Reading Research Quarterly Research Articles

Reading Lessons and Federal Policy Making: An Overview and Introduction to the Special Issue

Previous articleNext article No AccessReading Lessons and Federal Policy Making: An Overview and Introduction to the Special IssueRichard L. AllingtonRichard L. AllingtonUniversity of Tennessee Search for more articles by this author University of TennesseePDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Elementary School Journal Volume 107, Number 1September 2006 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/509523 Views: 99Total views on this site Citations: 11Citations are reported from Crossref © 2006 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Katherine K. Frankel Remedial Reading Programs: Identification, Instruction, and Impacts of a Separate System for Learning, (Sep 2022): 61–87.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_3Brian Gearin, Jessica Turtura, Edward J. Kame’enui, Nancy J. Nelson, Hank Fien A Multiple Streams Analysis of Recent Changes to State-Level Dyslexia Education Law, Educational Policy 41 (Oct 2018): 089590481880732.https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807328Min Sun, Kenneth A. Frank, William R. Penuel, Chong Min Kim How External Institutions Penetrate Schools Through Formal and Informal Leaders, Educational Administration Quarterly 49, no.44 (Mar 2013): 610–644.https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12468148Gary E. Bingham, Kendra M. Hall-Kenyon Examining teachers' beliefs about and implementation of a balanced literacy framework, Journal of Research in Reading 36, no.11 (Feb 2011): 14–28.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01483.x Research Synthesis and Education Policy, (Sep 2012): 170–178.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880968-21Amy Noelle Parks, Sarah Bridges-Rhoads Overly Scripted: Exploring the Impact of a Scripted Literacy Curriculum on a Preschool Teacher's Instructional Practices in Mathematics, Journal of Research in Childhood Education 26, no.33 (Jul 2012): 308–324.https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2012.684422Terri D. Pigott Generalizations from Meta-analysis, (Dec 2011): 133–141.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2278-5_9 Peter H. Johnston Response to Intervention in Literacy: Problems and Possibilities, The Elementary School Journal 111, no.44 (Jul 2015): 511–534.https://doi.org/10.1086/659030S. Michael Putman, Lawrence L. Smith, Jerrell C. Cassady Moving Beyond Legislation to Create and Sustain Intentionality in Reading Instruction, The Educational Forum 73, no.44 (Oct 2009): 318–332.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720903166846S. Michael Putman, Lawrence L. Smith, Jerrell C. Cassady Promoting Change Through Professional Development: The Place of Teacher Intentionality in Reading Instruction, Literacy Research and Instruction 48, no.33 (May 2009): 207–220.https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802251988IRENE W. GASKINS, LINDA D. LABBO Diverse perspectives on helping young children build important foundational language and print skills, Reading Research Quarterly 42, no.33 (Nov 2011): 438–451.https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.3.10

The African American Presence in Reading Intervention Experiments

This study examined what proportion of reading intervention experiments published in a sample of prominent, peer-reviewed education research journals evaluated the impact of the reading intervention on African American students. The last 10 years of articles from the Reading Research Quarterly and the Journal of Educational Psychology and all volumes of the journal Scientific Study of Reading (totaling 8 years) were hand searched. This search yielded 971 research articles, of which 8.14% (n = 79) reported reading interventions; none of these reading interventions reported outcomes by race, and only 2, 0.21% of the research articles, included 85% or more African American participants.

Interpreting the Difference Between Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary Test Results

No AccessPerspectives on School-Based IssuesArticle1 Mar 2006Interpreting the Difference Between Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary Test Results Kathleen T. Williams Kathleen T. Williams Office of Academic Initiatives The College BoardNew York, NY Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi7.1.23 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing..Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Google Scholar Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive assessment of spoken language..Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Google Scholar Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd Ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Google Scholar German, D. J. (1994). Word finding difficulties in children and adolescents.. In G. P. Wallach & K. G. Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents: Some principles and applications (pp. 323–347). New York: Merrill/Macmillan. Google Scholar Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy..Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407. Google Scholar Stone, B. J. (1995). Best practices in the use of standardized assessments..InA. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychol-ogy—III (pp. 841–848). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Google Scholar Williams, K. T. (1997). Expressive vocabulary test..Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 7Issue 1March 2006Pages: 20-23 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Mar 1, 2006 Metrics Downloaded 76 times Topicsasha-sigsasha-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2006 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?

On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004). The revised law is different from the previous version in at least one important respect. Whereas practitioners were previously encouraged to use IQ–achievement discrepancy to identify children with learning disabilities (LD), they now may use “Response to Intervention,” or RTI, a new, alternative method. It is also a means of providing early intervention to all children at risk for school failure. IDEA 2004 permits districts to use as much as 15% of their special education monies to fund early intervention activities. All this has implications for the number and type of children identified, the kinds of educational services provided, and who delivers them. RTI may be especially important to Reading Research Quarterly readers because roughly 80% of those with an LD label have been described as reading disabled (Lyon, 1995). With RTI, there may be a larger role for reading specialists, which in turn might affect preand inservice professional development activities conducted by universities and school districts. Yet much still needs to be understood to ensure that RTI implementation will promote effective early intervention and represents a valid means of LD identification. In this article, we explain important features of RTI, why it has been promoted as a substitute for IQ–achievement discrepancy, and what remains to be understood before it may be seen as a valid means of LD identification. What is RTI?

Reading and Riding: A Summer Language-Literacy Camp for At-Risk Adolescents

Reading and Riding: A Summer Language-Literacy Camp for At-Risk Adolescents

Using Scientific Knowledge to Inform Preschool Assessment: Making the Case for “Empirical Validity”

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 crystallized the concern for accountability in education. National testing was mandated as a way to improve the “broken” educational system. Publicly funded early education programs were not spared from such testing. While the positive effects of high-quality early education on children’s later school achievement is well demonstrated, too many early care and educational settings in the United States are of minimal or poor quality. Accountability is clearly important for increasing the quality of our early childhood programs, however, it is not yet evident how best to formulate a standard of accountability that reflects the body of knowledge we have gained concerning how young children learn. In this report, we propose two major thrusts designed to bring about a more scientifically informed accountability system: reconceptualizing the ways in which we think about the validity of our test instruments, and reconceptualizing markers of development from products of learning (performance standards) to processes of learning. We introduce the term “empirical validity” to draw attention to the fact that assessments should be built on current empirical work in the various developmental domains. This report focuses on the domains of language and literacy, two areas of major concern for the Federal Head Start program and for which there is an abundance of current research. This body of knowledge provides many examples illustrating how an emphasis on process rather than product can be vital for improving the quality of education. For example, although vocabulary is centrally important and psychometrically adequate tests of early vocabulary exist, these tests do not measure essential aspects of word learning that have been identified as predictive of later language and reading success in early language learning literature. Our case study of language and literacy illustrates how today’s developmental science offers a new knowledge that can be strategically incorporated in assessments for empirically valid testing of children’s competencies. The same argument for “empirically valid” and evidence-based assessments applies to other domains of cognitive growth and to socio-emotional development. The future of preschool assessment would be well served by attention to primary research that focuses on the processes of learning. In this report, we also suggest that one possible avenue for progress in assessment would center on integrative and dynamic assessment techniques that would comprehensively capture the nature of children’s learning, minimize validity concerns related to context and culture, and evaluate how competencies in different developmental domains interact for optimal learning. To bridge the gap between science and policy, developmental scientists and test developers are urged to work together to create innovative ways to chart the developmental processes that support learning and progress toward social maturity in ways designed to ensure that research findings are continuously reflected in current assessments.

But Does it Really Matter?

Mr. Shanahan's main concern with criticisms of the NRP report is that -- whether they are legitimate or not -- they distract us from the essential work of giving children the most effective reading instruction possible. I WAS surprised to learn that Elaine Garan and Steven Krashen had written yet two more critiques of the National Reading Panel (NRP) report. Each already has more NRP-related publications than any member of the panel, and both have been issuing their complaints over a longer period than the panel worked on the eight studies that make up the report. I was also surprised that the Kappan was publishing these critiques, given that, for the most part, no new points are made here. Most of these claims have been refuted, with no discernible effect on the critics. Of greater concern was my trepidation about entering once more into this unfortunate arena. Critical exchanges of this type can be unpleasant, unproductive, and -- more worrisome -- misleading. Since the NRP report was completed, I became a district administrator in Chicago, where we successfully applied the NRP findings to improving student achievement. Our district invested heavily in professional development to ensure that our teachers knew how to teach what research had repeatedly found to benefit children, with great results. As a novice administrator, I had to learn to distinguish what mattered from what did not. I found that there was no time to pick over bones of contention for the sake of academic argument. Instead, I had to focus my attention on what mattered to the success of the students. Wide Acceptance of the NRP Report And it's the importance of the success of students that leads me to fear that some critics may be trying to render the NRP's helpful findings into something controversial in order to dissuade administrators from using them. That could be why Garan seems so peeved that I noted the great imbalance between the relatively small amount of criticism the report has received and the many positive uses of the NRP findings. Her opinion seems to be that the report has generated only negative responses. However, an examination of the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) belies that view. Researchers commonly judge the value of a study by how often it is used by other scientists. The NRP report and the reports of its subgroups, according to SSCI, have been cited more than 250 times over the past four years, and the vast majority of those citations have been positive, an indication of the general acceptance of the report in the scientific community. Another indicator of respect is the publication of parts of the report in high-ranking, rigorously reviewed scientific journals. The findings of two of the subgroup reports (phonemic awareness and phonics) have been published in such journals, one in the International Reading Association's Reading Research Quarterly and the other in the American Educational Research Association's Review of Educational Research. These studies were judged to be meritorious by the independent reviewers for these journals. In addition, the structure and findings of the NRP have been used in the development of several consensus panels (for example, the National Early Literacy Panel and the National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Children and Youth) and cited in reports published by the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences1 and by the RAND Study Group.2 Would It Matter If the Critics Were Correct? But no matter how sound a report or how widely accepted, Garan is right that it should not be above professional criticism. However, from the critiques offered by Garan and Krashen in this issue, one cannot discern the point of my chapter in The Voice of Evidence.3 While I refuted many specific criticisms of the NRP report, I came to think that the critiques, by their very nature, were irrelevant to the question of whether the report should be used by schools. …

Revealing an exchange between authors and reviewers about statistical significance

s editors, we are privy to exchanges between authors and reviewers during the review process. To preserve confidentiality in the review process, these exchanges are not revealed beyond the editorial review process, even though they are often quite enlightening and often produce interesting and useful clarifications of issues in the field. However, recently we were led to make an exception, which prompts this editorial. During the review of the article in this issue authored by Barbara M. Taylor, P. David Pearson, Debra S. Peterson, and Michael C. Rodriguez, there was an exchange of views between the authors and three members of RRQ’s editorial review board, who were asked to respond to a concern raised by one of the original reviewers. At our request, the authors and the reviewers have graciously agreed to share their exchange. Their respective contributions to the exchange appear subsequent to this editorial, although each has been slightly revised and edited for publication. To introduce and explain this exchange, we wish to provide readers with background about how it emerged in the context of the review process. During the initial review of the manuscript, one of the reviewers questioned the use of accepting as statistically significant a p value of .07. When submitting a subsequent revision, the authors argued that the circumstances of their research and particularly their statistical procedures justified an alpha above the customary value of .05. Realizing that this may be an important issue given new views about statistical analyses (see New Directions for Research, Reading Research Quarterly, Volume 39, No. 1) and sensing that we did not possess sufficient statistical expertise to make a final decision, we sought advice from three statistical experts who serve on RRQ’s editorial review board. We asked them specifically to address this issue in the context of the authors’ manuscript. They did, and we shared their anonymous responses with the authors. A

Reading and writing

05–63Brantmeier, Cindy (Washington U, USA; cbrantme@artsci.wustl.edu). Effects of reader's knowledge, text type, and test type on L1 and L2 reading comprehension in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal (Madison, Wl, USA) 89.1 (2005), 37–53.05–64Fisher, R (U of Exeter, UK; r.j.fisher@exeter.ac.uk). Teacher–child interaction in the teaching of reading: a review of research perspectives over twenty-five years. Journal of Research in Reading (Oxford, UK) 28.1 (2005), 15–27.05–65Fukkink, Ruben G., Hulstijn, Jan & Simis, Annegien (U of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; R.G.Fukkink@uva.nl). Does training in second-language word recognition skills affect reading comprehension? An experimental study. The Modern Language Journal (Madison, Wl, USA) 89.1 (2005), 54–75.05–66Jewitt, Carey (Institute of Education, U of London), Jones, Ken & Kress, Gunther. English in classrooms: only write down what you need to know: annotation for what?English in Education (Sheffield, UK) 39.1 (2005), 5–18.05–67Kapitze, C. & Bruce, B. C. (Brisbane, Australia; c.kapitzke@uq.edu.au). The arobase in the libr@ry: new political economies of children's literature and literacies. Computers and Composition (New York, USA) 22.1 (2005), 69–78.05–68Kress, Gunter (U of London, UK; g.kress@ioe.ac.uk). Gains and losses: new forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition (New York, USA) 22.1 (2005), 5–22.05–69McCarthey, Sarah J. & Earnest García, Georgia (U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA). English language learners' writing practices and attitudes. Written Communication (London, UK) 22.1 (2005), 36–75.05–70Menon, Shailaja (U of Colorado, Boulder, USA; Shailaja.Menon@Colorado.edu) & Hiebert, Elfrieda H. A comparison of first graders' reading with little books or literature-based basal anthologies. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, DE, USA) 40.1 (2005), 12–38.05–71Petric B. (Central European U, Budapest, Hungary). Contrastive rhetoric in the writing classroom: a case study. English for Specific Purposes (Oxford, UK) 24.2 (2004), 213–228.05–72Ramachandran, Subhadra (York U, Canada). Integrating new technologies into language teaching: two activities for an EAP classroom. TESL Canada Journal (Burnaby, Canada) 22.1 (2004), 79–89.05–73Rollinson, P. (paul.rollinson@uam.es). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal (Oxford, UK) 59.1 (2005), 23–30.05–74Rubin, Bella (Tel Aviv U, Israel; brubin@post.tau.ac.il), Katznelson, Helen & Perpignan, Hadara. Learning for life: the potential of academic writing courses for individual EFL learners. System (Oxford, UK) 33.1 (2005), 17–27.05–75Scherff, Lisa (U of Tennessee, USA) & Piazza, Carolyn. The more things change, the more they stay the same: a survey of high school students' writing experiences. Research in the Teaching of English (Urbana, IL USA) 39.3 (2005), 271–304.05–76Schmidt, Claudia (Albert-Ludwig-U, Freiburg, Germany). Wörter lemen durch Lesen: eine empirische Untersuchung zum Strategieeinsatz des indirekten Lemens bei fortgeschrittenen japanischen DaF-Lernem/-innen [Learning words through reading. An empirical investigation into strategies of incidental learning-the case of Japanese advanced learners of German as a foreign language]. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen (Tübingen, Germany) 33 (2004), 72–82.05–77Shapiro, Amy M. & Waters, Dusty L. (U of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, USA; ashapiro@umass.edu). An investigation of the cognitive processes underlying the keyword method of foreign vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research (London, UK) 9.2 (2005) 129–146.05–78Taylor, Barbara M. (U of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA; bmtaylor@umn.edu), Pearson, P. David, Peterson, Debra S. & Rodriguez, Michael C. The CIERA School Change Framework: an evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, DE, USA) 40.1 (2005), 40–69.05–79Wong, Albert, T. Y. (Hong Kong U, Hong Kong; atywongl@hkucc.hku.hk). Writers' mental representations of the intended audience and of the rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed. System (Oxford, UK) 33.1 (2005), 29–47.05–80Zhang, Ruwen (Zhejiang U of Finance and Economics, China; ruwenvera@hotmail.com). Using the principles of Exploratory Practice to guide group work in an extensive reading class in China. Language Teaching Research (London, UK) 8.3 (2004), 331–345.

Sharpen Your Focus! Using Evidence-Based Practices in Standards-Based Therapy Units

Sharpen Your Focus! Using Evidence-Based Practices in Standards-Based Therapy Units

Reading and writing

04–517Armand, Françoise (U. de Montréal, Canada; Email: Francoise.Armand@umontreal.ca), Lefrançoise, Pascale, Baron, Agnès, Gomez, Maria-Cécilia and Nuckle, Sylvie. Improving reading and writing learning in underprivileged pluri-ethnic settings. British Journal of Educational Psychology (Leicester, UK), 74 (2004), 437–459.04–518Cheng, Y-S. (National Taiwan Normal U., Taiwan; Email: t22035@cc.ntnu.edu.tw). A measure of second language writing anxiety: scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing (New York, USA), 13, 4 (2004), 313–335.04–519de Jong, Maria T. and Bus, Adriana G. (Leiden U., Netherlands; Email: jongtm@fsw.leidenuniv.nl). The efficacy of electronic books in fostering kindergarten children's emergent story understanding. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, USA), 39, 4 (2004), 378–393.04–520Dunsmuir, Sandra (U. College London, UK; Email: s.dunsmuir@ucl.ac.uk) and Blatchford, Peter. Predictors of writing competence in 4-to 7-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Psychology (Leicester, UK), 74 (2004), 461–483.04–521Forey, Gail (Hong Kong Polytechnic U.). Workplace texts: do they mean the same for teachers and business people?English for Specific Purposes (Oxford,UK), 23, 4 (2004), 447–469.04–522Harwood, Nigel and Hadley, Gregg (U. of Essex, UK). Pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific Purposes. (Oxford, UK), 23, 4 (2004), 355–379.04–523Heinz, Peter J. (Pikes Peak Community College, Colorado Springs, USA). Towards enhanced second language reading comprehension assessment: computerized versus manual scoring of written recall protocols. Reading in a Foreign Language (Hawai'i, USA), 16, 2 (2004), 97–124.04–524Huxford, L. (National Primary Strategy, England). Developing an understanding of the pedagogy of writing in the middle years (age 8–11). Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. (Norwood, South Australia), 27, 3 (2004), 234–244.04–525Hyland, Ken (Institute of Education, U. of London, UK; Email: k.hyland@ioe.ac.uk). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing (New York, USA), 13, 2 (2004), 133–151.04–526Joh, Jeongsoon (Konkuk U., Korea; Email: johjs@konkuk.ac.kr). Interactions among the reader, text and task variables in EFL reading comprehension performance. English Teaching (Anseonggun, Korea), 59, 3 (2004) 115–143.04–527Lee, Icy (Hong Kong Baptist U., China; Email: icylee@hkbu.edu.hk). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing (New York, USA), 13, 4 (2004), 285–312.04–528Makalela, Leketi (U. of Limpopo and Michigan State U.). Differential error types in second-language students' written and spoken texts: implications for instruction in writing. Written Communication (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA), 22, 4 (2004), 368–385.04–529McNaughton, S., Lai, M., MacDonald, S. and Farry, S. (Auckland U., Australia). Designing more effective teaching of comprehension in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. (Norwood, South Australia), 27, 3 (2004), 184–197.04–530Moore, Tim (Monash U., Australia; Email: tim.moore@celts.monash.edu.au) and Morton, Janne. Dimensions of difference: a comparison of university writing and IELTS writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Oxford, UK), 4, 1 (2005), 43–66.04–531Taguchi, Etsuo (Daito Bunka U., Tokyo; Email: taguchi@ic.daito.ac.jp), Takayasu-Maass, Miyoko and Gorsuch, Greta J. Developing reading fluency in EFL: How assisted repeated reading and extensive reading affect fluency development. Reading in a Foreign Language (Hawai'i, USA), 16, 2 (2004), 70–96.04–532Yoon, Hyunsook and Hirvela, Alan (The Ohio State U., USA; Email: yoon.98@osu.edu). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing (New York, USA), 13, 4 (2004), 257–283.

Language testing

04–533Cheng, Winnie and Warren, Martin (Hong Kong Polytechnic U., Email: egwcheng@polyu.edu.hk). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing (London, UK), 22, 1 (2005), 93–121.04–534Malabonga, Valerie, Kenyon, Dorry M. and Carpenter, Helen (Centre for Applied Linguistics, Washington, USA; Email: valerie@cal.org). Self-assessment, preparation and response time on a computerised oral proficiency test. Language Testing (London, UK), 22, 1 (2005), 59–92.04–535Parkinson, Jean and Adendorff, Ralph (U. of Natal, India). The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes (Oxford, UK), 23, 4 (2004), 379–396.04–536Quinn, M. (Melbourne U., Australia). Talking with Jess: Looking at how metalanguage assisted explanation writing in the Middle Years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Norwood, South Australia), 27, 3 (2004), 246–261.04–537Raphael, T. E., Florio-Raine, S. and George, M. (Oakland U., Australia). Book club plus: organising your literacy curriculum to bring students to high levels of literacy. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Norwood, South Australia), 27, 3 (2004), 198–216.04–538Reed, Malcolm (U. of Bristol, UK). Write or wrong? A sociocultural approach to schooled writing. English in Education (Sheffield, UK), 38, 1 (2004), 21–38.04–539Ren, Guanxin. Introducing oval writing.Babel – Journal of the AFMLTA (Queensland, Australia), 39, 1 (2004), 4–10.04–540Richgels, Donald J. (Northern Illinois U., USA; Email: richgels@niu.edu). Paying attention to language. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, USA), 39, 4 (2004), 470–477.04–541Sang-Keun, Shin (Ewha Womens U. Seoul, Korea; Email: sangshin@ewhaac.kr). Did they take the same test? Examinee language proficiency and the structure of language tests. Language Testing (London,UK), 22, 1 (2005), 31–57.04–542Schoonen, Rob (U. of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Email: rob.schoonen@uva.nl). Generalisability of writing scores: an application of structural equation modelling. Language Testing (London, UK), 22, 1 (2005), 1–30.04–543So, Bronia (U. of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Email: bronia_so@yahoo.com.hk). From analysis to pedagogic applications: using newspaper genres to write school genres. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Oxford, UK), 4, 1 (2005), 67–82.04–544Spodark, Edwina (Hollins U., USA; Email: spodark@hollins.edu). “French in Cyberspace”: an online French course for undergraduates. CALICO Journal (Texas, USA), 22, 1 (2004), 83–101.04–545Sutherland-Smith, Wendy (Deakin U., Australia; Email: wendyss@deakin.edu.au). Pandora's box: academic perceptions of student plagiarism in writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Oxford, UK), 4, 1 (2005), 83–95.04–546Thurstun, Jennifer (Macquarie U., Australia). Teaching and learning the reading of homepages. Prospect (Sydney, Australia), 19, 2 (2004), 56–71.04–547Valencia, S. W. and Riddle Buly, M. (Washington U., USA). Behind test scores: What struggling readers REALLY need. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Norwood, South Australia), 27, 3 (2004), 217–233.04–548Warschauer, Mark (U. of California, USA; Email: markw@uci.edu), Grant, David, Del Real, Gabriel and Rousseau, Michele. Promoting academic literacy with technology: successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System (Oxford, UK), 32, 4 (2004), 525–537.04–549Young, Richard F. and Miller, Elisabeth R. (U. of Wisconsin, USA; Email: rfyoungt@wisc.edu). Learning as changing participation: discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal (Malden, MA, USA), 88, 4 (2004), 519–535.04–550Bernhardt, Elizabeth B., Rivera, Raymond J. and Kamil, Michael L. (Stanford U., USA). The practicality and efficiency of web-based placement testing for college-level language programs. Foreign Language Annals (Alexandria, VA, USA), 37, 3 (2004), 356–366.04–551Brown, Gavin T. L. (U. of Auckland, New Zealand; Email: gt.brown@auckland.ac.uz), Glasswell, Kath and Harland, Don. Accuracy in the scoring of writing: Studies of reliability and validity using a New Zealand writing assessment system. Assessing Writing (New York, USA), 9, 2 (2004), 105–121.04–552Hawkey, Roger and Barker, Fiona (Cambridge ESOL, UK; Email: roger@hawkey58.freeserve.co.uk). Developing a common scale for the assessment of writing. Assessing Writing (New York, USA), 9 (2004), 122–159.04–553Peterson, Shelley, Childs, Ruth and Kennedy, Kerrie (U. of Toronto, Canada; Email: slpeterson@oise.utoronto.ca). Written feedback and scoring of sixth-grade girls' and boys' narrative and persuasive writing. Assessing Writing (New York, USA), 9 (2004), 160–180.04–554Watson Todd, Richard (King Mongkut's U. of Technology Thonburi, Thailand; Email: irictodd@kmutt.ac.th), Glasswell, Kath and Harland, Don. Measuring the coherence of writing using topic-based analysis. Assessing Writing (New York, USA), 9, 2 (2004), 85–104.

Sociolinguistics

04–403 Ammon, Ulrich. Sprachenpolitik in Europa- unter dem vorrangigen Aspekt von Deutsch als Fremdsprache (2). [Policy towards languages in Europe with special reference to German as a foreign language (2)]. Deutsch als Fremdsprache (Leipzig, Germany), 41 (2004), 3–10.04–404 Bray, Gayle Babbitt (U. of Iowa, USA; Email: gayle-bray@uiowa.edu), Pascarella, Ernest T. and Pierson, Christopher T. Postsecondary education and some dimensions of literacy development: An exploration of longitudinal evidence. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, USA), 39, 3 (2004), 306–330.04–405 Dufon, Margaret A. (California State U., USA). Producing a video for teaching pragmatics in the second or foreign language. Prospect (Sydney, Australia), 19, 1 (2004), 65–83.04–406 Intachakra, S. (Thammasat U., Thailand; Email: songthama@tu.ac.th). Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching: apologies and thanks in English and Thai. RELC Journal (Singapore), 35, 1 (2004), 37–62.04–407 Kerkes, Julie (California State U., Los Angeles, USA). Preparing ESL learners for self-presentation in institutional settings outside the classroom. Prospect (Sydney, Australia), 19, 1 (2004), 22–46.04–408 Kozlova, Iryna (Georgia State U., USA). Can you complain? Cross-cultural comparison of indirect complaints in Russian and American English. Prospect (Sydney, Australia), 19, 1 (2004), 84–105.04–409 McLean, Terence (Grant MacEwan College, Edmonton, Canada; Email: mcleanky@telusplanet.net). Giving students a fighting chance: pragmatics in the language classroom. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada (Barnaby, Canada), 21, 2 (2004), 72–92.04–410 Newton, Jonathan (Victoria U. of Wellington, New Zealand). Face-threatening talk on the factory floor: using authentic workplace interactions in language teaching. Prospect (Sydney, Australia), 19, 1 (2004), 47–64.04–411 Nichols, Susan (U. of South Australia). Literacy learning and children's social agendas in the school entry classroom. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Norwood, Australia), 27, 2 (2004), 101–113.04–412 Yates, Lynda (La Trobe U., Australia). The ‘secret rules of language‘: tackling pragmatics in the classroom. Prospect (Sydney, Australia), 19, 1 (2004), 3–20.

Teacher education

04–386 Benson, Carol (Stockholm U., Sweden; Email: Carol.benson@biling.su.se). Do we expect too much of bilingual teachers? Bilingual teaching in developing countries. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Clevedon, UK), 7, 2&3 (2004), 204–221.04–387 Butler, Y. G. (U. of Pennsylvania USA). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly (Alexandria, VA, USA), 38, 2 (2004), 245–278.04–388 Erben, Tony. Emerging research and practices in immersion teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (Cambridge, UK), 24 (2004), 320–338.04–389 Gray, Carol (U. of Birmingham, UK). Exploring the language teacher's mind – helping student teachers see beneath the surface. Language Learning Journal (Oxford, UK), 29 (2004), 23–31.04–390 Hornberger, Nancy H. (Pennsylvania U., USA; Email: nancyh@gse.upenn.edu). The continua of biliteracy and the bilingual educator: educational linguistics in practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Clevedon, UK), 7, 2&3 (2004), 155–171.04–391 Pomphrey, Cathy (London Metropolitan U., UK). Professional development through collaborative curriculum planning in English and modern languages. Language Learning Journal (Oxford, UK), 29 (2004), 12–17.04–392 Sharkey, Judy (U. of New Hampshire, USA). ESOL teachers' knowledge of context as critical mediator in curriculum development. TESOL Quarterly (Alexandria, VA, USA), 38, 2 (2004), 279–299.04–393 Varghese, Manka (Washington U., Seattle, USA; Email: mankav@u.washington.edu). Professional development for bilingual teachers in the United States: a site for articulating and contesting professional roles. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Clevedon, UK), 7, 2&3 (2004), 222–237.04–394 Wade, Suzanne E. (U. of Utah, USA; Email: Wade@ed.utah.edu) and Fauske, Janice R. Dialogue online: prospective teachers' discourse strategies in computer-mediated discussions. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, USA), 39, 2 (2004), 134–160.

Reading and writing

04–198Chandler-Olcott, Kelly and Mahar, Donna (Syracuse U., USA; Email: kpchandl@syr.edu). ‘Tech-savviness’ meets multiliteracies: exploring adolescent girls' technology-mediated literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, USA), 38, 3 (2003), 356–85.04–199Chung, Teresa Mihwa & Nation, Paul (Victoria U., New Zealand; Email: Paul.Nation@vuw.ac.nz). Identifying technical vocabulary. System (Oxford, UK), 32, 2 (2004), 251–63.04–200Ellis, Rod and Yuan, Fangyuan (U. of Auckland, New Zealand; Email: r.ellis@auckland.ac.nz). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition (New York, USA) 26, 1 (2004), 59–84.04–201Gascoigne, Carolyn (U. of Nebraska-Omaha, USA). Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annals (New York, USA), 37, 1 (2004) 71–76.04–202Hamston, J. and Love, K. Reading relationships: Parents, boys, and reading as cultural practice. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Adelaide, Australia), 26, 3 (2003), 44–57.04–203Hobbs, Renee and Frost, Richard (Babson College, USA). Measuring the acquisition of media-literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, USA), 38, 3 (2003), 330–55.04–204Huang, Jingzi (Monmouth University, USA; Email: jhuang@Monmouth.edu). Socialising ESL students into the discourse of school science through academic writing. Language and Education (Clevedon, UK), 18, 2 (2004), 97–123.04–205Johnston, Brenda (U. of Southampton, UK; Email: bhm@soton.ac.uk). Teaching and researching critical academic writing: scrutiny of an action research process. Educational Action Research (Oxford, UK), 11, 3 (2003), 365–87.04–206Kamler, B. (Deakin University, Australia). Relocating the writer's voice – from voice to story and beyond. English in Australia (Norwood, Australia), 138 (2003), 34–40.04–207Kim, Hae-Ri (Kyungil U., South Korea; Email: hrkimasu@hanmail.net). Dialogue journal writing through a literature-based approach in an EFL setting. English Teaching (Anseonggun, South Korea), 58, 4 (2003), 293–318.04–208Kim, Myonghee (Indiana University, USA; Email: mahn@indiana.edu). Literature discussions in adult L2 learning. Language and Education (Clevedon, UK), 18, 2 (2004), 145–66.04–209Lee, Icy (Hong Kong Baptist U., Hong Kong; Email: icylee@hkbu.edu.hk). L2 writing teachers' perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing (New York, USA), 8, 3 (2003), 216–37.04–210Lindgren, Eva (Email: eva.lindgren@engelska.umu.se) and Sullivan, Kirk P. H. Stimulated recall as a trigger for increasing noticing and language awareness in the L2 writing classroom: a case study of two young female writers. Language Awareness (Clevedon, UK), 12, 3&4 (2003), 172–86.04–211Luke, A. (U. of Queensland, Australia/National Institute of Education, Singapore). Making literacy policy and practice with a difference. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. (Adelaide, Australia), 26, 3 (2003), 58–82.04–212Mission, R. (U. of Melbourne, Australia). Imagining the self: the individual imagination in the English classroom. English in Australia (Norwood, Australia) 138 (2003), 24–33.04–213Morris, Darrell, Bloodgood, Janet W., Lomax, Richard G. and Perney, Jan (Appalachian State U., USA). Developmental steps in learning to read: a longitudinal study in kindergarten and first grade. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, USA), 38, 3 (2003), 302–28.04–214Ryu, Hoyeol (Hankyong National University, Korea; Email: hoyeol@hnu.hankyong.ac.kr). Process approach to writing in the post-process era: A case study of two college students' writing processes. English Teaching (Anseonggun, Korea), 58, 3 (2003), 123–42.04–215Shen, Helen H. (University of Iowa, USA; Email: Helen-shen@uiowa.edu). Level of cognitive processing: effects on character learning among non-native learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Language and Education (Clevedon, UK), 18, 2 (2004), 167–82.04–216Shi, Ling (U. of British Columbia, Canada). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication (Thousand Oaks, California, USA), 21, 2 (2004), 171–200.04–217Spence, Lucy K. (Arizona State University, USA). Stepping out of the conversation: giving students a space to co-construct writing. Bilingual Research Journal (Arizona, USA), 27, 3 (2003), 523–32.

Editorial guidelines concerning conflict of interest for Reading Research Quarterly (RRQ)

Editorial guidelines concerning conflict of interest for <i>Reading Research Quarterly</i> (<i>RRQ</i>)

Literacy for Middle School Students: Challenges of Cultural Synthesis

In this manuscript, the author explores the question, What does research suggest for middle level readers? To answer it, she conducts a synthesis of empirical studies published between 1990 and 2001 that appeared in journals linked to the author’s professional membership (i.e., Research in Middle Level Education (RMLE), Reading Research Quarterly (RRQ), Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy (JAAL), American Educational Research Journal (AERJ), Reading Research and Instruction (RRI), and Review of Educational Research (RER)). This examination noted attention to eight categories: (1) interests, (2), strategy instruction, (3) vocabulary, (4) student attributes, (5) comprehension, (6) context, (7) discussion, and (8) tutoring. The author then explores the implications of these findings for researchers and practitioners. Specifically, the author calls for a stronger attention to the literacy learning of middle level students and a greater degree of interplay between researcher and practitioner agendas.

Reading and writing

04–620 Akamatsu, Nobuhiko (Doshisha University, Japan; Email: nakamats@mail.doshisha.ac.jp.). The effects of first language orthographic features on second language reading in text. Language Learning (Michigan, USA), 53, 2 (2003), 207–231.04–621 Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J. and Shimoni, A. R. (Department of computer Science at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Email: argamon@iit.edu). Gender, genre and writing style in formal written texts. Text (Berlin, Germany), 23, 3 (2003), 321–346.04–622 Dreyer, Carisma and Nel, Charl (Potchefstroom U., South Africa; Email: nsocd@puknet.puk.ac.za). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System (Oxford, UK), 31, 3 (2003), 349–365.04–623 Fender, Michael (U. of Pittsburg, PA., USA; Email: mjfst@pitt.edu). English word recognition and word integration skills of native Arabic- and Japanese-speaking learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics (Cambridge, UK), 24, 2 (2003), 289–316.04–624 Flowerdew, L. (Hong Kong University of Science and Techology). A combined corpus and systemic-functional analysis of the problem-solution pattern in a student and professional corpus of technical writing. TESOL Quarterly (Alexandria, VA, USA), 37, 3 (2003), 489–511.04–625 Goswami, Usha (U. of Cambridge, UK), Ziegler, Johannes C., Dalton, Louise and Schneider, Woflgang. Nonword reading across orthographies: How flexible is the choice of reading units?Applied Psycholinguistics (Cambridge, UK), 24, 2 (2003), 235–248.04–626 Hinkel, Eli (Seattle University, USA; Email: ehinkel@seattleu.edu). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research (London, UK), 8, 1 (2004), 5.04–627 Hirose, Keiko (Aichi Prefectural University, Nagakute, Aichi, Japan; Email: khirose@for.aichi-pu.ac.jp). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing (New Jersey, USA), 12 (2003), 181–209.04–628 Lee, Miranda Y. P. (Hong Kong Polytechnic University of Hong Kong; Email: ctmyplee@polyu.edu.hk). Discourse structure and rhetoric of English narratives: differences between native English and Chinese non-native English writers. Text (Berlin, Germany) 23, 3 (2003), 347–368.04–629 Matsuda, Paul K. (University of New Hampshire, USA; Email: pmatsuda@unh.edu), Canagarajah, A. Suresh, Harklau, L., Hyland, K. and Warshauer, Mark. Changing currents in second language writing research: a colloquium. Journal of Second Language Writing (New Jersey, USA), 12 (2003), 151–179.04–630 Moreno, Ana (Universidad de Leon, Spain; Email: dfmamf@unileon.es). Matching theoretical descriptions of discourse and practical applications to teaching: the case of causal metatext. English for Specific Purposes (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), 22, 3 (2003), 265–295.04–631 Ramanathan, Vaidehi (University of California, Davis, USA; Email: vramanathan@ucdavis.edu). Written textual production and consumption (WTPC) in vernacular and English-medium settings in Gujarat, India. Journal of Second Language Writing (Ann Arbor, USA), 12 (2003), 125–150.04–632 Rasinski, Timothy V. (Kent State U., USA) and Hoffman, James V. (U. of Texas, Austin, USA). Oral reading in the school literacy curriculum. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, DE, USA), 38, 4 (2003), 510–522.04–633 Saito, Hidetoshi and Fujita, Tomoko (Hokusei Gakuen University, Japan; Email: saitoh@hokusei.ac.jp). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research (London, UK), 8, 1 (2003), 31–54.04–634 Steinman, Linda (Seneca College, Toronto, Canada). Cultural collisions in L2 academic writing. TESL Canada Journal (Burnaby, B.C., Canada), 20, 2 (2003), 80–91.04–635 Zareva, Alla (University of Georgia Athens Georgia.) Transfer effects on the process of L2 reading and comprehension. Literacy Across Cultures (Fukui, Japan), 6 (2003), 25–34.

Sociolinguistics

04–660 Chen Eoyang, Eugene (Indiana U., USA &amp; Lingnan U., Hong Kong). English as a postcolonial tool: anti-hegemonic subversions in a hegemonic language. English Today (Cambridge, UK), 19, 4 (2003), 23–29.04–661 Heinz, Bettina (Bowling Green State U., USA; Email: bheinz@bgnet.bgsu.edu). Backchannel responses as strategic responses in bilingual speakers' conversations. Journal of Pragmatics (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), 35, 7 (2003), 1113–1142.04–662 Hinkel, Eli (Seattle U., USA; Email: elihinkel@aol.com). Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Pragmatics (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), 35, 7 (2003), 1049–1068.04–663 Mackie, Ardiss (Okanagan University College, B.C., Canada). Race and desire: toward critical literacies for ESL. TESL Canada Journal (Burnaby, B.C., Canada), 20, 2 (2003), 23–37.04–664 MacPherson, Seonaigh (Manitoba U., Canada). TESOL for biolinguistic sustainability: the ecology of English as aLingua Mundi. TESL Canada Journal (Burnaby, B.C., Canada), 20, 2 (2003), 1–22.04–665 Marsh, Jackie (Sheffield U., UK). One-way traffic? Connections between literacy practices at home and in the nursery. British Educational Research Journal (London, UK), 29, 3 (2003), 369–382.04–666 Matthews, Mona W. and Kesner, John (Georgia State U., USA). Children learning with peers: the confluence of peer status and literacy competence within small-group literacy events. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, DE, USA), 38, 2 (2003), 208–234.04–667 Spencer-Oatey, Helen and Jiang, Wenying (UK eUniversities Worldwide, UK; Email: hspencer-oatey@ukeu.com). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), 35, 10–11 (2003), 1633–1650.04–668 Zhu, Huimin (China). Globalization and new ELT challenges in China. An account of the teaching of English and the kinds of English used in a vast, varied, and rapidly changing society. English Today (Cambridge, UK), 19, 4 (2003), 36–41.

Reading and writing

03–496 Basil, C. (Universitat de Barcelona, Spain) and Reyes, S. Acquisition of literacy skills by children with severe disability. Child Language Teaching and Therapy (London, UK), 19, 1 (2003), 27–48.03–497 Bimmell, Peter (Universiteit van Amsterdam, Holland). Strategisch lesen lernen in der Fremdsprache. [Learning to read strategically in a foreign language.] Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung (Berlin, Germany), 13, 1 (2002), 113–141.03–498 Casanave, C. P. (Teachers College Columbia, Japan); Email: casanave@redshift.com). Multiple uses of Applied Linguistics literature in a multidisciplinary graduate EAP class. ELT Journal, 57, 1 (2003), 43–50.03–499 Cheng, Yuh-show (National Taiwan Normal U.). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign Language Annals (New York, USA), 33, 5 (2002), 647–656.03–500 Cotterall, S. (Email: sara.cotterall@vuw.ac.nz) and Cohen, R. (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand). Scaffolding for second language writers: producing an academic essay. ELT Journal, 57, 2 (2003), 158–166.03–501 de Serres, Linda (U. of Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada). Stratégies de lecture en français L1 et en anglais L2 chez des universitaires diplômés: aspects quantitatifs. [Reading strategies in graduate university students with L1 French and L2 English: quantitative aspects.] The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 1 (2003), 31–51.03–502 Droop, Mienke and Verhoeven, Ludo (U. of Nijmegen, NL). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, USA), 38, 1 (2003), 78–103.03–503 Gillon, Gail T. (U. of Canterbury, New Zealand; Email: g.gillon@spth.canterbury.ac.nz). Follow-up study investigating the benefits of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (London, UK), 37, 4 (2002), 381–400.03–504 Gu, Peter Yongqi (Nanyang Technological University). Fine Brush and Freehand: The Vocabulary-Learning Art of Two Successful Chinese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 1 (2003), 73–104.03–505 Kamhi-Stein, Lía D. (California State University, USA). Reading in Two Languages: How Attitudes Toward Home Language and Beliefs About Reading Affect the Behaviors of “Underprepared” L2 College Readers. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 1 (2003), 35–71.03–506 Mahfoudhi, Abdessatar (U. Ottawa, Canada). Writing processes of EFL students in argumentative essays: a case study. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics (Leuven, Belgium), 139–140 (2003), 153–190.03–507 Martin, Michelle E. and Byrne, Brian (U. of New England, NSW, Australia). Teaching children to recognise rhyme does not directly promote phonemic awareness. British Journal of Educational Psychology (Leicester, UK), 72 (2002), 561–572.03–508 Miller, Carol (U. of Birmingham, UK; Email: c.j.miller@bham.ac.uk), Lacey, Penny and Layton, Lyn. Including children with special educational needs in the Literacy Hour: a continuing challenge. British Journal of Special Education (Oxford, UK), 30, 1 (2003), 13–20.03–509 Schoonen, R. (U. of Amsterdam, NL), Gelderen, A.v., Glopper, K.d., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P. and Stevenson, M. First Language and Second Language Writing: The Role of Linguistic Knowledge, Speed of Processing, and Metacognitive Knowledge. Language Learning (Clevdon, UK), 53, 1 (2003), 165–202.03–510 Suh, Jae-Suk (Keimyung U.). Effectiveness of CALL writing instruction: The voices of Korean EFL learners. Foreign Language Annals (New York, USA), 35, 6 (2002), 669–679.03–511 Taylor, M. E. (University of the West Indies, Jamaica). Using collateral material to improve writing performance. ELT Journal, 57, 2 (2003), 149–157.03–512 Wall, Kate (U. of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Email: Kate.Wall@ncl.ac.uk). Pupils with special needs and the National Literacy Strategy: an analysis of the literature. Support for Learning (Oxford, UK), 18, 1 (2003), 35–41.03–513 Wenyu Wang (Nanjing U., China; Email: wywang@nju.edu.cn) and Qiufang Wen. L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing (Orlando, FL, USA), 11 (2002), 225–246.