Appendix D

Search Procedures and Reviewed
Studies of Adult Literacy Instruction

This appendix describes procedures used to review the research on adult literacy instruction and presents the studies that informed the committee’s deliberations. These reviews were conducted to augment a recent systematic review of adult literacy research (Kruidenier, MacArthur, and Wrigley, 2010). The appendix has five sections. Sections 1 through 4 describe the review procedures and studies gathered that have a focus on adult basic and secondary education and academically underprepared students. Following the introduction to Sections 1-4 are tables providing details of each reviewed study. Section 5 contains the complete reference list of the studies gathered.

APPENDIX CONTENTS

Section 1. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction

Section 2. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction with English Language Learners

Section 3. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Qualitative Studies of Literacy Instruction

Section 4. Academically Underprepared College Students: Effectiveness and Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction

         A. Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction

         B. Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction

         C. Effectiveness Studies with English Language Learners

         D. Descriptive Studies with English Language Learners

Section 5. References



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 417
Appendix D Search Procedures and Reviewed Studies of Adult Literacy Instruction This appendix describes procedures used to review the research on adult literacy instruction and presents the studies that informed the committee’s deliberations. These reviews were conducted to aug- ment a recent systematic review of adult literacy research (Kruidenier, MacArthur, and Wrigley, 2010). The appendix has five sections. Sections 1 through 4 describe the review procedures and studies gathered that have a focus on adult basic and secondary education and academically underprepared students. Fol- lowing the introduction to Sections 1-4 are tables providing details of each reviewed study. Section 5 contains the complete reference list of the studies gathered. APPENDIX CONTENTS Section 1. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction Section 2. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction with Eng- lish Language Learners Section 3. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Qualitative Studies of Literacy Instruction Section 4. Academically Underprepared College Students: Effectiveness and Descriptive Studies of Lit- eracy Instruction A. Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction B. Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction C. Effectiveness Studies with English Language Learners D. Descriptive Studies with English Language Learners Section 5. References 417

OCR for page 417
418 IMPROVING ADULT HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUCTION SECTION 1. ADULT BASIC AND SECONDARY EDUCATION: EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES OF LITERACY INSTRUCTION The search for literature on literacy instruction for adults included a prior review, sponsored by the National Institute for Literacy (Kruidenier, MacArthur, and Wrigley, 2010), and targeted searches to augment these findings as needed to draw conclusions about the state of the research and needs for development. Electronic searches were conducted using Scopus and ERIC to locate additional studies for the years 1990-2010. Searches were conducted using the following single or crossed search terms: adult literacy, adult literacy instruction, literacy education, adult education, adult basic education, adult students, adults, reading instruction, decoding (reading), reading comprehension, reading processes, writing instruc- tion, intervention, teaching methods, instructional effectiveness, program effectiveness, adult basic skills, adult secondary education, General Educational Development, GED, high school equivalency programs, community-based organizations, community colleges, prison, workplace, correctional, health, housing, English language learners, second language learners, second language learning, English as a Second Lan- guage (ESL), and English (Second Language). Other references were found in the Cited Reference Search in the ISI Web of Science Social Science Citation Index and Google Scholar. To ensure identification of the most recent work, a manual search for the years 2008-2010 was conducted in the journals Adult Basic Education, Adult Education Quarterly, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Journal of Second Language Writing, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, Reading and Writing, Reading Research Quarterly, Remedial and Special Education, and Scientific Studies in Reading. Literature considered for the review consisted of peer-reviewed journal articles and reviewed technical reports from known agencies. To be included in the review, material had to report information on the reading or writing abilities of adults in the United States with low literacy skills. Studies of literacy instruction with adolescents were selected for the review only if the adolescents were taught alongside adults, or, if not, they received GED preparation. Studies of instruction with solely adolescent samples not preparing for the GED (e.g., Allen-DeBoer, Malmgren, and Glass, 2006; Houchins et al., 2008) were not included in the review. Generally, the term adults refers to individuals ages 18 and older, although in recent years adult literacy programs have also been serving students as young as age 16 (Hayes, 2000; Perin, Flugman, and Spiegel, 2006). Eligibility criteria for federally funded adult education programs specify that individuals must be ages 16 or older. In addition, national adult literacy surveys count individuals ages 16 and older as adults (Kutner et al., 2007). Therefore, for the purpose of this review, the term adults refers to ages 16 and older and thus includes older adolescents. Studies on instructional effects could employ a variety of design and research methods, but they had to describe the nature of the reading or writing instruction and include direct assessments of outcomes in reading or writing. Studies that investigated literacy outcomes as a function of global instructional variables without a focus on instructional practices for teaching reading and writing (e.g., Fitzgerald and Young, 1997) were not included. Literature reviews (e.g., Rachal, 1984, 1995; Slavin and Cheung, 2003; Torgerson et al., 2005; Torgerson, Porthouse, and Brooks, 2003) and compilations of program descrip- tions (Beder, 1999; Medina, 1999) served as sources of information but were not included in the review. To be included, the study must report at least one quantitative reading or writing outcome, using either a published, standardized test or an experimental measure that yielded a numerical score. Studies using student self-reports of reading or writing skills as a dependent measure (e.g., Darkenwald and Valentine, 1985) were excluded. In cases in which both literacy and numeracy were taught, only findings for reading or writing were included. Studies that combined outcomes for reading and math without disaggregating them (e.g., Boudett and Friedlander, 1997; Friedlander and Martinnson, 1996) were not included in the review of instructional outcomes. If not otherwise stated in the research report, it was assumed that participants in studies of adult basic education or GED instruction spoke enough English so as not to require ESL classes. Among the studies with English language learners, only research reporting measured outcomes on reading or writing (not

OCR for page 417
419 APPENDIX D oral language) was selected. A total of 248 references were screened for the review (including for English language learners), and 141 were selected for closer examination. Studies were excluded if they targeted only numeracy or other nonliteracy outcomes, focused on adults with reading disabilities who had com- pleted secondary education, and had at least average literacy skills or if they were reporting the same data as another source selected for the review. Altogether, 107 studies were eliminated after screening. Most of the discarded references were assessment or instructional studies with adults with reading disabilities but not low literacy and studies of instruction with adult literacy populations outside the United States. (A parallel review was conducted to identify practices used in literacy programs for low-literate adults in other countries. These results are synthesized in Chapter 3 to provide insights into practices that may warrant further study with adults in the United States.)

OCR for page 417
SECTION 1. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction 420 Teacher Characteristics Dependent Instructional Practice and and Design, Type Variables and Reference Goals Skill Emphasis Preparation Participants of Data Findings Limitations Alamprese (1) Alphabetics, Discrete skills N = 643, reading Longitudinal, pre- 6 norm- (2009) fluency, classrooms: comprehension post follow- up, referenced tests, vocabulary, Alphabetics < 7th grade, nested sample, 5 reading, 1 comprehension, alone or attended 130 and correlation. spelling. spelling alphabetics plus classrooms in 35 Purposive Finding: (emphasis other component programs sample. Structured varied), or skills, structured instruction in (2) Assistance in following specific alphabetics with reading real-life curriculum, or or without text less structured. comprehension Meaning-making showed greatest classrooms: gain, ES 0.37- Reading practice 0.42. but little reading instruction, 24% of time spent in nonreading tasks. Alessi et al. Reading Find information Pre-GED Quasi- Experimental Only total N (1982-1983) comprehension in text and students, reading experimental. offline multiple- provided, N = paraphrase text. grade levels 4-6, N = approx. 13 choice 36, loss of N = Computer-based prison reading, measures, 5 reading, instruction, N = approx. 18 alternate forms specific N’s not PLATO control* pretest-posttest: provided software. (comparison (1) finding 20 sessions, 20- group studied information, 40 minutes x 4 PLATO math). paraphrasing days/week x 2 Experimental text, (2) transfer months. measures. task: find main idea. Finding: Treatment group increased 25%, control 3% IMPROVING ADULT HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUCTION (p <.01).

OCR for page 417
Paraphrasing: Treatment increased 11%, control APPENDIX D decreased 10%. Main idea N’s for either group (lack of transfer in treatment group). Askov and Vocabulary, Computer- N = 36, ABE Random Experimenter- Brown (1992)** comprehension assisted students, assignment, pre- designed instruction workplace post, treatment measures of based on literacy program control. workplace workplace reading. training manual, Finding: 100 hours. No Statistically treatment significant gain control. on one but not the other measure, compared to control. Batchelder and Reading Classroom- and N = 71, ages 19- Experimental Finding: Little No information Rachal (2000) comprehension computer- 53, ABE (below design. change in on nature of assisted 8th grade N = 71 randomly CASAS scores classroom or instruction, reading level) assigned to pre to post, no computer- details of and GED treatment or difference pre- assisted instructional students, control. Control post change instruction process not maximum received only between provided. security prison classroom treatment and 3 hours instruction (no control. classroom, 1- computers). Pre- hour computer- post CASAS based reading test instruction x 4 (standardized weeks, 80 hours measure). total. 421

OCR for page 417
Berry and Written Writing strategy N = 4, adults in Multiple-probe, Number of essay Design does 422 Mason (2010) expression “POW + TREE + GED class, multiple-baseline, parts, number of not permit COPS” covering scored at least 1 across-subjects transition words, generalization pre-writing, SD below mean design. number of about organizing on Test of Experimental descriptive effectiveness. ideas, drafting Written measure: Essay words, essay Researcher and revising. Language prompt. length. Essay provided (TOWL), parts: instruction. spontaneous Introduction, 3 writing subtest reasons or main points, 2 or more details or explanations, and conclusion. Transfer measures: TOWL story writing probe, GED essay Finding: Essay length and quality improved for all subjects on experimental measure (all DVs). Greatest gain seen for organizing essays (essay parts, transition words). Transfer: 3 students showed high improvement on TOWL measure, 1 decreased; 3 of the 4 students took and passed IMPROVING ADULT HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUCTION

OCR for page 417
GED writing test, other student did not take test. Brock (1998) Sight word Uses children’s N = 1, recruited Single-subject Beginning and No pre-post APPENDIX D recognition picture books from parent case study. ending data with data. Data only beginning with workshop, low- Experimental increasing longer from 32-word book, SES mother of 3 measures: texts, Table 3 (6- instructional progressing to children, ages 8- Responses from week period) sessions in 196-word book x 15, had oral reading of recalculated to which materials 6 weeks. 8 x 90- completed 11th children’s picture control for word varied by minute grade, no prior books. Accuracy, length. session. Data individualized literacy tutoring self-corrections, Finding: on writing not tutoring sessions repetitions, Performance reported. incorporating omissions. levels with NOTE: Use of reading and differing texts writing to writing. Works session 1 and improve with tutor: session 6: reading (1) previews Accuracy: 93%, supported by book to 91%. Self- K-12 analysis determine corrections 3%, (Graham and subject; 4%. Repetitions Hebert, 2010). (2) generates 3%, 8%. key words; Omissions 1%, (3) creates text 2%. Qualitative to accompany data from video each picture; transcript: (4) re-reads Subject can generated text; retell story from (5) mini-lessons picture book. on letter-sound relationships, punctuation, and word endings; (6) revises, edits, and publishes (types) generated text. 423

OCR for page 417
Cheek and Sight word Treatment: N = 71, ages 16- Random Stanford 424 Lindsey (1994) recognition, Language 61, low-SES assignment Diagnostic comprehension experience and vocational pretest- posttest Reading Test, literature-based technical control group alternate forms instruction, students, 53% design. pre- and post- based on formal high school Comparison of phonetic and informal graduates, diagnostic- analysis, assessment, reading grade prescriptive structural authentic levels 3-5-8.5, (treatment) and analysis, literal materials mean 6.0 programmed comprehension, control. Use instruction inferential computers, (control). comprehension controlled subtests. readers, and Finding: Within commercial subject pre-post workbooks. Both gain on all conditions self- measures for paced, diagnostic- individualized. prescriptive, none for control. Diagnostic- prescriptive gain superior to control only for inferential comprehension. Diem and Reading and Computer- N = 30, ABE Quasi- ABLE II, reading Fairweather vocabulary assisted students in experimental, pre- comprehension (1980)** instruction, correctional post and vocabulary. PLATO setting Finding: No program. difference in Control: Same treatment and content, control. delivered by lecture. IMPROVING ADULT HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUCTION

OCR for page 417
Gold and Horn Alphabetics, (1) Language 12-hour training N = 76, ages 16- Experimental Oral vocabulary Little (1982) sight word experience in “Directed 60, mean 4th treatment and no (antonyms, information on recognition, approach: Tutor Listening grade reading treatment (waiting synonyms), word nature of comprehension records Language- level, included list) control. recognition, instruction. APPENDIX D student’s Experience unspecified Standardized reading No treatment dictated Approach,” number of prison measures. comprehension, control material, uses Fernald method, inmates and nonreading (Hawthorne as text for whole-word measures. effect not ruled reading phonics (sic), Finding: out). instruction. comprehension Treatment (2) Fernald techniques, and showed method: Say recreational statistically and trace, then reading program significant spell word from improvement on memory. all measures. (3) Control Comprehension improvement on and recreational 5 of the 9 reading measures. techniques, not Significantly described. more gain in Individualized treatment than tutoring by control on 6 of volunteers. the 9 measures. 90 minutes, 2 x Treatment week, 34 hours gained .5 x 12-15 weeks. reading grade level. Gold and Sight word (1) Language 12-hour training N = 132, ages Pre-experimental: Standardized No control/ Johnson (1982) recognition, experience in language 13-71, below 5th 1 group pretest- word-recognition comparison vocabulary, approach: Tutor experience, grade reading posttest design and vocabulary group reading transcribes directed reading level, included tests, listening comprehension students’ techniques, and unspecified comprehension dictated record-keeping number of prison subtest of material, uses inmates published as text for informal reading reading inventory, comprehension. standardized 425

OCR for page 417
(2) Directed self-esteem 426 listening: Tutor scale. reads published Finding: text aloud, asks Statistically questions, significant gain discusses. on all variables. Individualized Gain of 1.6 tutoring by reading grade volunteers. levels. 60 minutes instruction, 2 x week, 16 hours Greenberg Alphabetics, Writes N = 1, African Single-subject Finding: By end Pre-post (1998) sight word alphabetic American female case study, of 4.5 months of measures not recognition, letters, in her 50s, qualitative data, tutoring, student administered. written phonemic nonreader at descriptions of was aware of Author expression discrimination, onset of student’s growing meaning of provided the rhyme instruction competence, and “word,” could tutoring and awareness, examples of identify 22 collected the phoneme- responses printed letters, data. grapheme recite 16 letters correspondence from memory, s, word-family and could use patterns, phonemic language information in experience (tutor reading and writes from spelling. student dictation), sentence writing. Tutor reads aloud high- interest stories. Individualized tutoring. 1 hour, 2 x week, 4.5 months. IMPROVING ADULT HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUCTION

OCR for page 417
Greenberg et al. Alphabetics, Group Ongoing N = 11, ages 21- Pre-experimental: Standardized No control (2002) sight word instruction uses supervision by 71, 1.5-2.5 1 group pretest- decoding and group APPENDIX D recognition, SRA/ McGraw university reading grade posttest design word-recognition fluency, Hill Direct faculty levels tests, and vocabulary Instruction whether or not Corrective moved to next Reading level of program. curriculum, Finding: 60% including moved to next phonological level, no change and orthographic on standardized awareness, measures. pronunciation, decoding, word recognition, story reading, fluency, accuracy, vocabulary. 80 hours Greenberg et al. Sight word Teaches N = 27, ages 17- Pre-experimental: Woodcock– No control (2006) recognition, concept of 63, reading level 1 group pretest- Johnson group fluency, reading genre, provides grades 3-5 posttest design, subtests, Boston comprehension silent reading for standardized Naming Test, most of class reading tests Peabody Picture session, teacher Vocabulary Test. reads in parallel Finding: Gain in to model silent reading fluency reading. and expressive Teacher reads vocabulary. No aloud, students gain in receptive follow silently, vocabulary, word for portion of identification, class time. decoding, or Discussion or comprehension. writing in private journal. Students 427 select own

OCR for page 417
478 Scrivener et Learning Prepare for Cohort attends clustered First time, Experim al. (2008) community college literacy English, content course, and fulltime Random demands in orientation course (78% of freshmen. assignm Intervention learning English courses were treatme N = 195, community. developmental; developmental busines control and college English not usual c N = 192, cc disaggregated). group Snyder Strategy Teach reading Strategies to locate main idea, Treatment: Quasi- (2002) instruction comprehension generate questions, clarify N = 86 experim strategies for information, predict (specific concurrently Pre-po enrolled in application to strategy not described). compa orientation and text on betwee developmental philosophy and develop reading speech topics reading courses. assigned in higher Comparison: freshman compa N = 66 orientation. groups students in orientation IMPROVING ADULT HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUCTION course who passed placement test. 4 yr, private

OCR for page 417
B. Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction Theoretical Instructional APPENDIX D Reference Framework Goals Practice and Skill Emphasis Participants Dependent Variables and Findings Artis (2008) Strategy Improve SQ3R: Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review Marketing N/A instruction reading (Robinson, 1946) to read content textbooks students, comprehension, college-credit metacognition. course, 4-yr Self-directed learning and long-term retention of information. Baker et al. Meaning Contextualize Two approaches described: (1) Incorporate content Low- skilled N/A. NOTE: Examples come from compilation o (2009) making, reading and from service learning experience in developmental students in brief reports on contextualization of basic skills learning writing English course; themes are community issues and developmental in content areas; did not report the instructional community instruction in activities in students’ volunteer placements (2) Learn and credit practices or strategies. meaningful community pairing English instruction and college English courses, content. success courses; theme is African American culture, cc literature, and experience. English course counts towards associate but not 4-yr degree. English courses in both examples combine reading and writing. Boroch et Sociocultural, Improve Reading Apprenticeship: social, personal, cognitive, Developmental N/A. NOTE: Example comes from compilation o al. (2007) meaning reading and and knowledge dimensions incorporated into reading English instructional methods favored by practitioners. making, writing skills. instruction using subject-matter text; emphasis on students, cc and strategy metacognitive strategies. 4 yr development Burgess Meaning Supplement Inferential and critical reading comprehension skills. N = 28 students Quantitative: teacher-made quizzes; discussion (2009) making classroom Online discussion and chat sessions based on in one section of board assessment; traditional reading test learning with assigned readings (short stories and essays on developmental (multiple-choice, short answers) simulating synchronous contemporary culture). Students “contemplate reading, cc district assessment, given pre-post. Qualitative: interviews; journal entries, student satisfaction and collaboratively and critically analyze course material survey, content of online discussion. Data asynchronous and discussion topics” (p. 15). coded for comprehension skills and motivation. online 479 discussion and Improvement shown. chat boards to promote active reading

OCR for page 417
comprehension 480 and increased motivation. Butler et al. Strategy Improve self- Strategic Content Learning program and individualized N=2 Quantitative: (1) Writing samples scored pre (2000) instruction regulation of tutoring using assignments from current CTE courses participants with and post on 5-point scale, DVs: thematic and meaning literacy tasks, (Early Childhood Ed., Special Ed. Assistant). Develop LD enrolled in salience, organization, idea flow, and clarity. (2) making focusing on goals, analyze reading and writing tasks, evaluate own career certificate Metacognitive questionnaire and strategy metacognition learning, invent and monitor reading and writing programs, cc interview, DVs: task description, strategy, and self- strategies. While also receiving strategy training, description, strategy focus, self-monitoring. Self- management “students construct idiosyncratic understandings about rating on self-efficacy. Improvement shown. for LD students. learning based on experience” (p. 198). Good Meaning Teach study Discussion, reading and writing about narrative and N=6 Quantitative: Stanford Test of Academic Skills, (2000) making skills, reading expository text; reader response framework developmental and ratings on essays and reading responses and writing for (Rosenblatt, 1991); wrote reflections and increasing reading students using products in a portfolio. Single subject academic complex essays. Individual and small group (5 were college design. Graphs of students’ progress show courses. instruction, modified based on data collected over athletes), 4–yr literacy growth over time except for one student time. who showed ceiling effect. Goode Meaning Improve CONCUR program: Contextual Curriculum, combines Developmental N/A (2000) making reading and reading and writing. Anchors instruction in meaningful reading and writing skills. context, uses “reading workshop” model (Attwell, writing students, 1987). Students choose topics, read whole books. cc Activities include silent reading, book talks, vocabulary sharing, instruction in and immediate application of critical reading strategies, literature circles. Work results in publishing for class. Reynolds Meaning Improve writing Focus on social aspects of writing; students write for First-level 4-question post survey on perceptions of the and Bruch making, skills. authentic purposes. Writing instruction: academic developmental course. Variation in reactions to dimensions of (2002) critical essays analyzing information and stating opinions writing students, course; 40% of respondents thought course sociocultural based on reading text on high interest topics; also 4 yr. should emphasize “correctness.” write reflection logs, e.g., list steps taken to complete assignment. Example of assignment: read autobiography of Frederick Douglass, write about relevance to own lives and “literacy as a means of gaining participatory power” (p. 14). IMPROVING ADULT HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUCTION

OCR for page 417
Weiner Critical Teach concepts Teacher introduces students to cultural, ideological, Academically N/A (2002) sociocultural of multiple political and pedagogical dimensions of literacy underprepared APPENDIX D literacies and practice. Reading material are brief newspaper and migrant and social justice. magazine articles on pressing issues. Classes seasonal farm conducted as dialogical seminars, emphasis on class workers, discussion, e.g., of official culture and unofficial culture developmental (racism) of university. education course in College Assistance Migrant program, 4-yr C. Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction with English Language Learners Theoretical Instructional Research Design/ Reference Framework Goals Practice and Skill Emphasis Participants Method Measures Rochford Meaning Infuse test One-session workshop to Treatment Quasi- ACT Writing Signif (2003), making preparation prepare students for high-stakes (learning experimental. Test in trea Expt. 1 with awareness writing test. Experimental styles), Two conditions, group of personal condition used materials based N = 56. groups taught by 40% o learning style on pre-assessed learning styles Comparison, same instructor at scored relating to (self-structured vs. need external N = 53 different time score. environmental, structure); visual, auditory, (traditional points emotional, kinesthetic learners. Active instruction). sociological learning used throughout. All had and Control: traditional “talk and completed psychological chalk” test preparation. ESL courses, preferences. now preparing 481 for writing placement test, cc. NOTE: Acronyms: cc = community college; 4 yr = 4-year college; ELLs = English language learners; ESL = English as a Second Language.

OCR for page 417
D. Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction with English Language Learners 482 Theoretical Instructional Participants, Reference Framework Goals Practice and Skill Emphasis Setting Dependent Variables and Findings Bosher Meaning Teach reading “Commanding English Program.” Course 1: Generation 1.5, N/A (1992) making writing for personal narrative writing based on cultural orientation academic knowledge to build confidence, emphasis on program, 4 yr. purposes: 3 writing process; Course 2: reading and writing courses. integrated, bridge from personal to academic writing, comprehension and reaction to text; Course 3: content literacy and research. Goldschmidt Discrete skills Improve host of College-orientation course: instruction in time Generation 1.5, Retention in college, GPA. Positive findings for (2003) skills including management, following directions, college-orientation orientation vs non-orientation freshmen over 4-year reading and understanding assignments, and instruction in course, 4 yr period. writing. math, grammar, and writing skills. Course is “designed by students for students” (p. 16). Skills taught by instructors and peer tutors. Kaspar Meaning Improve “Informal instruction:” students answer questions Students in ESL Informal end-of-semester reading measures. (1996) making reading about the text in a reading log. reading course, cc. Essay- writing showed better outcomes than the compared comprehension. “Formal instruction:” students taught to write Two classrooms reading log condition, no statistical comparisons. with discrete personal narratives, expository–persuasive, and received informal skills compare–contrast essays based on text, using a and two other prescribed structure. classrooms received formal instruction, cc. Tai and Learning Simultaneously Learning-community cluster comprises ESL, Developmental Rates of passing course and placement test. Two - Rochford community improve English developmental reading, and developmental reading and thirds of participants passed both. (2007) language, writing course. Focus on spoken and written writing/ ELLs, cc reading, and vocabulary, concepts, and syntax; note taking, writing skills. development of pre-reading and reading comprehension activities to build background knowledge, distinguish fact from opinion, comprehend abstract concepts, identify contrasting points of view, and document analysis, to prepare to write essay. NOTE: Acronyms: cc = community college; 4 yr = 4-year college; ELLs = English language learners; ESL = English as a Second Language. IMPROVING ADULT HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUCTION

OCR for page 417
483 APPENDIX D SECTION 5. REFERENCES 1. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction Alamprese, J.A. (2009). Developing learners’ reading skills in adult basic education programs. In S. Reder and J. Bynner (Eds.), Track- ing adult literacy and numeracy skills (pp. 107-131). New York: Routledge. Alessi, S.M., Siegel, M., Silver, D., and Barnes, H. (1982-1983). Effectiveness of a computer based reading comprehension program for adults. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 11(1), 43-57. Askov, E.N., and Brown, E.J. (1992). R.O.A.D. to success: Evaluation of workplace literacy efforts. Adult Basic Education, 2(3), 167-175. Batchelder, J. (2000). Effects of a computer-assisted instruction program in a prison setting: An experimental study. Journal of Cor- rectional Education, 51(4), 324-332. Beder, H. (1999). The outcomes and impacts of adult literacy education in the United States (Information Analysis No. NCSALL-R- 6R309B60002). Boston, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. Berry, A.B., and Mason, L.H. (2010). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing of expository essays for adults with written expression difficulties: Preparing for the GED. Remedial and Special Education, June 23. Available: http://sed.sage- pub.com/content/41/4/234.full.pdf+html [Jan. 2012]. Brock, M. (1998). The enhancement of literacy development in an adult beginning reader through creating texts to accompany word- less books. In B. Sturtevant, J. Dugan, P. Linder, and W.M. Linek (Eds.), Literacy and community: The twentieth yearbook. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) Document ED443107. Commerce, TX: College Reading Association. Cheek, E.H., and Lindsey, J.D. (1994). The effects of two methods of reading instruction on urban adults’ word identification and comprehension abilities. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 11(1), 14-19. Diem, R.A., and Fairweather, P.G. (1980). An evaluation of a computer-assisted education system in an untraditional academic setting—A county jail. AEDS Journal, 13, 204-213. Gold, P.C., and Horn, P.L. (1982). Achievement in reading, verbal language, listening comprehension, and locus of control of adult illiterates in a volunteer tutorial project. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54(3), 1243-1250. Gold, P.C., and Johnson, J.A. (1982). Prediction of achievement in reading, self-esteem, auding and verbal language by adult illiterates in a psychoeducational tutorial program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 513-522. Greenberg, D. (1998). Betsy: Lessons learned from working with an adult nonreader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(4), 252-261. Greenberg, D., Fredrick, L.D., Hughes, T.A., and Bunting, C.J. (2002). Implementation issues in a reading program for low-reading adults. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(7), 626-632. Greenberg, D., Rodrigo, V., Berry, A., Brinck, T., and Joseph, H. (2006). Implementation of an extensive reading program with adult learners. Adult Basic Education, 16(2), 17. Gretes, J.A., and Green, M. (1994). The effect of interactive CD-ROM/digitized audio courseware on reading among low-literate adults. Computers in the Schools, 11(2), 27-42. Lazar, M.K., Bean, R.M., and Van Horn, B.V. (1998). Linking the success of a basics skills program to workplace practices and pro- ductivity. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(5), 352-362. MacArthur, C.A., and Lembo, L. (2009). Strategy instruction in writing for adult literacy learners. Reading and Writing, 22(9), 1021-1039. Maclay, C.M., and Askov, E.N. (1988). Computers and adult beginning readers: An intergenerational approach. Lifelong Learning, 11(8), 23-28. Massengill, D. (2004). The impact of using guided reading to teach low-literate adults. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(7), 588-602. Massengill, D. (2006). Mission accomplished.... It’s learnable now: Voices of mature challenged spellers using a word study approach. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(5), 420-431. McKane, P.F., and Greene, B.A. (1996). The use of theory-based computer-assisted instruction in correctional centers to enhance the reading skills of reading-disadvantaged adults. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(4), 331-344. Messemer, J.E., and Valentine, T. (2004). The learning gains of male inmates participating in a basic skills program. Adult Basic Education, 14(2), 67-89. Meyer, V. (1982). Prime-O-Tec: A successful strategy for adult disabled readers. Journal of Reading, 25(6), 512-515. Mikulecky, L., and Lloyd, P. (1996). Evaluation of workplace literacy programs: A profile of effective instructional practices. ERIC Report ED393013. Philadelphia: National Center for Adult Literacy. Mikulecky, L., and Lloyd, P. (1997). Evaluation of workplace literacy programs: A profile of effective instructional practices. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(4), 555-585. Perin, D. (1997). Workplace literacy assessment. Dyslexia, 3(3), 190-200. Purcell-Gates, V. (1993). “I ain’t never read my own words before.” Journal of Reading, 37(3), 210-219. Rich, R., and Shepherd, M.J. (1993). Teaching text-comprehension strategies to adult poor readers. Reading and Writing, 5(4), 387-402.

OCR for page 417
484 IMPROVING ADULT HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUCTION Roberts, R.E., Cheek, E.H., and Mumm, R.S. (1994). Group intervention and reading performance in a medium-security prison facil- ity. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 20(3/4), 97-116. Shaw, D.M., and Berg, M.A. (2008). Effects of a word study intervention on spelling accuracy among low-literate adults. Adult Basic Education & Literacy Journal, 2(3), 131-139. Shaw, D.M., and Berg, M.A. (2009). Jail participants actively study words. Journal of Correctional Education, 60(2), 100-119. Shippen, M.E. (2008). A pilot study of the efficacy of two adult basic literacy programs for incarcerated males. Journal of Correc- tional Education, 59(4), 339-347. Sticht, T.G., Armstrong, W.A., Hickey, D.T., and Caylor, J.S. (1987). Cast-off youth: Policy and training methods from the military experience. New York: Praeger. Venezky, R.L., Bristow, P.S., and Sabatini, J.P. (1994). Measuring change in adult literacy programs: Enduring issues and a few an- swers. Educational Assessment, 2(2), 101-131. 2. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction with English Language Learners Condelli, L., Wrigley, H., and Yoon, K. (2009). “What works” for adult literacy students of English as a second language. In S. Reder and J. Bynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy and numeracy skills: Findings from longitudinal research (pp. 132-159). New York: Routledge. Ekkens, K., and Winke, P. (2009). Evaluating workplace English language programs. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(4), 265-287. 3. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Qualitative Studies of Literacy Instruction Balatti, J., Black, S., and Falk, I. (2007). Teaching for social capital outcomes: The case of adult literacy and numeracy courses. Aus- tralian Journal of Adult Learning, 47(2), 245-263. Beaverstock, C., and McIntyre, S. (2008). Dividing and conquering: Successful writing processes for adult learners. Adult Basic and Literacy Education Journal, 2(2), 104-108. Beaverstock, C., Bhaskaran, S., and Brinkley, J. (2009). Transforming adult students into authors: The writer to writer challenge. Adult Basic and Literacy Education Journal, 3(1), 50-59. Beck, A. (2005). A place for critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(5), 392-400. Belfiore, M.E., Defoe, T.A., Folinsbee, S., Hunter, J., and Jackson, N.S. (2004). Reading work: Literacies in the new workplace. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Berne, J. (2004). Think-aloud protocol and adult learners. Adult Basic Education, 14(3), 153-173. Bourret, C. (2009). Extending learning: Reading packets for ESL students. Adult Basic and Literacy Education Journal, 3(3), 175-179. Boutwell, M.A. (1989). Partnership for change. In A. Fingeret and P. Jurmo (Eds.), Participatory literacy education (pp. 43-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bryan, L. (1996). Cooperative writing groups in community college. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40(3), 188. Budweg, P., and Schins, M. (1991). Literacy through literature: A reading club with imprisoned youth and young adults. Convergence, 24(4), 63. Burgess, M. (2009). Using WebCT as a supplemental tool to enhance critical thinking and engagement among developmental reading students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(2), 9-33. Callahan, M., and Chumney, D. (2009). Write like college: How remedial writing courses at a community college and a research university position “at-risk” students in the field of higher education. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1,619-1,664. Carter, S. (2006). Redefining literacy as a social practice. Journal of Basic Writing, 25(2), 94-125. Case, R.E., Ainsworth, J., and Emerson, R. (2004). Building an adult workplace literacy program for Spanish-speaking carpenters. Adult Learning, 15(3/4), 22-27. Castleton, G. (2002). Workplace literacy as a contested site of educational activity. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(7), 556-566. Cottingham, S., Metcalf, K., and Phnuyal, B. (1998). The REFLECT approach to literacy and social change: A gender perspective. Gender and Development, 6(2), 27-34. Cotugno, M. (2009). Encouraging GED students to Write Now!: The studio as bridge. Adult Basic and Literacy Education Journal, 3(3), 171-174. Cowles, S. (1997). Teaching and learning with Internet-based resources. Literacy Leader Fellowship Program Report III(2). Washing- ton, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Cukras, G. (2000). Empowering students through literature. Adult Basic Education, 10(1), 21. D’Amico, D., and Schnee, E. (1997). It changed something inside of me: English language learning, structural barriers to employment and workers’ goals in a workplace literacy program. In G. Hull (Ed.), Changing work, changing workers: Critical perspectives on language, literacy, and skills (pp. 117-140). Albany: State University of New York Press.

OCR for page 417
485 APPENDIX D Demetrion, G.A. (1999). Scaffolding Paradigm: Small group tutoring at the Bob Steele Reading Center 1990-1995. Adult Basic Edu- cation, 9(1), 21-46. Diehl, S. (2004). Life skills to life saving: Health literacy in adult education. Adult Learning, 15(1/2), 26-29. Dillon-Black, L. (1998). A rose abused: Literacy as transformation. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42(1), 20-24. Earl, D. (1997). Learning to love reading. Focus on Basics, 1(1), 3-4. Elish-Piper, L. (2000). An analysis of social–contextual responsiveness of adult education in urban family literacy programs: Trends, obstacles, and solutions. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(3), 184-200. Engstrom, E.U. (2005). Reading, writing, and assistive technology: An integrated developmental curriculum for college students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1), 30-39. Fallon, D. (1995). Making dialogue dialogic: A dialogic approach to adult literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39(2), 138-147. Fingeret, A. (1989). The social and historical context of participatory literacy education. In A. Fingeret and P. Jurmo (Eds.), Participa- tory literacy education (pp. 5-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fingeret, H.A., and Drennon, C. (1997). Literacy for life: Adult learners, new practices. New York: Teachers College Press. Fingeret, H.A., Tom, A., Dyer, P., Morley, A., Dawson, J., Harper, L., et al. (1994). Lives of Change: An ethnographic evaluation of two learner centred literacy programs. Raleigh, NC: Literacy South. Fiore, K., and Elsasser, N. (1987). Strangers no more: A liberatory literacy curriculum. In I. Shore (Ed.), Freire for the classroom: A sourcebook for liberatory teaching (pp. 87-103). Portsmouth, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Forell, K. (2006). Ideas in practice: Bringin’ hip-hop to the basics. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 28-33. Fuller, C. (2009). No disrespect: Literature discussion as social action in the adult education classroom. In R. Rogers, M. Mosley, and M.A. Kramer (Eds.), Designing socially just learning communities (pp. 76-87). New York: Routledge. Gaber-Katz, E., and Watson, G.M. (1991). The land that we dream...: A participatory study of community-based literacy. Toronto: OISE Press. Gallo, M.L. (2004). Reading the world of work: A learner-centered approach to workplace literacy and ESL. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Gillis, D. (2004). A community-based approach to health literacy using participatory research. Adult Learning, 15(1/2), 14-17. Gowen, S. (1992). The politics of workplace literacy: A case study. New York: Teachers College Press. Gowen, S.G., and Bartlett, C. (1997). Friends in the kitchen: Lessons from survivors. In G. Hull (Ed.), Changing work, changing workers: Critical perspectives on language, literacy, and skills (pp. 141-158). Albany: State University of New York Press. Grabill, J.T. (2001). Community literacy programs and the politics of change. Albany: State University of New York Press. Griffin, C., Sarcyk, T., Swarts, T., and Youngkin, B. (1993). ABE women gaining a new voice. Adult Learning, 5(2), 19-22. Hayes, E. (1997). Portfolio assessment in adult basic education: A pilot study. Adult Basic Education, 7(3), 165. Heller, C.E. (1997). Until we are strong together: Women writers in the Tenderloin. New York: Teachers College Press. Hofer, J., and Larson, P. (1997). Building community and skills through multilevel classes. Focus on Basics, 1(C). Available: http:// ncsall.net?id=445 [Jan. 2012]. Houp, G.W. (2009). Lana’s story: Re-storying literacy education. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(8), 698-707. Iasevoli, D. (2007). Behind education: How can you “be the book” behind bars? English Journal, 96(6), 19-23. Kallenbach, S., and Viens, J. (2004). Open in interpretation: Multiple intelligences theory in adult literacy education. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 58-66. Kalman, J., and Losey, K.M. (1997). Pedagogical innovation in a workplace literacy program: Theory and practice. In G. Hull (Ed.), Changing work, changing workers: Critical perspectives on language, literacy, and skills (pp. 84-116). Albany: State University of New York Press. Kramer, M.A., and Jones, R. (2009). Designing a critical literacy lab in an adult education center. In R. Rogers, M. Mosley, and M.A. Kramer (Eds.), Designing socially just learning communities: Critical literacy education across the lifespan (pp. 113-124). New York: Routledge. Langer, A. (2003). Forms of workplace literacy using reflection-with-action methods: A scheme for inner-city adults. Reflective Prac- tice, 4(3), 317-336. Lazar, M., Bean, R., and Van Horn, B. (1998). Linking the success of a basic skills program to workplace practices and productivity. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41(5), 352. Mageehon, A. (2003). Incarcerated women’s educational experiences. Journal of Correctional Education, 54(4), 191-199. Mark, R. (2008). Exploring equality through creative methods of learning in adult literacy: Findings from a peace-funded project. Adult Learner: The Irish Journal of Adult and Community Education, 77-83. Martin, R. (2001). Listening up: Reinventing ourselves as teachers and students. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. McDonald, L., and Jones, E. (2009). Supporting a holistic adult literacy program: The provision of a clinical social worker. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 3(2), 77-86. Merrifield, J. (1997). If job training is the answer, what is the question? Research with displaced women textile workers. In G. Hull (Ed.), Changing work, changing workers: Critical perspectives on language, literacy, and skills (pp. 273-294). Albany: State University of New York Press. Moni, K.B., Jobling, A., and van Kraayenoord, C.C. (2007). They’re a lot cleverer than I thought: Challenging perceptions of dis- ability support staff as they tutor in an adult literacy program. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(4), 439-459.

OCR for page 417
486 IMPROVING ADULT HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUCTION Morgan, A.M. (2004). Educating low-literacy adults: To teach or not to teach? International Journal of Educational Reform, 13(2), 151-158. Norton, M. (2001). Getting our own education: Peer tutoring and participatory education in an adult literacy centre. In P. Campbell and B. Burnaby (Eds.), Participatory practices in adult education (pp. 103-120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Osei, M. (2001). Can you do what I do? A case study of computer-assisted instruction for adults participating in an adult education program. Adult Basic Education, 11(3), 150. Padak, N., and Baradine, B. (2004). Engaging readers and writers in adult education contexts. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Lit- eracy, 48(2), 126-137. Pannucci, L., and Walmsley, S. (2007). Supporting learning-disabled adults in literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(7), 540-546. Perin, D., and Greenberg, D. (2007). Reserach-based reading instruction in an adult basic education program. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 1(3), 123-132. Pharness, G. (2001). From where we live, how far can we see? In P. Campbell and B. Burnaby (Eds.), Participatory practices in adult education (pp. 197-218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pinsent-Johnson, C. (2007). Developing practice-based performance assessment. In P. Campbell (Ed.), Measures of success: Assess- ment and accountability in adult basic education (pp. 15-46). Edmonton, Alberta: Grass Roots Press. Rhoder, C.A., and French, J.N. (1994). Workplace literacy: From survival to empowerment and human development. Journal of Reading, 38(2), 110-120. Rhoder, C.A., and French, J.N. (1995). Participant-generated text: A vehicle for workplace literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39(2), 110-118. Rivera, L. (2008). Laboring to learn: Women’s literacy and poverty in the post-welfare era. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Robertson, L. (2007). An adult education teacher’s journey with evidence-based reading instruction. Adult Basic and Literacy Educa- tion Journal, 1(3), 157-160. Robinson-Geller, P. (2007). Individualized group instruction: A reality of adult basic education. In J. Coming, B. Garner, and C. Smith (Eds.), Review of adult learning and literacy (vol. 7, pp. 137-173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rogers, R., and Kramer, M.A. (2008). Adult education teachers: Designing critical literacy practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates. Sanguinetti, J., Waterhouse, P., and Maunders, D. (2005). Pedagogies on the edge: Researching complex practice in youth and adult community education. Studies in Continuing Education, 27(3), 271-287. Shor, I. (1987). Monday morning fever: Critical literacy and the generative theme of “work.” In I. Shor (Ed.), Freire for the classroom (pp. 104-121). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Siegel, J. (2007). Keeping it real: Authentic materials in a GED class. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 1(2), 100-102. Silver-Pacuilla, H. (2007). Assistive technology and adult literacy: Access and benefits. In J. Comings, B. Garner, and C. Smith (Eds.), Review of adult learning and literacy (vol. 7, pp. 93-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sink, D.W., Parkhill, M.A., and Marshall, R. (2005). Learning together: A family-centered literacy program. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(8), 583-590. Sissel, P.A. (1996). Reflection as vision: Prsopects for future literacy programming. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Educa- tion, 70, 97-103. Soifer, R., Young, D.L., and Irwin, M. (1989). The academy: A learner-centered workplace literacy program. In A. Fingeret and P. Jurmo (Eds.), Participatory literacy education (pp. 65-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stefl-Mabry, J. (1998). Designing a web-based reading course. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41(7), 556. Stoehr, T. (2005). Is it a crime to be illiterate? Changing lives through literature: Offenders program report. Change, 41(7), 28-35. Street, C.A. (2005). A reluctant writer’s entry into a community of writers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(8), 636-641. Taylor, M. (2000). Transfer of learning in workplace literacy programs. Adult Basic Education, 10(1), 3. Taylor, M., Abasi, A., and Pinsent-Johnson, C. (2009). Collaborative learning in communities of literacy practice. Adult Basic and Literacy Education Journal, 1(1), 4-11. Taylor, R.T., and McAtee, R. (2003). Turning a new page to life and literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(6), 476-480. Terry, M. (2006). Self-directed learning by undereducated adults. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(4), 29-39. Tett, L., and Maclachlan, K. (2008). Learners, tutors, and power in adult literacies research in Scotland. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27(6), 659-672. Thomas, R.L. (2009). Using distance learning to increase literacy among TANF participants. Journal of Technology in Human Ser- vices, 27(3), 216-226. Toso, B.W., Prins, E., Drayton, B., Tnanadass, E., and Gungor, R. (2009). Finding voice: Shared decision making and student leader- ship in a family literacy program. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 3(3), 151-160. Waterhouse, P.J., and Deakin, R. (1995). Changing approaches to workplace literacy. Journal of Reading, 38(6), 498-500. Weibel, M.C. (1994). Literature, whole language, and adult literacy instruction. Adult Learning, 6(2), 9-12. Weiner, E. (2005). Keeping adults behind: Adult literacy education in the age of official reading regimes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(4), 286-301.

OCR for page 417
487 APPENDIX D Willans, J., and Seary, K. (2007). “I’m not stupid after all”: Changing perceptions of self as a tool for transformation. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 47(3), 433-452. Woodin, T. (2008). “A beginner reader is not a beginner thinker”: Student publishing in Britain since the 1970s. Paedagogica His- torica, 44(1/2), 219-232. Young, D. (2008). Nontraditional volunteers share expertise through small-group instruction. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 2(1), 44-48. 4. Academically Underprepared College Students A. Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction Caverly, D.C., Nicholson, S.A., and Radcliffe, R. (2004). The effectiveness of strategic instruction for college developmental readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35, 25-49. Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 3-24. Hart, E.R., and Speece, D.L. (1998). Reciprocal learning goes to college: Effects for postsecondary students at risk for academic fail- ure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 670-681. Martino, N.L., Norris, J., and Hoffman, P. (2001). Reading comprehension instruction: Effects of two types. Journal of Developmen- tal Education, 25(1), 2-10. Scrivener, S., Bloom, D., LeBlanc, A., Paxson, C., Rouse, C., and Sommo, C. (2008). Opening doors: A good start. Two-year effects of a freshmen learning community program at Kingsborough Community College. New York: MDRC. Snyder, V. (2002). The effect of course-based reading strategy training on the reading comprehension skills of developmental college students. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 18(2), 37-41. B. Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction Artis, A.B. (2008). Improving marketing students’ reading comprehension with the SQ3R method. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(2), 130-137. Baker, E.D., Hope, L., and Karandjeff, K. (2009). Contextualized teaching and learning: A faculty primer. Sacramento: Center for Student Success, Research and Planning Group, and Academic Senate, Chancellor’s Office of California Community Colleges. Available: http://www.careerladdersproject.org/docs/CTL.pdf [Jan. 2012]. Boroch, D., Fillpot, J., Hope, L., Johnstone, R., Mery, P., Serban, A., et al. (2007). Basic skills as a foundation for student success in California community colleges. Sacramento: Center for Student Success, Research and Planning Group, Chancellor’s Office of California Community Colleges. Available: http://www.rpgroup.org/publications/StudentSuccessBook.htm [Feb. 2012]. Burgess, M.L. (2009). Using WebCT as a supplemental tool to enhance critical thinking and engagement among developmental read- ing students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(2), 9-33. Butler, D.L., Elaschuk, C.L., and Poole, S. (2000). Promoting strategic writing by postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A report of three case studies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 196-213. Good, J.M. (2000). Evaluating developmental education programs by measuring literacy growth. Journal of Developmental Educa- tion, 24(1), 30-38. Goode, D. (2000). Creating a context for developmental English. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 27(3), 270-277. Reynolds, T., and Bruch, P. (2002). Curriculum and affect: A participatory developmental writing approach. Journal of Developmen- tal Education, 26, 12-20. Weiner, E.J. (2002). Beyond remediation: Ideological literacies of learning in developmental classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46, 150-168. C. Effectiveness Studies with English Language Learners Rochford, R.A. (2003). Assessing learning styles to improve the quality of performance of community college students in developmen- tal writing programs: A pilot study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 665-677. D. Descriptive Studies with English Language Learners Bosher, S. (1992). Developing a writing curriculum for academically underprepared college ESL students. Education Resources and Information Center, ED352843. Minneapolis: General College, University of Minnesota.

OCR for page 417
488 IMPROVING ADULT HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUCTION Goldschmidt, M.M., Notzold, N., and Miller, C.Z. (2003). ESL student transition to college: The 30-hour program. Journal of De- velopmental Education, 27(2), 12-17. Kaspar, L.F. (1996). Writing to read: Enhancing ESL students’ reading proficiency through written response to text. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 23, 25-33. Tai, E., and Rochford, R.A. (2007). Getting down to basics in western civilization: It’s about time. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(2), 103-116.