NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1094046
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2016
Pages: 6
Abstractor: ERIC
Reference Count: 26
ISSN: ISSN-1938-8071
Thinking in New Ways and in New Times about Reading
Leu, Donald J.; Maykel, Cheryl
Literacy Research and Instruction, v55 n2 p122-127 2016
Over the years, the annual "What's Hot, What's Not" survey by Jack Cassidy has served as an important indicator for issues in the continuously changing landscape of literacy education within North America. In "Beyond the Common Core," Cassidy, Ortlieb, and GroteGarcia (2016) note the meteoric rise of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in recent annual surveys. They suggest that ". . . the intense focus on CCSS by those in the field has pushed the needs of the literacy-challenged to the background" (p. 100). They worry that research-based initiatives such as early intervention, literacy coaches/reading specialists, motivation/engagement, response to intervention, and differentiated instruction may be lost in discussions about what the standards should be and how they should be assessed. The authors agree. Cassidy, Ortlieb, and Grote-Garcia's concerns for closing reading achievement gaps in this fashion are especially timely given an increasingly diverse population, increasing recognition of the needs of second language students, and growing income inequality in the United States. They worry, however, that both the approach proposed by Cassidy et al. (2016) and by the Common Core (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGA Center & CCSSO], 2010) do not fully address the reading challenges that our students face today. Neither addresses the new reading skills, strategies, dispositions, and practices required for successful online reading. Since students from ages 8 to 18 spend more time reading on a screen than they do with traditionally printed text (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010), the authors must begin to consider both offline and online reading achievement gaps. The authors present their views on the following in this commentary: (1) The offline reading achievement gap; (2) The online reading achievement gap; (3) The nature of online reading; and (4) How to best prepare economically challenged students for the demands of reading in today's world?
Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Opinion Papers; Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A