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 418
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 419
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 420
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 421
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 422
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 423
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 424
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 425
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 426
(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 427
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 478
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 479
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 480
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 481
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 482
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 483
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 484
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 485
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 486
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 487
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 488
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.
