Of Research reviews and practice guides: Translating rapidly growing research on adolescent literacy into updated practice recommendations.

The demand for evidence-based instructional practices has driven a large supply of research on adolescent literacy. Documenting this supply, Baye, Inns, Lake, and Slavin’s 2019 article in Reading Research Quarterly synthesized far more studies, with far more rigorous methodology, than had ever been collected before. What does this mean for practice? Inspired by this article, I investigated how this synthesis compared with the 2008 U.S. Institute of Education Sciences practice guide for adolescent literacy. I also include two contemporary documents for context: Herrera, Truckenmiller, and Foorman’s (2016) review and the U.K. Education Endowment Foundation’s 2019 practice guide for secondary schools. I first examine how these documents define adolescent, reading, and evidence, and propose more inclusive definitions. I then compare their respective evidence bases, finding that the quality and quantity of evidence have dramatically changed. Only one of the 34 studies in the 2008 U.S. practice guide met Baye et al.’s inclusion criteria in 2019, and the average sample size in Baye et al.’s studies was 22 times as large as those in the 2008 U.S. practice guide. I also examine the potential implications for a new practice guide’s instructional recommendations and comment on the expansion of research in technology, disciplinary literacy, and writing—topics scarcely covered in the 2008 U.S. practice guide but which have been extensively researched since then. Finally, I call for revision of the U.S. practice guide and the establishment of standing committees on adolescent literacy to help educators translate the latest research findings into updated practices

Measuring Production and Comprehension of Written Arguments in Upper-Elementary Grades

We describe a systematic process of developing measures of argument production and comprehension. These measures, designed for students in upper-elementary language arts classrooms, are called Writing Argument and Reading Argument. We discuss the rationale and theoretical framework for the measures, describe pilot and validation studies, and present initial findings to support the reliability, validity, and usability of these measures. Our results showed that both measures had acceptable inter-rater reliability. The correlations among Writing Argument, Reading Argument and an established reading comprehension test were moderate, which highlights the importance of task-specific competencies. The performance on both measures was not associated with ethnicity of the students. Gender was a significant predictor, with girls performing better than boys. Teachers found both measures to be pedagogically useful. Although some teachers initially struggled with learning how to use the scoring rubrics, they generally found the scoring for both tasks to be informative for their practice

Beyond Structure: Using the Rational Force Model to Assess Argumentative Writing

Current approaches used in educational research and practice to evaluate the quality of written arguments often rely on structural analysis. In such assessments, credit is awarded for the presence of structural elements of an argument, such as claims, evidence, and rebuttals. In this article, we discuss limitations of such approaches, including the absence of criteria for evaluating the quality of the argument elements. We then present an alternative framework, based on the Rational Force Model (RFM), which originated from the work of a Nordic philosopher Næss. Using an example of an argumentative essay, we demonstrate the potential of the RFM to improve argument analysis by focusing on the acceptability and relevance of argument elements, two criteria widely considered to be fundamental markers of argument strength. We outline possibilities and challenges with using the RFM in educational contexts and conclude by proposing directions for future research

The Dialogic Possibilities for Interactive Fiction in the Secondary Academy English Classroom

The literacy practices enacted in secondary school English classrooms can be influenced by the pressures acting upon teachers and students. Attention can be diverted away from the process of meaning-making when more emphasis is placed upon performance outcomes than on reading processes. This paper argues that digital forms of Interactive Fiction (IF) hold the potential to help teachers and students attend more closely to the process of meaning-making. It also argues that IF’s component parts – passages, choices and links – render it a useful resource for the scaffolding of classroom dialogue. By considering the different ways that IF could influence the choices that individuals make in the classroom, this paper suggests that works of IF could enable teachers and students to engage with texts differently, improving the literacy practices of the students involved

Truth matters

Learning how to formulate, comprehend, and evaluate arguments is an essential part of helping students develop the ability to make better, more reasonable judgments. The Common Core identified argumentation as a fundamental life skill that is broadly important for the literate person. According to the authors, having students engage in an inquiry dialogue oriented toward finding the most reasonable answer is key to developing the skills of argumentation. Inquiry dialogue starts with a contestable, big question that is relevant to student interests and addresses a central issue raised in a text. Such questions invite students to take part in a genuine quest for truth and allow them to develop more reasonable and personally meaningful judgments. Inquiry dialogue is neither teacher-centered nor student-centered; rather, it is truth-centered. In a recent three-year project, the authors worked with elementary school teachers to learn how to support the use of such dialogue-intensive instruction in language arts classrooms