Old Folks Homes Essay Example for Free

Old Folks Homes Essay When considering the nursing home option for parents or other loved ones, here are a few of the main advantages to keep to mind: †¢ Better resources and equipment: Private homes simply dont have the types of medical equipment and supplies needed to help seniors stay healthy. Many nursing homes are almost as advanced as hospitals in their ability to provide sophisticated care for patients on a 24-hour basis. †¢ High-quality long-term care: Due to modern medicine, seniors now live longer than ever. While were thankful for this, longer life-spans often come with longer periods of late-life illness and disability. Caring for a senior relative at home is often a long-term commitment of many years, sometimes requiring intensive care. †¢ Emergency response and 24-hour monitoring: Nursing homes are equipped to deal with emergencies and other sudden incidents. Internal call systems allow residents to contact staff at any time should something arise. These systems are monitored 24 hours, and experienced staff is always on hand to respond. Lighter emotional burden on family: When an elderly relative being cared for at home experiences suffering, a sudden emergency, or a decline in health, family members are liable to feel guilt and to wonder if they could have done more. Putting the elderly relative in the hands of professionals makes this issue nonexistent. †¢ Family can live their own lives: While we want to help our relatives as much as possible, we also must think of ourselves, our spouses, and our children. Caring for an elderly relative at home can be a time-consuming process for everyone involved, which may take time and energy away from careers, school, hobbies, family bonding, travel, and other important personal matters. If our elderly relative can be just as happy and healthy, if not more so, in a home, why not take the burden off of ourselves? †¢ Social opportunities: Socially, seniors need more than just family. At nursing homes, seniors are out in the world interacting with a variety of people. Other residents provide a chance to form new friendships with others in the same age group. Meanwhile, strong, personal relationships may also be developed with staff members. †¢ Activities: Nursing homes routinely provide the types of activities and, in some cases, outings that are specifically tailored to seniors, and which may not be available in private homes. Nursing homes usually provide movies, reading material, games, activities, and other types of events. In addition, they often have private gardens where residents can go for strolls, get resh air, and even do some gardening. The nursing home is a facility created with a precise role ,in the medical care for elderly . In this facility are admitted the patients discharge from hospital. After the discharge from the hospital,the recovery process continue for a period of time in the nursing home. Being equipped for physical therapy,and speech therapy,the patient with stroke has an appropriate place to recover. After surgery for fracture of the hip,the motor recovery is better than in home. For a limited period of time the admission in nursing home,can be handle by the family and aging patient,in the interest of both sides. Many times the family makes opposition at the recommendation for transfer from hospital to nursing home. Even today,we meet a misconception about the reputation of nursing homes. Everybody can be in the aging process candidate for admission as resident in nursing home. In these days when the younger people in the family are busy with their job and family,less and less make an effort to keep the elderly parent in home. For elderly parents,changing his environment can be devastating. I knew many aging people who were admitted in the nursing home , because the family,couldnt do an appropriate arrangement for them. Several aspects in the health status of admitted aging patient in nursing home,can be observed and avoided. In the majority of patients,was noted a clear refuse to be admitted in nursing home. If the patient was admitted,the emotional reaction was painful for the family and patient. The patient came withdrawn,refuse to communicate with staff. When the family came for visit,the patient hostility and lack of understanding of the family,aggravated their relationship. The patient develop feeling of abandon from the family. Sometimes they express paranoid manifestations,believing that the family wanted to take over their assets. The patient is unable to communicate with other residents in nursing home. Many times ,in their paranoid behavior,include the staff of nursing home. They believe that the family and the nursing home,conspire ,to steal the assets. Among the other changes in behavior and emotional status,often the other residents or staff,report:refuse to eat and drink,Decline to take the medication. Refuse to have the daily body care. Their sleep is also disturbed. In short period of time,the physical condition is deteriorating. Possibility to catch intra facility infections is very high possibility. These are only several aspects related to the elderly admitted in nursing home. The majority of statistics,showed that a patient admitted in this facilities,have a rate of survival shorter,comparatively with elderly living in their own residence. The best place to live is the residence where is well known for aging people. They know where are the daily tools used for grooming. Any changes in their environment can have emotional reaction. They can be confused,unable to behave like before,having premature manifestations of dementia. The family of elderly parents,have to be aware about all physical and mental changes of the aging parents. An appropriate care can avoid unpleasant situations and all consequences of changing the own residence with the nursing home.

Because I could not stop for Death, by Emily Dickinson :: Emily Dickinson Essays

Emily Elizabeth Dickinson was born on December 10,1830 in the quiet community of Amherst, Massachusetts (Davidson 247). She was the second born to Edward and Emily Norcross Dickinson (Davidson 247). Her older brother Austin and her younger sister Lavina lived in a reserved family headed by their authoritative father (Davidson 247). Emily’s mother was not “emotionally accessible,'; thought out there lives (Davidson 247). Their parents weren’t involved in their children’s lives. One thing that their parents did do was raise there children with the Chistian tradition (Chase 28). They were expected to take up their father’s religious beliefs and values without any argument. Emily though did not fit in with her father’s religion and as she got older challenged these conventional religious viewpoints of her father and his church (Chase 28). Here put more stuff about why she did not except the Puritan God and why because of this you saw it in her writing (on page 12-? In Aiken). Her father was also an influential politician in Massachusetts holding powerful positions (Johnson 26). Due to this her family was very prominent in Amherst. Emily did not enjoy the popularity and excitement of her public life in Amherst. So she began to withdraw from the town, her family and friends (Johnson 29). This private life that she lived gave her, her own private society. She refused to see almost everyone that came to visit and rarely left her father’s house (Johnson 31).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Emily’s writing changed over the years due to events in her life. Most of her writing was about nature, friends, love and almost a third of her poems dealt with the subject of death (Ferlazzo 22). I’m going to focus my paper on the topic of death. A lot of Dickinson’s life was in morning the deaths of her close friends and family. Her father died in 1974, Samuel Bowles died in 1878, J.G. Holland died in 1881, her nephew Gilbert died in 1883, and both Charles Wadsworth, Emily’s mother died in 1882 (mapes) and Helen Hunt Jackson in 1885 (Chase 305). Over those seven years, many of the most influential and precious friendships of Emily’s passed away. On June 14, 1884 Emily suffered her first attack of her terminal illness, which put her to bed in her family’s house. Then less than two years latter she died at the age of 56 (Chase 310).

Teaching English

Teaching Readers of English â€Å"A book of this kind is long overdue. . . . It is a giant contribution to the ? eld. With its emphasis on a socioliterate approach to reading and literacy, it nicely captures the prevailing view of academic literacy instruction. Its extremely skillful and well-developed balancing act between theory and practice allows it to appeal to a wide variety of readers. Pre- and in-service teachers, in particular, will bene? t immensely. † Alan Hirvela, The Ohio State University â€Å"A compendium like this that addresses reading issues at a variety of levels and in a variety of ways is most welcome. . . Congratulations on excellent work, a fabulous partnership, and on moving us all forward in our thinking about reading issues! † Vaidehi Ramanathan, University of California, Davis A comprehensive manual for pre- and in-service ESL and EFL educators, this frontline text balances insights from current reading theory and research with highly practica l, ? eld-tested strategies for teaching and assessing L2 reading in secondary and post-secondary contexts. John S. Hedgcock is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Dana R.Ferris is Associate Professor in the University Writing Program at the University of California, Davis. Teaching Readers of English Students, Texts, and Contexts John S. Hedgcock Monterey Institute of International Studies Dana R. Ferris University of California, Davis First published 2009 by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009.To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www. eBookstore. tandf. co. uk.  © 2009 Routledge, Taylor and Franci s All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identi? ation and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0-203-88026-9 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 10: 0–415–99964–2 (hbk) ISBN 10: 0–8058–6347–8 (pbk) ISBN 10: 0–203–88026–9 (ebk) ISBN 13: 978–0–415–99964–9 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978–0–8058â₠¬â€œ6347–5 (pbk) ISBN 13: 978–0–203–88026–5 (ebk) Brief Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix 1 Fundamentals of L1 and L2 Literacy: Reading and Learning to Read . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 L2 Reading: Focus on the Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3 L2 Reading: Focus on the Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 4 Syllabus Design and Instructional Planning for the L2 Reading Course . . . .115 5 Designing an Intensive Reading Lesson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 6 Reading for Quantity: The Benefits and Challenges of Extensive Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 7 Using Literary Texts in L2 Reading Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242 8 Vocabulary Learning and Teaching in L2 Reading Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . .283 9 Classroom L2 Reading Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .417 Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .423 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix 1 Fundamentals of L1 and L2 Literacy: Reading and Learning to Read . . . . . . . .1 The Nature of Literacy and Literacies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Working with Writing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Reading Processes: Fundamentals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Describing and De? ning Reading Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Bottom-Up Views of Reading and Reading Development . . . . . . . . . .17 Top-Down Views of Reading and Reading Development . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Interactive and Integrated Views of Reading and Reading Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Understanding L2 Reading Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Components of L2 Reading: Skills and Subskills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 L2 Reading Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Further Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Re? ection and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 2 L2 Reading: Focus on the Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Who Are L2 Readers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 International (Visa) Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 EFL Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Immigrant Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Generation 1. 5 Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 viii Contents Implications of Multiple Student Audiences for Reading Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 L2 Reading in Non-academic Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 What a Reader Knows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 In? uences of Family and Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 School In? uences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Types of Reader Schemata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 What the L2 Reader Knows: Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Individual Differences among L2 Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Learning Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Learner Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Focus on the Reader: Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Needs Assessment and Course Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Text Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Classroom Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 Further Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Re? ection and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3 L2 Reading: Focus on the Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 What Is a Text? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Orthography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Words. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 Morphosyntactic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 Text Cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Typography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Text Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Text Information: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 Focus on the Text: Implications for Text Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 Selecting and Analyzing Texts for Intensive Reading Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 Text Selection Issues: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Focus on the Text: Building Bottom-Up Skills and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . .98 Bottom-Up Skills: Approaches and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 Summary: Textual Elements and Bottom-Up Instruction. . . . . . . . . .103 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Further Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 Re? ection and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108 Appendix 3. 1: Second Chances—If Only We Could Start Again . . . . . . . .112 Appendix 3. 2: Sample Mini-lesson on Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 Contents 4 ix Syllabus Design and Instructional Planning for the L2 Reading Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Needs Assessment: Understanding Learner Needs and Institutional Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Demographic Pro? le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 L2 Pro? ciency and Literate Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Student Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 Student Preferences, Strategies, and Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123 Designing and Administering NA Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 Establishing Goals and Objectives for Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . .125 Developing an L2 Literacy Syllabus: Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 Crafting the Course Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Constructing the Course Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Selecting and Working with Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 Planning L2 Literacy Lessons: Principles and Precepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 Specifying Lesson Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 Organizing a Daily Less on Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140 Lesson Planning Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Further Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 Re? ection and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148 Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149 Appendix 4. 1: Sample Needs Assessment Questionnaire for a Reading Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Appendix 4. 2: Sample EAP Reading Course Syllabus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Appendix 4. 3: Textbook Evaluation Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 5 Designing an Intensive Reading Lesson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Background: Intensive Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Stages of Intensive Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162 Before Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 During Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 After Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Putting It All Together: Designing an Intensive Reading Lesson . . . . . . . . . 190 Suggestions for Intensive Reading Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Further Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192 Re? ection and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193 Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 Appendix 5. 1: The Rewards of Living a Solitary Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 Appendix 5. 2: Sample Text-Surveying Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 x 6 Contents Reading for Quantity: The Benefits and Challenges ofExtensive Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205 Extensive Reading: De? nitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Perspectives on Extensive Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .208 Bene? ts of Extensive Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210 Extensive Reading Improves Comprehension Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210 Extensive Reading Develops Automaticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 Extensive Reading Builds Background Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Extensive Reading Builds Vocabulary and Grammar Knowledge . . . .213 Extensive Reading Improves Production Skills (Speaking and Especially Writing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 Extensive Reading Promotes Student Con? dence and Motivation . . . 216 Summary: The Case for Extensive Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 (Perceived) Problems and Challenges with Extensive Reading . . . . . . . . . .217 Time and Pre-Existing Curricular Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218 Student Resistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Curricular Models for Extensive Reading in L2 Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Overall Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220 Extensive Reading in a Language Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Extensive Reading in a Foreign-Language Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Extensive Reading in Non-Academic Class Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 Extensive Reading in Academic Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Practical Matters: Implementation of Extensive Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 Getting Students on Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226 Providing Access to Reading Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Helping Students Find and Select Appropriate Materials . . . . . . . . . .230 Designing Classroom Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232 Developing Accountability and Evaluation Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . .234 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Further Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 Re? ection and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237 Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 7 Using Literary Texts in L2 Reading Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242 Contexts for L2 Literature Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Bene? ts of Literature for L2 Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Cultural Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Rich Language Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249 Input for Language Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250 Enjoyable and Motivating Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Improved Student Con? dence in L2 Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Personal Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252 Contents xi Stimulating Writing Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252 Critical Thinking Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Bene? ts: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 Using Literature with L2 Readers: Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Teacher Discomfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 Student Resistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 Time Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257 Text Dif? culty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258 Possible Drawbacks: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Teaching Literature in the L2 Reading Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 How Much Literature? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 What Kinds of Texts?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Where Do Literary Texts Fit in Intensive and Extensive Reading Approaches? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Literature in an Extensive Reading Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Speci? c Considerations for Teaching Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Literary Metalanguage: To Teach or Not to Teach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265 Teaching Fiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265 Teaching Poetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Teaching Drama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Further Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274 Re? ection and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274 Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .275 Appendix 7. 1: The Story of An Hour (Kate Chopin [1894]) . . . . . . . . . . . .280 Appendix 7. 2: The Road Not Taken (Robert Frost [1916]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 8 Vocabulary Learning and Teaching in L2 Reading Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . .283Components of Word Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284 The Role of Lexical Knowledge in Developing L2 Readin g Skills and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .291 Interactions between Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading . . . . . . . . . 291 Incidental Vocabulary Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .292 Direct Vocabulary Instruction: Explicit Interventions in Teaching Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Lexical Enhancement and L2 Reading: Challenges andTools . . . . . . . . . . . 296 Vocabulary Size and Reading Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Word Frequency Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .300 Direct Vocabulary Teaching and L2 Reading Instruction: Practices and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Spend Time on Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 Teach Effective Inferenc ing Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 Teach Effective Dictionary Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .306 Consider Working with Graded Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 xii Contents Ask Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .309 Match De? nitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 Practice Semantic Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 Encourage Use of Word Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Assign Vocabulary Notebooks or Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Further Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .314 Re? ection and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315 Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316 9 Classroom L2 Reading Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 The Purposes of L2 Reading Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Principles and Concepts of L2 Reading Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 Validity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .330 Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .331 Washback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .333 Product and Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 A Framework for Designing Classroom L2 Reading Assessments. . . . . . .335 Reading Assessment Variables: Standards, Readers, and Texts . . . . . . . . . .337 Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337 Reader Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338 Text Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339 Task and Item Development in L2 Reading Assessment: Principles and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Controlled Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Constructed Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353 Maximizing Controlled and Constructed Response Approaches in L2 Reading Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .360 Alternative L2 Literacy As sessment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .362 Reading Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .363 Literacy Portfolios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364 Self-Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Summary: Toward a Coherent Literacy Assessment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .369 Further Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .370 Re? ection and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .371 Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .372 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .375 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .417 Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .423 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 Preface This book presents approaches to the teaching of second language (L2) readers in the context of current theoretical perspectives on L2 literacy processes, practices, and readers. Teaching Readers of English is designed as a comprehensive teacherpreparation book, as well as a resource for in-service teachers and L2 literacy researchers.The volume focuses on preparing instructors who work with L2 and multilingual readers at the secondary, post-secondary, and adult levels. Teaching Readers of English likewise examines vocabulary development, both as a tool for facilitating effective reading and as a language-learning goal in itself. We have attempted to craft the book to appeal to several distinct audiences: Tea cher educators and graduate students in TESOL preparation programs; In-service ESL and EFL instructors currently engaged in teaching reading and related literacy skills;Pre-service teachers of secondary English and their instructors; In-service teachers of secondary English; Researchers involved in describing L2 literacy and investigating L2 reading pedagogy. Teaching Readers of English addresses the needs of the ? rst four groups by providing overviews of research related to L2 reading, as well as numerous opportunities to re? ect on, develop, and practice the teaching skills needed for effective ESL and EFL literacy instruction. We hope that researchers in the ? eld will also bene? t from our syntheses and analyses of the literature on various topics in L2 literacy education.Preview and post-reading review questions in Preface xv each chapter are designed to stimulate readers’ thinking about the material presented. Application Activities at the end of each chapter provide h ands–on practice for pre- and in-service teachers, as well as resources for teacher educators. Because of this book’s dual emphasis on theory and practice in L2 literacy instruction, it would serve as an appropriate primary or supplementary text in courses focusing on L2 reading theory, as well as practical courses that address literacy instruction. As a discipline, L2 reading is still viewed by some as an emergent ? eld.Consequently, few resources have been produced to help pre- and in-service L2 educators to become experts in a discipline that is becoming recognized as a profession in its own right. Therefore, one of our primary goals in Teaching Readers of English is to furnish readers with a synthesis of theory and practice in a rapidly evolving community of scholars and professionals. We have consistently and intentionally focused on providing apprentice teachers with practice activities, such as reader background surveys, text analyses, and instructional planning tasks that can be used to develop the complex skills entailed in teaching L2 reading.Although all topics of discussion are ? rmly grounded in reviews of relevant research, a feature that we feel distinguishes this volume from others is its array of hands-on, practical examples, materials, and tasks. By synthesizing theory and research in accessible terms, we have endeavored to craft chapter content and exercises in ways that enable readers to appreciate the relevance of the ? eld’s knowledge base to their current and future classroom settings and student readers. Overview of the Book We have sequenced the book’s chapters to move from general themes to speci? c pedagogical concerns.Situated in a broad literacy framework, Chapter 1 presents an overview of reading theory and pedagogical models that have in? uenced and shaped approaches to L2 literacy instruction. It also presents a comparative discussion of writing systems, culminating with a discussion of the dynamic in teractions of skills and strategies that comprise L2 reading. Most importantly, Chapter 1 introduces an argument that we pursue throughout the volume; that is, whereas certain literacy processes transcend linguistic and cultural boundaries, unique characteristics and challenges set L2 reading apart from L1 reading.We embrace the view that teaching learners to read successfully in an L2 such as English requires thought, analysis, and attention. Chapters 2 and 3 focus respectively on the two most important elements of the interactive process known as reading: readers and texts. In Chapter 2, we discuss and de? ne more precisely what characterizes an L2 reader, acknowledging the growing complexity of the term and the diversity of the student audience. Chapter 2 examines numerous background variables that in? uence literacy development, including the unique characteristics of individual readers.Chapter 3 provides a de? nition and in-depth analysis of the structural properties of text, x vi Preface with a speci? c focus on challenges faced by readers in their encounters with (L1 and) L2 texts and with English texts in particular. Chapter 3 concludes with a practical discussion of the linguistic components of texts, suggesting that teachers in some contexts may wish to present direct lessons targeting these features. In all of these chapters, we aim to present a perspective on L2 reading instruction that is ? mly grounded in the precept that literacies are socially constructed. Based on the socioliterate premises outlined especially in Chapters 1 and 2, Chapter 4 addresses fundamental concerns related to the teaching of any L2 literacy course: needs assessment, syllabus design, materials selection, and lesson planning. Chapter 5 (intensive reading) and Chapter 6 (extensive reading) present detailed examinations of the two major curricular approaches to teaching L2 reading. The remaining chapters then focus on speci? c topics of persistent nterest to L2 literacy educa tors: the use of literature in L2 reading instruction (Chapter 7), vocabulary learning and teaching (Chapter 8), and approaches to reading assessment (Chapter 9). Although the organization of individual chapters varies according to topic, all contain the following components: Questions for Re? ection. These pre-reading questions invite readers to consider their prior experiences as students and readers and to anticipate how these insights might inform their professional beliefs and teaching practices; Further Reading and Resources.A concise list at the end of each chapter provides a quick overview of the print and online sources cited, as well as other outlets of relevant information; Figures and Tables. These textual illustrations provide sample authentic activities, lesson plans, sample texts, and so on, which teachers can use and adapt in their own instructional practice; Re? ection and Review. These follow-up questions ask readers to examine and evaluate the theoretical informat ion and practical suggestions introduced in the main text; Application Activities. Application Activities follow each Re? ction and Review section, presenting a range of hands-on practical exercises. Tasks include collecting data from novice readers, text analysis, evaluating real-world reading materials, developing lesson plans, designing classroom activities, and executing and evaluating classroom tasks and assessments. Several chapters also include Appendices that contain sample texts and instructional materials. As readers, writers, researchers, teachers, and teacher educators, we ? nd the ? eld of L2 literacy development (which entails both reading and writing) to offer many challenges and rewards.It was our classroom experience working with Preface xvii multilingual readers and with L2 teachers that initially ignited our interest in compiling a book that would help teachers develop both professional knowledge and con? dence as teachers of reading. We hope that this book will p rovide its readers with accurate information, meaningful insights, and practical ideas for classroom teaching. It is also our hope that Teaching Readers of English will convey our enthusiasm and passion for this rapidly evolving and engaging ? eld of intellectual inquiry and professional practice.John’s Acknowledgments Thanks are due to the Monterey Institute for my Fall semester 2007 sabbatical leave, which I dedicated to exploring the L2 reading literature anew and to writing early draft material. I owe special thanks to the M. A. students in my Spring 2008 ED 562 (Teaching Reading) course, who diligently read the draft version of the book, responded thoughtfully and substantially to the material, and reminded me how enjoyable it can be to look at teaching in novel ways. Their hard work, enthusiasm for reading, and passion for teaching were infectious and energizing.As always, I am also indebted to the Library staff at the Monterey Institute, who not only supply me continua lly with volumes of books and articles, but who also cheerfully grant me more special privileges than I deserve. Like Dana, I would like to credit an early source of inspiration for me, Professor Stephen Krashen, whose teaching and research drew me to literacy studies when I was a graduate student. Finally, I offer my profound thanks to Simon Hsu for his perpetual reassurance, moral support, and good cheer through the ups and downs of the writing process.Dana’s Acknowledgments I am grateful to my graduate students and former colleagues at California State University, Sacramento who have helped me to develop and pilot materials used in this book. In particular, I would like to thank the CSUS M. A. students in my Spring 2008 English 215A (ESL Reading/Vocabulary) course, who patiently worked with the draft version of this book, responded enthusiastically, and gave great suggestions. As always, I am thankful for the opportunity to have my thinking and practice informed and challe nged by these individuals.I am also grateful for the sabbatical leave I received from my former institution, CSUS, for the Spring 2007 semester, which allowed me extended time for this project. Working on this book has also made me again appreciative of the contributions of two of my graduate school professors—Stephen Krashen and the late David Eskey of the University of Southern California—not only to the ? eld of L2 reading research but also to the formation of my own knowledge base and philosophies on the subject. Both were excellent teachers and mentors, and I am indebted to them for their work, their example, and the ways they encouraged me as a student. viii Preface On a personal level, I would like to extend my love and gratitude to my husband, Randy Ferris, my daughters, Laura and Melissa Ferris, and my faithful yellow Labrador retriever, Winnie the Pooch, who was a great companion and thoughtful sounding board during my sabbatical! Joint Acknowledgments Our wo rk on this project would have been much less rewarding and enjoyable without the gentle guidance and persistent encouragement of our outstanding editor, Naomi Silverman. Her expertise and unfailingly insightful advice assisted us in innumerable ways as our ideas evolved and as the collaborative writing process unfolded.Despite her sometimes crushing workload, Naomi managed to help us out whenever we needed her input. We offer our profound thanks for her con? dence in us and for her many contributions to this book’s evolution. In addition, we deeply appreciate the incisive and exceptionally useful feedback on earlier versions provided by Barbara Birch, Alan Hirvela, and Vaidehi Ramanathan. Finally, we are grateful for the diligent work of Meeta Pendharkar and Alfred Symons at Routledge, and of Richard Willis, who saw the project through its ? nal stages of development.John Hedgcock Dana Ferris Credits Figure 1. 3 is derived and adapted from a drawing in Bernhardt (1991b), Read ing development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives (p. 15), originally published by Ablex. Figure 1. 4 is adapted from Birch (2007), English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom (2nd ed. , p. 3). Figure 4. 4 is adapted from Ferris and Hedgcock (2005), Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed. , p. 100). Figures 1. 4 and 4. 4 are used with permission from Taylor and Francis. Figure 1. originally appeared in Bernhardt (2005), â€Å"Progress and procrastination in second language reading† (Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, pp. 133–150). Figure 8. 1 was adapted from a similar ? gure in Nation (2001), Learning vocabulary in another language. We thank Cambridge University Press for its policy concerning reproduction and adaptation of these resources. The â€Å"Second Chances—If Only We Could Start Again† selection by Brahm in Appendix 3. 1 originally appeared in the Sacramento Bee in 2001; the t ext appears here with permission. Sarton’s (1974) essay, â€Å"The Rewards of Living a Solitary Life† (Appendix 5. ), ? rst appeared in the New York Times, as did the Greenhouse (2003) essay, â€Å"Going for the look—but risking discrimination† (Appendix 5. 2); both selections are used with permission. Figure 9. 2 is based on and adapted from Urquhart and Weir (1998), Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice (Addison Wesley Longman). xx Credits Figure 9. 11 is a slightly altered rubric from Groeber (2007), Designing and using rubrics for reading and language arts, K-6 (p. 23). This ? gure appears with permission from Corwin Press. Chapter 1 Fundamentals of L1 nd L2 Literacy Reading and Learning to Read Questions for Re? ection Do you have any recollection of learning to read at home or at school in your primary language or in a second/foreign language? If so, what were those processes like? How were they similar or different across lan guages? How is text-based communication similar to and distinct from speechbased communication? How is learning to read and write distinct from acquiring speech and listening skills? Why? What are some of the principal challenges that you associate with reading certain kinds of text?What are the main obstacles that novice readers face in learning to read? Why do you think it is important for novice ESL and EFL teachers to become acquainted with the principles and practices of reading instruction (in contrast to other skills, such as speaking, listening, writing, or grammar)? The high premium that many people place on literacy skills, including those necessary for performing well in school and in the workplace, emerges largely from the degree to which educated adults depend on text-based and digital resources for learning and communication.When educated people think about 2 Teaching Readers of English how and why literacy is important, few question the fundamental notion that reading is a crucial building block, if not the chief cornerstone, of success at school, at work, and in society (Feiler, 2007; Gee, 2008; McCarty, 2005). In primary education around the globe, one of the ? rst things children do at school is participate in literacy lessons and â€Å"learn to read. † Of course, â€Å"the developmental transformations that mark the way to reading expertise begin in infancy, not in school† (Wolf, 2007, p. 223).In many parts of the world, primary-level teachers receive specialized education and training in teaching children to read, sometimes in two or more languages. As children advance toward adolescence, they may undergo sustained literacy instruction designed to enhance their reading comprehension, ? uency, and ef? ciency. Formal â€Å"reading† courses taper off as children progress toward and beyond secondary school—except, perhaps, for foreign or second language instruction. Many language teachers assume that teaching and lea rning a foreign or second language (L2)1 depends on reading skills.In fact, they may devote considerable time and effort to promoting L2 reading skills among their students, often under the assumption that learners already have a developed system of literate knowledge and skill in their primary language(s) (L1s). In contrast, teachers in disciplines such as science and mathematics, social studies, and the arts may need to assume that their pupils or students already know â€Å"how to read. † Such educators may not provide much, if any, explicit instruction in the mechanics of processing texts.Similarly, many teachers of writing at both the secondary and tertiary levels often assume that students know â€Å"how to read† (or at least that students have been taught to read). Paradoxically, while formal education, professional activities, and use of the Web depend on reading ef? cacy, many educators ? nd themselves under-equipped to help their students develop their readin g skills when students need instructional intervention. In other words, we may not recognize the complexity of reading because, as pro? ient readers, we often take reading ability for granted, assuming that reading processes are automatic. It is easy to overlook the complexity of reading processes, as many of us do not have to think much about how we read. After all, you are able to read and understand the words on this page because you have somehow â€Å"learned to read† English and have successfully automatized your ability to decode alphabetic symbols and interpret meaning from text. Precisely how you achieved this level of skill, however, is still not fully understood (Smith, 2004; Wolf, 2007).Our experiences as students, language teachers, and teacher educators have led us to a profound appreciation of the complexity of the reading process and for the fact that, for many novice readers—whether working in L1 or L2—reading processes are far from automatic. We have also come to recognize the sometimes overwhelming challenges of teaching reading to language learners. Reading, learning to read, and teaching reading are neither easy nor effortless. In this chapter, we consider fundamental aspects of the reading process that make it a complex social and cognitive operation involving readers, writers, texts,Fundamentals of L1 and L2 Literacy 3 contexts, and purposes. We will introduce contemporary principles of literacy and literacy development to familiarize readers with de? nitions of key constructs in the interrelated ? elds of literacy studies, L1 and L2 reading research, and pedagogy. Our aim is to help readers develop a working knowledge of key issues, insights, and controversies in L2 literacy education by presenting an overview of key theories, models, and metaphors. Our chief focus is on the literacy development of multilingual learners in secondary and postsecondary educational settings. Naturally, we refer to research on L1 literac y development among children, which has richly informed agendas for L2 literacy research and instruction. In the ? rst part of this chapter, we consider contemporary views of literacy as a socio-psychological construct that frames reading development and processes among L1 and L2 learners. By comparing research and theory associated with prevailing processing metaphors, we explore instructional issues of particular relevance to the teaching of L2 reading. These issues include the niqueness of L2 reading processes, interactions between L1 and L2 literacy, and the importance of strategies-based instruction in promoting L2 literacy. The Nature of Literacy and Literacies Before examining the mechanics of reading, we must situate reading processes and instruction with respect to the sociocultural and educational contexts where reading skills are valued. As Urquhart and Weir (1998) noted, â€Å"the teacher of reading is in the business of attempting to improve literacy† (p. 1). Alt hough reading skill is central to any de? ition of literacy, L2 educators should understand that literacy entails not only cognitive abilities (Bernhardt, 1991a, 1991b), but also knowledge of sociocultural structures and ideologies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Cummins, Brown, & Sayers, 2007; Gee, 1991, 2003; Goldenberg, Rueda, & August, 2006; Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007; Perez, 2004b, 2004d; Robinson, McKenna, & Wedman, 2007). Literacy, after all, is â€Å"a part of the highest human impulse to think and rethink experience in place† (Brandt, 1990, p. 1).We can refer to reading and writing as literate processes, and we frequently use the term literacy as a countable noun when describing skills, knowledge, practices, and beliefs allied with speci? c disciplines and discourse communities (e. g. , academic literacy, workplace literacy, computer literacy, ? nancial literacy, and so forth). Across disciplines, wrote Barton (2007), â€Å"the term literacy has become a code word for mor e complex views of what is involved in reading and writing† (p. 5). A literate person can therefore become â€Å"competent and knowledgeable in specialized areas† (Barton, 2007, p. 9). Literacies are multiple, overlapping, and diverse: â€Å"People have different literacies which they make use of, associate with different domains of life. These differences are increased across different cultures or historical periods† (Barton, 2007, p. 37). Eagleton and Dobler (2007), for example, insisted that â€Å"current de? nitions of literacy must include digital texts such as those found on the Web† (p. 28). 4 Teaching Readers of English Contemporary conceptions of literacy do not characterize literacy merely as a cluster of isolated processing skills.Scribner and Cole (1981) framed literacy as a system of socially organized literacy practices. This view led to an â€Å"emerging theory of literacy-as-social-practice† (Reder & Davila, 2005, p. 172), now widely known as the New Literacy Studies (NLS) (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Street, 1984, 1995). As a socioculturally organized system, literacy consists of much more than an individual’s ability to work with print-based media. Reading and writing may be the most visible or tangible processes in literacy development, but literacy practices go beyond reading and writing alone (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007; Kern, 2000; Purcell-Gates, 2007).Literacy practices refer to â€Å"common patterns in using reading and writing in a particular situation. People bring their cultural knowledge to an activity† (Barton, 2007, p. 36). In an NLS view, literacy is more than a skill or ability that people â€Å"acquire†Ã¢â‚¬â€it is something that people do in the course of everyday life. We can refer to what people do with their knowledge of literate practices as literacy events. Heath (1982) de? ned a literacy event as â€Å"any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of the participants’ interactions and their interpretative processes† (p. 3). Barton’s (2007) synthesis of the complementary relationship between literacy practices and literacy events illustrates the inherently social nature of literacy: Together events and practices are the two basic units of analysis of the social activity of literacy. Literate events are the particular activities where literacy has a role; they may be regular repeated activities. Literacy practices are the general cultural ways of utilizing literacy which people draw upon in a literacy event. [I]n the example . . . f a man discussing the contents of the local paper with a friend, the two of them sitting in the living room planning a letter to the newspaper is a literacy event. In deciding who does what, where and when it is done, along with the associated ways of talking and the ways of writing, the two participants make use of their literacy practices. (p. 37) Literacy is further understood in terms of the individual’s relationship to literate communities and institutions (e. g. , fellow readers and writers, teachers, employers, school, online networks, and so on).Scholars such as Freire (1968), Gee (1988, 1996), and Street (1984) have proposed that literacy can privilege some people while excluding others, as societies and discourse communities use literacy to enforce social controls and maintain hierarchies. The NLS approach assumes (1) that context is fundamental to any understanding of literacy and its development (Barton, 2007; Barton & Tusting, 2005; Collins & Blot, 2003) and (2) that literate and oral practices overlap and interact (Finnegan, 1988; Goody, 1987; Olson & Torrance, 1991; Stubbs, 1980; Tarone & Bigelow, 2005).Because it is grounded in social context, NLS research offers implications for how we might view reading processes, reading development, and reading Fundamentals of L1 and L2 Literacy 5 pedagogy. As already suggested, one insight that depa rts from conventional notions is that literacy consists of much more than reading and writing (Czerniewska, 1992; Kern, 2000; Purcell-Gates, 2007; Purcell-Gates, Jacobson, & Degener, 2008; Smith, 2004, 2007). Literacy practices and literacy events are not limited to libraries and schools. Literacy development is a process that begins early in childhood, long before children attend school, and involves many different skills and experiences† (Lesaux, Koda, Siegel, & Shanahan, 2006a, p. 77). Although L2 reading teachers may be con? ned to the classroom in their encounters with learners, literacy education should not be limited to promoting school-based literacies alone (Freire & Macedo, 1987; Gee, 2000; Kalantzis & Cope, 2000). After all, literacy is â€Å"rooted in people’s intimate everyday experiences with text† (Reder & Davila, 2005, p. 173). These daily experiences can range from the most mundane (e. g. scribbling a grocery list, dashing off a quick e-mail mess age, checking MapQuest for driving directions) to those with high-stakes consequences (e. g. , composing a college admissions essay or crafting a letter of resignation). Classrooms, of course, are unquestionably key sites for cultivating school and non-school literacies (Perez, 2004a). Students must develop literate skills that will enable them to succeed in school, although some of these skills may never be part of the curriculum (Alvermann, Hinchman, Moore, Phelps, & Waff, 2006; Bloome, Carter, Christina, Otto, & Shuart-Faris, 2005; Gee, 1996, 2005; Kutz, 1997; Perez, 2004c).In other words, surviving and thriving in school require much more than developing literacy in the traditional sense: Learners must also develop new behaviors and attitudes while cultivating social alliances. Novice readers must learn â€Å"a set of complex role relationships, general cognitive techniques, ways of approaching problems, different genres of talk and interaction, and an intricate set of values c oncerned with communication, interaction, and society as a whole† (Wertsch, 1985, pp. 35–36).Literate practices and literacy events of all sorts involve interaction and social activity around written texts, which are the products of a kind of technology— writing itself (Bazerman, 2007; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Olson, 1994; Olson & Cole, 2006; Ong, 1982; Wolf, 2007). 3 As such, writing is a value-laden cultural form, â€Å"a social product whose shape and in? uence depend upon prior political and ideological factors† (Gee, 1996, p. 58). Because â€Å"the immediate social context determines the use and nature of texts† (Reder & Davila, 2005, p. 75), texts and their uses are inherently tied to power at some level: â€Å"[L]iteracy can be seen as doing the work of discourse and power/knowledge† (Morgan & Ramanathan, 2005, p. 151). In this view, literacy and literacy development are never neutral, as literate activity involves learners, teachers, and many others (Gee, 2002). Moreover, â€Å"all literacy events carry ideological meanings† (Reder & Davila, 2005, p. 178), although we may not be aware of these meanings in the learning or teaching process. Nonetheless, L2 literacy educators can bene? from cultivating a critical awareness of how â€Å"literacy practices provide the textual means by which dominant values and identities (e. g. , avid consumers, obedient workers, patriotic citizens) are normalized and, at times, resisted† (Morgan & Ramanathan, 2005, pp. 152–153). 4 6 Teaching Readers of English Such critical perspectives, informed by NLS research and theory, are valuable for reading teachers: They remind us that literacy practices and literacy events pervade culture and everyday life. Literacy emerges as a kind of knowledge and skill base, as well as a socialization process (John-Steiner & Meehan, 2000).Describing early literacy development, Smith (1988) argued that children become successful reader s â€Å"only if they are admitted into a community of written language users,† which he called the â€Å"literacy club† (p. 2). Before they can read or write a single word, children become members of a literacy club similar to the community of oral language users into which infants are inducted at birth. â€Å"The procedures are the same, and the bene? ts are the same—admission to the club rapidly results in becoming like established members in spoken language, in literacy, and in many other ways as well† (Smith, 1988, p. ). Unique conditions affect adolescents and adults acquiring L2 literacy, yet the principle that literacy is socially embedded unquestionably applies to developing literacy in an additional language. Kern (2000) de? ned L2 literacy as â€Å"the use of socially-, historically-, and culturally-situated practices of creating and interpreting meaning through texts† (p. 16). Being literate in another language requires a critical knowle dge of how textual conventions and contexts of use shape one another. And because literacy is purpose-sensitive, it is dynamic â€Å"across and within discourse communities and cultures.It draws on a wide range of cognitive abilities, on knowledge of written and spoken language, on knowledge of genres, and on cultural knowledge† (Kern, 2000, p. 16). These dynamic aspects of literacy must include digital literacy (sometimes called cyberliteracy or electronic literacy), which we associate with â€Å"technologymediated textual, communicative, and informational practices† (Ingraham, Levy, McKenna, & Roberts, 2007, p. 162). Literacy and reading in the 21st century must be characterized in terms of â€Å"an ecology that includes broad-based access to many different media† (Mackey, 2007, p. 13).These media include television and ? lm, as well as digital audio and video ? les that can be stored and retrieved at will on a computer or other device in a range of formats (E agleton & Dobler, 2007; Gee, 2003; Hawisher, 2004; Kapitzke & Bruce, 2006; Olson & Cole, 2006). Laptop computers, MP3 players, iPods, handheld devices, and mobile telephones make print and non-print sources available almost anywhere. The social milieu in much of the world is saturated with digital media. In fact, â€Å"very few Western young people come to print texts without a vast background of exposure to texts in many other media† (Mackey, 2007, p. 3). We must expect L1 and L2 students in many settings to know how to navigate websites and electronic texts, view artwork and photographs, listen to audio recordings, and watch live action, video, and animations, all with impressive facility (McKenna, Labbo, Kieffer, & Reinking, 2006; McKenna, Labbo, Reinking, & Zucker, 2008; Thorne & Black, 2007; Valmont, 2002). Moore (2001) estimated that more than 80% of the data available in the world is â€Å"born digital, not on paper, ? che, charts, ? lms, or maps† (p. 28). That proportion has unquestionably risen above 80%, and the availability of computers inFundamentals of L1 and L2 Literacy 7 school settings has also increased. Parsad and Jones (2005) reported that, as of 2003, nearly 100% of U. S. schools had Internet access, 93% of classrooms were wired, and the mean ratio of learners to wired computers was about 4. 4 to 1. Access to wired computers in schools with high minority enrollments and in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods unfortunately drops below these averages (DeBell & Chapman, 2003; Parsad & Jones, 2005; Wells & Lewis, 2005); only about 16% of the world’s population currently use the Internet (de Argaez, 2006).Nonetheless, as a consequence of increasingly widespread Internet access and the proliferation of laptop and desktop computers with CD-ROM and DVD capabilities, many of today’s students â€Å"can instantaneously access more information delivered in multiple formats than at any other time in the history of educa tion† (Valmont, 2002, p. 92). For this growing learner population, â€Å"literacy in a polysymbolic environment† includes expertise in decoding and encoding print-based media, as well as â€Å"interpreting and constructing in visual and other symbolic worlds† (Valmont, 2002, p. 2). More speci? cally, digital literacy entails not only producing written and oral messages, but also generating and interpreting sounds, images, graphics, videos, animations, and movements (Cummins et al. , 2007; Eagleton & Dobler, 2007). In the remainder of this chapter, we explore L1 and L2 reading and reading development from a sociocognitive perspective. We believe that L2 reading teachers can best serve their students by viewing the learning and teaching of reading as much more than skill-oriented practice (Lee & Smagorinsky, 2000; Meyer & Manning, 2007).We must engage students â€Å"in real literacy events,† which Kern (2000) explicitly distinguished from â€Å"just rehears ing reading and writing skills. † To develop L2 literacy, students must â€Å"learn not only about vocabulary and grammar but also about discourse and the processes by which it is created† (p. 17). To synthesize salient insights from research and theory in NLS and related ? elds, we propose the following global principles, which we can apply to our work as literacy educators: Literacy is a cognitive and a social activity, which we can describe in terms of literacy practices, which are played out during literacy events.Literacies are multiple and associated with different participants, purposes, social relations, settings, institutions, and â€Å"domains of life† that support literate knowledge (Barton, 2007, p. 37). Literacy events reference socially constructed symbol systems that facilitate communication, create meaning, and represent the world. These systems require users to understand, adopt, and even reshape conventions (genres, discourse structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling). As symbolic systems that draw on writing and speech, literacies enable us to represent and cognize about ourselves, others, and our world (Kern, 2000). Teaching Readers of English Literacy requires problem-solving. Reading and writing â€Å"involve ? guring out relationships† among words, larger units of meaning, and â€Å"between texts and real or imagined worlds† (Kern, 2000, p. 17). Literacy entails knowledge of language and the ability to use it, as well as cultural understanding, belief systems, attitudes, ideals, and values that â€Å"guide our actions† in literate communities (Barton, 2007, p. 45). Literacy events shape us and our literacy practices as we engage in literacy events over our lifetimes. â€Å"Literacy has a history,† which de? es individuals as well as literate communities (Barton, 2007, p. 47). Literacy in the industrialized world â€Å"means gaining competent control of representational forms in a variety of media and learning how those forms best combine in a variety of genres and discourse† (Warschauer, 1999, p. 177). Working with Writing Systems As a de? ning function of literacy, reading is a chief focus of this chapter. Before reviewing models of L1 and L2 reading, we will consider factors that set reading apart from other skill areas. First, however, we would like to stress that language pro? iency and literacy should be viewed as interdependent. In outlining their model of how children develop language skills, language awareness, and literacy, Ravid and Tolchinsky (2002) asserted that â€Å"the reciprocal character of speech and writing in a literate community makes [language and literacy] a synergistic system where certain features (e. g. , basic syntax) originate in the spoken input† (p. 430). Meanwhile, features such as complex syntax and specialized vocabulary â€Å"originate in the written input. Together . . . they form a ‘virtual loop’ where spe ech and writing constantly feed and modify each other† (p. 30). Because written language—whether in print or hypertext form—exhibits properties that are distinct from speech (Biber, 1988, 1995; Wolf, 2007) and because texts may predetermine the range of meanings that they express, â€Å"spoken language and written language can rarely be the same† (Smith, 2004, p. 42). As a tool that â€Å"increases human control of communication and knowledge,† writing â€Å"uses a written symbol to represent a unit of language and not an object, event, or emotion directly† (Birch, 2007, p. 15). Writing practices and conventions are always deeply â€Å"socially contextualized,† nlike oral language, which entails a comparably â€Å"universal set of

Investigation Of Beta In Bric Economy - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 2044 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Economics Essay Type Research paper Did you like this example? Beta is the risk associated with an asset in relation to the market underlined. The developing countries/emerging economies such as Brazil, Russian, India, and China (BRICs) are playing important role in the world economy as producers of goods and services. The BRIC countries are expected to grow at a rate of more than 8 percent for next several years. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Investigation Of Beta In Bric Economy" essay for you Create order The main purpose of this research is to focus on these fast growing economies and work out the betas of these BRIC markets. A particular focus is given on the Indian market as India is one of the main contenders in BRIC economies. Indiaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s GDP is expected to be 35 times of its current level. Taking into account the performance of the economy over the years and keeping in mind the study of Goldman Sachs (2003), Indian markets are predicted to be the most developed one by 2050. This report also covers the objectives and the methodology i.e. the Single Index Model, which the research will follow and finally it concludes as the stated objectives will be covered and the research will be concluded by August 2010. Introduction: Beta in general term means an assetà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s risk in relation to the market or a benchmark. It is measured by using short-term return intervals. An asset with beta of 0 means that it is not correlated with the markets. A positive beta shows that the asset is correlated to market and it follows the market. A negative beta shows that the asset is negatively correlated to the market. Beta is known as financial elasticity or correlated volatility. Literature review: According to Hodges; Taylor ; Yoder (2003) Beta of stock and bond portfolios change drastically with time. Therefore it is difficult to find beta of for intended horizon. They prove that betas calculated from annual returns cannot be used for lond period as it changes with time. Single period betas are useful when the investment horizon matches the holding period which is considered to find the returns. Generally single index pricing is used to model the structure of returns. However, Solnik (1974), suggests that a single index model may fail to capture international and domestic risks and, hence, a multi index model which takes into consideration both factors would be more appropriate. The presence of both risks that influence assets indicate that neither a purely domestic nor purely international beta of a security would be a complete measure of systematic risk. But on the other side, Bartholdy and Riding (1994) used the Dimson and Scholes and Williams methods on NZ data to corre ct for beta biases. They found that the two beta-correcting methods have no add on efficiency compared to standard OLS estimators and concluded that OLS estimators are more efficient and are more closure to relevant data. We therefore adopt the simple OLS beta estimation in this study. Ragunathan; Faff; Brooks (2000) found that the relative to the domestic index, betas were always significant while the betas relative to the international indices were not always significant. The BRIC countries are expected to grow at a rate of more than 8 percent for next several years. The developing countries/emerging economies such as Brazil, Russian, India, and China (BRICs) are playing important role in the world economy as producers of goods and services and increasing capital. The four countries went through major transformational changes in their economic structure. Though BRICs countries followed a sustainable growth path to integrate them self among globalised economy. After a lot of soc io-economic transformations in the twentieth century all these countries were replaced by gradual integration in the global economy in the 1980s and 1990s. In recent times, there is a surge in the global economy particularly in BRICs countries due to economic liberalisation. According to Bharadwaj (editor) the BRIC countries have many good things going in their favour. China is a leader in manufacturing powerhouse in the world and India is number one for services sector (In information technology area),while Russia and Brazil have abundant natural resources. Companies from countries like China and India have intended global ambitions various fields like information technology, industrial production, service sector, etc. BRIC countries have showed global geopolitical leadership in various regions. The new and good changes in economic policies have boosted the developing economies like China, India, Brazil and Russia. Among these countries a new economy is emerging and if the cu rrent growth level is maintained they will become the global economic player in near future. Wilson, D. and Purushothaman, R. in their paper suggest that in the coming decades large developing countries like the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) will become a great force in the world economy from its current level even above the expectations the investors currently anticipate. It is evident that from the onset of the 21st century more than a third of the worldà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s growth has originated in these countries. So, the rise of new powerhouse economies in the developing world can shift the equation of global economic order is predicted by Bloomberg (2007). It is also projected that the BRICs economies as a whole could be larger than the G6 in future. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Thus the BRIC thesis recognizes that Brazil, Russia, India and China have changed their political systems to embrace global capitalism. Moreover, Brazil, Russia, India and China have long been a favou rable destination of emerging market investors.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬? By Farah, Paolo(2006) This is optimistic for economic growth and huge investment may come to the BRICs in coming decades. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The spur in economic growth there is a great requirement of broad analysis to get the perfect image of the BRICs economic progressà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬? Kumar, Fodea (2007). That is the main purpose of this research, to find the betas of these developing economies and forecast them. In year 2006 India has been worldà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s second fastest growing economy. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Every year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, there is a superstar. Not an individual but a Nation as a whole. One country impresses the gathering of global leaders because of a particularly smart Finance minister or a compelling tale of reform. In the decade that Ive been going to Davos, no country has captured the imagination of the conference and dominated the conversation as India in 2006.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬? ( Fareed Zakaria, News week issue dated Mar 6, 2006) . Chinas economy has risen by almost 10 percent since 1980Indias is a tale of future, which is coming into sharp focus. In the study by Goldman Sachs (2003)shows that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“ in coming 50 years, India will be worldà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s fastest growing economy (largely because of its young workforce). The report suggests that in 10 years Indias economy will be larger than Italys and in 15 years larger than that of Britains. By 2040 the worlds third largest economy. By 2050 it will be five times the size of Japans and its per capita income will have risen to 35 times its current level. Predictions like these are a treacherous business, though its worth noting that Indias current growth rate is actually higher than the study assumed.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬? Thus we can see from the above information that there is lot of potential of making money in this BRIC economies over coming years. But care has to be taken regarding the risks and hence, I would like to carry out this project to investigate Beta of these economies. With a particular focus on the Indian economy. Objectives: The objectives of this thesis are to use the data of BRIC markets and interpret them to answer the following questions What is the beta of BRIC economies? What is the forecasted beta of the BRIC economies? What is the performance of sectors in individual economies? We hope that the outcome of this research will answer these questions and help the investors who wish to invest into these economies. Data: The data to conduct this research will be taken from Bloomberg and the exchanges of the four BRIC economies: Brazil Russia India China The focus of this research is to find the beta of these markets and compare them, the weekly prices from 2000 to 2008 will be used. Methodology: The research method of this project will be of a quantitative one. The data required will be secondary data. We will mainly interpret this data to find out beta of each market. We will further remove beta of the different sectors and compare the performance of each sector with that of whole market. Single-Index Model: For our research we will mainly use Single-Index Model. So firstly, we will use the regression equation of the Single-Index model. This can be done by using the past data of the markets and trying to find out systematic risk. As this model is linear, we can estimate the sensitivity (beta) coefficient of a security, Ri= ri-rf The regression equation is: Ri(t)= ÃŽÂ ±i+ ÃŽÂ ²iRm (t) +ei(t) Where the intercept of this equation (denoted by the greek letter alpha,ÃŽÂ ±) is the securityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s expected return which is excess, when the excess return of the market is zero. The slope coefficient ÃŽÂ ²i is the beta of the security.Thus w e can find beta. Beta is the securityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s sensitivity to the index. The Expected Retun-Beta Relationship: As E(ei)=o we can get value of E(ri), thus we can get a new equation return-beta relationship with the help of single index model. E(Ri)= ÃŽÂ ±i+ ÃŽÂ ²iRm The above equation explains that the securityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s risk premium is due to risk premium of the index. The market risk premium is multiplied by the beta or sensitivity. It is also called systematic risk premium. Any reminder is given in the form of alpha. It is also called as non market premium. To explain this in a simple example, if the value of alpha is positive which means that the security is underpriced, or in other words there is a chance to earn an extra premium. As the price of the security is brought to equilibrium the value of alpha is driven to zero. Thus this is how a relation can be established between Return and Beta. Thus by using the above Single-Index Model we c an find betas of particular markets and we can also find betas of particular sectors of that market. Once this is done we can try to compare the results of that of Indian market with rest of BRIC economies. Conclusion / Expected outcome: The expected outcomes of the project research are: A beta value for BRIC economies. The forecasted beta of BRIC economies. Sector vise beta of the economy. With the help of these information investors can make a good decision regarding their investments into these booming economies. They will be able to make the most of these markets. Time Line: I will be following a time-line to complete this research. I intend to collect all my data by May using Bloomberg and the exchanges of respective markets. By June and July I will be interpreting and analyzing the collected data. I assume that I will finish this research by end of August. Refrencing: Asness, C. S. (1996) Why not 100% equities?, Journal of Portfolio Management, 22, 29à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å"34. Bartholdy, J. and A. Riding (1994), Thin trading and the estimation of betas: The efficacy of alternative techniques, Journal of Financial Research, 17/2, Summer, 241-254. Bodie, Kane, Marcus (Eds.). (2008). Investments (8th ed.) Mcgraw hill. C Kenneth Jones. (1992). Portfolio management McGraw-hill. Choi, Fu. (2005). The dual-beta model: Evidence from the new zealand stock market. Department of Finance, Waikato Management School, Dr. Avaneendra Misra. India getting better. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1214202 Fodea, Kumar, Perspective on ec onomic growth of BRIC countries: A case of brazil and india. HODGES, TAYLOR, YODER. (2003). Beta, the treynor ratio, and long-run investment horizons. Applied Financial Economics, (8), 503à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å"508. KLEMKOSKY, MARTIN. THE ADJUSTMENT OF BETA FORECASTS.NO. 4(SEPTEMBER 1975). Pogue G and Solnik B. 1974. The market model applied to European common stocks: Some empirical results. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 9:17-944. Prashanth N. Bharadwaj. (2007). BRIC Countriesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ A competitive analysis. Robert A. Levy. On the short-term stationarity of beta coefficients Financial Analysts Journal(27 (November-December 1971)), 55-62. Scholes, M. and J. Williams (1977), Estimating betas from nonsynchronous data, Journal of Financial Economics, 5, 309-327. Sromon Das. Testing the stability of beta over market phases an empirical study in the indian context. VANITHA RAGUNATHAN, ROBERT W. FAFF, ROBERT D. BROOKS. (2000). Australian industry beta risk, the choice of market index and business cycles.10, 49-58.