EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAY 2024
Scholastic Literacy Framework
A Literature Review on Foundational Research
CONTACT For more information about this Executive Summary, please contact Scholastic Research & Validation at ScholasticRV@scholastic.com or visit scholastic.com/research.
SUGGESTED CITATION Scholastic Research & Validation. (2024). Scholastic Literacy Framework Executive Summary. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.
TM, ® & © 2024 Scholastic Inc. All rights reserved.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAY 2024
Scholastic Literacy Framework
A Literature Review on Foundational Research
INTRODUCTION Literacy—the ability to read, write, and comprehend—is a formidable linchpin to school, work, and life success. Numerous studies provide powerful evidence that early reading achievement is strongly and positively associated with high school completion, college attendance, increased earnings, and better health: • Kindergarten reading scores predict later earnings, higher education completion, home ownership, and retirement (Chetty et al., 2011). • Children who do not read proficiently by third grade are four times more likely to drop out of high school by age 19 than their proficient peers (Hernandez, 2011). • Individuals with lower literacy rates are less likely to receive regular preventative healthcare (Bennett et al., 2009). • People who read books live almost 23 months longer than non-literate people (Bavishi et al., 2016). Though cognitive research suggests that 95 percent of the U.S. school population can learn to read when exposed to effective curriculum and instruction (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2022; Moats, 2020; Vaughn & Fletcher, 2020), data from the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicate that only 33 percent of fourth graders and 31 percent of eighth graders performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). This performance was two and three percentage points lower than in 2019—the largest drop in scores since 1990. While these declines spanned students’ race, income level, school type, and location, high-poverty and high-minority districts saw a sharper score decline. The COVID-19 pandemic had psychological and economic repercussions on families and students alike, making it harder for young people to focus on school. Erin Fahle and colleagues (2023) demonstrated that declines in reading test scores were higher in communities that had more remote learning, more restricted social activities (e.g., going out to dinner or meeting a friend in public), more reported anxiety and depression, and higher COVID death rates. School leaders are searching for solutions to accelerate learning, even as they accept that the road to pandemic recovery and equity will be long and challenging. As Meghan Kuhfeld and Karen Lewis (2022) point out, Grades 3–8 students only recovered 10 to 25 percent of their pandemic reading loss in the 2021–22 school year. Accordingly, returning to pre-pandemic achievement levels could take at least four years (Kane & Reardon, 2023). Scholastic Education (SE) recognizes that schools do not have time to waste as they consider paths to accelerate student learning. Teachers and students need a more carefully curated collection of evidence-based resources that effectively and efficiently targets kids where they are and gets them to where they need to be. The Scholastic Literacy Framework identifies the core principles critical to improving student learning and presents guidelines that unite SE products and services. The framework is designed to identify our core priorities and be a blueprint to inform future work. It also serves as a resource for grounding what is most critical to SE’s’ collective work.
GROUNDING PRINCIPLES
The Scholastic Literacy Framework is grounded in five evidence-based principles:
1. Evidence-Based Literacy Classroom Practices: Literacy is Scholastic’s lodestar, and we believe that an effective literacy classroom teaches reading, writing, and oral language instruction and should be based on the Science of Reading and learning science. The foundations of our solutions are based on intensive research rather than subjective case studies and untested theories. When teaching is grounded in proven, effective scientific evidence, the likelihood of students learning to read, reading to learn, and loving to read increases.
Code-focused and meaning-focused instruction are two of the largest predictors of skilled reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Scarborough, 2001). An effective literacy classroom balances teacher-managed instruction with student-managed learning. Children who receive teacher-managed instruction (whole group or small group) tend to acquire more skills. However, research also shows that students benefit from more student-managed instruction as they move beyond initial skill acquisition (Connor et al., 2011). SE is committed to developing products and services with well-defined goals, building background knowledge, addressing misconceptions, delivering learning in small chunks, offering a wide array of models and demonstrations, and providing smart, targeted practice opportunities. • We are committed to guiding student thinking by strategically using questions and prompts. • We are focused on providing students with meaningful tasks that allow them to solidify concepts and skills. • We believe that effective instruction helps students understand their strengths and weaknesses, take ownership of their learning, and demonstrate mastery in multiple ways while helping connect learners’ families, educators, and communities. • We support teachers by offering explicit and engaging instruction.
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. Responsiveness: Children’s literacy experience and knowledge vary greatly, and an instructional approach must be flexible enough to meet every child where they are. We believe there is a deeper transfer of learning when educators can modify the information being taught, adapt how students access and learn the information, and provide multiple methods for students to demonstrate what they know. Assessment of achievement (universal screening and summative assessment) and progress monitoring data (formative assessment) enable educators to assess students’ responsiveness to instruction and make necessary adaptations to meet the needs of all students. 3. Equity and Belonging: SE honors every child’s cultural heritage, individuality, and difference. Just as learning to read is a civil right, so is seeing oneself reflected in literature. Literacy learning provides opportunities for students to learn about their own identity alongside the identities of others, building empathy and understanding. SE also intentionally offers diverse programs and supports that create multiple ways for children to access literacy learning wherever they are on their literacy journey. 4. Well-Being: SE nurtures social, emotional, and mental well-being through literacy by providing products rooted in a deep understanding of the biological and physiological processes related to learning and development. SE also supports children in developing executive function, resilience, and social-emotional competencies to help them thrive. 5. Joy: Research shows that children who read for pleasure and are motivated to read do significantly better at school than their peers who rarely read (Wilhelm, 2014). SE believes in cultivating joy in reading, creating connections, and learning. We encourage motivation and support joyful learning at school and at home that speaks to children’s hearts, sparks their curiosity, and inspires their imaginations.
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
THE SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK
The Scholastic Literacy Framework is built on decades of peer-reviewed research from developmental psychology, educational psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience.
1) Evidence-Based Literacy Classroom Practices
Our brains are not naturally wired to read and write (Gotlieb et al., 2022; Wolf, 2008). “Learning to read is not natural or easy for most children. Unlike spoken language, which is learned with almost any kind of contextual exposure, reading is an acquired skill. Although surrounding children with books will support reading development, and a ‘literature-rich environment’ is highly desirable, it is not sufficient for learning to read. Neither will exposure to print ordinarily be sufficient for learning to spell unless organized practice is provided.” (Moats, 2020, p.6). Given that learning to read is not innate, providing effective instruction that aligns with a child’s developmental processes is critical. Over the past 10 years, 31 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that requires reading curriculum and instruction to adhere to research-based, proven principles from psychology and cognitive science for how children learn to read. The Scholastic Literacy Framework aligns with all those principles, as do our products. In order to comprehend well, a reader must accurately and effortlessly decipher the different sounds in spoken language and connect those sounds to written letters. They must draw upon oral language, phonological awareness, phonics knowledge, decoding, and fluency. Readers also need strong language comprehension skills such as vocabulary, content knowledge, literacy knowledge, language structures, verbal reasoning, and strategies to organize and make sense of information to understand the words they read. Executive function skills can also play a role in whether students can read connected text fluently and attend to grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure (Cantor et al., 2018; Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Scarborough, 2001). SE believes effective reading instruction should address all these skills since any of these components can derail a reader’s reading ability. Oral Language • Oral language is the spoken language system used to express knowledge, ideas, and feelings. It is made up of five skills (Lindsey, 2022): phonology (the ability to recognize and manipulate sounds in spoken language), vocabulary and semantics (understanding the meaning of words, phrases, and sentences and using word meanings correctly), morphology (understanding the smallest meaningful parts of words), syntax (understanding grammar and the rules of language), and pragmatics (understanding the social rules of language).
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
• Oral language skills set the stage for literacy instruction, and oral language competency predicts reading comprehension across a student’s entire academic career (Catts et al., 2005; Fillmore & Snow, 2000; Foorman et al., 2015; Nation & Snowling, 2004; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). • Oral language instruction is important because students who exhibit deficits in oral language are approximately 18 times more likely to exhibit reading comprehension deficits than children with typical language skills (Werfel & Krim, 2017). • Early literacy research across four decades, from Durkin (1966) to Bus and Pellegrini (1995) to Neuman and Celano (2006), offers convincing evidence that the interactions young children enjoy at home with their caregivers—especially conversation and hearing stories read aloud—play a significant role in academic success and beyond. Phonological Awareness • To build word recognition, children must first develop phonological awareness—the understanding that words are made of sounds, that these sounds are composed of letter combinations, and that sounds can be arranged to form new words. Children must then also learn to associate particular letters and phonemes to figure out (or decode) the pronunciation of a printed word. Finally, they need to be able to tie that pronunciation to a word in their vocabulary to derive meaning (Foorman et al., 2016). • Students’ phonological awareness develops from perceiving larger sound units (i.e., syllable/word awareness) to smaller (i.e., individual phonemes). It encompasses recognizing, matching, producing, and manipulating sounds (Adams, 1990; Purpaff, 2009). • Phonological awareness (particularly the ability to recognize rhyme and alliteration, compare and contrast sounds, and blend and segment sounds) is essential because it fosters the ability to encode and decode words (Adams, 1990; Bennett et al., 2023; Ehri, 2005; Yopp, 1992) and is causally related to word recognition, reading, and spelling performance (Gillon, 2018). • According to research, effective phonological awareness instruction should: • Be explicit (instruction clearly explains a concept, models its application, and allows for guided practice with frequent feedback) and systematic (follows a specified scope and sequence that begins with larger sound units and gives students practice identifying and manipulating phonemes) (Blevins, 2017; Duke & Mesmer, 2019; Lindsey, 2022; Mesmer & Griffith, 2005; Piasta et al., 2010; Roberts, 2021; Seidenberg, 2017). • Teach letter names and sounds at the same time (Duke & Mesmer, 2019; Piasta et al., 2010; Piasta & Hudson, 2022; Roberts, 2021; Seidenberg, 2017). • Spend more time on hard-to-learn letters (Jones et al., 2012). • Capitalize on mnemonics to teach letters (Ehri, 2022). • Use interactive word-building activities and multiple opportunities to manipulate sounds (Foorman et al., 2016; NICHD, 2000).
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
Phonics and Decoding • Because the English language uses letters to represent sounds in words, phonics instruction (instruction that focuses on the ability to connect the sounds of spoken language to printed letters) can unlock “a large portion of the system of English orthography” (Mesmer & Griffith, 2005, p. 367). • Decoding is the process of seeing a written symbol and being able to say what sound it represents (Adams, 1990; NICHD, 2000). • Decades of research show that kindergarten to sixth-grade students who receive explicit, systematic phonics instruction (instruction that follows a specified scope and sequence and teaches letter identification, letter-sound correspondence, major sound spellings of consonants, short and long vowels, vowel and consonant digraphs, and blends of letter sounds) are better able to decode, spell, and read than peers who did not receive explicit, systematic phonics instruction (Foorman et al., 2016; Henbest & Apel, 2017; NELP, 2008; NICHD, 2000; Steinbrink et al., 2014; Torgesen et al., 2018). • Teaching students how to read words systematically from left to right by blending, chunking, sounding out letter sounds, teaching high-frequency words, teaching encoding (the ability to determine the spelling of a word based on the sounds in the word) creates a learning advantage for students (Castles et al., 2018; Foorman et al., 2016; Hudson et al., 2012; NICHD, 2000). • Children who read decodable texts apply their decoding skills more often and are more accurate, successful readers than students who do not read decodable texts (Buckingham, 2018; Cheatham & Allor, 2012; Foorman et al., 2016; Hiebert, 1999; Mesmer et al., 2012; Parker et al., 2022; Stahl, 2011). • Reading decodable texts in a sequence that helps students progressively build upon and practice increasingly complex phonics skills is particularly important (Adams, 2009; Harmon & Wood, 2018) and can help reinforce student’s alphabetic knowledge and improve skills related to word identification, phonemic awareness, spelling acumen, and reading fluency (Beverly et al., 2009; Cheatham & Allor, 2012). • As soon as students can recognize and read most words in a decodable text with automaticity (e.g., fluency), they should move on to progressively more challenging texts (Adams, 2009; Harmon & Wood, 2018). • While word decoding is more salient for younger readers’ comprehension, oral language is more important for skilled readers. (Ouellette & Beers, 2010; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Vellutino et al., 2007). As a child progresses to higher grades, they rely on their reading skills for content across the curriculum, magnifying the impact of any reading difficulties. These developmental changes mean that oral language becomes increasingly essential for reading comprehension from middle childhood onward (Foorman et al., 2015).
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
Fluency • Reading fluency refers to reading with accuracy, automaticity, and prosody (e.g., appropriate intonation and rhythm). Reading words accurately ensures an appropriate basic understanding of the text. At the same time, automaticity “allows readers to devote more cognitive attention to comprehension. Reading with prosody (e.g., appropriate expression, phrasing) both reflects and supports comprehension” (Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Duke, Ward, & Pearson, 2021). • Fluency bridges decoding and reading comprehension (Pikulski & Chard, 2005). • Children must understand how print represents speech to access the meaning of what is being read. Explicit, intentional instruction to build this skill is critical for early language learners. However, as students become more fluent readers, decoding requires less explicit focus (Carreker, 2021). Vocabulary • Vocabulary plays a pivotal role in reading comprehension. Not only does it directly predict word recognition (Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Tunmer & Chapman, 2012), but it is also highly correlated with later reading achievement (Grimm et al., 2018; Lee, 2011; Mesa & Yeomans-Maldonado, 2019). For example, researchers have found that a child’s vocabulary size at two years old significantly predicts a child’s reading skills through fifth grade (Lee, 2011). • Research shows that relatively few words comprise the bulk of written English. Leading literacy experts Elfrieda Hiebert, Amanda Goodwin, and Gina Cervetti examined over 10,000 digitized texts written for students across grade levels and content areas. Their analysis identified a “core vocabulary” that accounts for more than 90 percent of the words in school materials (Hiebert et al., 2018). • Effective vocabulary instruction: • Focuses on a small number of high-utility words, including generic academic words; provides both contextual and definitional information about the target words; teaches words in context; offers repeated exposure to novel words across a variety of contexts; and incorporates frequent opportunities for interactions in which students talk about and use academic words (Beck et al., 2002). • Teaches words in conceptually-linked groups, with particular benefits for teaching words in taxonomies (Hadley et al., 2018,). • Provides opportunities to actively process a word’s meaning—through comparing/ contrasting, answering questions about the word, and semantic mapping—which has a greater effect on comprehension than simply writing the definition (Wright & Cervetti, 2017) • Has students cluster words into categories to facilitate comprehension, accelerate learning, and enhance word retention (Neuman et al., 2011).
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
• Research shows that reading sets of related texts builds subject expertise and is associated with growth in vocabulary acquisition (Cervetti et al., 2016). • A robust vocabulary is critical to becoming a confident reader (Ricketts et al., 2007; Sénéchal et al., 2006). Content Knowledge • To understand texts successfully, skilled readers must connect new information with pre-existing content knowledge (Adams, 2009; Cervetti & Wright, 2020; Hwang et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2021). • Content knowledge (i.e., knowledge related to the natural and social world; Connor et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2021) helps students make inferences and sense of texts (Cabell & Hwang, 2020). • Studies show that content knowledge predicts and contributes to vocabulary and reading comprehension (Cabell & Hwang, 2020; Recht & Leslie, 1988; Smith et al., 2020). • Content knowledge enhances vocabulary by creating “well-structured semantic networks” that lead to “fast retrieval of word meanings” and support the effective use of words (Hwang et al., 2022, p. 147). • Content knowledge improves reading comprehension by helping readers connect ideas across sentences and make inferences about missing information in passages (Cabell & Hwang, 2020; Recht & Leslie, 1988; Smith et al., 2020). • Students’ content knowledge on a topic can compensate for low reading comprehension ability when reading a text (Recht & Leslie, 1988) and support accurate inferences on the meanings of unknown words (Pulido, 2007). Text Structure • Proficient readers strategically utilize text structure (how authors organize words, pictures, and ideas within a text) for both narrative texts (e.g., setting, character, plot, theme) and expository texts (description, chronology, causation, response, comparison) to infer and gather meaning from texts (Connor et al., 2018). • Because text structures follow a predictable format, understanding text structure can help students more quickly organize the information and details they are learning, identify the important elements in a passage, show how parts of a text relate to each other, make logical predictions, and monitor comprehension (Zimmerman et al., 2018). • Data from three recent meta-analyses (Hebert et al., 2016; Pyle et al., 2017; Hall-Mills & Marante, 2023) confirmed that explicit instruction on text structure improves students’ reading comprehension for both general education students and students with disabilities alike.
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
Verbal Reasoning • Verbal reasoning—or the ability to draw conclusions from implicit information—plays a causal role in reading comprehension from kindergarten to Grade 12 (Elbro & Buch- Iversen, 2013; Elleman, 2017; Mohr et al., 2023; Oakhill & Cain, 2012). • The ability to draw inferences is one of the main features distinguishing proficient readers from less proficient readers (Mohr et al.). • Fortunately, a meta-analysis of over 25 studies shows that inference instruction with less-skilled readers effectively improves inferential and literal comprehension of a text (Elleman, 2017). • Effective inference instruction helps students “use their background knowledge and integrate it with the information in the text, self-generated elaborations, graphic organizers that connect concepts, and text clues” (Elleman & Oslund, 2019, p. 5). Comprehension Strategies • “Reading strategies are deliberate, goal-directed attempts to control and modify the reader’s efforts to decode text, understand words, and construct meanings of text” (Afflerbach et al., 2008, p. 368). • A large body of research indicates that teaching students decoding (Steacy et al., 2016), vocabulary (Wright & Cervetti, 2017), and reading strategies (Okkinga et al., 2018) not only improves word reading skills, but also predicts reading comprehension (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). • Researchers stress the importance of students monitoring and regulating their thinking processes while learning—a set of skills researchers call metacognition (Mayer, 2011; National Research Council, 2000). • A student with strong reading comprehension uses different strategies to make meaning of the text that she or he engages with, and comprehension is tied to the effort as much as it is to ability (Baker & Brown, 1984; Pressley et al., 1992). • Evidence-based strategies include monitoring understanding of texts, predicting, activating prior knowledge, using text structure, visualizing, making inferences, summarizing during reading, generating questions, self-explaining, and self-evaluating while reading (Afferblach et al., 2020; Duke et al., 2011; Filderman et al., 2021; NICHD, 2000; Okkinga et al., 2018). • Research shows that comprehension strategy instruction is most effective when it uses a gradual release approach that provides high support and decreases support as students can carry out tasks independently (Raphael et al., 2009). Writing • Graham et al. define writing as “a goal directed and self-sustained cognitive activity requiring the skillful management of (a) the writing environment; (b) the constraints imposed by the writing topic; (c) the intentions of the writer(s); and (d) the processes, knowledge, and skills involved in composing” (2013, p.4).
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8
• Evidence-based writing instruction has been shown to: (De Smedt & Van Keer, 2014): • Increase students’ knowledge about writing. • Teach children strategies to plan, write, and revise drafts.
• Foster student enjoyment and motivation to write. • Teach students to set goals and plan while writing. • Engage students in collaborative writing projects. • Capitalize on technological writing tools.
Executive Function • Research shows that executive function—the mental processes that allow us to plan, focus attention, manage tasks, and achieve goals (Cartwright, 2023)—mediate and predict elementary (Altemeier et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2020), middle (Kieffer et al., 2021), and high school students’ oral language, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (Peng et al., 2022). • The three critical components of executive function—working memory (where information is processed), cognitive flexibility (the ability to switch between code- focused and meaning-focused skills), and inhibitory control (ability to control one’s attention)—play an important role in coordinating word recognition and language comprehension (Cartwright, 2023). • This is because word recognition and language comprehension require the ability to pay attention to the organizational structure of language and text (attentional control), create a schema for connecting new ideas to known ideas (working memory), focus on relevant details of a text (inhibitory control), balance code-focused and meaning- focused activities (cognitive flexibility), and come up with a plan for attempting a reading task (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). • A lack of executive function skills can undermine the comprehension process. Fortunately, data indicates that teaching organization, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control can improve reading comprehension on standardized measures (Cartwright, 2023). Learning Science While the Science of Reading movement has informed how children learn to read, we are also guided by the basic principles of how people generally learn and what conditions create the best opportunities for children to absorb and consolidate the new information. Explicit instruction represents a research-verified approach to help master new content material (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Hughes et al., 2017; Rosenshine, 1995). Seven principles of explicit instruction contribute to student literacy achievement: • Activating students’ prior knowledge • Establishing a clear lesson purpose, goals, and expectations • Presenting instruction in small, manageable segments • Drawing student attention to important features of content through modeling and think-aloud
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
• Utilizing guided practice with varying levels of scaffolded support to gradually develop independence in completing tasks • Providing opportunities for students to receive feedback and respond • Incorporating reviews spread out over time
2) Responsiveness
We know that engaging with the text is crucial to making meaning and enjoying reading. Teachers and a high-quality curriculum can offer learners multiple ways of acquiring information and knowledge, demonstrating what they know, and engaging with learners’ unique academic, social, and emotional needs. • Children’s experiences and knowledge vary greatly, and experts agree that instruction should be flexible enough to fit different learner profiles (Litwin & Pepin, 2020; Subban, 2006; Tomlinson, 2014). • Differentiated literacy instruction occurs when an instructor adjusts the process by which students learn, the content of what a student is learning, the environment in which a student learns, and the products that demonstrate learning to meet an individual student’s needs (Watts-Taffe et al., 2012). • Research shows that literacy achievement can increase when teachers are supported to differentiate their literacy instruction, particularly for letter-word and writing outcomes (Connor et al., 2011; Puzio, 2020) • The term “scaffolding” is often used to describe the instructional use of supports— including feedback and modeling—to help students carry out tasks until they can do so independently (Wood et al., 1976). • Research and expert opinion verify the use of scaffolding in small groups or one-on- one instruction to help students realize learning goals, gradually withdrawing support as students build mastery (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Fisher et al., 2011; Harvey & Ward, 2017; Lajoie, 2005; National Research Council, 2012; Richardson & Lewis, 2018; Rosenshine, 1995; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Scharer, 2018; Sweller, 2008). • Research suggests that formative assessment and data-based decision-making can be used to inform and improve academic achievement (Lai & Schildcamp, 2019). • The Formative Assessment for Students and Teachers (FAST) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards defines formative assessment as a “planned, ongoing process used by all students and teachers during learning and teaching to elicit and use evidence of student learning to improve student understanding of intended disciplinary learning outcomes and support students to become self-directed learners” (2018, p. 2). • Studies show formative data is most effective when the data is used to clarify learning goals, elicit and analyze evidence of student thinking, engage in self-assessment and peer feedback, and use evidence and feedback to adjust learning strategies, goals, or next instructional steps (National Research Council, 2012).
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10
3) Equity and Belonging
The ability to learn to read and read to learn is a civil right. We are committed to ensuring fair, inclusive, and rigorous educational resources and helping all students reach their academic potential. We are committed to creating rigorous and engaging curricula that all students can access successfully, regardless of background, personal characteristics, location, or circumstances. • In the United States, educational inequality and achievement gaps are pervasive. According to the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (U.S. Department of Education, 2022): • The average score for Black students (198) was 28 points lower than White (226) students. • English language learners scored 30 points lower (190) than native English speakers (220). • Students who receive free and reduced-price lunch scored 28 points lower (203) than those who do not. • Children living in poverty are more likely to have gaps in their foundational reading skills, and the hardships they face may also impact cognitive and social-emotional functions that influence their ability to learn (Litwin & Pepin, 2020). • Low literacy rates are linked to not only lower educational attainment but also poorer physical health (Bennett et al., 2009), and lower earnings (Karoly, 2015; Mckinsey, 2009). • Two critical analyses of access to children’s books from Neuman and Celano (2001) and Neuman and Moland (2019) revealed that too many U.S. children— disproportionately children of color, indigenous children, and impoverished children live in book deserts without consistent access to books (Neuman & Moland, 2019; Neuman & Celano, 2006). • Studies have shown that access to print resources—board books, stories, and informational books—early on in a child’s development has an immediate and long- term effect on their vocabulary, background knowledge, and comprehension skills (Allington et al., 2010). • Students should be offered books that reflect their personal experiences and culture while positively depicting the rich tapestry of cultural and ethnic groups around them (Worthy & Roser, 2010). • As Bishop (1990, p. ix) notes, “Books are sometimes windows, offering views of worlds that may be real or imagined, familiar or strange. These windows are also sliding glass doors and readers have only to walk through in imagination to become part of whatever world has been created and recreated by the author. When lighting conditions are just right, however, a window can also be a mirror. Literature transforms human experience and reflects it back to us, and in that reflection we can see our own lives and experiences as part of the larger human experience. Reading, then, becomes a means of self-affirmation, and readers often seek their mirrors in books.”
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11
• Children from dominant cultural and social groups have no trouble finding mirrors in texts. But if they are always staring into the mirror, they become transfixed, unable to find empathy or understanding for those who are not like them. Similarly, the reverse is also true. As Bishop writes in her landmark text, Mirrors, Windows, and Sliding Glass Doors : “When children cannot find themselves reflected in the books they read, or when the images they see are distorted, negative, or laughable, they learn a powerful lesson about how they are devalued in the society of which they are a part” (1990, p. 557). • One important goal is for literature to offer readers a realistic and authentic mirror of their lives and experiences. Seeing themselves accurately and sympathetically represented helps children develop “positive self-images and sense of worth” (Lehman et al., 2010). • Literature can help children develop their cultural identity by providing positive representations of their culture, strengthening self-identity. It can also help children understand and appreciate other cultures, which can reduce negative stereotypes (Al- Hazza & Bucher, 2008). • Texts should include multicultural literature, which focuses on diverse experiences within the United States, and global literature, which focuses on international cultures and contexts (Lehman et al., 2010). • Simply providing access to multicultural books will not ensure equity. Gholdy Muhammad states, “Equity is teaching and learning centered on justice, liberation, truth, and freedom and is free of bias and favoritism. You cannot talk about true justice, liberation, truth, and freedom without talking about anti-racism. Equity is not just about adding a multicultural book to the classroom library or providing access to something educationally good or sound. Doing that does not ensure that children will learn about their identities and histories” (2023, p. 33). • Identities are multilayered and shaped by the social and cultural environment as well as by literacy practices (Gee, 2000).
4) Well-Being
• Recent research from neuroscience, developmental science, and the learning sciences reveals that effective instruction “depends on secure attachments; affirming relationships; rich, hands-on learning experiences; and explicit integration of social, emotional, and academic skills” (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey, 2018, p. 1). • Experts agree that education should focus on teaching the “whole child” to (1) develop healthy personal relationships, (2) treat others with respect and dignity, (3) develop the cognitive capacity to solve problems and think creatively, (4) succeed in post- secondary education and the labor market, and (5) be a good citizen (Greenberg, 2023, p. v).
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12
• The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL, 2020) defines social and emotional learning (SEL) as “the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions.” • CASEL (2020) stresses the importance of using SEL to advance “educational equity and excellence through authentic school-family-community partnerships to establish learning environments and experiences with trusting and collaborative relationships, rigorous and meaningful curriculum and instruction, and ongoing evaluation,” and offers a framework that outlines the five most critical SEL competencies that can be taught and applied at various developmental stages: • Self-Awareness: Ability to understand your emotions, thoughts, and values and how they impact your behavior. • Self-Management: Appropriately managing your emotions, thoughts, and behaviors in different contexts. • Social Awareness: Understanding and empathizing with others, including those different from oneself. • Relationship Skills: Ability to form and maintain supportive relationships, including building relationships with diverse individuals or groups. • Responsible Decision-Making: Ability to make caring, constructive choices. • Pam Allyn and Ernest Morrell have identified that a similar set of underlying social, emotional, and cognitive strengths should be leveraged as the foundation for building “super readers.” They articulate seven strengths: belonging, curiosity, friendship, kindness, confidence, courage, and hope (2016). • Because academic, social, and emotional learning is interconnected and can be explicitly taught, a “key task for educators becomes the intentional development of these skills, traits, strategies, and attitudes in conjunction with the development of content knowledge and academic skills” (Farrington et al., 2012, p. 7). • According to Dr. James Comer and the Yale Child Study Center, learning must address six primary pathways (physical, cognitive, psychological, language, social, and ethical) that must be developed to ensure students succeed in school and life (Comer et al., 2004). • Students need rich and meaningful experiences when learning skills—experiences that engage the mind and heart and help shape positive school histories (Muhammad, 2020). • Attention to students’ holistic learning and development can promote high-quality educational opportunities and outcomes for all children across race, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, and other differences (Niemi, 2021).
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13
5) Joy
As critical as word recognition and language comprehension are, they are nearly eclipsed by a capacity far more difficult to teach and quantify—motivation and joy in reading. If you can cultivate the desire to pick up a good book and lose yourself in the pages, you have ensured a lifelong love of reading. • When children enjoy reading, they do it more often (Litwin & Pepin, 2020). • Students who read for pleasure (reading that is freely chosen) tend to have larger vocabularies, greater background knowledge, and higher reading test scores than their peers who do not (Allington, 2012; Cunningham & Stanovich, 2003; Hiebert & Reutzel, 2010; Sullivan & Brown, 2013; Wasik et al., 2016). This is because “joy feeds engagement and agency, which increases effort and practice” (Miller & Lesesne, 2022, p. 233). • According to Jeffrey Wilhelm (2014), pleasure reading is one of the largest predictors of academic achievement and economic outcomes over time, even after controlling for parental socioeconomic status and educational level (Guthrie et al., 2001; Kirsch et al., 2002; Sullivan & Brown 2013). • Pleasure reading increases brain function (Berns et al., 2013; Weinstein et al., 2021), educational engagement (Allington et al., 2010; Evans et al., 2010), enhances equity in communities that need it, builds resilience, and imbues young people with empathy and resilience (Cleaver, 2020). A love of reading also leads to better physical health (DeWalt, 2005; Weinstein et al., 2021) and a longer life expectancy (Bavishi et al., 2016). • Engagement—a driver of reading joy—fosters reading motivation and interest (Guthrie et al., 2012), and reading motivation predicts a large proportion of the variance in reading ability above and beyond academic and cognitive skills among Grades K–12 students (Guthrie et al., 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Toste et al., 2020). • To promote student reading motivation, research suggests: • Exposing students to a diverse array of inclusive texts, including popular fiction, informative texts, and texts created to cultivate foundational reading skills (Hiebert, 2020). • Ensuring families and students have consistent access to books (Neuman & Celano, 2012). • Presenting students with authentic and relevant reading activities, offering meaningful choices to students, fostering students’ feelings of competence and self-efficacy, promoting relatedness, and strengthening student autonomy (Brandt et al., 2021; Gambrell, 2011; McRae & Guthrie, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2017); • Encouraging students to choose high-interest texts that build upon their interests can also foster a value for reading (Guthrie et al., 2007). Students that self-select books are more motivated to read, expend more effort to read, and gain a better understanding of texts (Baye et al., 2019; Gallagher, 2009; Gambrell, 1996; Guthrie, 2000; 2008; Schiefele, 1991; Koskinen et al., 1995; Sewell, 2008; Pruzinsky, 2014; Tatum, 2009).
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 14
• “All children, even striving readers, benefit from joyful reading, classrooms filled with books, a teacher who promotes reading, time to read self-selected books, and support for both learning to read and their reading identity development” (Miller & Lesesne, 2022, p. 24).
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15
CONCLUSION Scholastic’s mission is to ensure all students have equal access to literacy. To support this imperative, we are recentering our efforts on evidence-based practices that are proven to work. We are confident that by relying on tried-and-true solutions, we will provide more responsive, practical, engaging, equitable, and effective solutions. All students will learn to read, read to learn, and love to read.
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 16
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 17
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print . MIT Press.
Baye, A., Inns, A., Lake, C., & Slavin, R. E. (2019). A synthesis of quantitative research on reading programs for secondary students. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 133-166. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G. & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction . New York: Guilford. Bennett, I. M., Chen, J., Soroui, J. S. & White, S. (2009). The contribution of health literacy to disparities in self- rated health status and preventive health behaviors in older adults. Annals of Family Medicine , 7(3), 204–211. Bennett, H., Denston, A. & Arrow, A. (2023). The effectiveness of a parent-implemented, phonological awareness programme on the phonological awareness skills of preschool children. AJLL https://doi. org/10.1007/s44020-023-00034-6 Berns, G. S., Blaine, K., Prietula, M. J. & Pye, B. E. (2013). Short- and long-term effects of a novel on connectivity in the brain. Brain Connectivity , 3(6), 590–600. Beverly, B. L., Giles, R. M., & Buck, K. L. (2009). First-grade reading gains following enrichment: Phonics plus decodable texts compared to authentic literature read aloud. Reading Improvement, 46(4), 191-206.
Adams, M. J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts: The interdependence of reading and learning. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading More, Reading Better (pp. 163–189). Guilford Press. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P.D. & Paris, S.G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher , 61(5), 364–373. https://doi/org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1 Al-Hazza, T.C. & Bucher, K. (2008). Building Arab Americans’ Cultural Identity and Acceptance with Children’s Literature. The Reading Teacher , 62(3) pp. 210–219. Allington, R. L., McGill-Franzen, A., Camilli, G., Williams ,L., Graff, J., Zeig, J., Zmach, C. & Nowak, R. (2010). Addressing summer reading setback among economically disadvantaged elementary students. Reading Psychology , 31, 411–427. Allington, R. (2012). What matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Allyn, P. & Morrell, E. (2016). Every Child a Super Reader . New York, NY: Scholastic.
Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives , 6(3), ix–xi.
Altemeier, L. E., Abbott, R. D. & Berninger, V. W. (2008). Executive functions for reading and writing in typical literacy development and dyslexia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology , 30(5), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390701562818 Archer, A. & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching . NY: Guilford Publications. Baker, L. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 353–395). New York, NY: Longman. Bavishi, A., Slade, M. D. & Levy, B. R. (2016). A chapter a day: Association of book reading with longevity. Social Science & Medicine , 164, 44–48.
Blevins, W. (2017). A Fresh Look at Phonics: Common Causes of Failure and 7 Ingredients for Success . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Brandt, L., Sharp, A.C. & Gardner, D.S. (2021). Examination of teacher practices on student motivation for reading. The Reading Teacher , 74(6), 723–731. https://doi. org/10.1002/trtr.1999 Buckingham, J. (2018). The fight for phonics in early years reading. Research Ed. https://researched.org. uk/2018/07/04/the-fight-for-phonics-in-early- yearsreading Bus, A., van Ijezendoorn, M., & Pellegrini, M. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research , 65(1), 1–21.
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 18
Cabell, S. Q., & Hwang, H. J. (2020). Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly , 55(1), 99–107. Cantor, P., Osher, D., Berg, J., Steyer, L. & Rose, T. (2018). Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context. Applied Developmental Science , 23(4), 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088 8691.2017.1398649 Carreker, S. (2021). Structured Literacy: Applying the Science of Reading in the Classroom [White paper]. Voyager Sopris Learning. Cartwright, K. B. (2023). Executive Skills and Reading Comprehension: A Guide for Educators . (2nd edition) NY: Guilford Press. CASEL (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning). (2020). CASEL’s SEL Framework: What Are the Core Competence Areas & Where Are They Promoted? https://casel.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws. com/CASEL-SEL-Framework-11.2020.pdf Castles, A., Rastle, K. & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271 Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P. & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The Connections Between Language and Reading Disabilities, 25–40. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Cervetti, G. N., & Wright, T. S. (2020). The role of knowledge in understanding and learning from text. Handbook of Reading Research , 5, 237–260. Cervetti, G. N., Wright, T. S. & Hwang, H. (2016). Conceptual coherence, comprehension, and vocabulary acquisition: A knowledge effect? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 29(4), 761–779.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hilger, N., Saez, E., Schanzenbach, D. W. & Yagan, D. (2011). How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from Project Star. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 126(4), 1593–1660. https://doi. org/10.1093/qje/qjr041 Cleaver, S. (2020). Raising an active reader: The Case for Reading Aloud to Engage Elementary School Youngsters . Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. Comer, J. P., & Gates, H. L. (2004). Leave no child behind: Preparing today’s youth for tomorrow’s world. Yale University Press. Connor C. M., Morrison F. J., Schatschneider C., Toste J., Lundblom E. G., Crowe E. & Fishman, B. (2011). Effective classroom instruction: Implications of child characteristic by instruction interactions on first graders’ word reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 4, 173–207. Connor, C. M., Phillips, B. M., Kim, Y., Lonigan, C. J., Kaschak, M. P., Crowe, E., Dombek, J. & Al Otaiba, S. (2018). Examining the efficacy of targeted component interventions on language and literacy for third and fourth graders who are at risk of comprehension difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading , 22(6), 462– 484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1481409 Cunningham, A. E. & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Reading matters: How reading engagement influences cognition. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (2nd Ed.), 666–675. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Darling-Hammond, L. & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the Whole Child: Improving School Climate to Support Student Success . Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/145.655 De Smedt, F. & Van Keer, H. (2014). A research synthesis on effective writing instruction in primary education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 112, 693–701. Dewalt, D. A. & Pignone, M. P. (2005). The role of literacy in health and health care. American Family Physician , 72(3), 387–388.
Cheatham, J. P. , Allor, J. H. (2012). The influence of decodability in early reading text on reading
achievement: a review of the evidence. Read Writ, 25, 2223–2246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9355-2
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 19
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs