What’s Hot in Literacy for 2017: Topics Garnering Attention in 2017

References

• Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C. Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. A. (2013). Introduction to research in education (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Trans.) & R. Nice (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 46–58). New York, NY: Greenwood.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, L. G., & Donovan, C. A. (2010). Information book read-alouds as models for second-grade authors. The Reading Teacher, 64(4), 246–260. doi:10.1598/RT.64.4.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, M. D. (2015). “It’s like a script”: Long-term English learners’ experiences with and ideas about academic reading. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(4), 383–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S., & Kappas, L. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: A primer on “close readings of text.” Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Burwell, C. (2013). The pedagogical potential of video remix: Critical conversations about culture, creativity, and copyright. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(3), 205–213. doi:10.1002/JAAL.205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2004). Literacy trends and issues today: An on-going study. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 11–28. doi:10.1080/10573560490242822
   Google Scholar
• Cassidy, J., & Grote-Garcia, S. (2012). Defining the literacy agenda: Results of the 2013 what’s hot, what’s not literacy survey. Reading Today, 30(1), 9–12.
   Google Scholar
• Cassidy, J., & Loveless, D. J. (2011). Taking our pulse in a time of uncertainty: Results of the 2012 what’s hot, what’s not literacy survey. Reading Today, 29(2), 16–21.
   Google Scholar
• Cassidy, J., & Ortlieb, E. (2013). What was hot (and not) in literacy: What we can learn. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(1), 21–29. doi:10.1002/JAAL.215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassidy, J., Ortlieb, E., & Grote-Garcia, S. (2016). Beyond the Common Core: Examining 20 years of literacy priorities and their impact on struggling readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(2), 91–104. doi:10.1080/19388071.2015.1136011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassidy, J., Valadez, C., & Garrett, S. (2010). A look at the five pillars and the cement that supports them. The Reading Teacher, 63, 644–655. doi:10.1598/RT.63.8.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassidy, J., & Wenrich, J. K. (1997). What’s hot, what’s not for 1997. Reading Today, 14(4), 34.
   Google Scholar
• Christie, F., & Misson, R. (1998). Framing the issues in literacy education. In F. Christie & R. Misson (Eds.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 1–17). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coiro, J. (2012). Understanding dispositions and reading on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 645–648. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton, B. (2013). Engaging children in close reading: Multimodal commentaries and illustration remix. The Reading Teacher, 66(8), 642–649. doi:10.1002/trtr.2013.66.issue-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2011). Supporting informational writing in the elementary grades. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 406–416. doi:10.1598/RT.64.6.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duke, N. (2004). The case of informational texts. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research says about reading instruction (pp. 40–44). Newark, DE: International Literacy Association.
   Google Scholar
• Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in the first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224. doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang, Z., & Pace, B. G. (2013). Teaching with challenging texts in the disciplines: Text complexity and close reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(2), 104–108. doi:10.1002/JAAL.229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Contingency teaching during close reading. The Reading Teacher, 68(4), 277–286. doi:10.1002/trtr.1298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, J., & Noblit, G. (2000). Balance in the making: Learning to read in an ethnically diverse first-grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 3–22. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, S. D. (2012). Informational/Non-fiction text: Our time has come. In J. Cassidy & S. Grote-Garcia (Eds.), Literacy trends and issues (pp. 35–40). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
   Google Scholar
• Gill, S. R. (2009). What teachers need to know about the “new” nonfiction. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 260–267. doi:10.1598/RT.63.4.1
   Google Scholar
• Guetterman, T. C. (2015). Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative research in education and the health sciences. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(2), E14.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Literacy Association (ILA). (2016). What’s hot in literacy: 2017 report. Available at: https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/resource-documents/whats-hot-2017-report.pdf?sfvrsn=4
   Google Scholar
• Jay, A. B., & Strong, M. W. (2008). A guide to literacy coaching: Helping teachers increase student achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez, R. T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacy Latina/o readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 224–243. doi:10.1598/RRQ.32.3.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Remix: The art and craft of endless hybridization. Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy, 52(1), 22–34. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York, NY: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Leu, D. J. (1996). Sarah’s secret: Social aspects of literacy and learning in a digital information age. The Reading Teacher, 50(2), 162–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leu, D. J., Jr. (2000). Exploring literacy on the Internet: Our children’s future: Changing the focus of literacy and literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 53(5), 424–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other communication technologies. In R. Ruddell & N. Urau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Manyak, P. (2008). What’s your news? Portraits of a rich language and literacy activity for English-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 450–458. doi:10.1598/RT.61.6.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsumura, L. C., Bickel, D. D., Zook-Howell, D., Correnti, R., & Walsh, M. (2016). Cloud coaching. JSD, 37(4), 30–39.
   Google Scholar
• Merga, M. K. & Moon, B. (2016). The impact of social influences on high school students’ recreational reading. The High School Journal, 99(2), 122–140.
   Google Scholar
• Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Ortlieb, E., & Majors, Y. (2016). Starting over one word at a time: Useful and dangerous discourses. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(1), 83–86. doi:10.1002/jaal.561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Rennie, J., & Ortlieb, E. (2013). Diverse literacy learners: Deficit versus productive pedagogies. In E. Ortlieb & E. H. Cheek Jr. (Eds.), Literacy Research, Practice, and Evaluation: Vol. 3. School-based interventions for struggling readers, K-8 (pp. 203–218). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
   Google Scholar
• Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubinstein- Ávila, E. (2004). Conversing with Miguel: An adolescent English language learner struggling with later literacy development. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(2), 290–301.
   Google Scholar
• Sarroub, L. K., Pernicek, T., & Sweeney, T. (2007). “I was bitten by a scorpion”: Reading in and out of school in a refugee’s life. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(8), 668–679. doi:10.1598/JAAL.50.8.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 393–429. doi:10.1177/1086296X11424071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Howard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toll, C. A. (2005). The literacy coach’s survival guide: Essential questions and practical answers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Turvey, K. (2006). Towards deeper learning through creativity within online communities in primary education. Computers & Education, 46(3), 309–321. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walpole, S., & McKenna, M. (2004). The literacy coach’s handbook: A guide to research-based practices. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Wise, J. B. (2017, January 22). Empowering literacy leadership through online cloud coaching. Literacy Daily. Retrieved from http://www.literacyworldwide.org/blog/literacy-daily/2017/01/22/empowering-literacy-leadership-through-online-cloud-coaching
   Google Scholar
• Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2000). Sharing informational texts with young children. The Reading Teacher, 53(5), 410–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar