(eBook PDF) Handbook of Individual

Differences in Reading: Reader, Text,

and Context
Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-handbook-of-individual-differences-in-rea
ding-reader-text-and-context/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

(eBook PDF) Personality and Individual Differences 3rd

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-personality-and-
individual-differences-3rd-edition/

Children's Thinking: Cognitive Development and

Individual Differences 6th Edition (eBook PDF)

http://ebooksecure.com/product/childrens-thinking-cognitive-
development-and-individual-differences-6th-edition-ebook-pdf/

Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence

5th Edition John Maltby - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/personality-individual-
differences-and-intelligence-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Company Law in Context: Text and Materials:

Text and materials 2nd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-company-law-in-context-
text-and-materials-text-and-materials-2nd-edition/
(eBook PDF) Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader
12fth Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-elements-of-argument-a-
text-and-reader-12fth-edition/

(Original PDF) Moral Reasoning A Text and Reader on

Ethics and Contemporary Moral Issues

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-moral-reasoning-a-
text-and-reader-on-ethics-and-contemporary-moral-issues/

From Inquiry to Academic Writing: A Text and Reader 4th

Edition (eBook PDF)

http://ebooksecure.com/product/from-inquiry-to-academic-writing-
a-text-and-reader-4th-edition-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Translational Medicine in CNS Drug

Development, Volume 29

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-translational-medicine-
in-cns-drug-development-volume-29/

Progress in Heterocyclic Chemistry Volume 29 1st

Edition - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/progress-in-heterocyclic-
chemistry-ebook-pdf/
 Contents

Foreword, ANNE CUNNINGHAM AND KEITH STANOVICH xi

Preface xv
Acknowledgments xvii

1 An Overview of Individual Differences in Reading: Research,

Policy, and Practice 1
Peter Afflerbach

2 Identifying Individual Differences in Reading: What Are We

Looking For? 13
Emily Fox and Liliana Maggioni

3 Metacognition 26
Marcel V. J. Veenman

4 Engagement and Motivational Processes in Reading 41

John T. Guthrie and Susan Lutz Klauda

5 Self-Efficacy, Agency, and Volition: Student Beliefs and

Reading Motivation 54
Dale H. Schunk and William D. Bursuck

6 The Role of Epistemic Beliefs in the Comprehension of Single

and Multiple Texts 67
Ivar Bråten, Helge I. Strømsø, and Leila E. Ferguson

7 Individual Differences in Phonological Awareness and their Role

in Learning to Read 80
Jamie M. Quinn, Mercedes Spencer, and Richard K. Wagner

8 Individual Differences in Word Recognition: Reading Acquisition

and Reading Disabilities 93
Jamie L. Metsala and Margaret D. David

vii
Contents

9 Reading Fluency 107

Paula J. Schwanenflugel and Melanie R. Kuhn

10 Complexities of Individual Differences in Vocabulary Knowledge:

Implications for Research, Assessment, and Instruction 120
Michael J. Kieffer and Katherine D. Stahl

11 Individual Differences in Reading Comprehension 138

Paul van den Broek, Jolien M. Mouw, & Astrid Kraal

12 Prior Knowledge: Acquisition and Revision 151

Panayiota Kendeou and Edward J. O’Brien

13 Higher Order Thinking in Comprehension 164

Danielle S. McNamara, Matthew E. Jacovina, and Laura K. Allen

14 School Contexts and the Production of Individual Differences 177

Julie E. Learned and Elizabeth Birr Moje

15 Classroom Influences on Individual Differences 196

Richard L. Allington and Rachael Gabriel

16 Discursive Contexts, Reading, and Individual Differences 209

Peter Johnston and Gay Ivey

17 Language Differences that Influence Reading Development:

Instructional Implications of Alternative Interpretations of the
Research Evidence 223
Jim Cummins

18 Individual Differences in Reading History 245

Bruce VanSledright

19 Individual Differences in the New Literacies of Online Research

and Comprehension 259
Donald J. Leu, Carita Kiili, and Elena Forzani

20 Family Matters: Home Influences and Individual Differences in

Children’s Reading Development 273
Jennifer D. Turner, Maria E. Crassas, and Pamela H. Segal

21 Influences of the Experience of Race as a Lens for Understanding

Variation in Displays of Competence in Reading Comprehension 286
Carol D. Lee

viii
 Contents

22 The Influence of Poverty on Individual Differences in Reading 305

Alpana Bhattacharya

23 Constructions of Difference: How Reading First, Response

to Intervention, and Common Core Policies Conceptualize
Individual Differences 318
Sarah L. Woulfin

24 The Role of Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity

on Reading Comprehension Ability 331
Chantel S. Prat, Roy Seo, and Brianna L. Yamasaki

25 Individual Differences in Perceptual Processing and Eye

Movements in Reading 348
Keith Rayner, Matthew J. Abbott, and Patrick Plummer

26 Cognitive Processing and Reading Comprehension: Issues of

Theory, Causality, and Individual Differences 364
Ralph E. Reynolds, Byeong-Young Cho, and Amy Hutchison

27 Individual Differences Relations and Interrelations: Reconciling

Issues of Definition, Dynamism, and Development 377
Sandra M. Loughlin and Patricia A. Alexander

List of Contributors 394

Index 397

ix
This page intentionally left blank
 Foreword

Perusing the chapters in the Handbook of Individual Differences in Reading: Reader, Text and Context
got us in a historical state of mind as this book’s appearance will mark thirty-five years since
the present two writers embarked on our own studies of individual differences in reading
development. Work in the field was extremely sparse then, not interdisciplinary at all, and fairly
narrowly focused. This wonderful volume edited by Peter Afflerbach certainly demonstrates
that we have come a long way since then and that all three of these deficiencies have been
largely remedied. Areas that had just been opened up in the 1980s are now dense with detailed
findings and important theoretical developments. Areas of study that barely existed in the 1980s
are now fields with strong momentum. All are represented in the volume.
In a volume of such diversity and such quality it is hard to think of “value added” comments
that might have some generality as opposed to being applicable to only a couple of selected
chapters. Two generic points do come to mind though. They represent two issues that we
discussed over thirty years ago that at the time were largely unrecognized in reading theory.
The two interrelated issues do in fact receive more attention now, although perhaps still not as
much as they should.
One of our oldest admonitions to the field was that models of reading development must
be used to constrain theories of individual differences, and must be used in addition to constrain
models of reading disability. That is, speculations about the causes of individual differences in
reading acquisition need to be constrained by a specified model of the reading acquisition process
itself. Confusion reigned in our field throughout the 1970s and 1980s because studies of individual
differences had uncovered a plethora of information processing tasks on which the performance
of skilled and less skilled readers differ. However, the field was not allowing any of these to be
“killed off” in a Popperian sense because they were not convergent with an emerging consensus
on a developmental model of reading. Byrne (1992) articulated the problem very cogently:

One thing that could be said about this rather long list of possible causes of reading
problems is that it is needed, because reading is multifaceted and because there are many
kinds of problems. This is a standard line of reasoning . . . [but] given the uncertainty about
a typology of reading difficulties and given that fewer explanatory constructs than reading
problems may be needed, there may well be too much explanatory power for the job at
hand. A way is needed to constrain the power. Economy of explanation characterizes the
scientific endeavor and should be invoked in this branch of science. It is possible that the
explanatory power available could be constrained if it were required that each of the many
hypothetical causes of reading problems fits a well-worked-out account of the acquisition
procedure (p. 3).

xi
Foreword

At the time Byrne wrote, few papers in the reading literature had attempted the type of integration
that he recommended: fitting the empirical research on individual differences into a model of
the acquisition process. Most investigators had either focused on developing generic develop-
mental models of stages that all children traverse, or they had concentrated on looking for patterns
of correlations in studies of individual differences. The field gradually spawned more of the
type of synthesis that Byrne recommended, and the fruitful results can be seen in this volume
(see Afflerbach, Chapter 1, for a discussion of the evolution of conceptualizations of individual
differences in reading, and Loughlin & Alexander, Chapter 27, for a discussion of the complex
relations and interactions of individual differences).
Our own early sporadic attempts at this type of synthesis (Cunningham, 1990; Stanovich,
1986; Stanovich, Cunningham, & Cramer, 1984) proved to us how difficult this type of
comprehensively convergent theory was to execute. The 1986 Matthew effects paper did receive
flattering attention, but even it confused some readers by moving back and forth between issues
of development and issues of individual differences. A decade later, Bast and Reitsma (1998)
still thought it was necessary to clarify things. They made a very useful distinction between the
Matthew effect and the Matthew effect model. The former refers to the fan-spread effect on
variability with time—that over time, the variability in reading and reading-related cognitive
skills increases. The term “fan spread” is not a technical term, but rather a jargon term used in
this literature to refer to situations where the variability in a performance metric increases with
age. In contrast, as Bast and Reitsma pointed out, a Matthew effect model

attempts to account for these fan-spread effects. The fan spread is, however, simply one
component of the Matthew effect phenomenon. The most important feature of the model
as proposed by Stanovich (1986) is the underlying developmental pattern that causes the
outcome. The phenomenon of increasing achievement differences is hypothesized to be
caused by a specific developmental pattern of interrelations between reading skills and other
variables.
(Bast & Reitsma, 1998, p. 1373)

The distinction made by Bast and Reitsma (1998) is useful because much of the attention
subsequent to the Matthew paper had focused on the fan-spread effect itself, whereas we were
always equally concerned with the developmental model, regardless of whether a fan-spread
exists for certain skills or not. In short, the issue of reciprocal causation involving reading
experience is not totally coextensive with the issue of the fan-spread effect. It is possible for
reading experience to be a causal factor in cognitive growth whether or not it is a cause of a
fan-spread. For instance, if a student is motivated to read, they will read more frequently. Reading
volume is a major factor for the development of vocabulary, facilitating reading comprehension
and hence as reading becomes more efficient, levels of print exposure should further increase.
In another example highlighting the social emotional aspects of reading, when learning to read
comes easily, students often enter into a positive feedback loop leading to feelings of success
and competence. This sense of self-efficacy fosters increased interest to explore the worlds of
books independently, yielding affective identification as a reader that leads to increased persistence
in the face of difficult text. The reminder by Bast and Reitsma to clarify the distinction between
the Matthew effect and the Matthew effect model leads to the second, and related, point of context
for the present volume: that the factors affecting the variability in a skill are not necessarily the
same factors related to its mean level, as will be discussed below.
Of course, this point is often a caveat to heritability studies of reading and reading-related
cognitive skills. It is important to remember that heritability (an individual difference concept)

xii
 Foreword

does not imply lack of malleability (a concept referring to the absolute level of performance).
The sometimes confusing difference between when a study is addressing variability in a skill
and when a study is discussing the absolute performance level for a particular task can make
our literature difficult to read. Being sure to keep the implications drawn from these studies
consistent can be a difficult task. Consider an example related to Matthew effects.
Schools create opportunities for learning and for acquiring critical skills and knowledge. But
children then proceed to use those skills outside of school. The differential reading skills thus
acquired enable differential bootstrapping of further vocabulary, knowledge, and cognitive
structures outside of school (one of the key points from the 1986 paper). These bootstrapped
knowledge bases then create further individual differences that become manifest in differential
performance as children grapple with subsequent in-school content and skills. For example,
Stanovich (2000) discussed studies finding that the summer period, when the children are not
in school, accounts for more of the gap between the high-achieving and low-achieving students
than does the period when the children are actually in school. It is important to note though,
that this research (showing fan spread over the summer) does not at all contradict the research
showing unique effects of the school year on cognitive development (Frazier & Morrison, 1998;
Morrison, Alberts, & Griffith, 1997). The latter is focused on the mean levels of cognitive skills,
whereas the former concerned changes in the variability. It is perfectly possible for mean levels
of skills to be more affected during the school year rather than the summer and for the summer
to be the main cause of the variability in those skills.
One can easily imagine a (simplified) Matthew-like model that could account for such an
effect. If during school the cognitive growth of all children is occurring and during the summer
the growth for only a subset of children is occurring, then mean levels will be increasing to a
greater extent during the school year. However, if the particular children who are displaying
growth during the summer are precisely those children who are already reading voraciously
(and hence continue to read during the summer) and whose achievement is already at the top
of the distribution, then the further growth spawned by the summer reading that these children
do will increase overall variance.
In short, when deriving policy implications from studies of reading acquisition and studies
of reading difficulties, it is important to keep the domains that we have discussed here clearly
differentiated. That is, it is important to be clear when a study has implications for generic models
of reading development and when a study has implications for individual differences. Relatedly,
many nontargeted educational interventions may be generically efficacious in that they raise the
absolute level of performance, but the same educational interventions might well increase the
variability among children. In fact, this is the most common finding in educational research
(Ceci & Papierno, 2005).
Things that raise everyone’s level of performance also tend to be things that make the rich
richer—they are generally efficacious in the sense that they help everyone, but they help the
advantaged even more than the less advantaged. This is an inconvenient truth of educational
psychology. We would like, in fact, to have the opposite. We would like to raise everyone’s
level but at the same time close achievement gaps, that is, reduce variance in achievement.
There are profound philosophical questions raised by the fact that absolute levels of performance
and variability are most often positively correlated (Ceci & Papierno, 2005). We will not begin
to grapple with these questions until we are clear about the fact that developmental models and
absolute levels are conceptually distinct from variability and models of individual differences.
Fortunately, the chapters in this wonderful volume grapple with and begin to address these
issues. An impressive array of international scholars have identified and discuss the complex
nature of individual differences and their impact on reading and its development in this volume.

xiii
Foreword

The reconceptualization of individual differences in reading has broad implications for the field
ranging from how we regard the constructs of reading and reading development, the nature of
reading curriculum and instruction, the outcomes of effective reading instruction, and assessment
and evaluation of students’ reading growth and levels of achievement.

Anne E. Cunningham
University of California, Berkeley
Keith E. Stanovich
University of Toronto

References
Bast, J., & Reitsma, P. (1998). Analyzing the development of individual differences in terms of Matthew
effects in reading: Results from a Dutch longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1373–1399.
Byrne, B. (1992). Studies in the acquisition procedure for reading: Rationale, hypotheses, and data. In P.
B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 1–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ceci, S. J., & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: When the “have-nots” gain
but the “haves” gain even more. American Psychologist, 60, 149–160.
Cunningham, A. E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 50, 429–444.
Frazier, J. A., & Morrison, F. J. (1998). The influence of extended-year schooling on growth of
achievement and perceived competence in early elementary school. Child Development, 69(2), 495–517.
Morrison, F. J., Alberts, D. M., & Griffith, E. M. (1997). Nature–nurture in the classroom: Entrance age,
school readiness, and learning in children. Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 254–262.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York:
Guilford Press.
Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Cramer, B. (1984). Assessing phonological awareness in
kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 175–190.

xiv
 Preface

Individual differences in reading are of interest for research, policy, and practice: the examination
of difference across the history of reading research provides a compelling account of how readers
vary, and a compelling warrant for continued inquiry. Well over a century ago, William James
(1890) notes that individual differences are a key to understanding how people vary in their
ability at the same task:

An unlearned carpenter of my acquaintance once said in my hearing: “There is very little

difference between one man and another; but what little there is, is very important.” This
distinction seems to me to go to the root of the matter (p. 24).

This volume is developed in the spirit of honoring the notion that individual differences are,
indeed, very important.
There are several purposes to this volume. First, it is intended to provide a representative,
state-of-the-art account of the diverse individual differences that are involved in acts of reading,
and in students’ reading development. Thirty years ago, Stanovich (1986) proposed the Matthew
effect—an explanation of the rapid, even exponential growth exhibited by accomplished student
readers. While Stanovich focused on cognitive components of reading, including comprehension
and vocabulary, he noted the need for ongoing research to (1) continue to identify relevant
individual differences in reading; (2) determine the relationship(s) of individual differences to
reading development; and (3) account for interactions among individual differences. The chapters
in this volume address developments in each of these areas. The volume also describes the environ-
ments in which individual differences in reading may emerge, operate, interact, and change.
The volume is also intended to provide prima facie evidence of the benefit of broad
conceptualization of the ways in which readers differ. Recent educational policy, influenced
by the Report of the National Reading Panel, embodied in the No Child Left Behind
legislation, and realized in the Reading First program, focuses narrowly on the cognitive strategies
and skills associated with reading. Similarly, high stakes tests at state, national, and international
levels reinforce the primacy of reading strategies and skills. While these skills and strategies are
requisite for reading development and success (Stanovich, 1986), they do not represent all of
readers’ consequential individual differences. Nor do strategy and skill fully explain developing
readers’ success or failure. For example, attending to individual differences in students’ self-
efficacy or motivation to read can have significant, positive effect.
The lack of comprehensive accounting of individual differences in reading is reflected in the
nature of reading programs, the outcomes that are expected from successful teaching and learning,
and the manner in which reading development is assessed. It is my hope that this volume
contributes to a fuller accounting and appreciation of individual differences in reading, and better
understanding of how individual differences matter in students’ reading development.

xv
Preface

References
James, W. (1890). The importance of individuals. The Open Court, 4, 24–37; reprinted in The will to believe
and other essays in popular philosophy (1897; reprinted, New York: Dover, 1956).
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.

xvi
 Acknowledgments

This volume owes much to my many colleagues in reading. I am particularly grateful to Peter
Johnston and Dick Allington—at the beginning of my formal study of reading at the University
of Albany, both influenced my thinking about readers who struggle and excel, and the individual
differences that feature. At the University of Maryland, my work with Michael Pressley exam-
ined the necessity of strategies, and the essential of positive affect for reading success. John Guthrie
created compelling instruction at the intersection of cognitive strategies, and motivation and
engagement. Patricia Alexander’s model of domain learning allowed for conceptualizing reading
development on several trajectories, including the cognitive and affective. Pat also provided
important counsel and advice as I developed the prospectus for this volume. P. David Pearson
and I presented several research sessions on evolving understandings of individual differences
in reading, and these sessions directly informed the development of this volume. The questions,
discussions, and projects of undergraduate and graduate students at the University of Maryland
have had a beneficial influence on my thinking. Naomi Silverman provided ongoing
encouragement, insight, and enthusiasm as the volume progressed. Lastly, I thank each of the
authors involved in this project. They undertook this task with insight and vigor that are palpable
in each chapter. Their work was a pleasure to read, and to learn from.

xvii
This page intentionally left blank
 1
An Overview of Individual
Differences in Reading
Research, Policy, and Practice
Peter Afflerbach

In this chapter I describe the promise and challenge related to individual differences in reading.
The promise emanates from a continuing interest in identifying individual differences and their
origins, and in describing their influence on reading development. The challenge relates to the
fact that individual differences in reading are narrowly conceptualized in reading education policy,
and in related testing and reading instruction programs. This chapter has two main sections. In
the first, I overview central and historic themes in theory and practice related to students’
individual differences in reading. I begin with a brief overview of a century’s worth of interest
in individual differences. I examine attributions made to nature, nurture, or both as sources of
difference, and the influence of environments on readers’ individual differences. Following, I
focus on the distinction between cognitive and affective aspects of individual differences. I then
turn to the dynamic nature of individual differences—how they interact, how they influence
acts of reading, and how they are influenced by acts of reading. The second section of the
chapter describes the disconnection between current understanding of individual differences in
reading, and educational policy, testing, and classroom instruction. I describe how individual
differences in reading are narrowly conceptualized in consequential legislation and reading
curriculum, and the influence of testing on reading policy and practice.
Throughout the chapter, I liberally sample from original sources: I believe the manner in
which individual differences have been described across the past century adds to our
understanding of the evolution of conceptualizations of these differences. These sources also
illustrate the critical links between research and practice that are necessary for identifying and
addressing developing student readers’ differences.

Ongoing Development of Our Understanding of Individual

Differences
Individual differences in how people do things have been a focus of psychology for centuries,
and accounts of variation in human behavior are richly told with an individual differences
narrative. In 1868, Peirce investigated factors that are shared by “great men,” and that influence

1
Peter Afflerbach

individual’s development. Peirce identifies individuals’ ancestry and birth order, family
background and childhood, physical stature, peculiarities, general health, levels of education,
precociousness, work habits, and motivation and drive. He uses the resulting data to theorize
the relationships of individuals’ differences with their accomplishments. Peirce’s work focuses
on specific individual differences, including those from the physical, cognitive, affective and
social realms. Peirce presages the interest on how individual differences develop, as well as future
investigations of their often-complex interactions.
In one of the first investigations of students’ individual differences in reading, Theisen (1920)
reviews the use of reading test scores to identify differences:

The results of standardized tests have everywhere revealed wide differences in reading ability.
They have shown decided variations in such factors as rate of reading, knowledge of
vocabulary, ability to gather thought from the printed page, and ability to read orally
(p. 560).

With the above observation, Theisen frames students’ individual differences in relation to factors
that contribute to reading ability. From this perspective, it is possible to designate a student as
different, and to specify the difference. Theisen’s observation anticipates that across the history
of the construct, the conceptualization of individual differences will skew strongly towards reading
strategies and skills. Following, Moore (1938) situates individual differences in the classroom,
focusing on students’ reading development, specifically reading readiness:

readiness involves many different factors in which a typical pupil is unevenly advanced. At
the present time we do not know what weight to give to each and every characteristic
. . . There are certain causes of individual differences which have received less attention
than they seem to deserve. These causes briefly are: (1) variation in intelligence, (2) in
sensory equipment, (3) in physical equipment, (4) in language ability, (5) in rate of learning,
(6) in response to motivation, (7) in sex, and (8) emotional control (p. 164).

The above list reflects Moore’s deconstruction of the reader and identification of areas in which
individual differences exist. It is a preliminary proposition that individual differences in reading
may result from nature, or nurture, or an interaction of the two. Moore notes that certain “causes”
of individual differences receive less attention than others. His list of differences leans decidedly
towards organic, “born with” differences such as sensory equipment, physical equipment, and
gender. Importantly, Moore notes that individual differences may reside in both cognitive and
affective realms.
Moore (1938) is also one of the first to acknowledge that as the identification of individual
differences continues, and as descriptions of the array of individual differences in reading are
elaborated, this knowledge should be accompanied by a theory of how to “weight” the differ-
ences. Determining the role and value of individual differences, and their centrality to reading
and reading development, is a work in progress. Moore notes that the lack of theory of how
to assign importance to individual differences creates challenge in conceptualizing classroom
practice that effectively addresses the differences:

All teachers realize to some degree the range of abilities found in every class group. We
know that we can expect to find a range of reading ability of at least three grades from the
first to the third and at least five or more grades for pupils in the grades from the third through
the eighth grade. Despite these general facts few of us have a definite guiding philosophy
as to what should be our attitude towards the differences we know to exist (p. 165).

2
 Overview of Individual Differences in Reading

Attention to individual differences continues. Consider Cunningham and Stanovich’s (1998)

questions, reflecting decades of inquiry into how readers develop, and how individual differences
impact that development:

Given that life-long reading habits are such strong predictors of verbal cognitive growth,
what is it that predicts these habits? We’ve been looking at reading volume as a predictor
of reading comprehension and cognitive ability, but what predicts reading volume or avid
reading? (p. 146).

The above excerpt reminds that there are many possible relationships between the particular
individual differences. Cunningham and Stanovich (1998) further describe how individual
differences are situated in and impacted by the instructional environment:

Further exacerbating the problem is the fact that less-skilled readers often find themselves
in materials that are too difficult for them . . . The combination of deficient decoding skills,
lack of practice, and difficult materials results in unrewarding early reading experiences that
lead to less involvement in reading-related activities. . . unrewarding reading experiences
multiply; and practice is avoided or merely tolerated without real cognitive involvement
(p. 137).

Thus, the study of individual differences and the determination of their obvious or subtle
influences on reading are enhanced by consideration of the environments and contexts in which
individual differences develop.

The Influences of Nature and Nurture on Individual Differences

How individual differences develop, and their influence on reading, are key questions for research
and practice. Artley (1981) suggests that reading development is impacted by a mixture of
individual differences emanating from both nature and nurture: they are “inherited and
acquired.” He describes the need for reading instruction to address these individual differences,
as opposed to focusing on imaginary and elusive mean performance targets among children of
the same age:

In fact, the history of elementary education during the last 75 years has been concerned
in one way or another with ways to cope with the multitude of issues growing out of the
fact that children of the same chronological age are different by virtue of their inherited
and acquired characteristics (p. 142).

Strang (1961) shares this sentiment, suggesting that individual differences in reading derive from
nature and nurture, and from the interactions of students with their reading environments. She
introduces a broad array of reader characteristics that can influence both single acts of reading,
and an individual’s overall reading development. In doing so, she establishes categories for inquiry
into individual differences that remain valid to this day:

getting meaning from the printed page is a biopsychological process that is influenced by
the individual’s ability, his experiences, his needs, his attitudes, his values, and his self-concept.
Each individual interacts with the total reading situation in accord with his unique pattern
of characteristics. His memory of each experience with reading further influences his
perception of, and his response to, each new situation (p. 414).

3
Peter Afflerbach

Strang anticipates the paradigmatic movement from behaviorism to information processing and
cognition. She even suggests that students’ metacognition (a concept not yet so-named)
influences individual differences, with memory of past reading experiences influencing current
and future reading acts. She also proposes the mutability of individual differences based on
interactions between organisms and their environments (e.g., students in classrooms and in reading
groups; Bronfenbrenner, 1979):

Thus, the psychology of reading has become more complex since the early days of the
stimulus-response theory. The influence of the individual, his abilities and background, has
been inserted between the stimulus and the response; the S-R bond has become the S-O-
R bond, or the stimulus-organism-response bond. Moreover, we recognize that the
individual does not learn in isolation but is influenced by the complex social network in
which he lives and learns (p. 414).

Going forward, an important focus for research is the individual differences that are stable within
individuals, and those that are influenced by factors in the reading environment. The dynamics
of these differences, how they operate to influence reading and how they influence reading,
are deserving of researchers’ attention. In addition, the environments in which reading occurs
figure largely in how inherent individual differences are accommodated, and in how reading
skills and attitudes are nurtured.

Cognition and Affect in the Conceptualization of Individual

Differences
Throughout the history of research on individual differences in reading there is a focus on the
cognitive (see Cunningham and Stanovich, this volume). Many studies examine individual
differences in the systems that support cognition, such as attention, memory and vision. There
is also considerable research on individual differences in readers’ strategies and skills that are
supported by these systems, including phonemic awareness, sound–symbol correspondences,
fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
In contrast, the study of affect as an individual difference in reading is more recent, and less
prevalent in the research literature. Motivation and engagement and self-efficacy are examples
of individual differences where thick threads of affect are woven through cognitive operations.
In addition, metacognition interacts with affect in reading, as readers build understandings not
only of their cognitive operations, but also of their emotional states before, during, and after
reading.
Moore (1938) focuses on both cognitive and affective phenomena involved in children’s
reading test-taking. The following description is notable for the attention given individual
differences in affect that are interwoven into the students’ experience, and the perennial
concerns with the influence of testing on children:

“In testing children in this study the examiners were impressed with the intense effort put
forth by most of the children in trying to name or to write letters. The efforts were often
painful to observe: sustained frowning, alternate squirming and rigidity of body, pointing
tensely, labored breathing, grunting, whispering, and even weeping.” Can you not visualize
the great variation, the marked difference in the children studied?
(Wilson, cited in Moore, 1938, pp. 163–164)

4
 Overview of Individual Differences in Reading

Hunt also catalogs difference, and student attitude is considered a key individual difference.
However, he maintains the focus on cognitive individual differences:

Actually, from the first day of Grade 1, the teacher meets an ever widening range of ability
and background. First-grade children differ greatly in their language facility, knowledge of
stories, experiences with materials, visual discrimination, general information, and attitudes
towards reading and school.
(Hunt, 1952, p. 417)

The skewing of attention towards cognitive individual differences continues to this day. The
long-running conversation about the roles, power, and relationships of cognition and affect in
learning is often dominated by cognition (e.g., Lazarus, 1984; Zajonc, 1984). This imbalance
is reflected in contemporary reading curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Thus, determining
and addressing students’ individual differences in strategy and skill are common targets of
educational policy and reading programs. For example, reading instructional programs contain
detailed approaches to teaching sound–symbol correspondences, but lack detailed approaches
to helping students develop self-efficacy as readers. Individual differences in student affect often
receive less “official” notice, although attending to them is a hallmark of successful teaching
(Dolezal Welsh, Pressley, & Vincent, 2003). While research on individual differences in affect
is less common than research on cognitive differences, it is rarer still that affect-related research
results inform reading policy and large-scale curriculum initiatives.

Individual Differences in Readers Interact and Influence Reading

Individual differences can interact, and their effects can be pronounced or muted.
Strang (1961) describes the intertwining of differences during reading diagnosis, and how
these differences may interact to further influence a student’s reading development:

The child’s responses may be influenced by his anxiety in a strange situation, by his having
to say “I don’t know” to many questions, and by the depressing sense of failure as the
items become harder. Lapses in attention may lower the child’s score. Emotional situations
and associations may throw him off the track. If he wants very much to read better
immediately, he may feel annoyed at not being given instruction in reading. Other interests
and sheer fatigue may also influence his responses unfavorably (p. 418).

Strang reminds us that it is not sufficient to identify and address isolate individual differences.
Better to best understand how differences interact within the individual. Betts’ (1940)
observations of student readers experiencing reading frustration are strikingly similar to those
noted by Strang, and signal that acts of reading are influenced by affect:

as the typical pupil becomes increasingly frustrated, he may exhibit tension, movements of
the body, hands, and feet, he may frown and squint, and he may exhibit other types of
emotional behavior characteristic of a frustrated individual (p. 741).

The interaction of readers’ individual differences and their influence on reading achievement
are famously accounted for in Stanovich’s portrayal of Matthew effects in reading (1986; see
also Merton, 1968). Conducting a synthesis of research on the development of young readers’
cognitive strategies and skills, Stanovich attributes superior reading development to “reciprocal

5
Peter Afflerbach

relationships—situations where the causal connection between reading ability and the efficiency
of a cognitive process is bidirectional” (p. 360). When the Matthew effect is operating, the rich
get richer. Initial success with reading begets ongoing success: increased reading experience
provides more practice with strategies and skills, and prior knowledge accrues as readers
encounter new information. All contribute to future reading performance. However, struggling
readers experience a related phenomenon: the poor stay poor. We might call this a “reverse
Matthew effect.” Initial, and then ongoing, lack of success at reading is related to different
individual differences, and can lead students to a cognitive and affective crossroads, with
struggles to construct meaning and little or no inclination to try to read:

Readers of differing skill soon diverge in the amount of practice they receive at reading
and writing activities. They also have different histories of success, failure, and reward in
the context of academic tasks. The long-term effects of such differing histories could act
to create other cognitive and behavioral differences between readers of varying skill . . .
There is already some evidence suggesting that differences in self-esteem, rather than being
the cause of achievement variability, are actually consequences of ability and achievement
(p. 373).

Stanovich anchors the Matthew effect to individual differences in cognitive strategies and skills,
and domain knowledge. However, the above account acknowledges the influence of differences
in affect on students’ reading development, including motivation and self-esteem, and suggests
that future investigations focus on both cognition and affect.
Ongoing research contributes to our understanding of the interactions between readers’
individual differences. Consider, for example, research related to readers’ self-efficacy that indicates
that an increase in readers’ self-efficacy is often paired with an increase in motivation
(McCrudden, Perkins, & Putney, 2005). Higher self-efficacy is related to enhanced reading
comprehension and achievement (Solheim, 2011). High achieving students possess high self-
efficacy; they make fewer attributions for their performance to external causes that include task
difficulty, luck, and teacher help (Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995). Correlational evidence charts
the relationship between self-efficacy and epistemic beliefs (Phan, 2008). Following the thread
from self-efficacy, epistemic beliefs influence achievement, as they can promote engagement in
learning and persistence at challenging tasks (Afflerbach, Cho, & Kim, 2014; Schommer, 1994).
Metacognition involves monitoring and evaluating processes that can influence students’
epistemic understanding (Richter & Schmid, 2010), and sophisticated epistemic beliefs lead readers
to engage in elaborated metacognitive processes (Pieschl, Stallmann, & Bromme, 2014).
To summarize, there is an ongoing evolution in our understanding of individual differences
in reading, and their influences on acts of reading and reading development. Differences exist
within individual readers; the provenance of difference may be traced to nature, nurture, or
both. Individual differences may be shaped by reading environments, including those in homes
and classrooms. Individual differences are evinced in both the cognitive and affective realms of
reading, although the historic narrative of readers’ individual differences is dominated by
cognition. The dynamic nature of individual differences, their developmental trajectories, and
their interactions, are increasingly comprehended. These differences can interact in a manner
that is beneficial, or detrimental to reading. As we learn more about the nature and origin of
individual differences, we better understand their role in acts of reading, and in reading
development. Given this wealth of knowledge about readers’ individual differences, I next focus
on how, and if, they are a focus of educational policy and practice.

6
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 We passed a week at Russell & Sturgis’s hong, and had a very
pleasant time exploring the curious city under the charge of one of
his native clerks, who took us into many of the labyrinths of the “Old
City” not usually penetrated by the Fanquis, as they called their
foreign visitors.
We made many purchases of curios, at prices that would now
seem marvelously low, and returned to Hongkong, at the expiration
of our visit, loaded down with presents for our friends at home.
Our lading was completed and the hatches calked down early in
October, and we sailed on the 10th of the month, in time to take
advantage of the northeast monsoon. We were favored with light
winds from N. N. E. to N. E. after passing the Great Ladrone, and on
the 30th entered Banca Straits, where the wind veered to the
southeast and fell very light.
At night we anchored; and as that part of the Malayan coast in
those days bore an unenviable reputation for pirates, I not only
maintained a regular sea watch, but divided the time with Captain
Archer, so that one of us in turn should be on deck all night. And to
this precaution, as it turned out, we owed our subsequent
preservation from a great peril.
Just before daylight Captain Archer came to me, where I was
sleeping on the break of the poop, and aroused me, saying that there
were some suspicious looking sails in sight.
I sprang up, and although it was not yet light I could readily see
with my night glass two proas coming out from under the land a few
miles to the northward.
I at once ordered all hands called, and as the wind had got round
northeast, although still light, I immediately got under weigh and
made all sail. Meanwhile the proas were standing down toward us,
and as the daylight broke it was evident that they were full of men.
The Mystic, as was quite common in those days, carried a couple
of 24-pounders, with a fair amount of ammunition, and we had, in
addition to the ship’s muskets, the rifles I had purchased in fitting out
the schooner at Valparaiso, when I started in pursuit of my runaway
ship. So we were unusually well prepared in that direction, and,
having Captain Archer’s crew, we were nearly doubly manned.
 Still, so far as force was concerned, we were outnumbered by the
Malays in the proas five to one. For we could see that they fairly
swarmed with men, and it was evident that in a hand-to-hand fight
we should have much the worst of it. It would never do to let them
get on board of us.
“We shall have to fight those devils, Kelson,” said Captain Archer,
“unless the breeze freshens pretty quickly. They are gaining on us
hand over hand; and they are getting out sweeps now, I believe. Yes;
by Jove they are!” he exclaimed, looking through his glass. “It won’t
do to let them get alongside; there are two of them, and they will take
us on both sides and carry us by sheer force of numbers! Hadn’t we
better open the ball?”
“Yes; I think that fellow ahead is already within safe range. You
look out for the ship, and I will try my hand at a shot or two. Now, sir;
luff her up carefully, but don’t get her aback, and I will bring this gun
to bear!”
The old gentleman went aft and took his stand by the wheel. “Put
your helm down, my man; look out, Captain Kelson! Let draw the
head sheets! Meet her with the helm; meet her!”
The Mystic came up in the wind, the head sails flapped; I watched
my chance, got a good sight with the gun, which was loaded with a
solid shot, and pulled the lock-string!
As the smoke blew to leeward I sprang on the rail, and as our ship
payed off and the sails filled, the foremast of the leading proa
snapped off a few feet above the deck and fell overboard with a
great crash, dragging with it the heavy lateen sail!
“Good shot, Kelson!” shouted Captain Archer from the poop; “that
fellow has got his hands full of work and is out of the game for the
present!” And our men set up a hearty cheer at this sudden and
unexpected discomfiture of our adversary.
We supposed that the other proa would heave to and go to the
assistance of her companion, but that evidently was not her
intention, for she passed her without pausing, and with her sweeps
out and heavily manned she bore rapidly down upon us.
I ordered the starboard gun run over on the port side and tried
several shots at the approaching proa, but, although I hit her once, I
did not seem to inflict any very serious damage, so I had both guns
loaded with shrapnel and langridge, and determined to have the fight
out at closer quarters.
Stationing both my officers and the carpenter, who was a splendid
shot, on the quarter-deck with rifles, I ordered them to pick off the
men who seemed to be the leaders, and then waited for the
approach of the proa.
When she had crept up within easy rifle range, I luffed the ship up,
as before, and getting a deliberate aim at the crowded deck,
depressed the guns and fired them at the word, both at once, point
blank, reloading and repeating the dose before the smoke of the first
discharge had cleared away.
The effect of this murderous fire, at such close quarters, upon the
crowd massed upon the proa’s deck was terrific, and the slaughter
was frightful. Yet, by some strange chance, the captain, a tall,
vicious-looking Malay, stripped to the waist and waving a naked
kreese to encourage his followers, had escaped uninjured, and was
shouting to his men, to rally them, with the evident intent of boarding
us.
Captain Archer had meanwhile filled our ship away, but the wind
was light, and before we had fairly gained headway the proa, with
sweeps out, shot under our starboard quarter, and a grapnel thrown
from her caught in our mizzen channels.
The pirate captain at once sprang forward, and, with his kreese in
his mouth, scrambled up our side, followed by a score of his men,
and gained the poop deck of the ship!
Abandoning our battery, we gathered in the waist, and I called to
the carpenter to pick off the Malay captain. He nodded, and, taking a
careful sight, fired, and the Malayan fell dead among his men. Our
other riflemen were meanwhile dropping those of the proa who had
followed their captain.
Just then the wind freshened, and by great good fortune the proa’s
grapnel disengaged itself and she dropped astern.
Calling upon my men, we made a dash upon the few remaining
Malays and fairly drove them overboard. I then put the helm down,
and as we came round on the other tack and gathered headway, I
stood down on the proa, a good wrap full, and striking her fair and
square amidships cut her to the water’s edge.
Our victory was now complete, and as the first proa, having
disentangled herself from the wreck of her foremast, was coming
down, with sweeps out, to rescue the survivors of her consort, I
made all sail and kept on my course, leaving them to their own
devices.
The next day we fell in with a Dutch man-of-war brig, lately out
from Batavia. I reported the affair to her, and she made all sail for the
straits in hopes of capturing the pirates, who, if they were caught,
would have received a short shrift, for the Dutch were very active in
the suppression of piracy in those waters.
The 15th of November we passed through the Straits of Sunda
and laid our course to the westward. The wind continued generally
from the southeast, but it was extremely variable, and on the 18th it
increased to a brisk whole sail breeze, attended with showers and
occasional squalls.
That night the barometer went down in a most astonishing manner
and the sea rose without any seeming cause, for the wind was not
heavy, while the air was close and the temperature unusually sultry.
“What do you think of it, Captain Archer?” said I, as we both
looked at the barometer in the cabin.
“I think we are about to have some nasty weather. It would not
surprise me if we caught the tail end of a typhoon.”
“That is exactly my idea, captain, and I hope you won’t laugh at me
when I tell you that I am going to take in sail and prepare for it!”
“Not a bit of it, my dear fellow. An ounce of prevention may be
worth tons of after care. With such a low barometer as that, you are
justified in doing anything for the safety of your ship.”
I went on deck at once. “Mr. Ireson,” said I to the chief mate, “call
all hands, send down all three of those royal yards, and house the
masts. Take in the main-topgallant sail, close-reef the topsails, and
put a reef in both the courses. And don’t waste any time about it, sir.
The glass is very low and still falling, and I believe that we shall have
some heavy weather before morning.”
 The mate looked rather surprised at these orders, but he saw that I
was in earnest and proceeded to carry them out. The wind soon
commenced freshening, but with our double crew the work was
speedily accomplished, and by the time that all was snug the wind
had chopped round and came out howling from the southward and
eastward. In consequence of our timely preparation, however, we
were ready for it.
The gale continued to increase, and on the third day we hove to
under close-reefed main-topsail and reefed foresail, under which sail
the ship made good weather, although the sea was running very
heavily indeed.
Just before midnight the wind suddenly fell, and for a few minutes
it was almost calm. It was intensely dark, the sky was as black as
night, not a star was seen through the dense clouds, and the sails
flapped in an ominous manner.
Then, in a moment, as though all the powers of the wind-god had
been loosed, the gale struck us with infernal force, accompanied with
torrents of rain and the most vivid chain lightning, which played about
the ship till it seemed as though she must be on fire; the thunder
pealing like a park of artillery!
The two sails we had set bellied, and with one flap fairly blew out
of the bolt ropes. For a moment I thought the ship would surely
founder, for she went almost on her beam ends, trembled like a live
thing, and then, relieved by the loss of the sails, slowly recovered
herself and came up again to the wind.
I had been in many severe gales in these latitudes, but I had never
experienced anything like the tremendous power of this wind: the
waves were fairly beaten down, which had been running half mast
high after the three days’ heavy gale.
With the aid of a dozen men we succeeded with great difficulty in
getting a stout tarpaulin in the weather mizzen rigging, and this was
quite sufficient to keep the ship’s head to the wind.
One by one every sail in the ship was blown from the yards,
although they were furled, and, in some cases, storm-furled with
extra gaskets. But the wind seemed to cut like a knife, and we could
see by the lightning flashes the long ribbons of canvas streaming out
and then disappearing to leeward. Had I not seen this I would not
have believed it possible.
All of us, officers and men, were lashed to the weather rail,
absolutely helpless, so far as our own exertions were concerned,
and utterly unable to communicate with each other, as no trumpet
could be heard above this wild discord of the winds and waves. No
man dared leave his place lest he should be washed or blown
overboard.
At about two o’clock in the morning we shipped a heavy sea, and
two large, full water casks lashed amidships broke adrift and dashed
from side to side, with every roll of the ship, with appalling violence,
threatening to stave in our bulwarks.
It seemed certain death for any one to attempt to secure these
casks, and yet it was equally certain they would do us great mischief
if they were permitted to dash about in this manner.
At last one of them became temporarily blocked by some spare
spars and coils of rope in the lee scuppers, and the carpenter, with a
life-line attached to his waist, succeeded in staving in one of the
heads of the cask, thus rendering it harmless. Watching his
opportunity when the other cask came over to leeward, he was
equally fortunate and staved it also, to our great relief.
The ship, meanwhile, was laboring very heavily, straining and
groaning as she pitched and rolled, as helpless as a log in the heavy
trough of the sea, and it was evident that her seams were opening,
as we found on sounding the well that there was more than a foot of
water in the hold.
“Pray God the gale may break with daylight, Kelson,” said Captain
Archer, who was lashed close to me, as he saw the sounding rod
drawn up from the pumps.
“Yes, sir, the old barkey won’t stand many more hours of this
hammering and twisting. If the gale doesn’t break with daylight I fear
we shall never see Boston again!”
With difficulty I worked my way into the cabin, to look at the
barometer we had been consulting so anxiously all night. It had
certainly stopped falling! Yes, and better still, the surface of the bulb
was at last convex! That was at least hopeful. I returned to the deck
and reported the news to my companion.
“Yes,” said he; “I really believe the wind has gone down a bit. It is
scarcely perceptible yet, but I think I can notice a slight difference for
the better. Can’t you sound the pumps again?”
The carpenter again got the sounding rod down, and we anxiously
watched his face by the light of the lantern as he measured the wet
place on the iron.
“The water has only gained a scant inch, sir,” he reported.
That was reassuring; so we waited more hopefully for morning,
and as the first gray light of dawn showed in the east the gale began
to moderate, and by eight o’clock we were able to get about the
decks again and commence to clear up the wreck.
We found, on inspection, that all our sails were blown away with
the exception of the jib and main-trysail. In addition, the three
topgallant masts had been carried away, the head of the mizzen
topmast was gone, and the fore yard was badly sprung in the slings,
while the starboard, or lee quarter boat, had been washed from the
davits.
Fortunately we had a new suit of sails below, that I had been
keeping for use in coming on our coast in the winter season. These
we got up and bent; new topgallant masts were fitted and sent aloft
from our spare spars; the fore yard was fished, and by night we were
standing on our course all a-tanto again.
We passed the Cape of Good Hope a couple of weeks later, and
on Christmas Day we anchored in the roads off the island of St.
Helena. Here we sent down the fore yard and bought a new spar on
shore and had the bends calked by carpenters, while we overhauled
and refitted our rigging with the ship’s crew. This work detained us
for a week at the island.
As this was my first visit to St. Helena, I made the usual pilgrimage
to Longwood and to Napoleon’s grave. The remains of the great
Emperor had been removed to France by the Prince de Joinville a
few years before, in 1840, but there were several people on the
island who remembered him perfectly during his residence at
Longwood, and it was very interesting to listen to their stories and
personal reminiscences of General Bonaparte, as they usually called
him.
Our repairs completed, we sailed and had a fine run till we came
on the coast, when we encountered some heavy weather and head
winds, but at last we got a favorable slant, and on Washington’s
Birthday, February 22, we sighted Cape Ann Light, and the following
day anchored off Commercial Wharf after a voyage of fifteen months,
which had been full of adventure and had more than once promised
to be most disastrous in its outcome. But thanks to divine
Providence, I had been enabled to finish it in safety and with success
for myself and my employers.
 PART II

IN THE NAVAL SERVICE

 CHAPTER I

THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR

In 1859, after seventeen years of almost continuous sea service,

for during all that time I had never been on shore more than two
months at any one time, I determined to abandon the sea and pass
the remainder of my life on shore.
The fact that I had just taken to myself a wife was, no doubt, a very
potent factor in bringing me to this decision, which was strengthened
by a favorable opportunity being presented just then for investing my
savings in a safe commercial enterprise in Boston.
So I fell in with it, rented a nice little house in a pleasant suburb
within sight of the gilded dome of the State House, and there set up
my lares and penates.
At first this radical change from the free and easy habits of a sea
life to the more rigid conventional routine of a mercantile career
rather irked me, but by the end of a year I had shaken down into my
new rôle, and should probably have become reasonably well
contented to pass the remainder of my days in a ’longshore life, had
it not been for the march of events, which, in bringing about the
upheaval of a nation, sent me off on salt water again.
Early in April, 1861, the North was startled by the news of the
attack upon Fort Sumter by the Southern forces, which followed so
quickly after the secession of South Carolina, and on the 19th of the
month the excitement in Boston was sent up to fever heat by the
telegrams announcing the cowardly attack upon the Sixth
Massachusetts Regiment by the Baltimore roughs, on its passage
through that city.
The youngsters who are living in these peaceful days cannot
possibly realize the state of public feeling in New England at that
time. Business was practically suspended, and the sole thought of
the people was to avenge the insult to our flag and the murder of our
soldier boys. The enrolling officers worked day and night, and
companies and regiments were raised, equipped, and hurried to the
front with amazing alacrity.
In common with all my friends and neighbors, I, too, was full of
patriotic zeal, and should probably have enlisted in one of the
numerous regiments forming, had not my attention been directed to
an article in the “Boston Transcript” which referred to the great
number of resignations of Southern naval officers that were pouring
in on the Navy Department, and expressed a fear that our navy
would be hopelessly crippled, as the Southern officers predominated
so greatly in that branch of the service.
This gave me an idea, and I at once called upon the late Robert
Bennett Forbes, the public-spirited merchant and shipowner, whose
wise counsels in this exigency had been sought by Mr. Welles,
President Lincoln’s newly appointed Secretary of the Navy.
Mr. Forbes was in his private office, deeply immersed in his private
correspondence, when I called, but he courteously listened to me
when I asked him why the vacancies in the navy could not be filled
by the intelligent and experienced officers of the mercantile marine.
“I have already made such a suggestion to the Secretary of the
Navy, Captain Kelson,” said he, “and I have also sent him a list of a
number of gentlemen whom I consider competent to fill the position
of ‘master’ in the navy.”
“Mr. Forbes,” I responded, “will you not include my name in your
list? You know something of my qualifications, I think.”
With the promptitude that was a very notable characteristic of the
man, he turned to his desk and wrote a brief letter to Mr. Welles,
which he handed to me unsealed. “Take that on to Washington,
yourself, Captain Kelson, and to supplement it, get half a dozen
others from Boston shipowners who know you.”
I did as he suggested, and within twenty-four hours was on my
way to Washington. My interview with the Secretary was brief, but to
the point. He read all my letters, asked me a half dozen pregnant
questions, and then, writing a few words on a slip of paper, rang for a
messenger and sent me with him across the corridor to the Bureau
of Detail, where Captain Charles Henry Davis—afterward Rear
Admiral Davis—prepared my appointment as an Acting Master in the
United States Navy.
While the document was sent back to the Secretary for his
signature I took the oath of allegiance, and my orders were at once
made out to the United States steamer Richmond.
Thus quickly was I transformed into an officer in the navy and
assigned to a ship, a fact I could not realize as I walked down the
steps of the building, which I had entered less than an hour before as
a private citizen. But events, both public and private, moved quickly
in those stirring days.
On my way up Pennsylvania Avenue I stopped in at an outfitter’s
and purchased a naval cap, and found an undress blue navy flannel
blouse which fitted me. Upon the shoulders of this garment the tailor
attached the straps of my grade, and, with trousers to match my
coat, I returned to the hotel in time for dinner, a full-fledged officer,
rather to the surprise of the clerk, who had seen me go out a few
hours before in citizen’s costume.
The next morning, in company with a friend, I hired a horse and
buggy, and, obtaining a pass, drove over the “long bridge” and out
about ten miles, to the encampment of our army.
This was but a few weeks before the disastrous battle of Bull Run,
but at the time of the visit our troops were in high feather and felt
very confident that the war was to be only an affair of a few months;
a mere military promenade to Richmond.
All the officers I met seemed so confident of the result that I
became half converted to their theory, and feared that I had made a
mistake in going into the navy for such a brief period as the war was
to continue. The real awakening from our dream came sharply when
these same troops, a month later, were pouring into Washington a
beaten, disorganized rabble!
The following day I went on to New York, where I found the
Richmond at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and, by a most curious
coincidence, at the very wharf where I had gone on board the
Bombay nearly twenty years before.
The Richmond had just arrived from the Mediterranean, whence
she had been recalled by cablegram. After reporting to the executive
officer I obtained a week’s leave of absence and returned to Boston.
During that brief time I made such arrangements as were
necessary for the comfort of my little family and for the proper
continuance of my business, in which there was very little doing just
then, and at the end of the week reported again on board my ship at
Brooklyn.
The Richmond was rated as a second-class steam sloop-of-war.
She was pierced for twenty-six guns, but mounted twenty-two 9-inch
Dahlgren guns in broadside. She was almost a new vessel, a good
stanch ship of her class, which included the Hartford, the Brooklyn,
and the Pensacola. She was rather slow, making with favorable
conditions about ten knots under steam. Before the wind or at anchor
in a seaway she had a capacity for rolling beyond that of any ship I
ever saw, before or since. Her performances in that direction a year
later, when we were on the blockade of Mobile, afforded a constant
source of interest and admiration to the entire fleet, but were
exceedingly unsatisfactory to us who were compelled to endure
them. She was commanded by Captain John Pope, and had a
complement of nearly four hundred officers and men.
I am thus particular in describing her, for she was to be my home
for the next eventful two years.
Not long after I received my appointment, on June 30, 1861, news
came to Washington of the escape from New Orleans of the
Confederate privateer Sumter, under the command of Captain Rafael
Semmes.
This steamer, originally the Havana, had been fitted out by the
Confederate authorities, and although the mouth of the Mississippi
was closely blockaded by the United States steamer Brooklyn, with
two other ships, Semmes watched an opportunity when the Brooklyn
was chasing a decoy vessel off shore, and dashing out, by her
superior speed escaped our fleet.
Three days later, she captured and burned at sea the ship Golden
Rocket, and by July 6 seven more prizes had been taken by this
dashing privateer.
This, of course, created a tremendous excitement throughout the
country, and our government sent every available ship they had in
pursuit of her.
Orders also came to Captain Pope to hasten his preparations for
sea, and on August 3 we sailed under sealed orders, which, when
opened at sea, proved to be directions to make a thorough search
for thirty days through the West India islands for the Sumter, and,
failing to fall in with her, to join the West Gulf Squadron, then
commanded by Flag Officer Mervine.
So we started on what proved to be a wild-goose chase, but which
gave us an opportunity of making a very agreeable cruise, with the
constant excitement of a possible capture that would have brought
us no end of glory.
Among other incidents, we fell in one day with the wreck of Her
Britannic Majesty’s ship Driver, piled up on a reef off Mariquana
Island, with her crew living ashore under tents they had improvised
from the ship’s sails.
We were boarded by her commanding officer, who bore the
historic name of Horatio Nelson. He seemed to be a kind of nautical
Mark Tapley, exceedingly jolly under very trying circumstances, and
perfectly at ease, notwithstanding his ship was a total loss.
In fact, he appeared to look upon that as a mere incident of the
cruise, and declined our offers of assistance, saying he “was all right,
barring the blasted mosquitoes, don’t you know!” He was every day
looking for the arrival of a British man-of-war to take them off, as he
had sent a launch down to Port Royal for assistance.
At last, having nearly exhausted our coal, we steamed into Port
Royal, Jamaica, on August 21, to obtain a fresh supply. Here we met
the Powhatan, Commander David D. Porter, homeward bound after
an ineffectual hunt after the Sumter.
After coaling, our thirty days having expired, we ran down to Key
West and the Dry Tortugas, and stopping for a day off Pensacola at
Fort Pickens, we received orders from the flagship to relieve the
Brooklyn off the Passes of the Mississippi.
We anchored off the Pass à L’Outre, September 13, and soon
after, the Brooklyn and St. Louis sailed for home, and the Niagara for
Pensacola, leaving us with the Vincennes and the Preble to blockade
the entrance to the river.
 A week later, we were joined by the little steamer Water Witch, a
vessel that had distinguished herself some years before in the
ascent of the river Amazon. We then settled down to the
monotonous and wearying routine duty that was to be our lot for
nearly a year on this blockade.
 CHAPTER II
A NIGHT ATTACK BY A CONFEDERATE RAM

From the time of the Richmond’s arrival at the Bélize we found

ourselves the object of deep interest to a black, snaky-looking
steamer that fell into the way of coming down the river daily to take a
look at us and see what we were doing.
If she had confined her attentions to a mere reconnaissance it
would not have so much mattered, but she frequently varied the
monotony of this proceeding by throwing a rifle shot at us from a long
range. We soon learned that this persistent and pestilent visitor was
the Confederate steamer Ivy, in charge of Lieutenant-Commander
Fry.
The Ivy was a converted tugboat, a technical term to be
understood in a temporal, not a spiritual sense. She mounted a rifle
gun, evidently a new acquisition, and she was testing it on us.
Fry was a former officer in our service and had been shipmates
with our executive officer, Lieutenant-Commander Cummings, which
may have accounted for his unremitting efforts to make things lively
for us. To be sure he never succeeded in hitting us, but it is very far
from amusing to be potted at daily with a 30-pound rifle gun, and with
no opportunity of returning the compliment, as she kept discreetly out
of the range of our smooth bore Dahlgrens.
However, after the Water Witch joined our fleet, we had a little
easier time, as she was always signaled to chase whenever the Ivy
annoyed us too much. This arrangement was a great relief to us, and
at least had the merit of keeping the Water Witch in a high state of
efficiency.
To render the blockade more effectual and to obviate the necessity
of guarding the three mouths of the river, it was at last decided to
cross the bar and take the ships up to the Head of the Passes, some
twenty miles above our present station.
 At the point where the river branches off, forming the Southwest,
Northeast, and L’Outre passes, it was proposed to erect a battery on
shore and there establish a depot, if possible, in anticipation of a
movement against the rebel forts and the city of New Orleans in the
near future.
To this end we had brought round from Fort Pickens, Lieutenant
McFarland, United States Engineers, to superintend the construction
of the battery, and we also had on board a quantity of sand-bags,
pickaxes, and intrenching tools, but as we found no sand, as there
was only mud in the vicinity, a schooner was ordered to Ship Island
for a supply.
On September 26 the Richmond steamed around to the Southwest
Pass and endeavored to cross the bar, but we grounded and were
kept hard at work for three days in forcing the ship over. At last we
succeeded, and anchored off Pilot Town, six miles above. The next
day we captured a small schooner, the Frolic, coming down the river
with a Confederate flag flying, and from her we obtained a supply of
late New Orleans papers.
October 1 we ran up to the Head of the Passes and anchored,
where we were shortly joined by the Vincennes and the Preble, both
old-fashioned sailing ships of war, the little Water Witch and a
merchant schooner carrying the 8-inch guns for our proposed shore
battery.
We had long discussed in the wardroom the many advantages of
this coveted position in the river, as compared with the discomforts of
our anchorage outside the bar, and now that we had achieved it, with
nothing to annoy us but occasional visits from the Ivy, we settled
down to the placid enjoyment of our environments.
In fact we discovered that we even had “society” at our present
station. This consisted of the family of a precious old scoundrel, half-
fisherman, half-pirate, I imagine, when opportunity presented, who
had a wife and a brace of buxom daughters.
In default of anything better presenting itself, some of our younger
officers used to visit this fellow’s cabin, ostensibly to purchase fish
for their messes, but really with the hope of gleaning some
information from him as to the condition of affairs at the forts above.
 The family always seemed glad to see our officers, especially
when they brought offerings of coffee or tobacco, and, posing as “an
original Union family,” spun them some very tough yarns. Meanwhile,
as we later discovered at our cost, they were quietly selling us to
their rebel friends up the river.
On October 12 a schooner arrived with coal, and the Richmond
took her alongside to fill her bunkers. During that day we got one of
our 9-inch guns on the topgallant forecastle, where it could be given
a greater elevation than in broadside, hoping thus to increase its
range for the special benefit of the Ivy on her next visit.
At sundown, as we had not yet taken in our full supply of coal,
Captain Pope decided to continue coaling at night, that we might the
sooner dispatch the schooner back to Pensacola for some needed
material for the battery,—which was fated never to be built.
That night I was officer of the deck from eight to twelve o’clock.
When I was relieved at midnight we were still coaling, with the two
guns of the midship division run in on the port side to facilitate the
work.
The night was very dark, the moon had set, and the mist, hanging
low over the river, shut in the hulls of the other ships of the fleet near
us, their masts and spars only being visible. Of course, the
Richmond, from her size, must have been the most conspicuous
object from the river, while the noise made in shoveling and hoisting
the coal marked our position most admirably. A more favorable
opportunity for a night attack could scarcely have been desired.
But a tired watch officer whose responsibilities have been turned
over to his relief does not usually lose much time in reflecting upon
possibilities; and I was soon sleeping the sleep of the just. For what
transpired during the next four hours I have to depend upon the
reports of others.
Master’s Mate Gibbs, in charge of the Frolic, anchored astern of
us, says that at about 3.40 A. M., seeing a long, black object moving
stealthily down the river, he hailed, “Richmond ahoy! There is a boat
coming down the river on your port bow!”
He says that he repeated the warning, but the noise of the coaling
probably prevented its being heard on board of our ship, as he