Norman A Stahl
Norman A. Stahl, NIU Professor Emeritus and past Chair of Literacy Education, focuses his scholarship on college reading/learning, literacy history, and research methodology with 150+ publications (books, articles, chapters, reviews, commentaries) and over 250 conference presentations. He received awards for scholarship or service from LRA (Kingston), ALER (Herr), the National Association for Developmental Education, the College Reading and Learning Association (the Golden Anniversary Award), and the College Literacy and Learning SIG/ILA among others. He served as President of LRA, ALER, CRLA, History of Literacy SIG/ILA, and Board Chair of ARF. He is a National Fellow of the Council of Learning Assistance and Developmental Education Associations (the field’s highest honor). Currently he is Past President of the Reading Hall of Fame. He serves/d on review boards for 12 literacy, developmental education, and adult basic education journals. Norm is known as a long-time mentor to graduate students and emerging professionals at NIU and in professional associations
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Norman A Stahl
Three component investigations were conducted: one on the text practices
and expectations as observed, one on the faculty perspectives, and one on
the student perspectives. Data sources included text analyses, classroom
observations, faculty surveys and focus groups, and student surveys and
focus groups. Findings included a mismatch between developmental reading
and general-education courses in terms of the text types and difficulty
levels, the purpose for the text, and the text-associated tasks and learning
foci. Another major finding was that general-education faculty in this study
do not provide explicit instruction on text-navigation. Instead faculty tend to
use text-alternatives to deliver content. Finally, in response to the original
driving question, the findings of this study suggested that there is not any
widely accepted definition of college-text ready at this institution.
pedagogical practices have resulted in the reemergence of integrated reading and writing (IRW) courses in community colleges nationwide. To answer such calls, a number of IRW textbooks have been published and implemented rapidly, perhaps out of convenience. This study was a content analysis of the most current and popular textbooks on the market for integrated reading and writing (IRW) courses at the postsecondary level from
2002–2017. Findings suggest that there are tensions across theory and
curricula as embodied in these textbooks. As a result of the findings of
this study, we offer a set of specific principles that we posit should drive
curriculum and instruction for postsecondary developmental integrated
reading and writing in community college contexts. These principles are
not intended to be interpreted as prescriptive, but rather as descriptive of
the wealth of a great deal of existing scholarship regarding integrated
reading and writing that is too often overlooked in curriculumdevelopment,
particularly with textbook curricula.
and/or conducting qualitative research. Expanded inquiry, including qualitative inquiry, within postsecondary education is particularly important since our fields – developmental education and learning assistance – contain multiple, unique
populations that demand contextual details to be at the forefront of questions being asked and research being conducted.
higher education, and, in community college developmental
education contexts in particular. However, it is important to
note that contextualization is more than an innovation that is
specific to the current developmental education reform movement,
as iterations of this concept abound. In this manuscript,
we provide an in-depth analysis of the current movement
toward contextualization as it has evolved over many years in
college reading and study strategy contexts. We begin by providing
an overview of the historical background on the construct,
as well as contemporary conceptualizations of what is
now referred to as contextualization. Next, we describe an extensive
integrative literature review on the topic of contextualization
of college reading and study strategies, including the
results of that review. We close with possible contributions of
this review for higher education professionals designing contextualized
learning environments.
for understanding and having meaningful discussion
within professional circles and between the profession
and the public. For over six decades, the term
reading wars has been used in scholarship and popular
media to describe debates about how to teach
reading. In this article, the authors report findings
from a terminological study of the term, including
the first recorded use of the term, changing debates
to which the term has referred over time, and ways
the term has been used in a variety of media. The
authors situate the term outside of the literacy field
and urge literacy professionals to exercise caution
when using the term.
Three component investigations were conducted: one on the text practices
and expectations as observed, one on the faculty perspectives, and one on
the student perspectives. Data sources included text analyses, classroom
observations, faculty surveys and focus groups, and student surveys and
focus groups. Findings included a mismatch between developmental reading
and general-education courses in terms of the text types and difficulty
levels, the purpose for the text, and the text-associated tasks and learning
foci. Another major finding was that general-education faculty in this study
do not provide explicit instruction on text-navigation. Instead faculty tend to
use text-alternatives to deliver content. Finally, in response to the original
driving question, the findings of this study suggested that there is not any
widely accepted definition of college-text ready at this institution.
pedagogical practices have resulted in the reemergence of integrated reading and writing (IRW) courses in community colleges nationwide. To answer such calls, a number of IRW textbooks have been published and implemented rapidly, perhaps out of convenience. This study was a content analysis of the most current and popular textbooks on the market for integrated reading and writing (IRW) courses at the postsecondary level from
2002–2017. Findings suggest that there are tensions across theory and
curricula as embodied in these textbooks. As a result of the findings of
this study, we offer a set of specific principles that we posit should drive
curriculum and instruction for postsecondary developmental integrated
reading and writing in community college contexts. These principles are
not intended to be interpreted as prescriptive, but rather as descriptive of
the wealth of a great deal of existing scholarship regarding integrated
reading and writing that is too often overlooked in curriculumdevelopment,
particularly with textbook curricula.
and/or conducting qualitative research. Expanded inquiry, including qualitative inquiry, within postsecondary education is particularly important since our fields – developmental education and learning assistance – contain multiple, unique
populations that demand contextual details to be at the forefront of questions being asked and research being conducted.
higher education, and, in community college developmental
education contexts in particular. However, it is important to
note that contextualization is more than an innovation that is
specific to the current developmental education reform movement,
as iterations of this concept abound. In this manuscript,
we provide an in-depth analysis of the current movement
toward contextualization as it has evolved over many years in
college reading and study strategy contexts. We begin by providing
an overview of the historical background on the construct,
as well as contemporary conceptualizations of what is
now referred to as contextualization. Next, we describe an extensive
integrative literature review on the topic of contextualization
of college reading and study strategies, including the
results of that review. We close with possible contributions of
this review for higher education professionals designing contextualized
learning environments.
for understanding and having meaningful discussion
within professional circles and between the profession
and the public. For over six decades, the term
reading wars has been used in scholarship and popular
media to describe debates about how to teach
reading. In this article, the authors report findings
from a terminological study of the term, including
the first recorded use of the term, changing debates
to which the term has referred over time, and ways
the term has been used in a variety of media. The
authors situate the term outside of the literacy field
and urge literacy professionals to exercise caution
when using the term.