document resume ed 378 557 author baumann ...document resume ed 378 557 cs 011 977 author baumann,...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 378 557 CS 011 977

AUTHOR Baumann, James F.; Heubach, Kathleen M.TITLE Do Basal Readers Deskill Teachers? Reading Research

Report No. 26.INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;

National Reading Research Center, College Park,MD.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 94CONTRACT 117A20007NOTE 25p.PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Basal Reading; Elementary Education; *Material

Development; Reading Research; *Teacher Attitudes;Teacher Behavior

IDENTIFIERS *Deskilling; Teacher Empowerment; Teacher Surveys;Teaching Research

ABSTRACTA study evaluated the assertion that basal reading

programs limit or control teachers' instructional decision makingthrough a process referred to as "deskilling" by surveying elementaryeducators regarding their use of and opinions about basal readingprograms. Responses from 553 of 1,000 randomly sampled InternationalReading Association members on descriptive, Likert, and open-endeditems revealed little, if any, evidence of teacher deskilling.Rather, results indicated that most teachers: (1) are discriminatingconsumers in charge of their curricular and instructional decisionmaking; (2) view basal reading programs as one instructional toolavailable to them as they plan literacy lessons; and (3) do notrelinquish control to basal materials or any presumed power behindthe materials. Furthermore, rather than deskilling teachers, basalmaterials empower teachers by providing them instructionalsuggestions to draw from, adapt, or extend as they craft lessons fortheir students. (Contains 35 references and 3 tables of data.)(Author/RS)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

a

Do Basal Readers Desk/ 11 Teachers?

James F. BaumannKathleen M. HeubachUniversity of Georgia

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONt", I a : -

EDUCATIONAL R :SU ":-.L;ES INFORMATION,CE, i ER (ERIC,

This document has been reproduced EISreceived from the relsoo nr olgamtabonebo.nahnq

0 Nbno: changes have been made 10improve r eproduclion quality

POults Of WOW or opinion:, stated .11 Ibisdocument do not necessarily rOproSPM.111co, OE RI po,enn nr pol v

NationalReading ResearchCenter

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 26

Fall 1994

2BEST COPY MAILABLE

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

Do Basal Readers Deskill Teachers?

James F. BaumannKathleen M. HeubachUniversity of Georgia

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 26Fall 1994

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Project of the University of Georgiaand University of Maryland. It was supported under the Educational Research andDevelopment Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Officeof Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings andopinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the NationalReading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.Department of Education.

3

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Parkames F. Baumann, Associate Directorvniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Nancy B. Mizelle, Acting Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Jamie Lynn Metsala, Interim Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Betty ShockleyClarke County School District, Athens, Georgia

Linda DeGroffUniversity of Georgia

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesLinda DeGroff, EditorUniversity of Georgia

James V. Hoffman, Associate EditorUniversity of Texas at Austin

Mariam Jean Dreher, Associate EditorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Instructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of GeorgiaResearch HighlightsWilliam G. HollidayUniversity of Maryland College Park

Policy BriefsJames V. Hoffman

University of Texas at AustinVideosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office Manage:Kathy B. Davis, Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, Albany

Ronald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment

Marsha T. DeLainDelaware Department of Public Instruction

Carl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Walter KintschUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Robert L. LinnUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5Kalispell, Montana

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Production EditorKatherine P. HutchisonUniversity of Georgia

Dissemination CoordinatorJordana E. RichUniversity of Georgia

Text vormatterAnn Marie VanstoneUniversity of Georgia

NRRC - University of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: [email protected]

NRAC - University of Maryland College Park2102 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: [email protected]

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) isfunded by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education toconk uct research on reading and reading instruction.The ,IRRC is operated by a consortium of the Universi-ty of Georgia and the University of Maryland CollegePark in collaboration with researchers at several institu-tions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to discover and documentthose conditions in homes, schools, and communitiesthat encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic,lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed toadvancing the development of instructional programssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva-tional factors that affect children's success in reading.NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conductstudies with teachers and students from widely diversecultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kinder-garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projectsdeal with the influence of family and family-schoolinteractions on the development of literacy; the interac-tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; theimpact of literature-based reading programs on readingachievement; the effects of reading strategies instructionon comprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learning; thepotential of computer technology to enhance literacy;and the development of methods and standards foralternative literacy assessments.

The NRRC is further committed to the participationof teachers as full partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of how teachers view the development ofliteracy, how they use knowledge from research, andhow they approach change in the classroom is crucial toimproving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi-cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRC activi-ties. Information on NRRC research appears in severalformats. Research Reports communicate the results oforiginal research or synthesize the findings of severallines of inquiry. They are written primarily for re-searchers studying various areas of reading and readinginstruction. The Perspective Series presents a widerange of publications, from calls for research and

commentary on research and practice to first-personaccounts of experiences in schools. InstructionalResources include curriculum materials, instructionalguides, and materials for professional growth, designedprimarily for teachers.

For more information about the NRRC's researchprojects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvernann, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center2102 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Patricia AdkinsUniversity of Georgia

Peter AfflerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

Patty AndersUniversity of Arizona

Tom AndersonUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Harriette ArringtonUniversity of Kentucky

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary SchoolFalls Church, Virginia

John BorkowskiNotre Dame University

Cynthia BowenBaltimore County Public SchoolsTowson, Maryland

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne ClewellMontgomery County Public schoolsRockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle ConuneyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City SchoolsShaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of EducationHartford. Connecticut

Karin DahlOhio State University

I,ynne Diaz-RicoCalifornia State University-San

Bernardino

Pamela DunstonClemson University

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Linda GambrellUniversity of Maryland College Park

Valerie GarfieldChattahoochee Elementary SchoolCumming, Georgia

Sherrie Gibney-ShermanAthens-Clarke County SchoolsAthens, Georgia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Jane HaughCenter for Developing Learning

PotentialsSilver Spring, Maryland

Beth Ann HerrmannNorthern Arizona University

Kathleen HaubachUniversity of Georgia

Susan HillUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Georgia

Cynthia HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Karen JohnsonPennsylvania State University

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Sandra KimbrellWest Hall Middle SchoolOakwood, Georgia

Kate KirbyGwinnett County Public SchoolsLawrenceville, Georgia

Sophie KowzunPrince George's County SchoolsLandover, Maryland

Linda LabboUniversity of Georgia

Rosary LalikVirginia Polytechnic Institute

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Veda McClainUniversity of Georgia

Lisa McFallsUniversity of Georgia

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Donna MealeyLouisiana State University

Barbara MichaloveFowler Drive Elementary SchoolAthens, Georgia

Akintunde MorakinyoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MurrayUniversity of Georgia

Susan NeumanTemple University

Caroline NoyesUniversity of Georgia

John O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

Joan PagnuccoUniversity of Georgia

Barbara PalmerMount Saint Mary's College

Mike PickleGeorgia Southern University

Jessie PollackMaryland Department of EducationBaltimore, Maryland

Sally PorterBlair High SchoolSilver Spring, Maryland

Michael PressleyState University of New York

at Albany

Tom ReevesUniversity of Georgia

Lenore RinglerNew York University

Mary RoeUniversity of Delaware

Nadeen T. RuizCalifornia State Univer,..y-Sacramento

Rebecca SammonsUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Betty ShockleyFowler Drive Elementary SchoolAthens, Georgia

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Anne SweetOffice of Educational Research

and Improvement

Lilting TaoUniversity of Georgia

Ruby ThompsonClark Atlanta University

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Sandy TumarkinStrawberry Knolls Elementary SchoolGaithersburg, Maryland

Sheila ValenciaUniversity of Washington

Bruce VanSledrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

Chris WaltonNorthern Territory UniversityAustralia

Janet WatkinsUniversity of Georgia

Louise WaynantPrince George's County SchoolsUpper Marlboro, Maryland

Priscilla WaynantRolling Terrace Elementary SchoolTakoma Park, Maryland

Dera We?verAthens AcademyAthens, Georgia

Jane WestAgnes Scott

Steve WhiteUniversity of Georgia

Allen WigfieldUniversity of Maryland College Park

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

About the Authors

James F. Baumann is a Professor of Reading'Education and Associate Director of the NationalReading Research Center at the University ofGeorgia. His research interests involve compre-hension strategy instruction, the establishment ofteacher research communities, and the use ofcommercial reading materials. During the 1994-95academic year, he participated in a job exchange,returning to teach second grade full time in anAthens, Georgia, public elementary school.

Kathleen M. Heubach is a doctoral candidate inthe Department of Reading Education at theUniversity of Georgia, where she has also servedas a Research Assistant at the National ReadingResearch Center. Her research interests includereading teacher education and the implementationof literature-based instructional strategies withinelementary content subject areas. She taughtelementary and high school during a 12-yearpublic school teaching career.

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and MarylandReading Research Report No. 26Fall 1994

Do Basal Readers Deskill Teachers?

James F. BaumannKathleen M. Heubach

University of Georgia

Abstract. Several researchers and writers havehypothesized that basal reading programs limit orcontrol teachers' instructional decision makingthrough a process referred to as deskilling (Apple,1982; Shannon, 1987). This study evaluated thisassertion by surveying elementary educators regard-ing their use of and opinions about basal readingprograms. Responses from 553 of 1,000 randomlysampled International Reading Association members

on descriptive, Liken, and open-ended items re-vealed little, if any, evidence of teacher deskilling.Rather, results indicated that most teachers (a) arediscriminating consumers in charge of their curricu-lar and instructional decision making, (b) viewbasal reading programs as one instructional toolavailable to them as they plan literacy lessons, and(c) did not relinquish control to basal materials orany presumed power behind the materials. Further-more, it is argued from survey results and priorresearch that rather than deskilling teachers, basalmaterials empower teachers by providing theminstructional suggestions to draw from, adapt, orextend as they craft lessons for their students.

The basal reading programs used by teachers inthe majority of U.S. elementary classrooms toinstruct children in reading and language artsskills have been examined critically both in the

1

9

historical (Smith, 1934/1985) and contempo-rary literatures (e.g., Goodman, Shannon,Freeman, & Murphy, 1988; Hoffman & Roser,1987; Shannon, 1989; Shannon & Goodman,1994). Criticisms have involved various as-pects of basal programs, including genderstereotypes in the literature in basals (e.g.,Frasher & Walker, 1972; Graebner, 1972;Stefflre, 1969), racial and ethnic bias in basalselections (e.g., Baxter, 1974; Britton, 1975;O'Donnell, 1974), and the paucity of instruc-tion in the basal teacher guides (Durkin, 1981).Critics of basal programs have included wholelanguage researchers and theorists (e.g., Good-man, 1988; Harste, 1989), teachers (e.g.,Goodman, 1989, Peterson, 1989), and criticaltheorists (Shannon, 1989), as well as educa-tional watchdog groups (e.g., the Council forBasic Education, see Tyson-Bernstein, 1988)and professional organizations (National Coun-cil of Teachers of English, 1988).

One of the most persistent, recent criti-cisms of basal reading programs is that suchmaterials control or limit teachers' freedomthrough a process referred to as deskilling(Apple, 1982, 1986; Goodman et al., 1988;Shannon, 1989, 1990; Shannon & Goodman,

2 James F. Baumann & Kathleen M. Heubach

1994). According to the deskilling argument,by using basal reading programs, teacherssurrender control ca responsibility for curricu-lar and instructional decisions in reading to thematerials, thus abrogating their previouslylearned and acquired teaching skills.

Apple (1986) likened educational deskillingto that which persons like Braverman (1974)argued occurred historically with workers inindustry:

The skills employees have developedover many years on the job are brokendown into atomistic units, redefined,and then appropriated by managementto enhance both efficiency and controlof the labor process. In the process,workers' control over timing, overdefining appropriate ways to do a task,and over criteria that establish accept-able performance are all slowly takenon as the prerogatives of managementpersonnel who are usually divorcedfrom the actual place in which the workis carried out. Deskilling, then, oftenleads to the atrophy of valuable skillsthat workers possessed, since there isnot longer any "need" for them in theredefined labor process. (Apple, 1986,p. 209)

Apple (1982) maintained that a similar processoccurs in education when teachers use text-books and other instructional materials to teachscience, social studies, mathematics, andreading:

Skills that teachers used to need, thatwere deemed essential to the craft ofworking with childrensuch as curric-

ulum deliberation and planning, design-ing teaching and curricular strategiesfor specific groups and individualsbased on intimate knowledge of thesepeopleare no longer as necessary.With the large-scale influx of prepack-aged material, planning is separatedfrom execution. The planning is doneat the level of the production of boththe rules for use of the material and thematerial itself. The execution is carriedout by the teacher. In the process, whatwere previously considered valuableskills slowly atrophy because they areless often required. (p. 146)

This notion of deskilling has been applieddirectly to basal reading materials (Goodman etal., 1988; Shannon, 1989, 1990; Shannon &Goodman, 1994), the argument being thatthrough the use of commercial reading materi-als, teachers relinquish control of or responsib-ility for their teaching. For example, Shannon(1987) stated that "the technical control ofreading programs (the commercial readingmaterials) deskills teachers by supplying thegoals, means, and evaluation of their readinginstruction" (p. 321). He also asserted thatdeskilling is the result of the use of basalreaders: "The rise of the reading expert andpublishers through the requirement of guide-book-directed instruction deskilled teachers interms of their ability to offer thoughtful read-ing instruction independently" (Shannon, 1989,p. 81). According to Shannon (1989), theconsequences of deskilling are as follows:

Virtually no one, including the teacher,is offered a literacy which asks reader::to go beyond the word and literal trans-

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 26

10

Basals and Deskilling 3

lation of text to tackle the sense, feel-ing, truth, and intention of an authorthrough the words he or she used in atext. Moreover, no one is asked todevelop his or her ability to expressunderstanding of a textwhat it doesand might mean in one's life. In short,no one is asked to be truly literate byany criterion beyond a standardizedtest. (Shannon, 1989, p. 111)

Recent investigations and analyses, howev-er, challenge these notions and instead suggestthat teachers use textbook guides and materialsin a much more discriminating manner than thedeskilling literature would suggest. For exam-ple, data from observational studies by Barrand Sadow (1989), Hoffman et al. (1994), andSosniak and Stodolsky (1993) indicate thatbasal reading materials were used thoughtfullyand judiciously by elementary classroom teach-ers, who selected some instructional sugges-tions for use, adapted others, and ignored stillothers. Additionally, these empirical findingshave been replicated with respect to instructionin content subjects (e.g., Freeman & Porter,1989; Stodolsky, 1989; Thornton, 1991).

Baumann (1992) examined the research andwriting on deskilling and argued that the em-pirical evidence for it was not great in volume,compelling, or generalizable. While not deny-ing the historical and contemporary limitationsof any commercially produced reading instruc-tional materials, Baumann challenged the basalcritics' suggestion "that there is a simple causeand effect relationship between the materials ofliteracy instruction, basal readers specifically,and teachers' freedom, or lack thereof, todirect literacy lessons . . . . Basal materials donot teach, any more than the trade books or

maps and globes do; teachers teach,' not theinstructional tools" (1992, p. 397).

Baumann (1992) suggested the need forfuture research on the impact basal readingmaterials have on elementary teachers' readinginstruction, hinting that a survey would beilluminating: "It would be interesting to findout how teachers would respond were theyasked directly if basal materials themselvesteach students to read or if they were asked ifbasal programs restrict their freedom to makedecisions about their classroom reading pro-grams" (p. 393). The purpose of the researchreported here is to follow up on this suggestionfor a more direct assessment of the deskillingargument by surveying elementary educatorsabout their use of and beliefs about basalreaders.

The Survey

To query educators about their use of basalreading programs, we prepared, field-tested,revised, and distributed a survey consisting of26 substantive items of three types:

7 descriptive items, which asked respon-dents about their current teaching position,academic training and experience in educa-tion, experience using basal reading mate-rials, and knowledge of such materials.These items also asked about local textbookadoption procedures, teachers' freedom ofchoice regarding the use of basal or otherinstructional materials, and respondents'philosophical orientations toward readinginstruction.

0 16 Likert-scale items, which required re-spondents to rate items that described uses

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 26


of and beliefs about basals on a "StronglyAgree" to "Strongly Disagree" scale. Forexample, those surveyed were asked to re-spond to statements like "I view the basalreader teacher edition as a source of teach-ing ideas rather than as a prescribed set ofdirections," and "Basal readers inhibit mefrom providing my students the kind ofreading instruction I would like to providethem."

3 open-ended items, which invited respon-dents to write separate answers to thefollowing questions:

1. What are your general thoughts aboutthe advantages or disadvantages of usingbasal reading materials with elementary-agechildren?

2. How does the basal reading programyou use influence your reading instruction?

1. Some writers have suggested that basalIL:aders take away teachers' freedom toteach reading as they wish. This is referredto as teacher deskilling. By using basalprograms, it is argued, teachers relinquishtheir ability to make instructional decisions.For example, the authors of the ReportCard on Basal Readers expressed the fol-lowing:

The view of the teacher incorporated bythe basal is that of a scripted technicianfaithfully following the detailed lessonsprovided with the basal. The programitself does the teaching as long as theteacher does and says what the teach-ers' manual says to do. (pp. 102-103)

What do you think about basal readers andteacher deskilling? Do you believe that youare deskilled by using basal reading materi-als? Please comment.

Surveys were distributed by mail using alist purchased from the International ReadingAssociation, which has 94,000 members, 90%of whom are female and 10 % are male, with anaverage age of 45. Sixty-six percent of IRAmembers are classroom teachers or readingteachers/specialists, 15 % are administrators/supervisors, 12% are college faculty, and 6%are consultants or librarians. Seventy-sevenpercent of members have 11 or more years ex-perience in education. The mailing list consist-ed of a computer-generated geographicallystratified random sample (by zip code) of 1,000IRA members in the U.S. who had identifiedelementary reading irriiction as the focus oftheir professional : insibility. Six weeksfollowing the distri,iution of the survey, asecond survey was mailed to those who had notresponded to the first mailing.

Results and Discussion

A total of 563 surveys was returned, result-ing in a 56.3 % response rate, which was con-sistent geographically across the sample. Forexample, 57 % of the surveys distributed withinthe 01-09 postal code region were returned. Ofthe surveys returned, 10 were excluded fromdata analysis because either the respondentsfailed to complete the survey, indicating thatthey did not have sufficient background torespond to the questions (5 surveys), or sur-


12


veys were returned after data analyses hadcommenced (5 surveys). Thus, results from553 surveys were analyzed and are reportedhere according to the three item types.

Descriptive items. Respondents were expe-rienced elementary educators knowledgeable ofbasal materials Ninety-four percent werecurrent or former elementary classroom teach-ers, and 76 % of the sample currently or previ-ously had used basals when teaching reading.Only 8% indicated they presently teach but donot use basals at all. Fifty-three percent ofrespondents were classroom, reading, Chapter1, or special education teachers; 32% weresupervisors or administrators; and the remain-der filled roles that included consultant (4%),librarian/media specialist (3%), college profes-sor (2%), and other (6 %). The sample includedhighly educated professionals (94% had mas-ters degrees or higher), and they were quiteexperienced (87 % had spent 11 or more yearsas educators). Ninety-eight percent indicatedthey were either very familiar (61 %) or some-what familiar (37%) with basals produced from1980 to 1989, and 89 % were very or somewhatfamiliar with basals produced from 1990 to1993. In response to a query about basal readerselection processes in their local school dis-tricts, 71% indicated that adoption committeesmade such decisions, and 24 % noted thatbasals were selected through all-teacher votes.

Following these demographic questions, anitem asked respondents to select from a list ofstatements that presented ways in which basalmaterials could be or must be used in theirschools or districts (this item allowed formultiple responses). Seventy-two percentindicated they were free to use alternatives tobasal textbooks such as children's trade books;

36% indicated they were expected to use basalssome of the time but that they were free to setthem aside or supplement them with othermaterials such as trade books. Twenty-sevenpercent selected the statement "I am required touse basal reading materials, but I am givenflexibility in how I use them," and 1 % selectedthe statement "I am required to use basalreading materials, and I have little or no flexi-bility in how I may use them." Five percentindicated basals were not used at all in theirschools or districts.

The item dealing with philosophical orien-tation (to which respondents also could selectmultiple answer choices) produced a mix ofresponses. Sixty-four percent indicated thatstudents should acquire a set of basic readingskills or strategies, but only 6% labeled them-selves as "traditionalists." Seventy-sevenpercent checked the statement "I have an'eclectic' attitude toward reading instruction,which means that I would draw from multipleperspectives and sets of materials when teach-ing reading." Whereas 47% chose the response"basal reading programs are useful materialsfor teachers to draw from during readinginstruction," 62% stated that they believed in aliterature-based approach in which "trade

books would be used along with basal readingmaterials." In contrast, 14 % of the sample in-dicated that they were literature-based teacherswho would not use basals at all. Sixty-six per-cent indicated that they believed in a whole lan-guage perspective in which they would "see itappropriate for whole language teachers to alsouse basal reading materials"; in comparison,12 % indicated they were whole languageteachers who would not use basals at all.


13


In sum, the descriptive items indicate thatthe sample consisted of experienced classroomteachers who had used basal materials in theirown teaching and were knowledgeable ofcurrent basal programs. School or districtpolicy provided teachers considerable choice inwhether basals were used or how they could beused. Philosophically, the majority character-ized themselves as eclectics who believed thatstudents need to acquire a set of basic readingskills or strategies in order to become fluentreaders. The majority also referred to them-selves as embracing literature-based and wholelanguage perspectives, but that such orienta-tions would not preclude the use of basaltextbooks.

Likert items. Fourteen Likert items wereconstructed to evaluate respondents' inclinationto be deskilled by basal materials. The itemformat involved a 5-point scale that includedthe choices Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral,Disagree, and Strongly Disagree, which werescored 1 to 5 respectively. To control forpossible item bias and response set by partici-pants, items of two types were constructed:Type 1, in which an Agree or Strongly Agreeresponse would indicate deskilling (e.g., "I usealmost every reading skill lesson in the basalteacher edition"); and Type 2, in which aDisagree or Strongly Disagree response wouldindicate deskilling (e.g., "I select and chooseteaching ideas from the basal manual that areappropriate for my students").

A factor analysis of the 14 Likert itemsrevealed that 13 items clustered reliably onthree subscales. After inspecting the itemswithin each subscale for common characteris-tics, we labeled the subscales "ComplianceScale" (7 items, coefficient alpha = .797),"Flexibility/Benefit Scale" (4 items,

alpha = .743), and "Individualization Scale" (2items, alpha = .704). The single Likert itemthat did not load on these scales was excludedfrom further analysis. Table 1 contains these13 Likert items by subscale.

The Compliance Scale included seven itemsthat evaluated respondents' tendencies to fol-low or disregard the explicit or implicit struc-ture in basal reading programs. Results showedthat those surveyed tended to make instruction-al decisions independent of the structure ordirectives in the basal programs. For example,91% responded Disagree or Strongly Disagreeto the Type 1 item "I follow the suggestions inthe basal teacher edition explicitly," and con-versely, 97% responded Agree or StronglyAgree to the Type 2 item "I regularly supple-ment basal reader stories by having my stu-dents read trade books."

To permit mathematical calculations and toachieve consistency in interpretation, Type 2items were recoded as Type 1 items (i.e., Type2 items were scored 1 to 5 such that StronglyDisagree = 1 and Strongly Agree = 5). There-fore, the parenthetic item means, as well as thefull scale mean (see Table 1), should be inter-preted such that the higher the nume-ical value,the less evidence there is of deskilling. Thisresulted in a full scale mean of 4.37 for theCompliance Scale, indicating that the elementa-ry educators' overall response to items whichinquired whether they tended to defer decisionmaking to basal materials was between Dis-agree and Strongly Disagree, a finding notsupportive of the deskilling hypothesis.

The "Flexibility/Benefit Scale" includedfour items that assessed educators' feelingsabout the benefits of basal materials and wheth-er they were used flexibly or rigidly. Twoitems inquired whether respondents used the


1.4


Table 1. Thirteen Likert Items Grouped According to Factor Analysis

Compliance Scale (a = .797)

SA/A N D/SD

I follow the basal prereading activities exactly as presented in

the teacher edition. (Type 1, M = 4.25)

2.8% 15.6% 81.7%

I often skip around in the student textbook, having my stu-dents read stories out of order. (Type 2, M = 3.97)

79.9% 11.7% 8.4%

I require my students to read all the stories in the basal stu-dent textbook. (Type 1, M = 4.41)

3.3% 5.2% 91.5%

I follow the suggestions in the basal teacher edition explicitly. 2.0% 7.4% 90.6%

(Type 1, M = 4.44)I regularly supplement basal reader stories by having mystudents read trade books. (Type 2, M = 4.62)

97.2% 2.0% 0.8%

I require my students to complete all the workbook pages. 1.3% 0.9% 97.8%

(Type 1, M = 4.70)I use almost every reading skill lesson in the basal teacheredition. (Type 1, M = 4.18)

7.7% 8.7% 83.5%

Full Scale: M = 4.37Flexibility/Benefit Scale (a = .743)

SA/A N D/SD

I view the basal reader teacher edition as a source of teaching 93.6%

ideas rather than as a prescribed set of directions. (Type 2,

2.5% 3.8%

M = 4.48)Basal readers inhibit me from providing my students the kind 27.2%

of reading instruction I would like to provide them.

15.8% 57.1%

(Type 1, M = 3.36)

Basals help me to he an effective teacher of reading. 38.3% 29.3% 32.4%

(Type 2, M = 3.0)

My students benefit by my use of a basal reading program. 50.1% 31.6% 18.3%

(Type 2, M = 3.29)

Full Scale: M = 3.54Individualization Scale (ct = .704)

SA/A N D/SD

I select and choose teaching ideas from the basal manual thatare appropriate for my students. (Type 2, M = 4.3)

94.3% 3.5% 2.2%

I often modify activities in the basal reader teacher edition sothat they better match my students' needs. (Type 2, M = 4.44)

95.6% 3.5% 1.0%

Full Scale M = 4.37

Note. SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; N = Neutral; D = Disagree: SD = Strongly Disagree. Column values are percentages

of responses falling into three clusters: Strongly Agree and Agree responses together, Neutral responses, and Disagree and Strongly

Disagree responses together. To permit mathematical calculations and to achieve consistency in interpretation, Type 2 items were

recorded as Type 1 items. Therefore, the parenthetic item means, as well as the full scale means, should be interpreted such that the

higher the value, the less evidence of deskilling.


1U

James F. Baumann & Kathleen M. Heubach

materials flexibly. Specifically, 94% of therespondents indicated that they agreed oragreed strongly that basal materials were asource of teaching ideas rather than a pre-scribed set of directions, and 57% disagreed ordisagreed strongly that basal readers inhibitedthem from providing students appropriatereading instruction. The mean responses forthese items (4.48 and 3.36 respectively) wereconsistent with those on the Compliance Scaleand not supportive of the deskilling argument.

The other two items inquired about thebenefits of basal materials to teachers andstudents. Specifically, 38% agreed or agreedstrongly that basals helped them to be effectivereading teachers (32 % responded disagree orstrongly disagree to this item; mean = 3.0),and 50 % agreed or strongly agreed that stu-dents benefit by a teacher's use of a basalreading program (18 % responded disagree orstrongly disagree to this item; mean = 3.29).On the surface these latter two items mightappear to support the deskilling hypothesisbecause respondents were equivocal about thebenefits of basal use; however, their ambiva-lence suggests to us that they consider them-selvesthe teachers behind the curriculum andmaterialsto be the critical component inreading instructif-;:., not the materials them-selves, a stance that suggests they are notmanipulated by the materials. In retrospect, itis our judgment that these two items assesseddeskilling in a manner different from the otherType 2 items for which a Disagree or StronglyDisagree response indicated deskilling . Instead,we believe that these items focused on respon-dents' general attitudes and feelings towardbasal materials, not on deskilling directly. Inspite of these potential item limitations, the fullscale mean of 3.54 for the Flexibility/Benefit

Scale places overall responses in the Neutral toDisagree range with respect to the deskillinghypothesis.

The "Individualization Scale" included twoitems that evaluated the degree to which teach-ers selected or adapted basal instructionalactivities to accommodate students' individualneeds. Results of these two items indicated thatthey used the materials selectively, with 94%agreeing or strongly agreeing with the state-ment "I select and choose teaching ideas fromthe basal manual that are appropriate for mystudents," and 96% agreeing or strongly agree-ing with the statement "I often modify activitiesin the basal reader teacher edition so that theybetter match my students' needs." These respons-es, which resulted in a full scale mean of 4.37,indicate that those surveyed believed that it wastheir responsibility to use basal materials sel-ectively and in a discriminating fashion, a re-sult not supportive of the deskilling hypothesis.

To permit a coi..parison across time andwith different groups of respondents regardingthe deskilling issue, the remaining two Likertitems were taken verbatim from Shannon's(1983, p. 74) study of basal use. Specifically,we selected two items from Shannon's group offive that evaluated his second hypothesis,"Teachers believe commercial materials canteach reading," which we interpreted as hisdeskilling hypothesis. The items, "Basal work-books and worksheets are necessary readinginstruction" and "The materials that make upthe basal program are the most important partof my reading instruction," were selectedbecause the teachers in Shannon's sample ratedthem the highest among the five. Using aStrongly Agree (5) to Strongly Disagree (1)scale, Shannon reported means of 4.42 and3.79 respectively for these items for a sample


16


Table 2. Survey Responses to Two Likert Items Taken Verbatim from Shannon (1983)

Basal workbooks and worksheets are necessary readinginstruction.

SA/A N D/SD

4.8% 14.4% 80.9%

The materials that make up the basal program are the most 9.6%important part of my reading instruction.

11.6% 78.7%

"Necessary reading instruction"

Shannon (1983) and Present Study Comparisons

Shannon, N = 445 ivf = 4.42Present Study, N = 543 M = 1.76

"Most Important Part"Shannon, N = 445 M = 3.79Present Study, N = 541 M = 1.86

Note. 5 = Strong Agreement; 1 = Strong Disagreement. Therefore, for these item comparisons, the higher the value, the moreevidence of deskilling.

of 445 teachers from one suburban midwesternschool district. He interpreted this relatively

;high agreement with these items as support forhis hypothesis that teachers believe the materi-als could teach reading.

In contrast, our sample of elementaryeducators expressed a markedly differentresponse to these same items (see top portionof Table 2). Specifically, 81% disagreed ordisagreed strongly that basal materials arenecessary reading instruction, and 79% dis-agreed or disagreed strongly that the basalmaterials are the most important part of ateacher's reading instruction. For a directcomparison (Shannon did not report percentag-es of responses by category, just overall itemmeans), we recoded our items numerically tomatch Shannon's, which means that, for thesetwo items, the higher the value the more evi-dence of deskilling. Our item means of 1.76and 1.86 were considerably different fromthose of Shannon (see bottom portion of Table

2), indicating that the elementary educators inour sample rejected Shannon's hypothesis thatbasal materials can teach (i.e., that basalsdeskill teachers). These dramatically differentresponses might indicate a sample-specificoccurrence (i.e., teachers from a single schooldistrict vs. those from a representative sampleof IRA members), or they might represent athen-versus-now phenomenon, that is, educa-tors now being more independent in their useof basal materials than they were in the early1980s.

In summary, respondents' ratings of theLikert items seriously challenge the argumentthat basal materials deskill teachers. Ratings onthe Compliance and Individualization Scalesclearly reject the deskilling hypothesis, andeven the somewhat mixed results of the Flexi-bility/Benefit Scale still fail to support theassertion that basals promote teacher deskill-ing. The mean of all Likert items (excludingthe two replicates from Shannon's study) is


1 7


4.1, which corresponds to the "Disagree"response with respect to the question "Dobasals deskill teachers?" Finally, responses tothe items from Shannon's (1983) study, whichis often cited as evidence of teacher deskilling,fail to support the concept that teachers surren-der skill to basal materials.

Open-ended items. Written comments tothe 3 open-ended items (see items 1-3 pre-sented earlier) were analyzed by looking forresponses to the final part of question 3, "Doyou believe that you are deskilled by usingbasal reading materials?" Because those sur-veyed often answered this question in responseto question 1 or 2, total written responses toquestions 1-3 were examined in relation to thisquestion. Following an initial reading of allwritten comments, six response categories werecreated: (a) "No," in which a respondentanswered explicitly that she or he was notdeskilled by basals; (b) "Inferred No," inwhich it was implied in a response that theperson was not deskilled; (c) "Yes," in whicha respondent answered explicitly that she or hewas deskilled basals; (d) "Inferred Yes," inwhich it was implied in a response that theperson was deskilled; (e) "Conditional," inwhich a respondent indicated that there werecertain conditions under which an individualmight or might not be deskilled by basals; and(f) "Can't Tell," in which the response did notaddress the question. After these categorieswere established, the two researchers indepen-dently analyzed 100 randomly selected surveys,for which they agreed 90% of the time on theexact category of response. Discrepancies,which most often involved No-Inferred No orYes-Inferred Yes distinctions, were resolved inconference.

Representative examples of the 510 totalresponses within the six categories are present-ed in Table 3. Thirty-three percent of theresponses were categorized as "No. " Somepersons simply wrote "No" to the questionasking if they were deskilled by basals whileothers did so more emphatically ("Poppycock!"wrote one respondent). Many, like the first two"No" samples in Table 3, provided an impas-sioned explanation for why they disagreed thatbasals deskill teachers.

Another 30% of the responses fell withinthe "Inferred No" category, in which respon-dents indirectly stated that they were not de-skilled. Many of the responses in this category,such as the first "Inferred No" response in thetable, referred to the decision making teachersengage in when using basals, emphasizing thatteachers select what to teach and when to teachit, and disregard other instructional sugges-tions.

Twelve percent of the responses were cate-gorized as "Yes," and another 6 % were scoredas "Inferred Yes." Although a few respondentsanswered the deskilling question in the firstperson, indicating that they themselves hadbeen deskilled (see the first "Yes" response inTable 3), oftentimes the "Yes" and "InferredYes" responses were in the subjunctive (see thesecond "Yes" response) or referred to teachersas "they" (see the third and fourth "Yes"responses and the "Inferred Yes" response). Inother words, when responding affirmatively tothe deskilling question, many of those surveyedwere agreeing that deskilling occurred, but itwas something that happened to other educa-tors, not themselves.

Twelve percent of the total responses to theopen-ended items were categorized as "Condi-


18


Table 3. Representative Wr: tten responses to the question, "Do you believe you are deskilled by using basal

reading materials?"

SAMPLE "NO" RESPONSES (32.9%)The basal has NEVER deskilled me. I am an educated professional given a different class of students each year.The basal is a guiding tool to use, but I, as the educator, make the decisions as to what part and how the basal isused to fit the needs of the current set of students entrusted to me. Any teacher that says the basal deskills themis insecure, needs more training, or is using the basal as a cop out!I do not think that the use of basal readers will deskill a teacher. This is a ridiculous statement and assumes thatteachers do not have a mind of their own. No, I am not deskilled because I use basal readers.I disagree that basal readers cause "deskilling." Throwing out the basal is like throwing out the baby with the

bath water. It is a resource and a guide. I would expect an experienced teacher to use what works with her/hisstudents and omit what does not. It is the teacher's use or misuse that makes the difference.

SAMPLE "INFERRED NO" RESPONSES (30.4%)I choose from the teacher's editions what I wish to use and disregard the rest. One could never do everything ateacher's edition is filled with. I do have choices. What I do like is that the teacher's edition often gets my owncreative juices flowing.I use it without manuals -- as I would a trade book and teach strategies and skills as needed.I agree that the scripting was overdone, but the Report [Report Card on Basal Readers] does a disservice toteachers by implying that they're all mindless dolts who read and say whatever is put in front of them.Programs don't teach kids, teachers do.

SAMPLE "YES" RESPONSES (12%)Yes, I believe that I was "deskilled" by my use of a basal. The basal program was seen as being responsible forteaching my children -- if I took each child through the pages and skill of the basal, they would learn to read --if they didn't, then there was something "wrong" with the child, not with my teaching or the materials.Yes, I would feel "deskilled" if I had to rely on the basal.Yes I do think basals deskill teachers. Some teachers are very ill prepared to teach reading. They are totallydependent on the manual.I believe that the teachers in my building are "deskilled" by the b-.;a1. They are very much afraid of using theireducational judgment to "skip" any of the program.

SAMPLE "INFERRED YES" RESPONSE (5.9%)It is possible for the teacher to use the basal as a "crutch" for too long a period and not to pursue professionalgrowth in a variety of approaches to teaching reading effectively.

SAMPLE "CONDITIONAL" RESPONSES (12.0%)If a teacher gives up instructional freedom for the sake of efficiency, then deskilling probably takes place. If ateacher values creativity and has an innate love of reading, then he/she will deviate for the sake of doing what is

instructionally sound and interesting for students.Basal readers only deskill a teacher when the teacher allows that to happen.This depends on Cie administrative policies in the district.

SAMPLE "CAN'T TELL" RESPONSES (6.9%)Frequently, the materials assist a novice teacher in planning sequentially.The basal program can be good for the teacher that lacks experience teaching reading because the teacher'sguide will get them through.

Note. N = 510; Interrater agreement = 90% (based upott a 100-item random sample).


1J


tional." These comments indicated that de-skilling occurred under certain conditions, forexample, only if and when a teacher allowed itto happen (see the first and second "Condition-al" responses) or when administrative policieswere such that they promoted deskilling (seethe third "Conditional" response). The remain-ing 7% of responses were categorized as"Can't Tell" because those surveyed did notrespond to the question in their written com-ments. A number of "Can't Tell" responses,like those in the table, suggested that basalswere useful for inexperienced teachers.

In summary, when collapsing the six re-sponse categories into three more superordinategroups, results of the open-ended items re-vealed that 63 % of the respondents indicateddirectly or indirectly that they were not de-skilled by basal materials (i.e., all "No" and"Inferred No" responses); 18% indicated thatthey were deskilled (i.e., all "Yes" and "In-ferred Yes" responses); and 19% responded inother ways (i.e., all "Conditional" and "Can'tTell" responses). Thus, overall responses to theopen-ended items indicated that less than 1 in5 persons surveyed agreed that basals deskilledthemselves or other teachers, while a majorityof those surveyed rejected the deskilling con-cept.

Conclusions

Do basal readers deskill teachers? Our datalead us to a negative response. In fact, ratherthan supporting the hypothesis that basal mate-rials deskill teachers, our findings suggest thatmost teachers are discriminating consumerswho view basal readers as just one instructionaltool available to them as they plan literacy

lessons. This was made clear through thedescriptive data (e.g., 77% considered them-selves eclectics who drew from multiple meth-ods and materials); from the Liken items (e.g.,94% viewed the basal manual as a source ofteaching ideas rather than a prescribed set ofdirections); and within the open-ended items(e.g., respondents made comments such as"Judgment doesn't come in a basal", "I makethe ultimate decisions, not the manual", "I'mnot 'deskilled' -- I control the basal; it doesn'tcontrol me", and "Books don't teach reading;teachers teach reading! ").

As with any research endeavor, this studyhas limitations. First, self-report data provideonly one method for evaluating attitudes andbehaviors and should be supplemented with orcompared to other data sources (e.g., observa-tions of teachers engaging in reading instruc-tion). Second, the sample was restricted tomembers of one professional organization whoare knowledgeable, experienced literacy educa-tors. Whether similar results would be obtainedfrom a different sarrple cannot be ascertained.

Nevertheless, we believe that our surveydata provide powerful counter evidence to theargument that basal materials control teachersor usurp their decision-making skills. AlthoughBarksdale-Ladd and Thomas (1993) reportedthat 8 teachers they interviewed dependedheavily on basal reading materials, our surveyfindings are corroborated by three recentinvestigations (Barr & Sadow, 1989; Hoffmanet al., 1994; Sosniak & Stodolsky, 1993) inwhich researchers observed teachers usingbasal reading materials.

Barr and Sadow (1989) used year-longobservations and interviews to explore fourth-grade teachers' use of basal materials and



found that teachers differed considerably in themanner in which they relied on recommenda-tions in the basal guides. For example, withrespect to the selection and use of pre- andpostreading suggestions in the teacher guides,Barr and Sadow observed that "Teachers donot mindlessly follow the suggestions in theguide; they actively select elements to enhancethe reading experience" (p. 66).

Hoffman et al. (1994) used interviews, sur-veys, and observations to explore how first-grade teachers used basal materials. Theirsurvey data revealed a pattern similar to ourfindings. For example, in response to a surveyitem that queried 269 teachers about their useof basal reading programs, 55% responded thatthey used basals but supplemented them a greatdeal with additional children's books; 10%indicated they used the basal but relied verylittle on the teacher manual; and 11% respond-ed that they didn't use basals at all but usedtrade books instead. Only 12% of the teachersselected a response indicating they relied onbasals a great deal and considered them thefoundation of their reading instruction. Withregard to their case study observations of 16first-grade teachers, Hoffman et al. stated that"We observed little of the kind of homogeneityone would expect to find if teachers wereblindly following the traditional basal programscurrently adopted in their districts as a script orrecipe for instructional practice" (p. 25). Theresearchers acknowledged that the influence ofthe basals was significant, but it did not controlthe teachers they observed. Rather than follow-ing the basal manuals in a steadfast way nostteachers "drew from the manuals only as need-ed and designed flexible routines around thepupil texts or other materials. Our data, then,

challenge Shannon's (1983) hypothesis that thebasals are 'deskilling' of teachers" (p. 25).

Sosniak and Stodolsky (1993) used inter-views and observations to explore fourth-gradeteachers' use of basal materials in reading,language arts, mathematics, and social studies.They reported considerable vari3tion in thenature and degree of reliance on basal materialsby the teachers they observed in their year-longinvestigation. The authors point out that evenif teachers did rely on textbook materials, theydid so reflectively and in ways that demonstrat-ed "a curricular vision," describing one teach-er's use of basal reading materials as support-ing "her efforts at building a thoughtful andcoherent instructional program" (p. 261).Sosniak and Stodolslcy also provide evidencethat teachers used textbook materials not as aninstructional canon but rather as support tools:"Textbooks apparently were something akin toprops these teachers used in putting on the playof fourth-grade education" (p. 266). Regardingthe notion that basal materials deskill teachers,the authors saw little evidence of this in theirdata:

At the very least, our findings shouldserve as a reminder that many of thecurrent arguments calling for a change intextbooks and their use are likely to beinsupportable. Textbook materials them-selves cannot be assigned major responsi-bility for the variety of problems associat-ed with elementary education. Textbooksdo not control the elementary curriculumto the extent ordinarily assumed, andtextbook content does not necessarilydirectly influence what students learn.Teachers are something other than instruc-


21


tional managers coordinating and monitor-ing student progress through the materi-als. And, finally, teachers' use of text-book materials is not necessarily the un-thoughtful, unskilled, or 'deskilled' (Shan-non, 1987) behavior it is frequently por-trayed to be. (p. 272)

Our survey data, supported and corroboratedby the studies just described, present a verydifferent picture of teachers' use of basalreading materials than the image put forth bythose who argue such materials appropriateteachers' decision-making skills. Instead ofbeing the subservient automatons, doing andsaying what is put before them as the deskillingproponents describe, our research documentsthat teachers are informed, thoughtful, discrim-inating users of a variety of instructional mate-rials from which they craft literacy lessons. Infact, rather than deskilling teachers, basalmaterials may actually empower teachers(Sosniak & Stodolsky, 1993) by providingthem instructional suggestions to draw from,adapt, or extend, which was the case for manyrespondents in our sample.

For example, a number of teachers com-mented that basal teacher manuals providedthem new techniques, reminded them of oldfavorites, or gave them opportunities to buildon or modify the ideas in the teacher editions:"I have learned new techniques from the manu-als, and I have used them as guides for mylessons." "Sometimes the manual gives meideas that I may have forgotten!" "The teacheredition provides a wealth of ideas and activitiesto use, expand on, or adapt to suit my needsand those of my students and saves me the timeof creating every experience for the children."Other teachers commented explicitly that the

basal materials empowered them in their teach-ing and decision making: "Teachers will beempowered to be 'eclectic' in their use of[basal] materials and lesson planning." "Te-achers are empowered to use the uasals on anas-need basis." "There are many good ideas forteaching reading strategies in the TeacherManual. A good teacher uses whatever isavailable to help a student learn to read. Teach-er empowerment is important." Indeed, themost pervasive finding from our investigationis that it is teachers who are in charge of theirown instruction, not some inanimate instruc-tional material or some presumed power behindthe materials (Shannon, 1993).

In conclusion, Goodman (1993) took ex-ception with Baumann's (1992) critical analysisof the deskilling hypothesis, suggesting anempirical test of the issue:

In the Report Card (Goodman et al.,1988) we chose to ask the question, "Whydo teachers and students find themselvesin a position of powerlessness duringreading instruction?" We started therebecause we thought we knew the answerto the question Baumann wants to ask:"Do teachers and students find themselvesin a position of powerlessness because ofbasal readers?" If that's his question I'dbe happy to help him design a simplequestionnaire study with one question. I'lleven help him collect the data. In fact I'mgoing to encourage every teacher audienceI address to answer Jim Baumann's ques-tion. (p. 86)

We do not know whether Goodman has posedhis question to any audiences and, if so, whatkind of response he has received. We do know,



however, that when a large, random sample ofexperienced, informed professional educatorswere presented with this question in severalforms, a majority responded overwhelminglyand resoundingly "no. "

Author Note. The first author of this paper was acoauthor of a basal reading series with copyrights of1989, 1991, and 1993. He also drew from basalreading materials as a third- and fourth-gradeteacher in the 1970s and again while returning toteach second-grade during the 1994-95 school yearas part of a professional renewal program. Thesecond author likewise selectively used basal read-ing materials in her 12-year career in publicschools, during which she taught fifth grade andserved as a reading specialist. No portion of thisresearch was supported by any basal publisher, norwas any publisher involved in the conception,implementation, analysis, or interpretation of thesurvey reported here. A version of this paper waspresented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Nation-al Reading Conference in Charleston, South Caroli-na, in December 1993.

The authors thank the following public schooland university educators for their participation in apilot study, which include I providing critical com-ments on a preliminary version of the survey: EliseBenson, Michelle Commeyras, Lois Dreyer, PattiEllis, Irene Gaskins, Carol Hudspeth, Jan Johnson,Annette Kaechele, Edward Kameenui, Susan King,Betsy Mattern, Bruce Murray, Dot Nolen, JohnPikulski, David Reinking, Mary Strickland, PhyllisTrachtenburg, and Peter Winograd. We also thankDonna Alvermann and Carol Hopkins for theirthoughtful comments on an earlier version of thispaper, as well as James Hoffman and Sandra Tu-markin for their insightful reviews of this manu-script.

REFERENCES

Apple, M. W. (1982). Education and power. NewYork: Ark Paperbacks.

Apple, M. W. (1986). Teachers and texts: A politi-cal economy of class and gender relations ineducation. New York: Routledge.

Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (1993).Eight teachers' reported pedagogical dependencyon basal readers. The Elementary School Journal,94, 49-72.

Barr, R., & Sadow, M. W. (1989). Influence ofbasal programs on fourth-grade reading instruc-tion. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 44-71.

Baumann, J. F. (.1992). Basal reading programs andthe deskilling of teachers: A critical examinationof the argument. Reading Research Quarterly,27, 390-398.

Baxter, K. B. (1974). Combatting the influence ofblack stereotypes in children's books. The Read-ing Teacher, 27, 540-544.

Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capi-tal. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Britton, G. E. (1975). Danger: State adopted textsmay be hazardous to our future. The ReadingTeacher, 29, 52-58.

Durkin, D. D. (1981). Reading comprehensioninstruction in five basal reading series. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 16, 515-543.

Frasher, R., & Walker, A. (1972). Sex roles inearly reading textbooks. The Reading Teacher,25, 741-749.

Freeman, D. J., & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do text-books dictate the content of mathematics instruc-tion in elementary schools? American Education-al Research Journal, 26, 403-421.

Goodman, D. (1989). Wings to read with: A teach-er's perspective on basal readers. Theory IntoPractice, 28, 274-281.

Goodman, K. S. (1988). Look what they've done toJudy Blume!: The basalization of children'sliterature. The New Advocate, 1, 18-28.


23


Goodman, K. S. (1993). Comments on Baumann[Letter to the editors]. Reading Research Quar-terly, 28, 86.

Goodman, K. S., Shannon, P., Freeman, Y. S., &Murphy, S. (1988). Report card on basal read-ers. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.

Graeber, D. B. (1972). A decade of sexism inreaders. The Reading Teacher, 26, 52-58.

Harste, J. C. (1989). The basalization of Americanreading instruction: One researcher responds.Theory Into Practice, 28, 265-273.

Hoffman, J. V., McCarthey, S. J., Abbott, J.,Christian, C., Corman, L., Curry, C., Dresman, M., Elliot, B., Maherne, D., & Stahle, D.(1994). Reading instruction in first grade class-rooms: Do basals control teachers? Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.

Hoffman, J. V., & Roser, N. (Eds.). (1987). Thebasal reader in American reading instruction[Special issue]. The Elementary School Journal,87(3).

National Council of Teachers of English. (1988).Basal readers and the state of American readinginstruction: A call for action. Urbana, IL: Na-tional Council of Teachers of English.

O'Donnell, H. (1974). Cultural bias: A many-head-ed monster. Elementary English, 51, 181-189.

Peterson, R. (1989). "Don't mourn-organize":Teachers take the offensive against basals. Theo-ry Into Practice, 28,295-299.

Shannon, P. (1983). The use of commercial readingmaterials in American elementary schools.Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 68-85.

Shannon, P. (1987). Commercial reading materials,a technological ideology, and the deskilling ofteachers. The Elementary School Journal, 87,307-329.

Shannon, P. (1989). Broken promises: Reading in-struction in twentieth-century America. Granby,MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Shannon, P. (1990). The struggle to continue:Progressive read* instruction in the UnitedStates. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Shannon, P. (1993). A critique of false generosity:A response to Baumann. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 28, 9-14.

Shannon, P., & Goodman, K. (Eds.). (1994). Basalreaders: A second look. Katonah, NY: RichardC. Owen.

Smith, N. B. (1934/1985). American reading in-struction. Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Sosniak, L. A., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1993). Teach-ers and textbooks: Materials use in four fourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Jour-nal, 93, 249-275.

Stefflre, B. (1969). "Run, mama, run": Womenworkers in elementary readers. Vocational Guid-ance Quarterly, 18, 99-102.

Stodolsky, S. S. (1989). Is teaching really by thebook? In P. W. Jackson & S. Haroutunian-Gordon (Eds.), From Socrates to software (88thYearbook of the National Society for the Study ofEducation, Pt. 1, pp. 159-184). Chicago: Na-tional Society for the Study of Education.

Thornton, S. J. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instr Ictional gatekeeper in social studies. In J.Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on socialstudies teaching and learning (pp. 237-248).New York: Macmillan.

Tyson-Bernstein, H. (1988). A conspiracy of goodintentions: America's textbook fiasco. Washing-ton, D.C.: Council for Basic Education.


N R C NationalReading ResearchCenter318 Aderhold, l'niversity of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602.712532161 M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland, College Park. MD 20742

25

document resume ed 378 557 author baumann ...document resume ed 378 557 cs 011 977 author baumann,...

Documents