School Libraries: Resources for Engaged Reading (Goodin)

Susie Goodin

Susie M. Goodin taught elementary school in Vermont and California before the arrival of her four children. For the past 20 years she has developed and managed a variety of school libraries. She loves to be outdoors gardening, swimming and hiking, as well as avidly collecting children’s literature. Currently she is a doctoral candidate at UC Berkeley, Graduate School of Education in the Language, Literacy and Culture program. Her major interest in education research is in exploring the link between school libraries and literacy development.

With great seriousness, holding the book in both hands to gently return it to me, he stated, “This is the best book I’ve ever read in my life. Can I have another one just like it?” 

The eighth grader had read the library book overnight and he was anxious to read another, and as it turns out, another and another in quick succession. This anecdote from a small urban school library is emblematic of the importance of giving students access to engaging texts, promoted in school libraries. Hypothesized in Stanovich’s (1986) compelling model of the Matthew effect of reading (‘the rich get richer, the poor get poorer’), the volume of reading that a student does influences automatic word recognition, fluency, vocabulary development, and importantly, the motivation to read more. In an upward and reciprocal spiral of increased reading, the student can learn vocabulary and gain general knowledge that serves to support reading comprehension processes. In this video, Keith Stanovich explains the Matthew Effect.

Considerable research on independent reading both in and out of school affirms Stanovich’s model (Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988; Taylor, Frye & Maruyama, 1990). These conclusions speak to the value of school libraries and supportive, knowledgeable librarians:

• Independent reading volume makes a significant difference in students’ standardized reading test scores.
•  Reading books has the strongest association of all activities with reading achievement.
•  Even a small amount of daily book reading(10 minutes!) makes a difference in a student’s reading proficiency.

Further, we know that incidental exposure to new words during reading is the most powerful way of acquiring an extensive vocabulary (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998; Nagy, 1988). It is students’ motivation to read that is effected by access to texts of all types in school libraries. We know that for students like the eighth grader noted above, motivation to read—supported by access to interesting texts—generates engagement that in turn, correlates to better reading outcomes (Brozo, Shiel & Topping, 2007; Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). As a school librarian I have repeatedly seen the positive effect of offering a wide range of engaging literature to students at all grade levels. When students are allowed to choose books that they find interesting, they will read more. 

In my most recent project to develop a secondary school library where there was none, 83% of the students accessed the library over the course of the semester, eager to find a good book.

The literature on school library effectiveness confirms a strong correlation between robust school library programs with credentialed school librarians, access to engaging literature and student achievement. In reviews of research at the state level (see Krashen, 1993; Lonsdale, 2003) and studies of individual school sites (for example, Achterman, 2008), the importance of school libraries to student achievement is evident.

Given that the Matthew effect can also have a downward cast to the spiral of reading achievement if students are less engaged in reading over time, supporting school libraries as one way of supporting students’ interests in reading is crucial to building the vocabulary and general information needed to succeed in school.

June 29th is Library Advocacy Day, as mentioned in a prior post. Visit the American Library Association for more information. To honor and support school libraries on June 29th, check out your state and local community access to school (and public) libraries. Ask some questions to determine if your state is one like California that has only 23.7% of schools supported by paid state-certified school librarians, or is one like Georgia that has 100% staffing by school librarians (figures from NCES, Table 2a. Media Centers, By State: 1999-2000). Once you know the facts about your locality, find a way to advocate for school libraries—because all of our children deserve access to wonderful books they want to read.

Packhorse librarians go out of their way to deliver books. 
Photo from National Archives.

Click for References:

The English Language: Complex (poll)

The poll has closed. Thank you for participating! Exactly 50% of the 98 voters viewed English as more complex than German, Spanish, and French, at least from a reading and spelling perspective. Yes, several researchers would agree. I show the poll below, and discuss the relative difficulty associated with spelling -- and reading -- English words.

poll by twiigs.com

 

 (Click image to enlarge)

Orthography has to do with the writing and spelling system. Seymour, Aro, and Erskine (2003) analyzed various European writing systems. Table 1 provides their hypothetical classification of each language by syllabic structure (simple or complex) and orthographic depth (deep or shallow). The chart shows that Finnish is probably the least challenging language for learning to read words. Finnish employs simple syllable patterns within a shallow orthography; each grapheme represents one phoneme, one sound only. (How elegant! How simple!) At the right end of the chart, English is hypothesized to be the most complex in both syllable structure and orthographic depth. Consider the varied ways we spell the sound known as Long A: day, prey, name, rain, eight, paper, bouquet, fiancée and matinee. (How challenging! How muddled!) But hey! C'est la vie! 

For more on the difficulties associated with spelling and reading in English, see English is Difficult, a humorous article by Michael Quinion of World Wide Words. 

But keep in mind, some would argue that English orthography is not wierd or random. They make the case that the English orthorgraphic system is orderly, logical -- even elegant. For example, see this brief  You Tube video featuring Gina Cooke, an expert in Real Spelling. (Be advised, some comments use rough language, not suitable for school. The video is also available at TED.com, but without the comments.)

Implications for Teachers and Students:
Learning to read and write in English is no cakewalk -- even if you take the approach suggested by Gina Cooke. When learning English compared to Spanish, for example, sight word identification will probably be more difficult. Errors are more likely. Phonological awareness instruction is more essential (Frost, 2005). The challenge is great, especially for children who experience reading difficulties like dyslexia, and for children of poverty, particularly if they have few encounters with books in the home. The challenge may also confound English language learners. Thus, we must make phonemes, graphemes, morphemes, and word meanings explicit. Devote time to reading, writing, and word study. Read and explore informational texts to build content knowledge, discussed in a prior post.

In a language this complex, fluency may not come easily. As Dr. Hasbrouck mentioned in the prior post, readers who are fluent are more apt to read a lot, resulting in greater vocabulary expansion. Who knows? Avid readers and seekers might even develop a lasting interest in a particular topic and become über-motivated. Attentive and alert. Curious and increasingly confident. Hopefully, the development of interest is still a prime goal of education, as described years ago by Edward Thorndike (1906) and John Dewey (1913).

Pass the word along. Tell students they struggle with English because it is complex, but remind them also that they can solve this fascinating puzzle if they sort out the patterns and practice daily. Affirm every attempt. Help every teacher and parent understand the nature of this fabulous beast.

PS. Grammar is another story. Believe it or not, English grammar is relatively simple when compared to other large languages. Science Daily reports on pertinent new research from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Memphis.

References:

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and Effort in Education. Riverside Press, Boston.  

Frost, R. (2005). Orthographic systems and skilled word recognition processes in reading. In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A   handbook. (pp. 272-295). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.  

Seymour, P.H.K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J.M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143-17.  

Thorndike, E. L. (1906). The Principles of Teaching: Based on Psychology. A. G. Seiler: New York.  

University of Pennsylvania (2010, January 21). Language structure is partly determined by social structure. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 23, 2010.

Reading Fluency and Vocabulary (Hasbrouck)

Dr. Jan Hasbrouck contributed the following post. Jan's research interests include fluency, educational leadership, literacy coaching, etc. Helpful guides for teachers include The Reading Coach: A How-To Manual for Success.

 
I have been involved with issues related to reading fluency for over thirty years. My interest in this topic started when I was a reading specialist, working with struggling readers in primary, intermediate, and middle schools. I was frustrated with the fact that while so many of my students could read—they could figure out what the words on the page were, and in most cases make sense of what they had decoded—most of my students couldn’t read well. Daily, I watched them struggle. They worked HARD to read text. It took them a long TIME to read sentences and passages. There clearly was little to no intrinsic MOTIVATION to read anything.  

Because this awareness began over three decades ago—long before the publication of the Report of the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000)—I had to do some exploring on my own to figure out what I needed to do to help my students become successful, motivated readers. My investigations helped me understand that a key skill that was missing in many of my students’ repertoire was fluency, which I have come to understand as “accurate reading at a minimal rate with appropriate prosodic features and deep understanding” (Hudson, Mercer, & Lane, 2000). I appreciate this particular definition because it includes all the key components of reading fluency—and lists them in what seems to me the correct order. Below, I will discuss these four components and their contribution to reading fluency. 

Accuracy. Fluent reading is first and foremost ACCURATE reading. We’d never consider a reader to be fluent if he or she made many errors. Nor would we expect a reader to never make a mistake. We are human after all! Acceptable levels of accuracy in reading would typically range from 97 to 98%. 

Rate. I also appreciate that Hudson et al.’s definition mentions RATE--but not a maximum rate. This is a common misunderstanding about fluency. But we understand that fluent readers do not read as fast as they can (although that can be fun to try from time to time! Ready, set, GO!!). As reading specialist, my question was: “So, what should the ‘minimum rate’ be for my students?” Without this information it is difficult if not impossible to set a reasonable instructional goal for students. I was surprised to find that in the early 1980s there was no answer for this question in the current research literature. When I mentioned this critical gap to my then doctoral advisor, Dr. Jerry Tindal at the University of Oregon, he suggested that we should do the research to provide this information for our professional educator colleagues. Together we compiled oral reading fluency norms that continue to be used today to help determine an appropriate “minimum rate” (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 1992; 2006).

 Prosody. Appropriate PROSODIC FEATURES means that when students read aloud, they should use “good expression” with appropriate rhythm, intonation, phrasing, and stress patterns of syllables. In other words, fluent reading should sound like speech (Stahl & Kuhn, 2002). The research is just emerging on the role of prosody in reading and at this point there is only minimal evidence that prosodic reading serves as a significant mediator of reading comprehension (Schwanenflugel et al., 2004).  

Deep Understanding. We care about the skill fluency because the point of reading is comprehension and many if not most of our dysfluent students have difficulty making sense of what they read. The information comes in inaccurately and/or too slowly for the brain to process correctly. Students who struggle with fluency also read significantly less than their more skillful peers and fall further behind in skill development. As Stanovich (1986) reminds us, in reading the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Vocabulary development is affected by reading fluency. Some struggling readers, especially those who have been diagnosed as having dyslexia, have an understanding of spoken words (listening vocabulary) that is at times even superior to their normally progressing peers (Wolf, 2002). However, in order for a student to apply their understanding of the vocabulary in text, they must be able to read that text accurately and at a reasonable and appropriate rate.

Every teacher and every parent wishes that every child will learn to read and love to read. Paying attention to the skill of fluency can help us all achieve that wonderful goal. Help children read fluently, and they will be more apt to enjoy books and other print media. Fluent readers gain word and world knowledge from texts and websites. Ultimately, a natural byproduct of frequent and fluent reading is improved vocabulary and comprehension.

Now, I’d love to hear from you. Please share your expertise! What tools, tips, or techniques have you found effective in building students’ fluency with words, phrases, sentences, and/or passages? What tools do you use to measure fluency? How well is it working? Drop us a line! I am happy to respond to any comments or questions you may have on this topic. 

• Hasbrouck, J. E. & Tindal, G. (Spring, 1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2-5.Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(3), 41-44.
• Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher. 59(7),636–644.
• Hudson, Mercer, & Lane (2000). Exploring reading fluency: A paradigmatic overview. Unpublished manuscript. University of Florida, Gainesville.
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Schwanenflugel, P. J., Hamilton, A. M., Kuhn, M. R., Wisenbaker, J. M., Stahl, S. A. (2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 96(1), 119-129.
• Stahl, S. A. & Kuhn, M. R. (2002). Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement: Making it sound like language: Developing fluency. The Reading Teacher, 55 (6), 582-584.
• Stanovich, Keith E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.
• Wolf, M. (April 2002). Reading difficulties - A major health problem. Radio broadcast Monday 1 April 2002. Retrieved January 5, 2010 from href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s518687.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s518687.htm