Do You, Like these Teachers, Value Readings?

For several years I have used Smith et al.\u27s book as the text in a graduate course, Curriculum and Supervision Problems in Reading. They ay: The reading habits of teachers have been studied enough to validate the suspicion that reading is being taught by teachers who do not themselves turn often to reading for personal fulfillment and enrichment. It is deplorable that many teachers in this country, especially elementary school teachers, are not reading enthusiasts (Smith et al., 1978, p. 74). Having worked with large numbers of both pre- and inservice teachers for the past decade, I felt that these statements did not accurately reflect the reading habits and attitueds of those teachers; however, I had no data to support this opinion. Hence, I undertook the following pilot study

An Advance Organizer is…All or None of the Above

The purpose of this article is to review the guidelines for the construction of an advance organizer as proposed by Ausubel and to examine why the choice in the title all or none of the above could be literally true

What\u27s The Value Of An IRI? Is It Being Used?

This study sought to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent is the IRI used for the purpose of initial placement of students in reading materials? 2. To what extent do classroom teachers and support specialists value the IRI as a means of providing diagnostic information about students\u27 reading levels (subsequent to initial placement), oral reading ability, comprehension ability, and word recognition skills? 3. How frequently do classroom teachers and support specialists administer an IRI to obtain diagnostic information? 4. What is the relationship between classroom teachers\u27 and support specialist\u27 frequency use of the IRI for diagnostic purposes and their value ratings of the IRI as a diagnostic instrument