[AAACE-NLA] STAR Struck!

[Karen Mundie]

I have to say in STAR's defense that the techniques in the TOOLkit  
are same ones collected together that most anyone who was seriously  
trying to teach reading-- and willing to a little research on how it  
could be done--would likely use. I don't think any reading  
professional looking at the Toolkit would be a bit surprised at the  
content.

The important thing is, and what I think STAR most emphasizes, is  
that reading needs to be taught. I was a bit involved in the first  
year of the pilot, and I'll l never forget the moment when one of the  
teacher participants said, "I used to assign reading; I teach it  
now."  I'm afraid that outside of literacy councils (and maybe  
inside, too) there's still a whole lot of assigning going on.


Karen Mundie
Associate Director
Greater Pittsburgh Literacy Council
100 Sheridan Square, 4th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA  15206
412 661-7323 (ext 101)
kmundie at gplc.org

GPLC - Celebrating 25 years of literacy, 1982-2007


This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the named addressees  
and is not meant for general distribution.  If you are not the  
intended recipient, please report the error to the originator and  
delete the contents.


On Feb 6, 2007, at 6:41 PM, tsticht at znet.com wrote:

> February 6, 2007
>
> The Federal STAR (STudent  Achievement in Reading) Project: Why Now?
>
> Tom Sticht
> International Consultant in Adult Education
>
> Recently the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational  
> and Adult
> Education (OVAE), Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL)  
> announced
> the STAR web site and professional development activity. The web site
> provides information about STAR:
>
> Quote:"What is STAR?
> STAR is a comprehensive toolkit and training package to help Adult  
> Basic
> Education (ABE) instructors use evidence-based reading instruction  
> in the
> classroom. For more information, see About STAR.
> What is the National STAR Training Network?
> The National STAR Training Network (NSTN) encompasses national and  
> state
> experts in reading instruction, state and federal policymakers, and
> practitioners. All are working in partnership with the U.S.  
> Department of
> Education to use evidence-based reading instruction and the STAR  
> model to
> improve adult reading. For more information see Contact the Network.
> Why STAR?
> STAR delivers the tools and techniques teachers need to help adult  
> learners
> read and achieve."
>
> In and of itself, the idea of tools and techniques to help adult  
> learners
> read and achieve is not very notable because there are already  
> numerous
> tools and techniques , commercial programs, etc. that aim to do the  
> same
> thing. But repeatedly the STAR web site says it aims at assisting  
> adult
> educators to use "evidence-based" reading instruction.  It describes
> "evidence-based" and says: Quote:"Evidence-based reading  
> instruction (EBRI)
> integrates findings from the best available reading research with
> practitioner wisdom to inform instructional decisions. …With EBRI,  
> teachers
> use diagnostic assessment procedures to gauge the strengths and  
> weaknesses
> of each learner and target reading instruction accordingly. … 
> Teachers that
> use EBRI help learners improve their skills in each of the four  
> components
> of reading - alphabetics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension - by
> explaining new concepts, modeling strategies, and providing  
> feedback when
> learners practice."
>
> However, the STAR web site provides no evidence that following its
> evidence-based approach will improve adult reading instruction over  
> what is
> already being done by adult literacy educators. I have searched for
> scientific research indicating that a focus on alphabetics (code  
> emphasis
> in Jeanne Chall's terms) with adults with low literacy produced better
> learning outcomes than some other, perhaps whole language (meaning  
> emphasis
> in Jeanne Chall's  terms) approach. But I have found no  such  
> research. No
> such research is cited on the STAR web site, and the report on  
> principles
> of adult reading instruction that is mentioned does not include any  
> such
> research, either.
>
> The evidence that the STAR web site mentions also includes  
> "professional
> wisdom," however no citation of professional wisdom is given. I  
> have looked
> at historical approaches to teaching adults to read to find  
> professional
> wisdom in using either code or meaning emphases. Cora Wilson  
> Stewart in
> 1911 and beyond did not like the alphabetics approach and clearly  
> stated
> that adults should be taught using the "word" approach. Reports of  
> her work
> indicate that more than 180,000 adults learned to read following  
> her "whole
> language" approach. But in World War I, J. Duncan Spaeth took a strong
> alphabetics (phonics) approach to teaching reading to soldiers.  
> Then in
> World War II, Paul Witty took a strong "word", "whole language"  
> approach,
> and indeed teachers in Special Training Units got demerits if they
> emphasized phonics too much. It is reported that over a quarter  
> million
> soldiers learned to read using this meaning emphasis approach.
>
> Septima Poinsette Clark favored a whole language approach in  
> teaching some
> 10,000 teachers to teach 700,000 adults to read and write to vote  
> in the
> early civil rights movement. Frank Laubach strongly favored a code  
> emphasis
> while Ruth Colvin, founder of Literacy Volunteers of America   
> favored a
> whole language approach (interestingly, Laubach and Colvin have  
> merged into
> one organization, ProLiteracy Worldwide).
>
> This type of variable historical data on professional wisdom, and  
> the lack
> of any solid research that I have found on the relative  
> effectiveness with
> adults of the code or meaning emphases leaves me without any good  
> data to
> help make decisions about the use of these two approaches. I know that
> Jeanne Chall favored the code approach in her clinical work but her
> reported gains did not seem to be much better, if at all better,  
> than what
> other adult literacy programs reported. As I read the STAR web  
> page, it
> appears that the STAR approach has been developed in large part by  
> former
> students of Jeanne at Harvard.
>
> It seems to me that the evidence base for the effectiveness of the  
> STAR
> approach to adult literacy education is lacking, in both professional
> wisdom and scientific research. It seems to me that the national
> dissemination effort funded by the federal government is premature.  
> I think
> that before such an expensive (over $31,400 for 45 adult educators)  
> national
> dissemination effort is undertaken there should be research  
> conducted to
> show that the STAR approach is more effective than other approaches to
> teaching reading with adults.
>
> Too often national efforts by the federal government have been  
> undertaken
> and millions of dollars have been spent to disseminate the efforts,  
> only to
> see them fade away with little apparent long-lasting improvement to  
> the
> Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States.  
> Will STAR
> go this way, too?
>
> Whatever happened to the Adult Performance Level (APL) project?
> Whatever happened to the Equipped for the Future (EFF) project?
>
> Are we about to be STAR stuck!
>
> Thomas G. Sticht
> International Consultant in Adult Education
> 2062 Valey View Blvd.
> El Cajon, CA 92019-2059
> Tel/fax: (619) 444-9133
> Email: tsticht at aznet.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
> LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> http://literacytent.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/aaace-nla/attachments/20070207/47f2be2c/attachment-0001.html