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

Abstract

The demand for evidence to support instructional practices in education is surging. Consequently, many adolescent literacy researchers and educators take guidance from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Practice Guide for Adolescent Literacy (Kamil et al., 2008). The document, however, is now 12 years old, and adolescent literacy research and practice has shifted substantially. First, I document the limitations of the IES Guide’s pre‐2008 research base and of the students sampled in its underlying studies. Then, I survey research from 2008–2020 that expands on the Guide’s five recommendations, and name areas of research undeveloped in 2008 but vibrant in 2020. To illustrate the instructional implications of these changes, I present an example unit incorporating changes suggested by research since 2008. Finally, I call on adolescent literacy organizations to maintain, revise, and publish practice guidelines to ensure all our adolescents get the daily literacy instruction they deserve.

Secondary Teachers' Adolescent Literacy Efficacy and Professional Learning Considerations

“…In light of the release of the Common Core State Standards (2010), the ubiquity of technology, and rapid changes in student diversity, including linguistic diversity, Reynolds (2020Reynolds ( , 2021 argues for the inclusion of additional topics in defining adolescent literacy: (a) text selection and text complexity, including multiple-source text sets; (b) digital literacy and multimodal composition; (c) disciplinary literacy; (d) writing; and (e) an expanded understanding of adolescents. This includes a greater focus on English learners and how "concepts like translanguaging (e.g., Seltzer & de los Rios, 2021) demonstrate how new lenses on teaching English learners can reframe multilingualism as the norm, rather than the exception" (p. 41).…”

“…However, many of these studies and meta‐analyses did not discuss aspects of instruction necessary for classrooms, such as instructional practices that equitably support diversity through asset‐based pedagogy and critical literacy related to inclusive and multimodal texts and technologies. Educators need to consider that while many of the programs and practices identified within the meta‐analysis reports (Baye et al., 2016; Herrera et al., 2018; Kamil et al., 2008; Reynolds, 2021) have demonstrated a significant impact on students' reading levels, they do not necessarily fully reflect the complexity and multifacetedness of what constitutes high‐quality adolescent literacy in the 21st century.…”

Lessons Learned during the Development and Validation of an Intensive Evidence‐Based Reading Intervention for Secondary Students

“…Clearly, a mismatch exists between what students are expected to do and the reading skills they are able to use effectively to respond to those requirements (Alvermann, 2002). School personnel do not currently have a proactive and effective means for addressing this problem (Reynolds, 2020(Reynolds, , 2021. Indeed, today's secondary school curricula do not focus on reading skills (Alvermann & Moore, 1991;Anderson, 2009;Ludwig, 2019); further, secondary teachers typically do not have the skills to teach reading (Hempenstall, 2021).…”