William H Teale
University of Illinois at Chicago, Education, Professor, University Scholar, Director UIC Center for Literacy
William Teale is Professor of Education, University Scholar, and Director of the Center for Literacy at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His work has focused on early literacy learning, the intersection of technology and literacy education, and children’s literature. He has written for numerous scholarly books and for journals such as Educational Researcher, Research in the Teaching of English, Journal of Literacy Research, Children’s Literature in Education, The Reading Teacher, Young Children, and Language Arts, and he has presented papers and colloquia in over 25 countries around the world.
Dr. Teale’s research has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the United States Department of Education, and the Spencer Foundation, among other sources. From 2006-2013 he was principal investigator for three Early Reading First projects that have implemented forward-looking preschool literacy programs in some of Chicago’s poorest neighborhood schools (http://www.uic.edu/educ/erf/). He has served as consultant to school districts across the United States, as well as to Children's Television Workshop, public libraries, Head Start, public television stations, Reach Out and Read, and various child care organizations in developing curriculum and programs focused on literacy learning and teaching. He has also served in review and advisory capacities for entities such as the National Academy of Education, American Institutes for Research, the U.S. Department of Education, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. As Director of the UIC Center for Literacy, he heads numerous projects that provide Head Start families with services that facilitate children’s early development.
Dr. Teale was editor of Language Arts and co-editor of the Illinois Reading Council Journal. He was inducted into the Reading Hall of Fame in 2003 and served as President of the International Literacy Association in 2016-2017. He is currently serving as Immediate Past President of ILA. More information can be found at http://education.uic.edu/personnel/faculty/william-teale-edd and http://cfl.uic.edu.
Dr. Teale’s research has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the United States Department of Education, and the Spencer Foundation, among other sources. From 2006-2013 he was principal investigator for three Early Reading First projects that have implemented forward-looking preschool literacy programs in some of Chicago’s poorest neighborhood schools (http://www.uic.edu/educ/erf/). He has served as consultant to school districts across the United States, as well as to Children's Television Workshop, public libraries, Head Start, public television stations, Reach Out and Read, and various child care organizations in developing curriculum and programs focused on literacy learning and teaching. He has also served in review and advisory capacities for entities such as the National Academy of Education, American Institutes for Research, the U.S. Department of Education, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. As Director of the UIC Center for Literacy, he heads numerous projects that provide Head Start families with services that facilitate children’s early development.
Dr. Teale was editor of Language Arts and co-editor of the Illinois Reading Council Journal. He was inducted into the Reading Hall of Fame in 2003 and served as President of the International Literacy Association in 2016-2017. He is currently serving as Immediate Past President of ILA. More information can be found at http://education.uic.edu/personnel/faculty/william-teale-edd and http://cfl.uic.edu.
less
InterestsView All (21)
Uploads
Books by William H Teale
I completely understand the insecurities that can come with moving away from a letter-a-week approach. I so appreciate the power of Bill Teale’s review of research to convince us that this is the right thing to do. I so appreciate the confidence-building tools and techniques that Becky McKay shares. I love that Becky provides a tool to help us track which letters and sounds children have learned and which merit further attention. I love that Becky offers many ideas for structuring the curriculum such that it is more meaningful to students than a week on X and actually provides more opportunities for effective alphabet instruction.
As you well know, some children don’t rely on us to develop their alphabet knowledge. Some come to us with deep knowledge of letters and sounds, perhaps even decoding words already. But as you also well know, some children depend almost entirely on us to learn the alphabet. Those children need and deserve for us to teach them letters and sounds, to develop their phonological awareness and print concepts, in the most powerful way we can find. If we’re not confident that we’ve provided this essential foundation in letter–sound knowledge, phonological awareness, and print concepts, we risk setting a negative momentum for children’s literacy: they may enter first grade lacking skills to make sense of new words; they may become reluctant readers who choose to avoid the difficulty of reading new texts; without strong reading lives, they may not gather the background knowledge and habits that will allow them future academic success. That’s what can happen if we don’t employ alternatives to letter-of-the-week.
Mark Twain once said, “Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” As you move away from a letter a week, know that Becky, Bill, Ellin, and I will be gratified. And know that your colleagues may well be astonished—astonished at the depth with which you develop students’ alphabet knowledge. Moving away from letter of the week is the right direction for you to go. From here on out, for you ABCs mean A Better Course.
Papers by William H Teale
United States between the years 2000 and 2010 and featuring mixed race characters. The researchers examined specific textual features of these works of contemporary and historical fiction and employed Critical Race Theory to contextualize the books within paradigms about multiracial identity. Findings indicated three broad trends in
representations of mixed race identity with an almost equal number of novels falling among three descriptive categories. Books in the Mixed Race In/Visibility category depicted stereotypical experiences and provided little or no opportunity for critique of racism. Mixed Race Blending books featured characters whose mixed race identity was descriptive but not functional in their lives. Mixed Race Awareness
books represented a range of possible life experiences for biracial characters who responded to social discomfort about their racial identity in complex and credible ways. This study has implications for research and pedagogy in the fields of education and children’s literature as they expand to become more inclusive of this type
of diversity.
It is now widely accepted that the early childhood period from preschool through third grade (P-3) is an especially significant—and arguably the most significant—period for learning to read and write in an alphabetic language. Research has been notably productive over the past two decades in helping us understand both the nature of early literacy and evidence-based practices for instruction in preschool and primary grades. As a result, we know quite a bit about what to do: the Illinois Early Learning Standards, Illinois Kindergarten Standards, and Illinois/Common Core State Standards-ELA are all aligned with current literacy research and ambitious practice. And yet, state, national, and international indicators suggest that we have not made significant strides in raising overall levels of early literacy achievement in the U.S. or in Illinois, nor in closing the achievement gaps among various cultural and social groups. To inform what can be done to enhance early literacy practice and achievement, the UIC Center for Literacy conducted a comprehensive review of research, policies, and practices, seeking to identify gaps and opportunities that would enable formulation of policy recommendations for enhancing literacy education across our systems of early care and education and elementary schooling. The findings indicated a special for the following key efforts in order to achieve the desired impact:
• coordination to achieve early literacy curricular coherence across P-3 age levels
• coordination of early literacy curriculum, instruction, and assessment in preschool and school settings
• coordination of the early literacy content of teacher education programs, professional learning programs for practicing teachers, and the preparation of leaders of early childhood education
• coordination of home and school early literacy supports
• a coordinated early literacy research agenda for the children and families of Illinois
The recommended actions indicated by the analyses have implications across the spectrum of participants in early literacy education: state and city leadership; local schools and early care entities; parents, teachers and child care providers; researchers; and foundations and other funders of programs and research.
I completely understand the insecurities that can come with moving away from a letter-a-week approach. I so appreciate the power of Bill Teale’s review of research to convince us that this is the right thing to do. I so appreciate the confidence-building tools and techniques that Becky McKay shares. I love that Becky provides a tool to help us track which letters and sounds children have learned and which merit further attention. I love that Becky offers many ideas for structuring the curriculum such that it is more meaningful to students than a week on X and actually provides more opportunities for effective alphabet instruction.
As you well know, some children don’t rely on us to develop their alphabet knowledge. Some come to us with deep knowledge of letters and sounds, perhaps even decoding words already. But as you also well know, some children depend almost entirely on us to learn the alphabet. Those children need and deserve for us to teach them letters and sounds, to develop their phonological awareness and print concepts, in the most powerful way we can find. If we’re not confident that we’ve provided this essential foundation in letter–sound knowledge, phonological awareness, and print concepts, we risk setting a negative momentum for children’s literacy: they may enter first grade lacking skills to make sense of new words; they may become reluctant readers who choose to avoid the difficulty of reading new texts; without strong reading lives, they may not gather the background knowledge and habits that will allow them future academic success. That’s what can happen if we don’t employ alternatives to letter-of-the-week.
Mark Twain once said, “Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” As you move away from a letter a week, know that Becky, Bill, Ellin, and I will be gratified. And know that your colleagues may well be astonished—astonished at the depth with which you develop students’ alphabet knowledge. Moving away from letter of the week is the right direction for you to go. From here on out, for you ABCs mean A Better Course.
United States between the years 2000 and 2010 and featuring mixed race characters. The researchers examined specific textual features of these works of contemporary and historical fiction and employed Critical Race Theory to contextualize the books within paradigms about multiracial identity. Findings indicated three broad trends in
representations of mixed race identity with an almost equal number of novels falling among three descriptive categories. Books in the Mixed Race In/Visibility category depicted stereotypical experiences and provided little or no opportunity for critique of racism. Mixed Race Blending books featured characters whose mixed race identity was descriptive but not functional in their lives. Mixed Race Awareness
books represented a range of possible life experiences for biracial characters who responded to social discomfort about their racial identity in complex and credible ways. This study has implications for research and pedagogy in the fields of education and children’s literature as they expand to become more inclusive of this type
of diversity.
It is now widely accepted that the early childhood period from preschool through third grade (P-3) is an especially significant—and arguably the most significant—period for learning to read and write in an alphabetic language. Research has been notably productive over the past two decades in helping us understand both the nature of early literacy and evidence-based practices for instruction in preschool and primary grades. As a result, we know quite a bit about what to do: the Illinois Early Learning Standards, Illinois Kindergarten Standards, and Illinois/Common Core State Standards-ELA are all aligned with current literacy research and ambitious practice. And yet, state, national, and international indicators suggest that we have not made significant strides in raising overall levels of early literacy achievement in the U.S. or in Illinois, nor in closing the achievement gaps among various cultural and social groups. To inform what can be done to enhance early literacy practice and achievement, the UIC Center for Literacy conducted a comprehensive review of research, policies, and practices, seeking to identify gaps and opportunities that would enable formulation of policy recommendations for enhancing literacy education across our systems of early care and education and elementary schooling. The findings indicated a special for the following key efforts in order to achieve the desired impact:
• coordination to achieve early literacy curricular coherence across P-3 age levels
• coordination of early literacy curriculum, instruction, and assessment in preschool and school settings
• coordination of the early literacy content of teacher education programs, professional learning programs for practicing teachers, and the preparation of leaders of early childhood education
• coordination of home and school early literacy supports
• a coordinated early literacy research agenda for the children and families of Illinois
The recommended actions indicated by the analyses have implications across the spectrum of participants in early literacy education: state and city leadership; local schools and early care entities; parents, teachers and child care providers; researchers; and foundations and other funders of programs and research.
• What has early literacy research focused on over the past decade?
• What has that body of research contributed to our enhanced understanding of early literacy development/teaching/learning?
Why now? Because it has been three decades since an emergent literacy paradigm significantly redefined research and practice in early literacy, and no integrative review of P-3 literacy research has been conducted in a number of years. So, we conducted this literature review to take the pulse of a research and practice area that has for some time been one of the most highly investigated aspects of educational research and has undergone periods of particularly intense activity and significant evolutionary, if not revolutionary, changes in theory, research topics, and research methodologies in the past 40 years.
The Center for Literacy (CFL) developed a survey to measure the beliefs, attitudes and practices of Head Start/Early Head Start providers and families. The results generated from a survey of this type can serve as an important part of fulfilling the Head Start/Early Head Start mission of ensuring that “Children are ready for school and sustain development and learning gains through third grade.” CFL also believes that the results from a survey of school readiness can be used to inform the Early Childhood research community on ways to engage and inform parents and providers of education for young children about the dimensions of knowledge, attitudes and practices around school readiness.