has been on the list for a relatively short period of time, we decided to keep it for at least another year.
Selecting the respondents
    We select each year’s respondents based on a number of criteria. The first and most important criterion is that they must have a national or international perspective on literacy. Thus, we often select those who are on the boards of prominent literacy organizations such as IRA, the National Reading Conference, and the College Reading Association. Some editors of the major journals in the field are usually included.
    We also select the literacy leaders from various geographical areas in the United States, from Canada, and from outside North America.    The percentage of IRA members in a given area determines the number of literacy leaders we interview from that area. For instance, the eastern region of the United States has approximately 27% of IRA’s individual members. Therefore, we should probably interview about 7 literacy leaders from the cast; this year we interviewed exactly seven literacy leaders from the east.     In assembling our list, we also try to see that different job categories are represented (such as teachers, college professors, and administrators) and that the list is ethnically diverse. However, the main criterion for inclusion in the respondent group is still that the literacy-leader has knowledge of trends and issues at the national or international level.
Analyzing the hottest topics
    Each year we take particular note of some of the hottest topics in the field. Of the 14 "very hot" topics this year, nine were also "very hot" or "extremely hot" last year. They were: comprehension, direct/explicit instruction, English as a second language/English-language learners, fluency, high-stakes assessment, literacy coaches/reading coaches, phonics, political / policy influences on literacy, and scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction.
    Five topics rated as "hot" last year have since moved up to "very hot." They are: adolescent literacy, early intervention, informational resets, preschool literacy instruction, and word meaning/vocabulary. An encouraging fact is that the overwhelming majority of the respondents agree that all five of these topics "should be hot".
    The fact that early intervention was not rated "very hot" last year is probably a fluke because it has been "very hot" for each of the other nine years of the survey. However, it will be interesting to observe what will happen to phonemic awareness.    For the first time in 10 years, this topic slipped from the "very hot" category. Since 2003, the majority of our respondents have felt that this topic was receiving too much attention (i. e. , it "should not be hot").
    Like last year, legislation in the United States (political/policy influences on literacy) has probably had a major influence on the hottest topics. Comprehension, fluency, word meaning/ vocabulary, and phonics form the basis for much of the recommended reading instruction in the Bush reading initiatives. Also targeted are very young children (early intervention and preschool literacy instruction) and children whose first language is not English (English as a second language / English-language learners).         States and districts must also demonstrate that they are using valid and reliable measures in their accountability measures (high-stakes assessment). Many of the advocated programs also make extensive use of explicit, teacher-directed instruction (direct/explicit instruction).    All of the programs and methods must demonstrate a strong scientific research base (scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction).
    Although the reading legislation of the Bush administration affected the topics on the "hot" list, it was the meta-analysis of the research done by the National Reading Panel (a href="http:// www. nationalreadingpanel. org"＞ www. nationalreadingpanel, org) that laid the groundwork for this legislation.    The National Reading Panel looked at studies using scientific evidence-based research methodology and identified five areas that had sufficient research to justify drawing some positive conclusions: comprehension, fluency, phonemic awareness, phonics, and word meaning/ vocabulary.
    Four of these topics were rated "very hot" in this year’s survey., and for the first time phonemic awareness slipped out of the "very hot" category. The National Reading Panel did find that 18 hours (total) of instruction in phonemic awareness was probably enough for most children. Most of our respondents also believed that instruction in word meaning/vocabulary was more deserving of attention, and, for the first time in 10 years, that topic is rated "very hot."
    Adolescent literacy is a new addition to the "very hot" list, and undoubtedly the Bush legislation also contributed to the increased attention for this topic. As part of the No Child Left Behind legislation, millions of dollars have been proposed for a High School Initiative, and money has actually been allocated for a striving readers program.
    Also contributing to the attention on adolescent literacy is the funding being provided from private sources such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Many believe that the IRA position statement on adolescent literacy has served as a catalyst for this increased emphasis.
Goals of the survey
    In the early years of this survey, we would often receive communications from readers alleging that publication of lists such as this contributes to a "bandwagon effect" with researchers and teachers focusing only on the hottest topics. We always took pains to explain that the term "hot" was not synonymous with the word "important". That distinction became clearer when we added the "should be hot" arid "should not be hot" columns in 2000.
    The purpose of the survey has always been to acquaint readers with those issues that are receiving attention, thus perhaps encouraging them to investigate these topics in more depth. We also hope that the discrepancies between the "hot" list and the "should be hot" list will encourage our readers to be more active advocates for the best literacy practices in their own schools and political arenas.
    Perhaps educators can take advantage of the attention being received by some of these issues and make needed changes in their schools. Thus, in 2006, because adolescent literacy and literacy coaches/reading coaches are both "very hot’ topics, now might be the time to request a reading specialist/literacy coach for the high school level -- striking when the iron is hot, as the clich6 goes. In addition, our respondents would agree that these are two irons that "should be hot". [br] Most of our respondents also believed that instruction in word meaning/vocabulary was more deserving of attention, and, _____________ , that topic is rated "very hot".
选项
答案 for the first time in 10 years
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2871719.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)