Journal of College Reading and Learning

ISSN: 1079-0195 (Print) 2332-7413 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucrl20

Communication Across the Silos and Borders: The

Culture of Reading in a Community College

Sonya L. Armstrong & Norman A. Stahl

To cite this article: Sonya L. Armstrong & Norman A. Stahl (2017) Communication Across the
Silos and Borders: The Culture of Reading in a Community College, Journal of College Reading
and Learning, 47:2, 99-122, DOI: 10.1080/10790195.2017.1286955

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2017.1286955

Published online: 24 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 29

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucrl20

Download by: [Pepperdine University] Date: 13 August 2017, At: 05:42

Journal of College Reading and Learning, 47: 99–122, 2017
Copyright © College Reading and Learning Association
ISSN: 1079-0195 print/2332-7413 online
DOI: 10.1080/10790195.2017.1286955

Communication Across the Silos and

Borders: The Culture of Reading in a
Community College
SONYA L. ARMSTRONG
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

Texas State University

NORMAN A. STAHL
Northern Illinois University

As part of a study (Armstrong, Stahl, & Kantner, 2015a, 2015b, 2016)

of curricular alignment between developmental reading (DR) and
introductory-level general education (GE) at one community college,
we asked faculty participants about the DR coursework at their own
institution. Throughout data analysis, we became interested in how
non-DR faculty understood reading at the college level, and especially
what a major role lack of communication seemed to play in these
understandings. We identified five major themes in the faculty
responses: reading comprehension, vocabulary instruction, emphasis
on writing, study skills instruction, and disciplinary literacy instruction.
In this article, we detail each theme through exemplar responses coded
in this category, a discussion, and recommendations for professionals
within the DR (and surrounding) fields striving to build bridges to
others on campus. Our intention is to initiate a conversation related to
the issue of communication between DR and other higher education
professionals, as we see value in DR faculty having this insight regard-
ing how others on campus view their work.

KEYWORDS community college, developmental reading, literacy

Recent education reform efforts, driven in part by the early conversations sur-
rounding the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the more recent reauthor-
ization of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), have sparked renewed
attention on clarifying what is considered college and career ready. This has led

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sonya L. Armstrong, Texas State University, Graduate
Program in Developmental Education, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666. E-mail: [email protected]

99
100 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

to a flurry of definitions of what constitutes “college ready” (e.g., Conforti, 2013;

Conley, 2012; Mishkind, 2014). Much attention within these conversations has
focused on developmental education coursework, as increasing numbers of first-
year college students—particularly in community colleges—are being placed into
one or more developmental courses prior to beginning their college-level courses
(Boatman & Long, 2010; Hughes & Scott-Clayton, 2011; Quint, Jaggars,
Byndloss, & Magazinnik, 2013).
Unfortunately, with minimal or no input from the practitioners and scholars
in the field, more and more states are implementing policy pertaining to develop-
mental education that is abandoning, minimizing, relocating, or accelerating this
instruction (e.g., NEA, 2014), including our area of focus: developmental reading
instruction (Holschuh & Paulson, 2013). Given that it will be at least a decade
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

before students who have had full benefit of the CCSS curriculum in their K-12
experiences will enter either the workforce or higher education (Holschuh, 2014),
draconian reductions in literacy instruction at the college level are premature at
best.
Of course, this does not suggest that there is not work to be done with
postsecondary developmental reading (and the authors of this article maintain that
there is much reform needed in the way reading instruction is offered at the college
level). Even so, one must understand that the literacy transition—a transition to the
academic literacy practices and expectations of higher education—is indeed one of
the most significant and challenging transitions to be faced by beginning college
students today. In order to facilitate these literacy transitions effectively, postse-
condary (and secondary) professionals must first understand what constitutes
college ready for text. Such an understanding requires dialogue with content-
area faculty—an activity that rarely occurs.

THE MARGINALIZATION OF POSTSECONDARY DEVELOPMENTAL

READING
It is unfortunate that reading instruction is not an explicit focus of college
curriculum-development and implementation across the disciplines, and, as a
result, is a marginalized area of postsecondary education in general. Just as
scholars such as Alexander (2005) and T. Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) have
noted, literacy is widely assumed to be a finite skillset fully developed in the pre-
college education levels (see also Holschuh & Paulson, 2013). However, as these
same scholars have demonstrated, literacy development is, in fact, a lifelong
endeavor. And, we would argue that, at least as it pertains to academic literacies,
the most varied and sophisticated expectations are present at the college level.
Indeed, there is minimal argument within postsecondary circles that reading is
fundamental to the mastery of disciplinary and career knowledge and competency,
as well as foundational in promoting positive academic and career-oriented
dispositions.
The reform of developmental education programs, including minimizing any
shred of dedicated reading instruction that some students will ever encounter in
college, is becoming more and more common (see Goudas & Boylan, 2012, for
instance). And, in general, for policymakers and legislators, higher education
THE CULTURE OF READING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 101

professionals, and even students, any argument of a lifelong literacy perspective

(Alexander, 2005) seems to be, unfortunately, unpersuasive. Thus, we argue that
communication becomes absolutely critical in articulating the very real need for
continued, context-specific, and evidence-driven literacy instruction at the college
level. Just how to initiate and conduct such conversations on a local level deserves
some consideration, though, as Emerson has famously noted: “If I know your sect,
I anticipate your argument.” In this situation, “reading” the motivations, rationales,
and justifications held by those outside of the field is of utmost importance as we,
as literacy professionals, frame our arguments and begin to have meaningful
dialogue that advocates for students as they navigate the college literacy transition.
This article attempts to initiate such a conversation by exploring how postsecond-
ary developmental reading is perceived by faculty in other content field areas of
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

the community college.

BACKGROUND ON THE STUDY

As part of a study (Armstrong, Stahl, & Kantner, 2015a, 2015b, 2016)—an audit
of curricular alignment between developmental reading (DR) and introductory-
level general education (GE) at one community college—we asked faculty parti-
cipants about the DR coursework at their own institution.
The study was undertaken at Southside Community College (SCC), a large
college situated outside a major Midwestern metropolitan area that serves more
than 35,000 students. The research team consisted of two external university
researchers who were enlisted to assist SCC in determining the implicit definition
of college text-ready at that institution. The study was driven by the following
overarching questions:

(1) What are the text-expectations, including text types, tasks, and goals?
● In developmental reading (DR) courses?
● In general education (GE) courses?
(2) How do these text-expectations align?
(3) What constitutes college-level text-readiness at Southside Community
College (SCC)?

Although the purpose of this article is not to provide a detailed report of

procedures or a full discussion of all the study findings, an overview of the data
collection and analysis approaches used is needed to provide an overall sense of
the procedures (for a full description of the methodology see Armstrong et al.,
2015a, 2015b, 2016).
This study took place over the course of two years, and entailed a systematic
protocol consisting of three foci. First, we focused on GE courses and aimed
toward understanding the implicit or explicit local definition of college text-
readiness by surveying, interviewing, and holding focus groups with faculty
members across the college who teach introductory-level GE courses. In addition,
we gathered course materials from representative courses (e.g., course texts,
syllabi, lecture notes, instructor PowerPoints), and observed targeted class sessions
102 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

to gather data on in-class text usage, textbook-reading strategy instruction, and

discipline-specific literacy instruction.
Simultaneously, we employed the same data-gathering protocol with
a second focus on the DR courses at SCC. Here, too, we gathered data from
faculty members teaching various levels and types of precollege-level reading and
literacy courses, course and program-level curricular materials, and classroom
observations.
The third focus was on the voices of students. Through an online survey,
interviews, and focus groups, we gathered data on student perceptions of institu-
tional literacy expectations, college text-readiness needs, current developmental
reading preparation, and specific gaps in their own literacy transitions.
While analyzing data, we noted a trend that was beyond the scope of our
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

research questions. In short, we became interested in how different GE faculty

understood reading instruction at the college level, how these understandings were
aligned or misaligned with our own understandings as experts in the field, and
how these understandings are significant and potentially problematic given current
reform and redesign efforts. We began to recognize these issues arising in the data,
especially from the online faculty surveys.
For the survey portion of the project, a Survey Monkey link was emailed to all
full-time faculty members at SCC (approximately 211, at the time). A total of 130
full-time instructors representing at least 16 different departments and numerous
disciplines and program areas (primarily general education ones) responded to the
survey, indicating about a 62% response rate. Of the 130 respondents, 122
responded to a question about the number of years teaching at the college level.
Their answers ranged widely, from 1 to 42 years. In terms of 10-year increments, the
majority (44%, or 54/122) indicated 11–20 years of college teaching experience.
The next largest number of respondents (34%, or 41/122) indicated 1–10 years of
college teaching. Only 21/122 (or 17%) indicated having taught from 21 to 30 years
at the college level. Finally, 6/122 (5%) responded that they have taught at the
college level for 31 or more years.
Our intention with this article is to initiate a conversation related to this one
issue of communication between DR and other higher education professionals, as
we see value in DR faculty having this insight regarding how others on campus
view their work. Thus, extensive coverage of the study itself, including what
might be called the ‘culture’ of reading at the community college level, is provided
elsewhere (Armstrong et al., 2015a, 2015b, 2016).

Overview of the Data Context

Faculty members from across 16 different departments were asked the
following question in an open-ended online survey: “How can the faculty who
teach Developmental Reading better prepare students for your classes?” Their
responses ranged from an indication of inability to answer the question, to very
general responses about their desire for students to enter their classes college text-
ready, to much more specific responses that identified particular needs for instruc-
tional improvement of the DR courses. Other responses indicated that reading was
not a major concern or specified other problem areas, including general student-
THE CULTURE OF READING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 103

success issues (i.e., time-management, good attendance, coming to class with the
necessary supplies, etc.). Because these items were identified as being outside the
primary instructional scope of the DR coursework at the institution, they were not
included in the analysis. For the remaining data, qualitative methods, including
open and axial coding procedures (Corbin & Strauss, 2007), allowed us to identify
five major themes: reading comprehension, vocabulary instruction, emphasis on
writing, study skills instruction, and disciplinary literacy instruction.

THEMES
Employing each of these five themes as headings, we will provide a brief
summary of the responses coded in each category, including several exemplar
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

responses. The summary of responses for each theme will be followed by a

discussion, and then by recommendations for professionals within the DR (and
surrounding) fields striving to build bridges to various academic communities on
campus. This presentation style provides a fuller discussion on each of these
themes. Because our goal in this article is to provide general insights and initiate
a conversation, and not to report on the particulars of a study, we will naturally
draw from our own experiences and our field’s literature base in these discussions,
as well as draw insights from other data gathered in that study.

Reading Comprehension
Summary of Responses
Numerous responses called for “reading for understanding” and “[students]
understanding what they read.” Some of these responses further called for very
specific comprehension activities to be included in the DR courses, including
reading actively, summarizing, synthesizing, applying what is read, thinking
critically, and retrieving main ideas. A representative sample of faculty responses
includes the following:

● “Students need to better understand how to read actively.”

● “The faculty can teach them how to read for understanding, not just
skimming the information.”
● “Students need to receive a further emphasis on the importance of reading
so that they fully comprehend the material that is presented. Merely
skimming pages without absorbing the content does not constitute college
reading.”
● “From what I can tell from my observations around the department and
from listening to students, the DR faculty could better prepare students by
HAVING THEM READ!”
● “Giving students the tools they need to read well and comprehend what
they read.”

The emphasis on reading for understanding emerged as a clear pattern that

led us to code responses as related to reading comprehension.
104 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

Discussion
Across the responses we coded as “reading comprehension,” we identified a
range in terms of what college faculty members expect of students with regard to
reading comprehension. And, there was an equally wide range of students’ actual
literacy readiness levels reported. These are, in a sense, two parallel tracks that
don’t intersect, which leads to a form of instructional dissonance in the manner by
which faculty respond to the literacy needs of students.
One question that comes to mind immediately when considering this call for
increased emphasis on reading comprehension in DR courses is what do these
faculty mean by “reading for understanding or comprehension”? What we recog-
nized throughout the responses in this category is a disconnect between what
faculty say their students are ready for versus what faculty expect. Specifically, we
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

noted an underlying assumption that students are coming in “college-text-ready-

lite,” whereas faculty are expecting “college-text-ready-supercharged.” Could this
be, in part, based on faculty memories of their own college experience that have
been aggrandized across the years of their growth in their respective disciplines?
These content faculty offered no evidence that they had any particular
definition of reading comprehension in mind; however, their expectations of
students’ reading comprehension levels seemed reflective of more complex,
sophisticated understandings of reading comprehension. Indeed, one expert defini-
tion of “reading comprehension” that came to mind immediately is one that can be
found in the RAND report, where reading comprehension is defined as “the
process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction
and involvement with written language” (Snow, 2002, p. 11).
By contrast, and at the opposite end of a potential continuum of under-
standings of “reading comprehension,” is a more narrow definition of comprehen-
sion that focuses on discrete basic skills like the definition at the heart of the
simple view of reading, which emphasizes “an outcome of development in two
basic areas: decoding skills and listening comprehension” (Hoffman, 2009, p. 55).
According to the simple view, as just one example of such a definition, “growth in
reading comprehension is explained primarily by increases in the automaticity of
decoding accompanied by increases in general cognitive and language abilities”
(Hoffman, 2009, p. 55).
Such a complex and process-driven conceptualization of reading comprehen-
sion as the Snow (2002) definition, in our experience, has not likely been
explicitly driving the practice of most DR programming over the years. Rather,
programs may have been implicitly adopting the narrower, less complex, and more
skills-based conception of reading comprehension as indicated by the simple view
that plays out in practice in a skill-drill approach. Given that a majority of DR
faculty receive their training in reading within K-12 certification or reading
specialist programs, (or served in secondary school remedial reading programs)
(Stahl, Brozo, & Gordon, 1984; see Paulson & Barry, 2012a, 2012b, for more
information on the licenses and certifications held by DR instructors) it makes
sense that they may be adopting a perspective based more on a hierarchically
ordered skills pedagogy that draws from a clinical model that tends to privilege
workbook-driven curricula. These findings are consistent with Martha Maxwell’s
THE CULTURE OF READING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 105

past commentary that “Many [developmental] teachers seem to believe that their
goal is to focus on basic [reading] skills” (Maxwell, 1997, p. 11). Unfortunately,
mastering these types of basic skills alone often does not prepare students for
college-level literacy expectations (Richardson, Fisk, & Okun, 1983).
Because explicit definitions of reading were not gathered in the research, it
cannot be determined whether contradictory or opposing definitions are truly at
play; however, given the information provided, responses seemed to suggest that
the content-area faculty had in mind one view of reading comprehension that may
not have been aligned with the driving definition, at least from their perspective, of
the DR courses. What was immediately interesting to us is that an underlying
definition of reading comprehension that we find to be more in line with our own
as literacy scholars was being presented (however, implicitly and certainly not
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

using literacy terms) by the content-area faculty. What these faculty seemed to be
suggesting about the instructional focus of DR (which could provide an indication
of the also-implicit DR faculty definition) was quite far-removed from our own
understandings, though.
In short, what begins to emerge is a continuum of implicit definitions or
conceptualizations of reading comprehension that may warrant further dissection.
And such an exploration is important because, as Jackson (2009) has noted, “How
reading and writing practices are viewed impact how they are taught. If they are
seen as a set of discrete skills and subskills, then a diagnostic approach is taken,
where certain skills are targeted” (p. 167). And, of course, the standardized testing
model of assessment driven by state policy and local practice has further encour-
aged this. The reality is that, although the DR faculty may have philosophically
accepted the construct of college and career readiness, what they enact in the
classroom may be more closely related to a traditional, skills-based approach with
limited forays into blind training in the presentation of prototypic reading and
learning strategies. For instance, what we learned elsewhere in the study is that
even when DR faculty assigned a book-length reading assignment, which tended
to be a traditional narrative source, as often found in high school English depart-
ments, the associated comprehension checks still tended to be discrete-skill
activities.

Recommendations
Our analysis, and subsequent discussion, of the category of responses coded
as “reading comprehension” has implications for DR on multiple levels, and here
we are able to present an overriding recommendation based on the extant literature
on reading comprehension and college reading.
If Maxwell’s (1997) concerns about the over-emphasis on decontextualized
“basic skills” instruction are representative of the field’s standard approach to
teaching reading at the college level (and all indications are that it is), then it
prompts us to think twice about the GE faculty’s calls for a greater emphasis on
reading comprehension. And, such calls to move beyond basic skills instruction
based on a simplistic understanding of reading comprehension have certainly
come from within the field (Simpson, Stahl, & Francis, 2004; Stahl, Simpson, &
Hayes, 1992). In addition, others have offered anti-skill/drill sentiments, such as
106 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

Lesley’s (2001) comment that “If ‘remedial’ students are to survive in the world of
the academy, they cannot do so through lower level drill practice. They must learn
to read analytically, beginning with their own circumstances of tracking, social
stratification, and marginalization” (p. 189).
What we in the field know—and have known for some time—is that strictly
discrete-skills approaches to DR instruction are counterproductive, if not detri-
mental. Furthermore, considering the calls for additional emphasis on reading for
understanding by faculty of next-level courses, one specific recommendation is for
DR programs and faculty to develop curriculum that is driven by an explicit,
research-based definition of reading comprehension, and that is locally informed
with input on actual reading expectations in GE courses. Only when programs,
curricula, and learning outcomes are built upon such key definitions can we ensure
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

that we are having meaningful conversations with those outside of our areas. And,
only with a clear understanding of reading demands and expectations at the local
level (i.e., through the use of curriculum audits or reality checks) can we, in DR,
be certain that we are appropriately preparing students for next-level literacy
demands (Armstrong et al., 2015a, 2015b, 2016; Simpson, 1993, 1996). Thus,
we echo Simpson’s (1996) argument that DR instructors must know what types of
tasks students will be faced with in their other courses (p. 102). In order to become
informed, Simpson (1996) suggests “reality checks.” Some specific strategies
Simpson provided include the following: observe a content area course, interview
professors of content area courses, gather syllabi from these courses, gather
information from faculty via surveys (Simpson’s Academic Literacy Question-
naire), ask students to interview their professors, and interview former students. In
short, DR instructors and curriculum designers need to make informed decisions
about what to teach (and how) based on what students are being asked to do in
their next-level courses. Indeed, it was that very premise that was at the very
center of this entire study.

Vocabulary Instruction
Summary of Responses
Regardless of faculty members’ academic disciplines, there was evidence
that all had strong beliefs on the importance of students possessing a college-level
vocabulary. As well, faculty had strong viewpoints regarding the manner in which
DR classes approached vocabulary instruction, as is represented in these few
sample responses:

● “If they could do more worksheets related to the reading where the student
needs to remember vocabulary—that would be helpful.”
● “Teach students to learn words by looking at the root of the words to find
its meaning.”
● “Less emphasis on strategies and vocabulary without enough context and
quantity of reading.”
● “Stop asking them to memorize things like vocabulary.”
THE CULTURE OF READING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 107

● “The reading program here consists of memorizing vocabulary, which is

not learning how to read better.”
● “Learning the health care related words is a challenge, and those who have
a small vocabulary to begin with really struggle. Teach students to learn
words by looking at the root of the words to find its meaning.”

This interest in the importance of college-ready vocabulary led us to create a

coding category called vocabulary instruction.

Discussion
The college student of the 21st century encounters a vocabulary require-
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

ment in any postsecondary institution that will tax the strength of the indivi-
dual’s word hoard developed across the precollege years whether the words
were part of the person’s funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, &
Gonzalez, 1992) or academic learnings from the PK–12 experience. It has
been proposed that the new college student, whether an honor student, a
regularly matriculated student, or a special admissions candidate, will
encounter a vocabulary requirement that crosses three classifications: (a) the
language of the academy, (b) the language of the educated, and (c) the
languages of the disciplines (Sartain, 1981; Sartain et al., 1982; Stahl et al.,
1992).
First, the language of the academy going back to the earliest days of
American higher education is comprised of the terminology that permits a
college to operate on a daily basis (e.g., provost, bursar, ombudsperson)
(B. H. Hall, 1856). In all likelihood this language will be new to the fresh-
man and particularly foreign to the first-generation or at-risk student (see
Johnson, 1971; see also Brookfield, 2006; Delpit, 1995; Gee, 1996). Next,
the language of the educated is the vocabulary used by the faculty as they
communicate with one another and with the students (e.g., monolithic, disin-
genuous, obfuscate). Such words are often the glue of college text or lectures.
College professors expect that students will have mastered the language of
the educated by the time the students reach the hallowed halls of ivy;
however, even in an era of college readiness such an expectation for all
students is more likely to be a pipedream. Finally, the languages of the
disciplines are those technical terms, symbolic materials, among others, that
permit members of an academic community to communicate effectively and
precisely via the specialized language styles in the discipline so as to discuss
key principles, theories, generalizations, and complex concepts (Sartain,
1981; Sartain et al., 1982; Stahl et al., 1992). For students to be successful
in the academic community, they must understand that simple memorization
of words from any of the three classifications at the definitional level will
leave them wanting as the key to mastery and entry into the academic
community is to develop full conceptual understanding (see also Francis &
Simpson, 2009; Willingham & Price, 2009). And, this seems to be the
underlying message across all of the responses in this theme category:
move beyond simple memorization of words.
108 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

Recommendations
In considering the instructional program that will lead students to effec-
tively master terms from each of the classifications previously described, we
continue to be influenced by the seminal work of Steven Stahl (1985, 1998)
and actualized for college reading instruction by Nist-Olejnik and Simpson
(1993). Stahl’s theoretical proposal is that students should receive vocabulary
instruction that focuses on both the additive dimension and the generative
dimension. Additive instruction in this approach promotes word study through
the power of the meaningful context of naturally accruing text rather than the
age-old approach of instructor-selected vocabulary lists, traditional supplemen-
tal skills-oriented workbooks, college reading workbooks, and Integrated Read-
ing and Writing (IRW)-oriented workbooks. In this more naturalistic additive
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

approach, students encounter unknown vocabulary terms from college publica-

tions (language of the academy), lengthy essays and book chapters (language
of the educated), and content field chapters, texts, or journal articles (languages
of the disciplines). Thus, our first recommendation is that DR courses adopt a
theoretically sound approach to vocabulary instruction that is aligned with the
extant research specific to college learners.
Students are expected to select unknown or partially mastered vocabulary
terms for self-mastery through time-honored approaches such as the self-
collection strategy (Haggard, 1986) or Johnson O’Connor’s frontier system
(Pauk, 1974; Sand, 1994) for advanced general vocabulary or the concept
cards approach (Simpson, Nist, & Kirby, 1987) for technical terms. Using
such devices that promote deep learning of words transitions the instructor to
easily adopt a generative approach in which students do not focus directly on
individual word mastery but rather they learn how to independently unlock and
master the meaning(s) of words in any situation they might find themselves in,
whether that be in the academy, the workplace, or at one’s child’s homework
table. Generative strategies would include informed use of various dictionaries
(traditional, technical or specialty, online), employing structural analysis (pre-
fixes, roots, suffixes) to unlock multiple words, and deciphering and then using
context clues among others. Thus, our second recommendation related to
vocabulary instruction is that an approach that values both additive and gen-
erative instructional approaches be implemented (Francis & Simpson, 2009;
Stahl et al., 1992).
Regardless of the course or program structure that provides vocabulary
instruction, the key is to lead students to develop an understanding and
valuing that learning vocabulary is a lifelong endeavor and part and parcel
to the process of learning. More so in this era of learning communities and
IRW classes, the nature of vocabulary instruction should seamlessly bridge
the ill-conceived borders of receptive language (reading, listening, viewing)
and expressive language (writing, speaking) so as to build upon the full
power of cognitive processing. Furthermore, students developing competency
with the generative approach will more likely integrate these competencies
into a strategic approach to mastering content in college classes (Simpson et
al., 2004).
THE CULTURE OF READING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 109

Emphasis on Writing
Summary of Responses
Because this curriculum audit investigated reading, writing was not an
explicit focus; however, it is worthy of note that multiple calls for more and better
writing instruction were requested for the DR courses. Specific calls to “Collabo-
rate more actively with the Writing faculty” and “ask them to WRITE” (all-caps
included in the response) were among some of these requests. The exemplar
comments also included the following:

● “Assignments should not be done in abbreviations. Texting on a phone is

one thing, but do not do it on my tests or assignments.”
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

● “Help students find their voice as writers so that they can recognize the
voice of the authors they read.”
● “More challenging texts and WRITING!”
● “When assessing, do not give them multiple choice or T/F assessments.
Instead, ask them to WRITE.”

We found it interesting that even with the explicit study focus on reading so
many faculty chose to make comments on writing. However, it is an area in need
of additional dialogue within the larger fields of developmental education and
learning assistance, particularly with the current reemergence of integrated reading
and writing (IRW) as a pedagogical structure and approach; thus, we include it
here.

Discussion
One reason we found these writing-focused comments so interesting is that it
suggested to us that faculty in the GE areas may be unaware of the disciplinary
silos that traditionally and still exist between reading and writing instruction at the
college level (Jackson, 2009). Or, perhaps they find the disciplinary divides
unimportant as it pertains to their students’ academic literacy (that is, both reading
and writing) competency. The integration of reading and writing is, of course, not
a new concept (see for instance Bartholomae & Petrosky, 1986; Jackson, 2009;
Pugh & Pawan, 1991; Valeri-Gold & Deming, 2000), despite its current position
as a “rediscovered practice” (Paulson, 2013; Saxon, Martirosyan, & Vick, 2016);
yet, the associated fields, by and large, continue to treat the two as separate and
disconnected.

Recommendations
Our analysis of the category of responses coded as “writing” leads us to a
larger conversation currently being undertaken in the field. In short, reading and
writing, when viewed as interrelated communication processes (Rosenblatt, 2013),
have great potential to be taught together. Bartholomae and Petrosky (1986)
present a curriculum and pedagogy for such an integration at the postsecondary
level, and this has been replicated many times since (see, for instance, Goen &
110 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

Gillotte-Tropp, 2003; Goen-Salter, 2008). Unfortunately, however, until recently

integrated reading and writing (IRW) models have not been prevalent in develop-
mental education programming, particularly at the community college level. Of
course, some developmental reading instruction recognized the need and followed
instructional models such as those proposed by Stahl, Simpson, and Hayes (1992)
that note the importance of writing about reading assignments: “In a sense, writing
about reading assignments turns the reading process inside out, exposing readers
to the inescapable constructivist activity of creating meaning in and from words”
(p. 8). However, the majority of programs maintain separate space in colleges,
equally so when housed within centralized developmental education departments;
these are disciplinary, political silos, not geographical ones. Thus, our recommen-
dation is for institutions to initiate a conversation across these areas to explore
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

possibilities and establish common ground and goals for helping students transi-
tion to academic literacy practices of higher education.
Currently, the IRW model is reemerging in the field, though there are those
who seem to think it is a new approach. Although it is primarily being touted as an
acceleration model (see, for instance, Edgecombe, Jaggars, Xu, & Barragan, 2014;
Hern, 2011, 2012), there are other benefits in terms of working toward a more
collaborative model that bridges the disciplinary divide between literacy and
English. Also, providing more meaningful instruction on language processes
specific to academic contexts—that is, addressing the cognitive aspects of both
reading and writing, and, perhaps even extending that to speech—could certainly
address the general education faculty concerns for better preparing students for the
literacy demands across the disciplines related both to reading and writing.

Study Skills Instruction

Summary of Responses
Just as respondents provided recommendations on comprehension and voca-
bulary instruction, they also offered suggestions on study skills/strategies instruc-
tion. These included calls for additional instruction on specific strategy instruction,
such as note taking, listening, and study skills, as the following responses
illustrate:

● “How to listen, how to take notes, how to find main ideas, how to over-
come the fear to ask questions.”
● “Teach them to use publisher learning objectives and textbook websites.
Have them work on integrating the book and lecture notes. How to read a
textbook for test questions, not as a story.”
● “Link the course to study skills preparation.”
● “By blending reading comprehension, vocabulary, and study skills
together in meaningful lessons….”
● “Students need effective study skills. Reading your notes or the textbook is
not an effective or the only way to prepare for an exam. Students also need
to know what active listening is and that should include taking notes.”
THE CULTURE OF READING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 111

● “Please explain that most colleges do not supply ‘Study guides’ or give the
students a listing of the questions before the exam. They are expected to
study all topics presented during lecture and lab and be able to interpret/
apply all of them.”

It should be noted that our interest in this investigation was in DR, and at the
institution that was the site for the investigation, DR is separated from the college
success programming. However, academic courses offered in both areas include
study skills training in their course descriptions and syllabi objectives, so we did
include this topic in our data analysis.
The DR model we observed at the focal site tended to employ either a
decontextualized blind training model (Brown, Campione, & Day, 1981) or a
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

content-field simulation model (e.g., Armstrong & Reynolds, 2011; Stahl, King,
& Henk, 1991). However, it is of interest that one of the respondents from a
content field suggested that study strategy instruction should be in a contextua-
lized setting such that learning strategy courses were linked with disciplinary
courses. Although contextualized programming has existed for nearly a century
now and fused/adjunct/paired classes have been well-known approaches in pro-
moting transfer of learning strategies for over four decades (Hodges & Agee,
2009; Stahl & Armstrong, 2016) such an approach was not in practice at this
college.
If there was a recommended focus for training it was in the area of notetak-
ing. Instructors felt that many students either would not or did not read the
assigned texts. Interestingly, a number of students reported that there was little
reason to procure a textbook that was not needed to learn the primary content of
the course because the instructors regularly provided content workarounds (see
NCEE, 2013) for presenting the information necessary for mastery. Given these
two findings, we can understand why the competency with notetaking was being
emphasized. It was clear from the class observations, the survey data, and the
focus group responses that the class lecture had become a workaround. Instructors
wanted students to be prepared to take notes, actively listen to lectures, take notes
in a critical manner, ask questions for clarification in class, and process notes as
part of studying. In only one case did an instructor suggest that students should be
able to integrate notes from assigned texts with class lecture notes.

Discussion
It was clear that the faculty members who participated in the research
expected that the students who were enrolled in their classes should be indepen-
dent, self-regulated learners able to study and master the course content. However,
none of them responded in any manner that would suggest they felt any respon-
sibility to teach students how to be effective learners of disciplinary knowledge.
The content area instructors at this college tended to reflect the same set of
traditional values and reflective practices that have been found across eras, locales,
and academic levels when it comes to incorporating content field literacy practices
in their courses and in training students to approach course content and assign-
ments with strategic and tactical processes (L. A. Hall, 2005; O’Brien, Stewart, &
112 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

Moje, 1995). Thus, it is not a surprise that developmental educators and college
student success course instructors are tasked with the role for at least the time
being until all students arrive from the feeder schools with the expected knowl-
edge, competencies, and attitudes.

Recommendations
The instructors did not suggest that students be able to approach text and/or
learning demands in a strategic manner. Rather they suggested that developmental
educators teach and students master time-honored prototypic, generic study meth-
ods that might or might not require learners to first engage the task in a strategic
manner. Indeed, since it is well known that teachers’ instructional approaches are
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

greatly influenced by their own historical experiences along the educational path,
the recommended techniques may very well have been the ones they used
successfully or less so during their secondary school or undergraduate days. We
would hypothesize that the vast majority of the instructors never encountered the
theories, research, or practices associated with strategic approaches to learning in
their academic training (undergraduate or graduate) or in their professional devel-
opment activities (Cross, 1990; Shulman, 1987). Hence, the nature of the
responses are not altogether unexpected.
At least in the most explicit sense the instructors did not articulate or
demonstrate an understanding or an advocating of strategic learning with its direct
link to cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulatory processes. This begs the
question of whether we can/should expect postsecondary content field specialists
to design course curriculum and instructional approaches that promote these
processes via the inclusion of appropriate content delivery mechanisms and
assignments that require students to undertake strategic actions such as selecting,
summarizing, organizing, elaborating, monitoring, self-testing, reflecting, or eval-
uating so as to achieve and operationalize deeper levels of processing as opposed
to surface-level processing that is often the end product of a student’s own best
approach or a time-honored, generic technique.
Given this perspective, there is a greater need for college reading and
learning strategy specialists, as well as instructors in student success courses that
incorporate study strategy training, to be fully cognizant of the learning demands
in content courses and the processes necessary to lead students to be strategic
learners. Care must be taken that instruction not be of a blind training approach
where students simply hear/read instructor/author recommendations followed by
short duration practice with the prototypic generic study technique of the week as
opposed to research-based training via direct instruction (i.e., modeling, practicing,
evaluating, and reinforcing) of the same intensity and time in practice as observed
in the impactful training studies that have been reported in peer-reviewed journals
(Simpson & Nist, 2000). Without the latter approach, the training is unlikely to
promote transfer nor lead to the students’ incorporation of sophisticated and
strategic approaches to learning contexts.
Hence, the fundamental outcome of training with the strategic process and
students’ evolvement as strategic learners is the transfer of such knowledge,
competencies, and attitudes to a range of learning environments in college and
THE CULTURE OF READING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 113

then to the learning requirements for a productive career and life. The mastery, the
internal incorporation, and then the transfer of a sophisticated capability with the
strategic process comes with the student independently crossing a threshold that
separates an initial stage of comfort with cognitive and metacognitive processes
with a particular learning task to a stage where new strategic actions and requisite
tactical substeps are the natural approaches to it.
Content specialists are just that; rarely do they have strong backgrounds in
pedagogy. However, most are willing to integrate instructional protocols that promote
content mastery. For instance, faculty would likely be willing to have their syllabi
extended so as to build in literacy and content supports. Furthermore, we see the
opportunity for DR instructors to design and integrate content area reading instruc-
tional methods and techniques such as anticipation guides, structured overviews,
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

KWL sequences, etc. into a course’s delivery model. We also see opportunities for a
learning specialist and a content faculty member to undertake activities that promote
the embedding of disciplinary literacy components in a course, whether it is offered
face-to-face or online. These activities might eventually take the form of co-designing
direct instructional methods and assignments. Furthermore, such support could take
the form of developing YouTube videos that address learning strategies targeted at
specific courses and even specific units of study within a targeted course. In a sense
this becomes a localized version of the Kahn Academy.

Disciplinary Literacy Instruction

Summary of Responses
Although neither the term “content area reading” nor the term “disciplinary
literacy” were ever explicitly stated in the responses (for clarification on these two
terms, please see T. Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008), we recognized aspects of these
underlying constructs, which emerged across multiple responses:

● “How different reading is required in mathematics (as opposed to litera-

ture, history, etc.).”
● “Use actual examples which are in the field of the student’s interest.”
● “What developmental reading students read currently (Newsweek, USA
Today, a novel) in no way prepares them for the kinds of reading they’ll
need to do in English 101.”
● “Please have them read more scholarly texts. Reading the newspaper does
not make for a scholarly reader.”
● “Provide a bit more ‘technical reading’ challenges.”
● “But are they [developmental reading instructors] asking them…if they’re
doing reading comprehension, is it just like reading comprehension with a
story—like an English story? Or are they also doing reading comprehen-
sions from—and I don’t mean really high-level science or anything—but
something that’s discussing a science situation, or even a mathematical
situation or whatever. Because these kids are going to go out from these
developmental courses and they’re not just going into English; they’re
going into all these gen ed kinds of areas.”
114 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

Indeed, although the content field faculty did not mention either philosophi-
cal stance (content area reading or disciplinary literacy), they did advocate for
content area reading instruction in an overt manner and seemed to key in on the
disciplinary approaches and associated praxis in what might be referred to as an
emerging manner but certainly not in an explicit manner.

Discussion
Here, it is important to note that the institution under study is found in a state
that has fully embraced the Common Core State Standards with its advocacy of the
disciplinary literacy construct at the K–12 levels, and the State’s community
college board is seeking to develop policies and practices to align with the public
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

schools (see Holschuh, 2014, for more on this topic). What, then, can we say about
disciplinary literacy and its potential role in the community college particularly as
students emerge from the CCSS pipeline at this time and in the years ahead of us?
First, although disciplinary literacy has developed great capital in the K–12
arena, it has yet to catch fire in the content fields of postsecondary education or in
developmental reading circles. Nevertheless, the basic foundations of disciplinary
literacy, although not necessarily with the current label, have evolved in the
postsecondary literacy milieu across much of the past 100 years (e.g., Cole,
1940; Hynd, Holschuh, & Hubbard, 2004; Sartain, 1981; Triggs, 1943).
Secondly, while instructors in a particular discipline may approach the
generation of new knowledge as well as the study and the evaluation of the
respective field’s extant literature base with a set of specific if not unique field-
oriented strategies and practices (e.g., Greenleaf et al., 2011), this is likely to be
practiced in an unconscious, second-nature manner developed over the years
having been handed down from one’s “master teacher” to the “neophyte/appren-
tice.” Focus group research (e.g., C. Shanahan, Shanahan, & Misischia, 2011) has
drawn out deep-level, strategic disciplinary practices from university professors so
as to make them visible to all. It is suggested by our work at community colleges
that faculty desire students to master rather generic, time-honored, often surface-
level reading and study skills (e.g., summarizing, note taking, previewing) in the
same manner their predecessors have advocated across the decades. Certainly they
have not explicitly recommended disciplinary literacy practices to students
enrolled in general education courses. It is worth considering that deep-level,
disciplinary literacy practices are not regularly introduced until a student is
enrolled in a selected major if not master’s degree or while serving in an appren-
ticed role in a professor’s lab or field site where the neophyte undergoes the same
time-honored method of “elbow learning” for becoming fully acculturated into the
respective field.
Given their positions in the overall college curriculum, traditional DR
courses, learning-to-learn courses, student success courses, integrated reading
and writing courses, and even freshman composition courses, generally tend to
focus on rather generic approaches to academic literacy. Even in contextualized
approaches as they have been evolving for ten decades now, the primary strategy
THE CULTURE OF READING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 115

training has been of a generic decontextualized nature where a one-size-fits-all

model has ruled the day (Stahl & Armstrong, 2016). This situation has unfortu-
nately lead to a continued practice where market research has had as much or more
of an impact on the directions both curriculum and instruction have gone, as has
peer-reviewed research (Stahl, Simpson, & Brozo, 1988). Hence, even if the desire
of the instructor is to lead students to develop and implement strategic learning
practices and then approach the learning act with appropriate and context-driven
tactics, students are generally presented with prototypic methods that do not
require them to fully analyze the conditional task presented to them through a
metacognitive process. Students are simply urged to select one of the prototypic
strategies of the day as presented via a blind training protocol from a textbook.
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

Recommendations
The postsecondary academic environment is composed of numerous entities
that operate as independent “siloed” fields/units. Disciplines and fields have,
across decades, if not centuries, developed ways of knowing and growing that
are often unique and powerful within the academic context (Wineburg, 1991). To
learn and then to employ these disciplinary thoughtways are the basic require-
ments in the age old rite of passage ritual for entry into the respective scholarly
realm (Bartholomae, 1985). Given this history, we must believe that college
professors would be far more receptive to integrating discipline-specific strategies
into their classes than the generic, prototypic, and packaged strategies than have
been offered to them across the years by college reading specialists. Here, then, is
the promise and the onus of disciplinary literacy.
First, our observation, based on the faculty responses from this study, is that
content area instructors do not explicate an understanding of their discipline-bound
literate behaviors. In our own practice we have seen, at best, a half-hearted
acceptance of traditional content-area methods. In our more recent work with
faculties, we have noted that when the constructs of disciplinary literacy are
presented, faculty seem to have the aha moment (Hynd-Shanahan, 2013). At
that point it is as if the floodgate has been opened. They are no longer being
asked to teach reading or learning strategies (generally viewed as remedial activ-
ities); rather, they are being asked to introduce the students to their respective
thoughtways and greater Zeitgeist…something that they live themselves “24/7/
365.”
What, then, is the future for college reading and learning strategy instruc-
tion? Rather than stand-alone courses taught by literacy generalists, the reform
movement in developmental education and the disciplinary literacy movement
might join forces to more greatly promote the delivery of discipline-specific
paired courses. It is now time to develop such paired courses built upon the
tenets of disciplinary literacy. Thus, the model we would propose is that
college reading and study strategy programs or learning centers develop one-
credit courses such as Disciplinary Literacy in the Sciences, Disciplinary
Literacy in the Social Sciences, or even integrated reading and writing course
models embedded in a specific discipline area or as a learning community
116 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

model that might also include a speech class. Furthermore, consideration must
be given as to whether the instructor should possess an academic background
in the content field. Of course, a true partnership between the disciplinary and
literacy specialists must be the goal and as such nourished and supported by
both academic/administrative units.

OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Throughout this study, faculty commented on a lack of understanding about
curriculum and content in areas other than their own. Although, given the siloed
nature of higher education, this may not be surprising to some, steps need to be
taken on a local level for greater communication across areas. Initiatives lending
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

themselves to this purpose need not be limited to forced meetings across faculty
groups, but instead could work toward true border-blurring, particularly between
DR and GE, by allowing for authentic collaboration opportunities.

Develop Contextualized Reading Courses

Throughout this study, students and faculty alike called for text selection
and literacy instruction that focused on more field-specific texts that would
better prepare students for the types of literacy practices they would encounter
in their general or career technical education coursework. Given the past and
current successes identified in the larger field (e.g., Jenkins, Zeidenberg, &
Kienzl, 2009; Perin, 2011; Simpson & Rush, 2003) developmental reading
faculty should work collaboratively with content faculty in developing con-
textualized reading courses (see Holschuh, 2014, for more information on the
integration of disciplinary text/content in developmental literacy courses).
Along these lines, individual institutions may consider installing a postsecond-
ary reading and writing specialist on the staff of the faculty development office
so as to bring academic/disciplinary literacy-oriented reforms across curriculum
and instruction. These individuals, in a sense, may serve as contextualization
specialists. Such has been done with the Writing Across the Curriculum move-
ment, which begs the question why has higher education privileged one
component of the language arts while marginalizing reading, speaking, and
listening?

Provide Training for Future Faculty

Institutions should take the lead on preparing the next generation of general
education and career technical education instructors, whether as graduate students
or new adjunct instructors, to integrate academic/disciplinary oriented instructional
components into their respective curricular specializations. Many universities, for
example, already house Preparing Future Faculty (or similar) initiatives that would
be a logical home for such training. This approach has the potential added benefit
of informing the future of higher education reform.
THE CULTURE OF READING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 117

Install an Advisory Council to Guide Communication

Emphases as in Recommendations 1 and 2, on new communication and
collaboration channels, will not come easily or without push-back. To ease this
process, it may be useful to implement an academic literacy advisory council
involving members from various constituency groups who can meet and develop
programming to promote communication, partnerships, and curricular and instruc-
tional reforms that break down or at least develop pathways between existing silos.
Specific goals for the council would be tied first to student success and achieve-
ment from a school-wide perspective and only later to the goals of an independent
department.
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

Provide Incentives for Excellence in Communication and Collaboration

Institutions might also nudge such work by offering institutional grant
initiatives for collaborative efforts in developing academic/disciplinary curricula
and support services that team faculty and learning assistance specialists from
across campus. Many institutions offer similar incentives in the form of Multi-
cultural Transformation Institutes or Curriculum Improvement grants, which might
serve as models for such a project.

OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

We recommend that programs undertake a careful curriculum alignment audit with
attention to the local institutional parameters and culture, as this is a critical first
step toward understanding the culture of reading at the local level. However, a
broader view needs to also be taken. Although the major focus thus far, as it was
in the study itself, was on the institutional, local level, it must be acknowledged
that there are global implications of this dearth of communication as well. Here,
we focus our attention on the big picture in terms of the broader field of devel-
opmental education and its place in higher education.

Expand the Scope of Future Alignment Studies

For this study, we aimed for depth of coverage; however, there is need for
breadth of investigation as well. For instance, rather than limiting the scope to the
alignment of developmental reading and introductory-level courses, extending the
investigation into the second year and beyond would provide much greater
insights as to academic literacy needs. Additionally, such studies need to look
beyond reading—at writing, math and numeracy, and even critical thinking and
oral communication. As well, the participants involved in the alignment should be
chosen with a broader lens, and the group should include college success instruc-
tors, learning assistance personnel, freshman orientation staff, and even advisors
and counselors. In short, even in future research, if the aim is toward a broader
understanding of the issues students face in higher education, the silos and the
borders need to be pushed.
118 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

It is worth highlighting one of the major findings in the study (reported in

Armstrong et al., 2015a, 2015b, 2016); namely, curricular alignment between
developmental reading and the general education courses at this institution does
not exist (see also similar findings in NCEE, 2013; Richardson et al., 1983). What
is striking about this finding is what led us to our exploration detailed in this
article: the problems raised by faculty tended to focus more on issues of commu-
nication and collaboration than on our stated focus on curriculum alignment. At
best this is further damage of the silo effect in higher education; at worst it is
evidence of continued marginalization. Either way, the issues raised related to
communication must be addressed.
The themes presented in this article, and their associated recommendations,
evolved from a situation where there was a general lack of understanding across
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

the institution about the current developmental reading programming, including its
purposes, goals, and scope. These themes provide indication that a lack of com-
munication can prevent the type of cross-disciplinary collaboration discussed
above. Beyond these themes, we can also learn a great deal about community
college literacy practices from the topics that did not emerge in this study. For
instance, it is particularly interesting that postsecondary faculty, whether develop-
mental reading specialists or content experts, did not raise issues related to new
literacies or digital literacies in terms of their curriculum or instruction. This
suggests that there is potentially another misalignment that exists between growing
practice in the secondary schools that promote literate behaviors associated with
multimodal text navigation and community college courses, which continue to
emphasize traditional modes of instruction.
Although a single institutional case study, even as in-depth as was this
investigation, should not be the basis of broad-based generalizations, we believe
that the recommendations provided in this article should be carefully considered
by developmental reading professionals and researchers across the country as each
participates in the reform agenda and navigates the murky waters of
marginalization.
In closing, for reform efforts to be successful, it is imperative that the
recommendations from research and policy centers and foundations be carefully
reviewed from the perspective of over a century of theory, research, and practice in
the field of postsecondary reading and learning.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Sonya L. Armstrong, EdD, is an Associate Professor in the Graduate Program in Developmental
Education at Texas State University, where she also serves as the director of the Doctoral Program.
She earned her doctorate in literacy education with a focus on postsecondary literacy from the
University of Cincinnati.

Norman A. Stahl, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Literacy Education at Northern Illinois University
with earlier service at Georgia State University, the University of Pittsburgh, and San Francisco State
University. His PhD in Language Communications was awarded by the University of Pittsburgh. He
has been the President of the Literacy Research Association, the Association of Literacy Educators
and Researchers, and the College Reading and Learning Association. He is a CLADEA National
Fellow.
THE CULTURE OF READING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 119

REFERENCES
Alexander, P. A. (2005). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading.
Retrieved from http://www.literacyresearchassociation.org/publications/ThePathToCompetence.
pdf
Armstrong, S. L., & Reynolds, R. M. (2011). An authentically simulated approach to disciplinary
literacy instruction in a study strategies course. NADE Digest 5(2), 1–9.
Armstrong, S. L., Stahl, N. A., & Kantner, M. J. (2015a). Investigating academic literacy expecta-
tions: A curriculum audit model for college text readiness. Journal of Developmental Education,
38(2), 2-4, 6, 8-9, 12-13, 23.
Armstrong, S. L., Stahl, N. A., & Kantner, M. J. (2015b). What constitutes ‘college-ready’ for
reading? An investigation of academic text readiness at one community college (Center for the
Interdisciplinary Study of Language and Literacy [CISLL] Technical Report No. 1). Retrieved
from the CISLL website: http://www.niu.edu/cisll/_pdf/reports/TechnicalReport1.pdf
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

Armstrong, S. L., Stahl, N. A., & Kantner, M. J. (2016). Building better bridges: Understanding
academic text readiness at one community college. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 40, 1–24.
Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university [Electronic version]. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a
writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing-process problems (pp. 11–28).
New York, NY: Guilford Press. Retrieved March 8, 2004, from http://astro.temple.edu/~sparkss/
bartholmaeinventing.htm
Bartholomae, D., & Petrosky, A. (1986). Facts, artifacts and counterfacts: Theory and method for a
reading and writing course. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.
Boatman, A., & Long, B. T. (2010). Does remediation work for all students? How the effects of
postsecondary remedial and developmental courses vary by level of academic preparation.
National Center for Postsecondary Research Working Paper. New York, NY: National Center
for Postsecondary Research.
Brookfield, S. D. (2006). The skillful teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn
from texts. Educational Researcher, 10, 14–21. doi:10.3102/0013189X010002014
Cole, L. (1940). The teacher’s handbook of technical vocabulary. Bloomington, IL: Public School
Publishing.
Conforti, P. A. (2013, May). What is college and career readiness? A summary of state definitions.
New York, NY: Pearson Education. Retrieved from http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/wp-
content/uploads/TMRS-RIN_Bulletin_22CRCDefinitions_051313.pdf
Conley, D. T. (2012). A complete definition of college and career readiness. Retrieved from
Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) website http://www.epiconline.org/publications/
documents/CollegeandCareerReadinessDefinition.pdf
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, K. P. (1990). Teaching to improve learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 1,
9–22.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New
Press.
Edgecombe, N., Jaggars, S. S., Xu, D., & Barragan, M. (2014). Accelerating the integrated
instruction of developmental reading and writing: An analysis of Chabot College’s developmental
English pathway. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College
Research Center.
Francis, M. A., & Simpson, M. L. (2009). Vocabulary development. In R. F. Flippo, & D. C. Caverly
(Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategies research (2nd ed., pp. 97–120).
New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
120 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, UK: Taylor and
Francis.
Goen, S., & Gillotte-Tropp, H. (2003). Integrated reading and writing: A Response to the basic
writing “crisis.” Journal of Basic Writing, 22(2), 90–113.
Goen-Salter, S. (2008). Critiquing the need to eliminate remediation: Lessons from San Francisco
State University. Journal of Basic Writing, 27(2), 81–105.
Goudas, A. M., & Boylan, H. R. (2012). Addressing flawed research in developmental education.
Journal of Developmental Education, 36(1), 2–13.
Greenleaf, C. L., Litman, C., Hanson, T. L., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C. K., Herman, J., … Jones, B.
(2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and learning impacts of reading
apprenticeship professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3),
647–717. doi:10.3102/0002831210384839
Haggard, M. R. (1986). The vocabulary self-collection strategy: Using student interest and world
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

knowledge to enhance vocabulary growth. Journal of Reading, 29(7), 634–642.

Hall, B. H. (1856). A collection of college words and customs (revised and enlarged). Cambridge,
MA: John Bartlett.
Hall, L. A. (2005). Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes, beliefs and change. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21(4), 403–414. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.009
Hern, K. (2011). Accelerated English at Chabot College: A synthesis of key findings. Hayward, CA:
California Acceleration Project.
Hern, K. (2012). Acceleration across California: Shorter pathways in developmental English and
math. Change: the Magazine of Higher Education, 44(3), 60–68. doi:10.1080/
00091383.2012.672917
Hodges, R., & Agee, K. S. (2009). Program management. In R. F. Flippo, & D. C. Caverly (Eds.),
Handbook of college reading and study strategies research (2nd ed., pp. 351–378). New York,
NY: Taylor and Francis.
Hoffman, J. V. (2009). In search of the “Simple View” of reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel, &
G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 54–66). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Holschuh, J. P. (2014). The Common Core goes to college: The potential for disciplinary literacy
approaches in developmental literacy courses. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 45(1),
85–95. doi:10.1080/10790195.2014.950876
Holschuh, J. P., & Paulson, E. (2013). The terrain of college developmental reading. College
Reading & Learning Association. Retrieved from http://www.crla.net/publications.htm
Hughes, K. L., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2011). Assessing developmental assessment in community
colleges (Working Paper). New York, NY: Community College Research Center.
Hynd, C., Holschuh, J. P., & Hubbard, B. P. (2004). Thinking like a historian: College students’
reading of multiple historical documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 141–176.
doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3602_2
Hynd-Shanahan, C. (2013). What does it take? The challenge of disciplinary literacy. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(2), 93–98. doi:10.1002/JAAL.226
Jackson, J. M. (2009). Reading/writing connection. In R. F. Flippo, & D. C. Caverly (Eds.),
Handbook of college reading and study strategies research (2nd ed., pp. 145–173). New York,
NY: Taylor and Francis.
Jenkins, P. D., Zeidenberg, M., & Kienzl, G. S. (2009). Building bridges to postsecondary training
for low-skill adults: Outcomes of Washington State’s I-BEST Program. (CCRC Brief No. 42).
New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Johnson, S. W. (1971). Freshman’s friend. Hauppauge, NY: Baron’s Educational Series.
Lesley, M. (2001). Exploring the links between critical literacy and developmental reading. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(3), 180–189.
THE CULTURE OF READING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 121

Maxwell, M. (1997). The dismal state of required developmental reading programs: Roots, causes
and solutions (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 415501).
Mishkind, A. (2014). Definitions of college and career readiness: An analysis by state. College and
Career Readiness and Success Center. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a
qualitative approach to connect home and classrooms. Qualitative Issues in Educational
Research, 31, 132–141.
National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). (2013). What does it really mean to be
college and work ready? A study of the English literacy and mathematics required for success in
the first year of community college. Washington, DC: Author.
National Education Association (NEA). (2014). Another lousy “reform” idea: Eliminating remedial
education. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2014/10/15/another-lousy-reform-idea-eliminating-
remedial-education/
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

Nist-Olejnik, S., & Simpson, M. L. (1993). Developing vocabulary concepts for college thinking.
Lexington, MA: DC Heath.
O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into
the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30(3), 442–463. doi:10.2307/747625
Pauk, W. (1974). How to study in college (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Paulson, E. J. (2013). On the developmental education radar screen—2013. Journal of Develop-
mental Education, 36(3), 36–40.
Paulson, E. J., & Barry, W. J. (2012a). Survey of college reading instructors: Professional preparation
and classroom practice, part I. Research in Developmental Education, 24, 3.
Paulson, E. J., & Barry, W. J. (2012b). Survey of college reading instructors: Professional prepara-
tion and classroom practice, part II. Research in Developmental Education, 24, 4.
Perin, D. (2011). Facilitating student learning through contextualization: A review of the evidence.
Community College Review, 39(3), 268–295. doi:10.1177/0091552111416227
Pugh, S. L., & Pawan, F. (1991). Reading, writing, and academic literacy. In R. F. Flippo, & D. C.
Caverly (Eds.), College reading and study strategy programs (pp. 1–27). Newark, DE: Interna-
tional Reading Association.
Quint, J. C., Jaggars, S. S., Byndloss, D. C., & Magazinnik, A. (2013). Bringing developmental
education to scale: Lessons from the developmental education initiative. New York, NY: MDRC.
Richardson, R. C., Fisk, E. C., & Okun, M. A. (1983). Literacy in the open-access college. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (2013). The transactional model of reading and writing. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J.
Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 923–-
956). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Sand, M. A. (1994). An annotated bibliography of vocabulary-related work produced by the
Johnson O’Connor Research Foundation (Technical Report No. 605). Urbana, IL: University
of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
Sartain, H. W. (1981). The languages of the disciplines. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh and
the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.
Sartain, H. W., Stahl, N. A., Ani, U. A., Bohn, S., Holly, B., Smolenski, C. S., & Stein, D.W. (1982).
Teaching techniques for the languages of the disciplines. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
and the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.
Saxon, D. P., Martirosyan, N. M., & Vick, N. T. (2016). NADE members respond: Best practices and
challenges in integrated reading and writing, Part 1. Journal of Developmental Education, 39(2),
32–34.
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines:
History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393–429. doi:10.1177/
1086296X11424071
122 S. L. ARMSTRONG AND N. A. STAHL

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking
content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. doi:10.17763/haer.78.1.
v62444321p602101
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57(1), 1–22. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Simpson, M. L. (1993). Cutting edge: Reality checks as a means of defining ourselves. Journal of
Developmental Education, 17(1), 36–37.
Simpson, M. L. (1996). Conducting reality checks to improve students’ strategic learning. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40(2), 102–109.
Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (2000). An update on strategic learning: It’s more than textbook
reading strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(6), 528–541.
Simpson, M. L., Nist, S. L., & Kirby, K. (1987). Ideas in practice: Vocabulary strategies designed for
college students. Journal of Developmental Education, 11(2), 20–24.
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 05:42 13 August 2017

Simpson, M. L., & Rush, L. (2003). College students’ beliefs, strategy employment, transfer, and
academic performance: An examination across three academic disciplines. Journal of College
Reading and Learning, 33, 146–156. doi:10.1080/10790195.2003.10850145
Simpson, M. L., Stahl, N. A., & Francis, M. A. (2004). Reading and learning strategies: Recom-
mendations for the 21st Century. Journal of Development Education, 28(2) 2-4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-
15, 32.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/
MR1465
Stahl, S. A. (1985). To teach a word well: A framework for vocabulary instruction. Reading World,
24(3), 16–27. doi:10.1080/19388078509557828
Stahl, S. A. (1998). Vocabulary development. Northampton, MA: Brookline Books.
Stahl, N. A., & Armstrong, S. L. (2016, March). Models of contextualization: A golden opportunity
to explore innovations for developmental reading. Paper session presented at the annual meeting
of the National Association for Developmental Education. Anaheim, CA.
Stahl, N. A., Brozo, W. G., & Gordon, B. (1984). The professional preparation of college reading
and study skills specialists. In G. McNinch (Ed.), Reading Teacher Education: Yearbook of the
4th Annual Conference of the American Reading Forum. Carrollton, GA: West Georgia College.
Stahl, N. A., King, J. R., & Henk, W.A. (1991). Enhancing students' notetaking through systematic,
self-directed training and evaluation procedures. Journal of Reading, 34(8), 614–623.
Stahl, N. A., Simpson, M. L., & Brozo, W. G. (1988). The materials of college reading instruction: A
critical and historical perspective from 50 years of content analysis research. Reading Research &
Instruction, 27 (3), 16–34.
Stahl, N. A., Simpson, M. L., & Hayes, C. G. (1992). If only we had known: Ten recommendations
from research for teaching high-risk college students. Journal of Developmental Education, 16
(1), 2–11.
Triggs, F. O. (1943). Remedial reading: The diagnosis and correction of reading difficulties at the
college level. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Valeri-Gold, M., & Deming, M. P. (2000). Reading, writing, and the college developmental student.
In R. F. Flippo, & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategies
research (pp. 149–174). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Willingham, D., & Price, D. (2009). Theory to practice: Vocabulary instruction in community college
developmental education reading classes: What the research tells us. Journal of College Reading
and Learning, 40(1), 91–105. doi:10.1080/10790195.2009.10850326
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and
academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495–519. doi:10.3102/
00028312028003495