Of Research Reviews and Practice Guides: Translating Rapidly Growing Research on Adolescent Literacy Into Updated Practice Recommendations

Abstract

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.

A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Research on Reading Intervention Classes in Secondary Schools

“…Of particular relevance to the present study, they further found that the cross-cutting factors of extra daily courses for reading (i.e., RICs) and the use of technology did not have significant effects on students' reading achievement. In light of insights afforded by this and other quantitative syntheses, Reynolds (2020) recently called for an update to existing adolescent literacy practice guidelines (i.e., Kamil et al, 2008). He argued that a revision must reflect a conceptually inclusive definition of adolescent literacy and incorporate findings from more recent research, including qualitative research.…”

“…Previous findings from the reviews cited above provide valuable insights and recommendations about specific programs and practices that can assist researchers, policymakers, and practitioners as they consider how to best support adolescents' literacy learning. Yet, there are also limitations and potential consequences of basing recommendations solely on quantifiable outcome measures (Almasi et al, 2006;Greenleaf & Petrosino, 2009;Reynolds, 2020). Relying exclusively on such measures overlooks other information about literacy teaching and learning (e.g., students' experiences and perspectives) that should be included in determinations about what constitutes effectiveness (de los Ríos & Seltzer, 2017;Franzak, 2006;Muhammad & Haddix, 2016;Vasudevan & Campano, 2009).…”

Updating Practice Recommendations: Taking Stock of 12 Years of Adolescent Literacy Research

“…Finally, the Guide was also limited by the research available to the authors in 2008. Elsewhere, I show that the Guide deemed 34 studies as “rigorous” evidence (see Reynolds, 2020 for a fuller investigation of the methodology and the findings explained in this paragraph). To determine the relevance of the Guide’s recommendations for grades 4–12 students today, I tracked down those 34 studies.…”

“…Therefore, educators who rely heavily on that Guide may be missing important opportunities to improve instruction. While my earlier report (Reynolds, 2020) more thoroughly documented the limitations of the Guide, this article presents instructional examples of how educators can incorporate new findings into their instruction, and focuses on how organizations like the International Literacy Association (ILA) and National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) can leverage their expertise to deliver regular advice to educators.…”

“…An updated Guide must also revise its inclusion criteria to specifically welcome studies of racially and linguistically diverse students, and ensure that students with disabilities are represented both in mainstream classes and dedicated special education settings. Finally, the authors of a revised guide should consider broadening its methodological scope to include studies aimed at equitable instruction and studies which show quality portraits of implementation (Reynolds, 2020).…”