ASHA, 11/15/07, Boston
ADDRESSING DIALECT DIFFERENCES: ADVANCES IN POLICY, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE
Hollis S. Scarborough, Haskins Laboratories [[email protected]]
Nicole Patton Terry, Georgia State University & Haskins Laboratories [[email protected]]
Darion M. Griffin, American Federation of Teachers [[email protected]]
A reawakening of interest in dialect differences has been spurred by the persistence of racial and socioeconomic “gaps” in literacy
achievement and by recent findings of strong links between dialect differences and reading difficulties of African American students.
This session covers new policy initiatives for addressing dialect differences, and results of new research on dialect and literacy
development in the preschool and early school years. Implications for theory and for changes in practice will be considered, and the
important roles that SLPs can play in this effort will be discussed.
I.
GOALS & BACKGROUND (Scarborough)
A. Description (Table 1) of African American English (AAE).
B. Review of evidence for achievement gaps in recent NAEP and NWEA data (Fig. 1) and the need to address
them from the start of literacy development (Fig. 2).
II.
NEW POLICIY INITIATIVES: STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS (Griffin)
Review of Recent Policy Statements (See Table 2 for web sites.)
ASHA (1983, 2000, 2002)
IRA (International Reading Association) Standards for Reading Professionals (2003) and
Certificate of Distinction standards (2007)
AFT (American Federation of Teachers) Resolution on Beginning Reading Instruction (1998)
NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English) Core Values and Benefits (2000),
CCCC Resolution (1974), Position on Affirming the CCCC Resolution (2003),
CEE (Conference on English Education) statement (2005).
NBPTS (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards) Reading-Language Arts Standards for
Teachers of Students Age 3-12 (2002)
California Department of Education, Reading/Language Arts Framework (for 2008)
NCLB (No Child Left Behind) draft reauthorization language (2007).
III.
NEW RESEARCH FINDINGS RE: DIALECT DIFFERENCES AND READING ACHIEVEMENT (Scarborough)
A. Variation in Young Children’s AAE Usage
1. Morphosyntactic vs. Phonological Features of AAE (Sentence Imitation task; see Table 3 & Figure 2.)
2. Age, Socioeconomic, Geographic & Modality Differences in Usage (Sentence Imitation, DDM, DELV)
B. Relationship of AAE Usage to Early Reading
1. Concurrent and Longitudinal Prediction of Reading from AAE Usage. (See Figure 3.)
2. Explaining the Relationship
(a) Teacher bias against AAE usage leads to lower quality instruction and reduced expectations.
(b) Mismatches between oral AAE forms and written (SAE) forms impede learning to read.
(c) New findings that challenge the Mismatch Hypothesis
-- Evidence for a more complex relationship (Connor & Craig, 2006, 2007)
-- Evidence for good receptive knowledge of SAE by young AAE speakers on tasks
requiring Acceptability Judgments (Figure 4) and Pseudoword Imitations (Figure 5) of
dialect-sensitive test items (Scarborough & Terry, 2006; Terry & Scarborough, 2007)
(d) A Linguistic Awareness/Flexibility Hypothesis (Figures 6-7)
IV.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SLPs: ASSESSMENT, INSTRUCTION, & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (Terry)
A. Dialect Sensitive Assessment of Oral and Written Language
1. Terminology, Principles, and Choices (Figure 8)
2. Distinguishing Speaking, Writing, and Reading Errors from Dialect Differences (Figure 9)
B. Literacy Instruction: How SLPs can Contribute and Work with K-3 Teachers (Figures 10-12)
1. New Approaches to Addressing Dialect Differences in Literacy Instruction
2. Professional Development of Teachers on Dialect Differences and Literacy Instruction
Acknowledgments
Our research was supported in part by NICHD Program Project Grant HS-01994 and NIH Grant DC-07548 to Haskins Labs, and by grant
R215U990010 from the U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement to the American Federation of Teachers.
We also thank the many colleagues, research assistants, teachers, staff, students, and parents for their valuable contributions to the work.
Page 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Table 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH (AAE)
AAE (aka “Black English,” “Ebonics,” “African American Vernacular,” etc.) is a dialect that is spoken, in at least some settings, by most
African Americans. AAE has many grammatical and phonological features (see list below) that make it different from SAE (the so-called “Standard”
American English). Some of these features are also associated with other regional/cultural dialects of American English. What distinguishes AAE
from SAE is the frequency with which certain characteristic features occur, rather than their mere presence or absence.
AAE is not an impoverished version of SAE but rather a separate but equivalent system. Linguists consider AAE to be as complex and
rule-governed as SAE but with some alternative rules and conventions for expressing the same syntactic relationships and semantic content.
.
SOME COMMON FEATURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AAE AND SAE
Phonological & Morpho-syntactic Features
Examples
Saying /w/ instead of /r/ or /l/
Saying another consonant (f,v,s,z,t, or d) instead of a “th” sound
Saying “aks” instead of “ask”
Saying “skr-“ for “str-”
Saying “ah” for "ie," or "aw" for "oy"
Using short I and short E interchangeably
Saying /d/ for S preceding an M or N
Shifting stress to the first syllable of a word
Leaving out a consonant phoneme
Inserting a /d/ or /t/ before a past-tense suffix
Pronouncing an -ing suffix as -in
Condensing a verb+ to phrase (simple infinitive)
Alternative personal, possessive, reflexive pronouns
Inflecting a word that is irregular in SAE
Using negative concord (“double negatives”)
Using the word a rather than an before a vowel
Not producing a copula or auxiliary verb
Using a copula or auxiliary that doesn't match subject in number
Not producing a plural or possessive /-s/ or /-z/ suffix
cawed - called, lawd - lord, faw - four
dis - this, wif/wiv - with, breave - breathe, anudder/anuvver - another
She aksed me a question.
scrong - strong, screet - street
pronounced the same in AAE: tar - tire, ball - boil
pronounced the same in AAE: pin - pen; bit - bet
idn’t - isn’t, bidness - business
PO-lice – po-LICE, UMbrella - umBRELLa
uh - of, fie - five, lan’ - land, lef’ - left, fi’ty - fifty, firs’ - first, plenny - plenty
walkted, smellded, washted
takin’- taking
gonna - going to, hafta - have to
Them/dem can sing. - They can sing. they house - their house. hisself-himself.
womens - women, feets -feet, mens - men, him’s face - his face, hadded - had
He didn’t get none/nothing - any/anything. Nobody didn’t come – Nobody came.
a egg - an egg, a ugly dog - an ugly dog
They going . - They are going. She crazy - She is crazy.
They is/was lying - They are/were lying. She weren’t there. - She wasn’t there.
five dollar - five dollars, the dog tail - the dog's tail
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Some of these features are unique to AAE, but many are also produced in various other American dialects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Table 2. WEB ADDRESSES FOR RECENT POLICY STATEMENTS
AFT (American Federation of Teachers) Where We Stand: K-12 Literacy [www.aft.org/topics/reading/index.htm]
California State Department of Education, 2008 Reading/Language Arts Framework [www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/frmwkcomparison.asp]
IRA (International Reading Association) Standards for Reading Professionals [http://reading.org/downloads/resources/545standards2003/index.html]
NBPTS (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards) Reading-Language Arts Standards for Teachers of Students Age 3-12
[http://mbpts.org/the_standards_by_cert?ID=23&x=38&y=5]
NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English)
Statement on Anti-Racism to Support Teaching and Learning [http://ww.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/div/127095.htm]
Core Values and Beliefs [www.ncte.org/about/core/111610.htm]
Affirming the CCC Students’ Right to Their Own Language [www.ncte.org/about/positions/category/div/114918.htm]
CEE: Supporting Linguistically & Culturally Diverse Learners in English Education [www.ncte.org/groups/cee/positions/122892.htm]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Table 3. The 15 “SNACK TIME” SENTENCES (bold = 19 grammatical items; underlined = 18 phonological items; italics = 17 memory items).
P. 1 This is Joe. The girl behind him is called Lisa. She is Joe’s best friend.
P. 2 Joe rides his bike down the street really fast. Lisa pushes hard because she is trying to keep up with Joe.
P. 3 Both of the kids are very hungry, so they are going to make themselves a snack. First, they must wash their hands in the bathroom.
P. 4 In the kitchen, Lisa spreads peanut-butter on two slices of bread. Joe pours himself some milk without spilling any.
He poured another glass for Lisa.
P. 5 Then Joe asked, “Isn’t there any jelly?” Lisa answered, “We don’t have any jelly so let’s have raisins instead.”
P. 6 Lisa used raisins to draw a flower on her peanut butter. Joe decided to make an elephant with an open mouth and strong legs.
P. 7 Joe thinks that the snacks are now ready to eat.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
Figure 1. A New Look at the Achievement Gaps.
Figure 4. Judgments of Acceptability of Robots’ Word Pronunciations
by 4- to 6-year-old Children Who Varied in AAE Usage
(Scarborough & Terry, 2006; Terry & Scarborough, 2007).
NWEA Study of Achievement Gaps
(McCall et al., 2006)
% of
Students
Grade 3 Reading Score Distributions
(N = 96,731)
richest third
poorest third
Acceptability Judgments Task: Results
Both groups accepted nearly every SAE version.
European American
African American
100
90
Low-AAE
Group
High-AAE
Group
AAE versions were mostly
accepted, and not much
more often by High-AAE
than Low-AAE students.
80
70
60
50
Reading Scores
Reading Scores
Reading scores vary widely in all groups, with much overlap (checkerboard).
But relatively more disadvantaged and African American students earn
low scores, and relatively fewer of them earn high scores.
Most speech errors
were rejected. (No deficit!)
40
30
20
10
0
SAE AAE Spch
SAE AAE Spch
% Judged to be Acceptable (“Okay”)
Young AAE speakers are very
knowledgeable (receptively)
about the SAE pronunciations
of familiar names, even if they
don’t often produce them.
Figure 2. Wide Variation among African American Kindergartners in
AAE Feature Usage in Sentence Imitation (Charity et al., 2004).
Figure 5. Imitation of Pseudowords.
78 African-American Students from Low-SES Schools in 3 Cities
% of Children
30
Pseudoword Imitation: Targeted Portion
Grammatical
Features
M = 52%
20
verbatim SAE
correct in neither dialect
On dialect-neutral items, the groups performed almost identically.
10
Low-AAE
0
% of Children
AAE substitution
High-AAE
Phonological
Features
M = 57%
20
On dialect-sensitive items (which were more difficult) the High-AAE
group often substituted an AAE form for the SAE form when imitating.
10
Low-AAE
0
0-10
High-AAE
11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100
% of Times the AAE Form was Produced in Lieu of the SAE Form
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% of Responses
70
80
90
100
To do that, they must have been able to identify SAE forms for which a
particular alternative pronunciation can be used in AAE! So they must
understand these systematic relationships between the dialects.
Figure 3. Relationship of AAE Usage to Reading in a Low-SES
Sample of African American Students (Charity et al., 2004).
Reading
(WRMT-R Word Identification W Score)
Children who used more AAE features tended to have
lower reading achievement.
r = -.45
500
Phonological 480
Features 460
440
Grammatical
Features
500
420
400
r = -.58
480
460
20
40
60
80
100
440
420
400
380
360
0
20
40
60
80
100
72 urban, low-SES
African American
first grade students
(similar for K & 2nd).
% AAE in Lieu of SAE (in Sentence Imitation)
Figure 6. Inferences drawn from the available research results (Terry &
Scarborough, 2007).
Figure 9. Assessing Written Spelling (Terry, 2006)
If they are receptively bi-dialectal,
then as beginning readers,
AAE-speaking children
may need to learn to
pay more attention to their
lexical knowledge
than to speech itself.
Attaining this
meta-linguistic insight
may be a key to
successful reading
acquisition by
dialect-speaking children.
Try to match
THIS ONE
to print.
toofpase
OR
toothpaste
Sentence Dictation Task: Results
Accuracy spelling final consonant clusters [N = 52]
100
Low-AAE
Group
90
80
“toofpase”
High-AAE
Group
70
The High-AAE
group made more
AAE-related
errors.
60
BUT, children in
both groups had
difficulty spelling
final consonant
blends.
50
40
30
20
Ironically, teachers usually encourage students to focus on speech,
which may be counter-productive for AAE-speaking children.
10
0
Correct
AAE Non-AAE Correct
error error
Grade 1
AAE Non-AAE
error error
Grade 2
Figure 7. A New Hypothesis about the Relationship of Dialect
Differences to Reading Achievement
Linguistic Awareness/Flexibility Hypothesis
(Charity, Scarborough & Griffin, 2003; Connor & Craig, 2006, 2007;
Scarborough & Terry, 2006; Terry & Scarborough, 2007).
Children who are more “tuned in” to language realize that spoken words
are made up of smaller elements (phonemes, affixes, morphemes), that
sentences have internal grammatical structure, and so forth. Such insights
(“phonemic awareness,” “syntactic awareness,” etc.) are very helpful to
all children who are learning to read, and linguistic awareness correlates
well with early literacy skills.
Linguistic awareness probably also promotes familiarity with other
dialects (“dialect awareness”) and expressive flexibility in “code-switching”
between dialects – e.g., between AAE and SAE – across different settings.
According to the hypothesis:
For dialect-speaking children, producing many SAE features in a
formal setting may be a sign of linguistic awareness.
Producing predominantly AAE features in formal settings, however,
could indicate that a child’s linguistic awareness is not well developed;
and that’s a known risk factor for reading difficulties.
Terry (2006)
Page 4
Figure 10. Literacy Instruction: Theory Into Practice
LINGUISTICALLY-INFORMED
LITERACY INSTRUCTION
If current practice is based on the mismatch
hypothesis (which assumes that AAE speakers
don’t know SAE), then it makes sense to change
curriculum to teach SAE.
However, if new findings indicate that AAE
speakers do know SAE, then we need to teach
our students to be meta-linguistically aware of
language, in general, and language variation,
specifically.
A caveat: We are very cautious in
saying what this instruction should
look like because we have yet to
clarify the relationship between
dialect variation and literacy skills.
Figure 8. Assessment Choices
ASSESSMENT CHOICES
Standardized
Assessments
• May have content or
linguistic bias
• You can modify them:
– omit items
– use modified scoring
rubric
– increase the number of
practice items
– test beyond ceiling
Criterion-referenced
Assessments
• Create your own, or use:
– Minimal Competency Core
(Stockman, 1996)
– Complex Syntax (Craig &
Washington, 1995)
– Curriculum-based measurement
– Developmental spelling
inventory
– DELV—Criterion Referenced
Test
• BUT, modifications may • BUT, interpretation depends
affect validity of test and
on developmental data, and
little available on child AAE.
changes interpretation.
Figure 11. On Teaching Linguistic Awareness
The good news...
– SLPs already know how to teach language
awareness.
[Who knows more about language than you do?]
– There is some evidence that teaching awareness is
beneficial for all students.
The challenge...
Because we gain much of our meta-linguistic
awareness through explicit instruction, how do
you get teachers to do this, especially in K-3?
Figure 12. Professional Development: Keys to Success
Some suggestions for converting others
1. ANTICIPATE AND OVERCOME RESISTANCE: help them...
• study variation in their own language styles
• understand language itself
2.
ADDRESS LANGUAGE, POWER, & IDENTITY: help them:
• discuss ideologies explicitly and reflect on their own beliefs
• consider pedagogical implications
• develop an additive attitude
3.EMPHASIZE PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATIONS: give them...
• hands-on practice
• dialect variation as a resource (not just tolerated but used)
• evidence that children benefit from learning about dialect
diversity
Know your audience! Avoid politically-charged terminology.
.
Page 5
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000). Guidelines for the Roles and Responsibilities of the School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist
[www.asha.org/policy].
Bland-Stewart, L. M. (2005, 5/3). Difference or deficit in speakers of African American English: What every clinician should know…and do. ASHA Leader, 6-7,30-31.
Charity, A. H. (2005, January). Regional differences in African-American Children’s Speech in a formal Setting. Linguistic Society of America, Oakland, CA.
Charity, A. H. (2007). Regional differences in low SES African-American children’s speech in a school setting. Language Variation and Change, 19:1-13.
Charity, A. H, Scarborough, H. S., & Griffin, D. M. (2004). Familiarity with “School English” in African American children and its relationship to early reading
achievement. Child Development, 75, 1340-1356.
Connor, C. & Craig, H. (2006). African American preschoolers’ language, emergent literacy skills, and use of AAE: A complex relation. JSLHR, 49: 771-792.
Connor, C. & Craig, H. (2007, March). African American preschoolers’ language and emergent literacy skills and use of African American English: A complex relation.
Society for Research in Child Development, Boston.
Craig, H. K. (in press) The importance of effective language instruction for African American children. In S. B. Neuman (Ed.) Literacy achievement for young children
from poverty. Baltimore: Brookes.
Craig, H. K. & Washington, J. A. (1995). African American Englihs and linguistics complexity in preschool discourse: A second look. LSHSS, 26: 87-93.
Craig, H. K. & Washington, J. A. (2004). Grade-related changes in the production of African American English. JSLHR, 47: 450-463.
Craig, H. K. & Washington, J. A. (2005). Malik Goes to School: Examining the Language Skills of African American Students from Preschool to 5th Grade. Erlbaum.
Craig, H. K. & Washington, J. A. (2006). Recent research on the language and literacy skills of aAfrican American students in the early years. In D. K. Dickinson &
S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research, vol. 2. NY: Guilford.
Cross, J. B., DeVaney, T. & Jones, G. (2003). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward differing dialects. Linguistics and Education, 12, 211-227.
Delpit, L. & Dowdy, J. K. (Eds.) (2002). The Skin That We Speak: Thoughts on Language & Culture in the Classroom, New Press.
Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal,
individual growth curves analysis. J. Educational Psychology, 88: 3-17.
Godley, A., Sweetland, J., Wheeler, R, Minnici, A., & Carpeter, B. (2006). Preparing teachers for dialectically diverse classrooms. Educational Researcher, 35: 30-37.
Green, L. (2003). Syntactic and semantic patterns in child African American English. Texas Linguistic Forum, 47:55-69.
Harris, J. L., Kamhi, A. G., & Pollock, K. E. (2001). Literacy in African American communities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jackson, S. C., Roberts, J. E., Wolfram, W., Terry, M., Renn, J., & Nelson, L. (2007, March). Dialectal forms of African American children in relation to language and
literacy development. Society for Research in Child Development, Boston.
Kamhi, A. G., Pollock, K. E., & Harris, J. L. (1996). Communication development and disorders in African American children: Research, assessment, and
Intervention. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Labov, W. (1995). Can reading failure be reversed: A linguistic approach to the question. In V. Gadsden & D. Wagner (Eds.), Literacy among African American
Youth (pp. 39-68). [Hampton Press]
Laing, S. P. & Kamhi, A. (2003). Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. LSHSS, 34: 44-55.
Lazar, A. M. (2007). Investigating African American language in literacy education courses. In D. W. Rowe, R. T. Jimenez, et al. (Eds.), 56th Yearbook of the National
Reading Conference. Oak Creek, WI: NRC, Inc.
Lease, S. (2007, 9/4). Teaming up for literacy in the schools. ASHA Leader, 12(12): 30-31.
McCall, M. S., Hauser, C., Cronin, J., Kingsbury, G. G., & Hauser, R. (200). Achievement gaps: An examination of differences in student achievement and growth.
Northwest Evaluation Association technical report, downloadable at www.nwea.org/assets/research/national.asp
McGregor, K. K., Williams, D., Hearst, S., & Johnson, A. C. (1997). The use of contrastive analysis in distinguishing difference from disorder: A tutorial. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 6:45-56.
Paul, R. (2007). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Assessment and Intervention, 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby.
Scarborough, H. S. (1998a). Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: Contributions of phonemic awareness, verbal memory,
rapid serial naming, and IQ. Annals of Dyslexia, 48: 115-136.
Scarborough, H. S. (1998b). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. K.
Shapiro, P. J.. Accardo, & A. J. Capute (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75-119). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Scarborough, H. S., Hannah, D., Charity, A. H., & Shore, J. (2004). Distinguishing dialect differences from reading errors in oral text reading by speakers of
African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). In A. Pincus (ed.), Tips from the experts: A compendium of advice on literacy instruction from educators and
researchers (pp. 113-117). [International Dyslexia Association, NJ Branch.]
Scarborough, H. S., & Terry, N. P. (2006, July). Precision of phonological representations of dialect differences: Preliminary findings. Presentation to the Society for
the Scientific Study of Reading, Vancouver.
Seymour, H. N., Bland-Stewart, L. & Green, L. J. (1998). Difference versus deficit in child African American English. LSHSS, 29, 96-108.
Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T. W., & de Villiers, J. (2005). Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation - Screening Test. Harcourt Assessment.
Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T. W., & de Villiers, J. (2005). Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation - Criterion-referenced Test. Harcourt Assessment.
Siegel, J. (1999), Stigmatized and standardized varieties in the classroom: Interference or separation? TESOL Quarterly, 33:701-728.
Smitherman, G., & Villanueva, V. (2000). Language knowledge and awareness survey: Final research report. Urbana, IL: Conference on College Composition and
Communication, National Council of Teachers of English.
Stockman, I. J. (1996). Phonological development and disorders in African American children. In A.G. Kamhi, K. E. Polloc & J. L. Harris (Eds.), Communication
Development and Disorders in African American Children (pp. 117-153). Baltimore: Brookes.
Terry, N. P. (2006) Relations between dialect variation, grammar, and early spelling skills. Reading and Writing, 19: 907-931.
Terry, N. P. (under review). Dialect variation and early spelling skills: An examination of children's representations of AAE phonology in spelling. LSHSS.
Terry, N. P., & Scarborough, H. S. (2007, March). Phonological representations of words by children who speak African American English: Relationships to early
reading skills. Society for Research in Child Development, Boston.
Thompson, C. A., Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2004). Variable production of African American English across oracy and literacy contexts. LSHSS, 35:269-282.
Washington, J. A. & Craig, H. K. (1998). Socioeconomic status and gender influences on children’s dialectal variations. JSLHR, 41: 618-626.
Washington, J. A. & Craig, H. K. (2001). Reading performance and dialectal variation. In J. L. Harris, A. G. Kamhi, & K. E. Pollock (Eds.), Literacy in African American
Communities, pp. 147-168. Erlbaum.
Washington, J. A. & Craig, H. K. (2002). Morphosyntactic forms of African American English used by children and caregivers. Applied Psycholinguistics 23:209-231.
Washington, J. A., Craig, H. K., & Kushmaul, A. J. (1998). Variable use of African American English across two language sampling contexts. JSLHR, 41: 1115-1124.
Wheeler, R. S. & Swords, R. (2006). Code-switching: Teaching Standard English in Urban Classrooms. NCTE [www.ncte.org].