By Jack Cassidy and Drew Cassidy
In the 12th annual survey, phonics is not hot for the first time
Listen
to Jack Cassidy on the history of the annual hot/not list.This survey of literacy leaders to determine the hottest topics in the field began 12 years ago, and the results have appeared every year in Reading Today. When we began this list of hot topics, we had no idea that it would receive so much attention. Comments come from classroom teachers, administrators, publishers, and college professors. The list is used as an introduction in university courses on literacy trends and issues and as a basis for staff development in schools. The list has been translated into Spanish, summarized in local newspapers, and cited in countless journal articles and books.
Late in 2007, the Literacy Trust of the United Kingdom contacted us about adapting the survey for the UK and then interviewing literacy leaders there. A link to those results can be found at www.literacytrust.org.uk/research/WHWN2008.html. In addition, the full text and chart from this 12th annual survey can be found in the Reading Today section of the IRA website at www.reading.org.
Unlike last year, when everyone agreed that adolescent literacy was the hottest topic, there was no “extremely hot topic”this year. However, there were nine “very hot”topics: adolescent literacy, English as a second language/English-language learners, early intervention, fluency, high-stakes assessment, informational/nonfiction texts, literacy coaches/reading coaches, response to intervention, and scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction.
Most of these “very hot”topics were on the “very hot”or “extremely hot”list last year. response to intervention moved from “hot”last year to “very hot”this year; the reverse was true for the topic direct/explicit instruction. The surprise “not hot”topic was phonics! For most of the past 12 years, phonics has been very hot. This year, for the first time, phonics moved to the “not hot”column. But, before we comment on some of these topics, let’s look at how this list is compiled.
This survey of literacy leaders has been conducted each year since 1996. During the months of April through October, 25 literacy leaders are interviewed, either in person or by phone. All are read a standard 178-word paragraph defining “hot”and “not hot.”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. Rather, the ratings refer to the level of attention that a given topic is currently receiving.
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, consisting of how the topics were rated, is then published in Reading Today at the beginning of the following year.
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 e-mailed and urged to respond. For the 2008 survey, 21 of the 2007 leaders eventually provided suggestions for additions, modifications, and deletions. Based on those suggestions, we constructed this year’s list.
Technology was eliminated from the 2008 list and new literacies/media literacies was added. One could easily argue, however, that the two topics are very similar. For our purposes, we decided to classify new literacies/media literacies as a “new”topic.
Based on input from the 2007 respondents, several topics from the 2007 list were modified. The topic professional development was modified with the parenthetical addition of (inservice); teacher education was modified with the addition of the parenthetical statement (preservice). Struggling readers (grade 3 and above) was changed to struggling readers (grade 4 and above). Our respondents felt that grades one through three were more likely to be perceived as the primary unit.
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 respondents 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 Southeastern region of the United States has approximately 20% of IRA’s individual members. Therefore, we should probably interview about five literacy leaders from the Southeast; this year we interviewed exactly five from this region.
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.
The chart shows what the literacy leaders think is “hot”or “not hot”as well as what they think “should be hot”and “should not be hot.”One square in a column indicates that a majority of those interviewed gave a particular response; we call these topics “hot”or “not hot.”Two squares indicate that at least 75% of those surveyed gave a particular response; we call those topics “very hot”or “cold.”Three squares indicate 100% agreement; we call these topics “extremely hot”or “extremely cold.”
On the chart a (+) indicates that the topic is hotter for 2008 than it was for 2007. A (–) indicates that the topic is less hot for 2008 than it was for 2007. An (*) indicates that the topic is new for 2008.
Most of the topics listed on the chart are self-explanatory, although sometimes a given respondent can have his or her individual definition for a topic. However, several terms that appear to be of a distinctly U.S. origin require a bit more explanation.
A literacy coach or reading coach is a reading professional who focuses on providing staff development in reading/language arts to teachers. literacy coaches or reading coaches do this by modeling appropriate strategies, observing in classrooms, conferring with teachers, and conducting staff development seminars.
Ideally, the literacy coach works in only one school and is a certified reading specialist. Unfortunately, in many instances, this is not the case; the literacy coach is not a licensed reading specialist and/or serves more than one school.
The phrase response to intervention seems to be another term that is unique to the United States, and even some of our U.S. respondents were unsure of the term’s definition. Like many topics on the list, this term originated with some U.S. legislative action.
In order to curtail the number of referrals for special education, legislation in the United States now allows for a percentage of the money normally allocated for special education to be used for preventive measures. The most popular framework for this prevention is often called the three-tier model.
Tier One is quality in-class instruction. If that intervention does not work, some short-term, small-group or individual intervention may be initiated, possibly by a reading specialist (Tier Two). If that is not effective, the third level of intervention is more long-term in nature (Tier Three) and could eventually involve referral to a special education class.
This is not the only RTI model. Further information about response to intervention appears on IRA’s website in the Focus on Topics in Reading page at www .reading.org/resources/issues/focus_rti.html.
Each year we take particular note of some of the hottest topics in the field. This year no topic received the “extremely hot”designation (i.e., all of our respondents agreeing that this topic was receiving a great deal of attention.) Last year adolescent literacy was “extremely hot”; this year it slipped to “very hot.”Of the nine “very hot”topics this year, seven were also “extremely hot”or “very hot”last year. As noted earlier, “very hot”topics for 2008 are: adolescent literacy, early intervention, English as a second language/English language learners, fluency, high-stakes assessment, informational/nonfiction texts, literacy coaches/reading coaches, response to intervention, and scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction. response to intervention, which was new to the list last year, became “very hot.”Early intervention, which for some reason slipped off the “very hot”list last year, was now restored to that list.Direct/explicit instruction, “very hot”last year, was now just “hot.”Except for fluency, high-stakes assessment, and scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction, most of our respondents felt that these “very hot”topics “should be hot.”
The meta-analysis of the research done by the National Reading Panel (www.nationalreadingpanel.org) laid the groundwork for much of the reading legislation from the Bush administration. The National Reading Panel had looked at studies using scientific evidence-based reading 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. These five aspects of reading became known as the five “pillars”of reading instruction.
Most literacy leaders have expressed some concern that these five pillars were being perceived by some people as equally important. Generally, comprehension and word meaning/vocabulary were understood by those in the field of reading to be more important than the other three “pillars.”
This year, as the Bush administration draws to a close, two of the pillars (phonics and phonemic awareness) are on the “not hot”list. Most literacy leaders also agree that these two topics “should not be hot”-that too much emphasis has been put on them. fluency, while still “very hot,”is now thought to have also received too much attention (i.e., it “should not be hot”); just last year the literacy leaders agreed that fluency “should be hot.”Surprisingly, although most literacy leaders have consistently agreed that comprehension and vocabulary “should be hot,”these two pillars only moved to the “hot”column in 2003 and 2005 respectively.
Interestingly enough, scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction, the cement from which the five pillars were constructed, is also perceived as receiving too much attention. Most of our respondents felt that other kinds of research should also be valued.Direct/explicit instruction, which is often associated with phonics, is also cooling down.
As mentioned earlier, the surprise topic on the “not hot”list is phonics. Last year, phonemic awareness moved to the “not hot”list for the first time since the survey began. This year, phonics also made that list for the first time. One respondent stated that the importance of phonics is now generally accepted. It is time to move on.
The six coldest topics on the 2008 list are critical literacy/reading, family literacy, gender issues in literacy, motivation, multicultural literature, and writing. All six of these topics were also the coldest issues last year. Preschool literacy instruction, which had been among the coldest last year, warmed up a bit. Except for gender issues in literacy, most of our respondents felt that all of the coldest topics should be receiving attention. The lack of attention being given to gender issues in literacy in the United States is somewhat surprising because in Europe and Oceania it appears to be a very hot topic.
In the early years of this survey, we would often receive communications from readers of the list alleging that publication of such material contributes to a “bandwagon effect”with researchers and teachers focusing only on the hottest topics. We always took pains to make sure that the term “hot”was not synonymous with the word “important.”That distinction became clearer when we added the “should be hot”and “should not be hot”columns in 2000.
Unfortunately, a newspaper is not the proper venue to discuss all of the subtleties in the comments of some of the respondents. For instance, one of the literacy leaders stated that although professional staff development is “hot”and “should be hot,”the model of professional development that is being advanced stresses teachers following scripts. That is not good, the respondent said.
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.
Also, educators can take advantage of the attention being received by some of these issues and make needed changes in their schools. Thus, because response to intervention and literacy coaches/reading coaches are both “very hot,”now might be the time to use literacy coaches to train classroom teachers in the use of the three-tier model (or other appropriate interventions) before referring students for special education.
Jack Cassidy, a former IRA president, is director of the Center for Educational Development, Evaluation, and Research (CEDER) and associate dean for graduate studies for the College of Education at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. Drew Cassidy teaches at the same university. Questions or comments about this survey can be directed to jack.cassidy@tamucc.edu.
Listen to Jack Cassidy discuss the “what’s hot” project as part of IRA’s two new audio podcast series. Cassidy’s podcast is part of the IRA Insights series, which features literacy leaders talking about a range of topics. The other series, Class Acts, focuses on teaching techniques that are research based and classroom tested. A complete list of available podcasts can be found at the following page on the IRA website: www.reading.org/resources/podcasts/index.html.
Participants in this year’s survey were Sherry Alleman, Stacy Middle School, Massachusetts; Richard Allington, University of Tennessee; Donna Alvermann, University of Georgia; Kathryn H. Au, University of Hawaii; Betsy Baker, Columbia Public Schools, Missouri; Thomas Bean, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Heather Bell, Rosebank School, New Zealand; Robert Cooter, University of Memphis, Tennessee; Alan Farstrup, International Reading Association, Delaware; Linda Gambrell, Clemson University, South Carolina; David Hernandez, III, Madison-Camelview School, Arizona; James V. Hoffman, University of Texas; Paul Kropp, Toronto, Canada; Donald J. Leu, University of Connecticut; Maryann Manning, University of Alabama-Birmingham; Peggy McCardle, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Washington, DC; Susan Neuman, University of Michigan; P. David Pearson, University of California at Berkeley; Taffy E. Raphael, University of Illinois at Chicago; Timothy Rasinski, Kent State University, Ohio; D. Ray Reutzel, Utah State University; Cathy Roller, International Reading Association, Washington, DC; Timothy Shanahan, University of Illinois, Chicago; Dorothy Strickland, Rutgers University, New Jersey; and Barbara Walker, Oklahoma State University.
What’s hot for 2008. (February 2008). Reading Today, 25(4), 1, 10, 11.
Journals
Reading Today