Literacy in America

Cover-image not available
Literacy in America
Literacy in America
An Encyclopedia of History, Theory, and Practice
Barbara J. Guzzetti, Editor
Donna E. Alvermann and Jerry L. Johns,
Editorial Advisors
Santa Barbara, California Denver, Colorado Oxford, England
Copyright © 2002 by Barbara J. Guzzetti
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the
inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Literacy in America : an encyclopedia of history, theory, and practice / Barbara J. Guzzetti, editor.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-57607-358-0 (set : hard : alk. paper)
1. Literacy—United States—Encyclopedias. 2. Reading—United
States—Encyclopedias. I. Guzzetti, Barbara J.
LC151 .L487 2002
302.2'244'0973—dc21
2002014350
06 05 04 03 02
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an e-book.
Visit abc-clio.com for details.
ABC-CLIO, Inc.
130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911
Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911
This book is printed on acid-free paper I.
Manufactured in the United States of America
Contents
Preface and Acknowledgments, ix
Further Acknowledgments, xi
Introduction: The Landscape of Literacy in Seven Portraits, xiii
List of Contributors, xxxi
Literacy in America, 1
Classroom Writing Assessment, 66
Cloze Procedure, 72
College Literacy and Learning, 73
College Reading and Learning Association, 74
College Reading Association, 75
Comics, 76
Commercial Reading Programs, 77
Community Literacy, 80
Comparative Reading, 82
Comprehension Strategies, 85
Computer-Assisted Instruction, 88
Concept Instruction with Text, 90
Conceptual Change Learning and Texts,
93
Considerate Text, 97
Constructivism, 99
Content-Area Literacy, 101
Context in Literacy, 104
Cooperative Learning, 107
Critical Literacy, 108
Critical Media Literacy, 111
Critical Reading, 113
Criticisms of Reader Response, 115
Critique of the National Reading Panel Report,
118
Volume 1: A–M
Ability Grouping, 1
Accountability and Testing, 5
Active Listening, 8
Activity Theory, 10
Adolescent Literacy, 13
Adolescent Literature, 15
Adult Literacy, 19
Adult Literacy Programs, 22
Adult Literacy Testing, 25
American Reading Forum, 29
Artists’ Books, 29
Assessment Interviews, 30
Assessment Interviews for Parents and Teachers,
31
At-Risk Students, 33
Authentic Assessment, 36
Automaticity and Reading Fluency, 40
Balanced Literacy Instruction, 43
Basal Readers, 45
Bibliotherapy, 48
Bilingual Education, 49
Bilingualism, 52
Biliteracy, 57
Book Clubs, 60
Deaf Students and Literacy, 121
Delayed Readers, 123
Developmental and College Reading, 127
Dialogic Responsiveness, 131
Dialogue Journals, 132
Center for the Expansion of Language and
Thinking, 63
Children’s Literature, 64
v
Contents
Directed Reading Activity and Directed
Reading-Thinking Activity, 133
Discourse Analysis, 135
Discursive Theory, 140
Discussion, 143
The Discussion Web, 146
Distance Learning, 147
Diversity, 150
Dynamic Assessment, 154
Dyslexia, 155
Inquiry-Based Instruction, 249
Instant Messaging, 251
Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy, 254
International Reading Association, 257
Intertextuality, 258
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 259
Journal of Literacy Research, 260
Junior Great Books, 260
Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation,
263
Kinesthetic Methods, 266
KWL and KWL+, 267
Early Literacy, 157
Early Literacy Assessment, 160
Early Literacy Software, 165
Ebonics, 167
Ecological Literacy, 168
Economics of Literacy Development, 170
Effective Schools and Teachers, 173
Elders and Literacy, 175
Electronic Jigsaw, 177
English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy
Evaluation and Assessment, 178
English Journal, 181
The Even Start Family Literacy Program, 182
Eye Movements, 183
Language Acquisition, 273
Language Arts, 276
Language Arts Instruction, 277
Language Attitudes, 281
Language Experience Approach, 287
Laubach Literacy, 290
Learning Centers, 291
Learning with Texts, 293
Linguistic Approaches to Reading Instruction,
298
Listservs in Literacy, 299
Literacy and Culture, 303
Literacy Autobiography, 308
Literacy Definitions, 310
The Literacy Dictionary, 313
Literacy in Informal Settings, 315
Literacy in Play, 318
Literacy Labs, 323
Literacy Motivation, 326
Literacy Volunteers of America, 330
Literature Circles, 330
Literature-Based Instruction, 334
Family Literacy, 185
Feminist Post-Structuralism, 187
Flexibility, 191
Fluency, 191
Gender and Discussion, 195
Gender and Post-Typographical Text, 199
Gender and Reading, 201
Gender and Writing, 205
Graffiti, 208
Graphic Aids, 212
Graphic Organizers, 213
Group Reading Inventories, 215
Mainstreaming, 339
Media Literacy, 340
Mental Modeling, 344
Metacognition, 345
Middle-School Literacy, 348
Minimum-Competency Testing, 351
Miscue Analysis, 352
Models of the Reading Process, 356
Multicultural Literacy, 364
Multicultural Literature, 368
Multimedia, 374
Multiple Literacies, 376
Multiple Texts, 380
The Handbook of Reading Research, 217
The Head Start Program, 218
Heritage-Language Development, 219
High-Stakes Assessment, 223
History of Reading Instruction, 224
History of the Book, 231
Hypertext, 233
Independent Reading, 239
Individualized Reading, 244
Informal Reading Inventory, 247
vi
Contents
Reading Clinics, 502
Reading-Comprehension Instruction, 506
Reading-Comprehension Processes, 508
Reading Diagnosis, 515
Reading Excellence Act, 520
Reading Hall of Fame, 521
Reading-Interest Inventories, 522
Reading Is Fundamental, 523
Reading Online, 525
Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly,
526
Reading Readiness, 526
Reading Recovery, 527
Reading Research and Instruction, 530
Reading Research Quarterly, 530
Reading Specialists, 531
The Reading Teacher, 533
Reading Today, 534
Reading-Writing Relationships, 534
Reciprocal Teaching, 535
Recreational Reading, 539
Redundancy, 541
Refutational Texts, 542
Remediation, 545
Repeated Readings, 548
Research in the Teaching of English, 551
Resistant Reading, 552
Round-Robin Oral Reading, 553
Volume 2: N–Z
Narrative and Expository Text, 385
Narrative Text, 388
National Assessment of Educational Progress,
392
National Commission on Reading, 395
National Conference on Research in Language
and Literacy, 397
National Council of Teachers of English, 398
National Institute for Literacy, 399
National Reading Conference, 400
National Reading Conference Yearbook, 400
National Reading Panel, 401
The National Right to Read Foundation, 404
Oral Language, 407
Oral Language Development, 411
Oral Reading, 415
Peer and Cross-Age Tutoring, 419
Peer Discussion, 420
Peer Status and Literacy Development, 425
Phonics Instruction, 428
Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, 431
Policy Issues in Testing, 434
The Political Nature of Literacy, 437
Popular Culture, 440
Portfolios, 443
Post-Structuralism and Structuralism, 445
Post-Typographic, 448
Predictable Books, 450
Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions, 453
Prior-Knowledge Assessment, 456
Process Writing, 459
Programmed Instruction, 461
Psycholinguistics, 462
Public Opinion and Literacy, 464
Scaffolded Literacy Instruction, 555
Schema Theory, 556
Schema Theory Criticisms, 558
Secondary-School Reading Programs, 562
Semantic Feature Analysis, 566
Semantic Mapping, 572
Semiotics, 580
Sight Words, 581
Silent Reading, 583
Social Constructivism, 584
Social Justice and Literacies, 589
Social Nature of Literacy, 595
Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, 599
Sociolinguistics and Literacy, 599
Software for Older Readers, 603
Speed Reading, 605
Spelling, 606
Standardized Test Score Decline, 610
Standardized Test Score Interpretation, 613
Standardized Testing, 615
Standards, 617
Story Grammar, 619
Questioning, 469
The RAND Reading Study Group, 475
Rauding Theory, 476
Readability, 480
Read-Alouds, 486
Reader Response, 488
Readers Theatre, 493
The Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
Learning Difficulties, 495
Reading Assessment, 495
Reading-Attitude Measures, 501
vii
Contents
Transmission Instruction, 663
Storytelling, 622
Structural Analysis, 626
Study Guides, 628
Study Skills and Strategies, 631
Subjectivity, 632
Visual Literacy, 665
Vocabulary Instruction, 667
Whole Language and Whole-Language
Assessment, 673
Whole Language Umbrella, 677
Word Recognition, 678
Workplace Literacy, 682
Writing across the Curriculum, 686
Writing Assessment, 688
Writing Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts,
693
Teacher Education in Literacy, 639
Teacher Research in Literacy, 643
Television and Reading, 647
Test Preparation, 650
Textbooks, 651
Thematic Organizers, 653
Think-Alouds, 655
Title I, 656
Trade Books, 657
Transactional Theory, 661
Zines, 699
List of Acronyms, 701
Bibliography, 705
Index, 751
About the Editor, 779
viii
Preface and Acknowledgments
This two-volume encyclopedia provides a
comprehensive overview of the study and teaching of literacy in the United States. It addresses
the learning and practice of multiple literacies,
including reading, writing, listening, and speaking, and such “new literacies” as popular culture,
media, and technology. Intended to fill a gap in
extant resources on literacy, this work presents
the major topics and issues in the field of literacy
in language that is as nontechnical as possible.
As Alan Purves, late author of the Encyclopedia
of English Studies and Language Arts (1994),
noted, editing an encyclopedia is a daunting task.
The task here was made easier, however, by my
collaboration as editor with the two editorial advisers. Together, we generated the initial list of entries by perusing related works, current textbooks
and academic texts in the field, and past professional conference programs. We also surveyed
subscribers to the National Reading Conference
listserv (NRCEMAIL), an electronic discussion
group for literacy researchers and professionals,
for suggestions on entries. In addition, authors
and contributors consulted a web site with a master list of entries and then suggested other entries
important to such a reference. The editor, editorial advisers, and contributors collaboratively determined the titles of the entries. We planned for
entries of 500 to 4,000 words, with most consisting of about 2,000 words, for a total of approximately 400,000 words in the two volumes.
The entries in these volumes represent a range
of perspectives, or “frames,” on literacy that explore historical topics along with current trends.
Entries represent both the breadth and the depth
of varying theories of literacy. If a topic has been
the subject of well-known controversy, then it is
counterbalanced with an entry representing an
opposing view. Each entry begins with a defini-
tion of the construct and then elaborates on the
issues and research surrounding the topic. In
writing the entries, authors were cautioned to refrain from opinions or position statements as
much as possible and were asked to document
their sources. At the end of most entries, there
are references designed to lead the reader to
sources cited in the entry and to further reading.
The number of citations and references was designed to be proportional to the length of the entry. Due to space constraints, fewer citations and
references were permitted than most authors
would have preferred.
The entries represent five categories. The first
is a general category of definitions, process, influences, issues, types, and theories of literacy.
This category includes such topics as biliteracy,
English as a second language (ESL), heritage-language development, and multicultural concerns.
Four other categories include literacy assessment, literacy instruction, literacy resources and
organizations, and literacy professional publications and reports. To save space, many general
topics include specific terms not listed as entries.
For example, the entry on reader-response theory contains explanations of the terms aesthetic
and efferent reading.
Although the entries can be grouped into five
categories according to subject area, they are
arranged in alphabetical order in the encyclopedia. Readers may wish to skim the list of entries
and the index to find what they are seeking. In
addition to the entry itself, most entries are crossreferenced by a “See Also” section at the conclusion. This section refers readers to related entries
(along with references) that may be of interest.
The entries in these volumes were written
for a broad audience. Potential readers include
academicians and students in universities and
ix
Preface and Acknowledgments
colleges, literacy specialists, and teachers and
school administrators, as well as parents, policymakers, and interested citizens. Hence, contributors were asked to write in terms intelligible both
to professionals and to those with little or no
prior knowledge of the subject and to define professional jargon whenever possible.
ation to Jerry Johns, Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus of Northern Illinois University,
my first mentor and adviser in literacy education. His guidance and friendship have sustained
and enhanced the production of these volumes
in both subtle and obvious ways.
Third, I wish to thank the past and present
staff at ABC-CLIO for their support and direction. It was a pleasure to work with and get to
know Marie Ellen Larcada, the acquisitions editor who first interested me in taking on this extensive work and who has continued to provide
feedback and support despite leaving her position. I also thank Kevin Downing, former senior
acquisitions editor, Vince Burns, former developmental editor, and Melanie Stafford, senior production editor, for their direction and reminders
that helped keep the project on schedule.
Finally, I offer my gratitude to those who
helped with behind-the-scenes tasks. I thank my
research assistants, Septimia Filip and Margaret
Gamboa, who created and maintained the project’s web site, kept clerical records of contracts
and submissions, and contacted authors periodically via e-mail. I also appreciate the assistance of
Donald Hutchins, media and technology director
for the College of Education at Arizona State University, who worked extensively with me to transfer all entries to CDs. Theirs were no small tasks.
My parting thoughts in completing these volumes are of the magnitude and magnificence of
the knowledge base we have accumulated in the
field of literacy. In these days of political attacks
and critiques directed at education in the United
States, literacy professionals, parents, and concerned citizens may become discouraged about
the state of current affairs. These entries offer a
more promising view of literacy in the United
States by demonstrating how far we have come as
a profession in our understanding of literacy
processes, practices, and issues. It is my hope that
these volumes will contribute to continual improvement of literacy learning and teaching.
Barbara J. Guzzetti
Acknowledgments
First, as editor of these volumes, I was struck by
the depth of knowledge of the contributors, including scholars well known for their research
topic, graduate students developing expertise in
a particular area, and teachers, consultants, and
literacy specialists with working knowledge in
their area. I thank these approximately 250 contributors for sharing their unique insights into
the myriad aspects of literacy. Without their expertise and dedication to the task, this reference
work would not have been possible. I also appreciate their support in various forms—nominations of other authors, illustrations and photographs to accompany their entries, e-mails of
moral support, positive feedback and good
cheer, and, surprisingly, gifts that related to the
project or represented the authors’ geographical
regions. In particular, I want to take this occasion
to acknowledge my dear friend and colleague
Ann Watts Pailliotet, a contributor to the encyclopedia who suddenly and unexpectedly passed
away during the production of these volumes.
She will be remembered not only for her contributions to the field of technology and literacy
but also for her shining spirit.
Second, I want to thank my editorial advisers,
all well known in the field of literacy as prolific
and influential researchers. My thanks go to
Donna Alvermann, Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Georgia, a longtime
colleague and friend who recommended me as
editor for this project. Her advice and support
has once again seen me through another longterm effort and has enriched the quality of the
product of that effort. I also extend my appreci-
x
Further Acknowledgments
one that focused primarily on reading practices
and processes—to its current, more inclusive
state, literacy education is in what many contributors to this encyclopedia would call a state of
flux—a “becoming” rather than an “is” or a “has
been.” It is this dynamic nature of literacy education that makes it such an exciting field in which
to work.
In compiling these two companion volumes,
Barbara Guzzetti has attained what few before
her can lay claim to having achieved. Through
her knowledge of the field’s breadth and her ability to work with contributors who know its
depth, she has assembled a remarkably comprehensive work. Also noteworthy is the fact that
Literacy in America represents the thinking and
writing of scholars new to the field as well as
those who have seen it through several evolutions, if not revolutions. This blending of the socalled new and old is in keeping with the field’s
history, present, and future. It is also in keeping
with what I would expect that readers of these
volumes would appreciate most—the opportunity to become more conversant in the issues and
debates that surround literacy education, at least
as interpreted by the contributors to this work.
Donna E. Alvermann
Barbara Guzzetti deserves heartfelt recognition
from all those interested in literacy for undertaking such a daunting endeavor. Anyone who has
worked with coauthors on a project will quickly
understand the added complexities of collaboration. When the collaboration involves the large
number of authors who contributed to these volumes, it should be quite easy to recognize the
challenges and frustrations that Barbara faced.
The completion of such a huge undertaking
should give Barbara an immense sense of satisfaction for an outstanding contribution to the
profession.
I was honored to participate in the project because of its potential significance to the field.
Our work is done. Users of the encyclopedia will
ultimately determine its value as they read, reflect, and use this tool to enhance their understanding, gain perspective, and pursue the task of
promoting higher levels of literacy.
Jerry L. Johns
President, International Reading Association,
2002–2003
The field of literacy education is expanding on a
scale that is sometimes difficult to comprehend.
From its inception as a narrowly studied area—
xi
Introduction: The Landscape
of Literacy in Seven Portraits
I
Perhaps the most daunting challenge in producing this encyclopedia was planning and writing
this Introduction. The developmental editor
asked me for 10,000 words representing my
thoughts on the field of literacy—its development, present status, and future directions. This
Introduction was to be designed to be compatible with the mission of the encyclopedia by reflecting on historical aspects of literacy while
emphasizing recent developments in the field. I
found, however, that I could not bring myself to
address only this request.
My reasons for this rebellion of sorts stem
from my beliefs about what constitutes quality in
research. As a feminist qualitative researcher, I
believe that it is necessary for researchers to be
aware of and explicate their biases and experiences and to explain how those influence the
conduct and production of their efforts. I celebrate the shift from an emphasis on cognitive research and experimental designs to ethnographic
inquiries conducted from sociocultural frames. I
am most interested in issues of social concern—
topics, frameworks, and methods that address issues of social justice. My own recent work centers on the new literacies or multiple literacies
practiced by those underrepresented in literacy
research—adolescents of upper or lower social
classes and those marginalized by their own subjectivities, such as their gender or social class.
During the production of these volumes, I attempted to keep my own biases and views like
these balanced with entries that represent frameworks and positions that I do not share. As a literacy researcher, however, I realize that I bring to
this work my personal theoretical frames, my
epistemologies and ideologies, as well my own
ideas about what constitutes important work—
pedagogy and inquiry—in literacy. Therefore, to
be the sole author in sketching a retrospective
and perspective on the field of literacy would
mean presenting only my ethnocentric views.
Because I strove for representation of both historical and recent trends in the volumes’ entries,
I also chose to obtain a broad representation in
this essay, introducing and providing perspectives on those entries. Therefore, in collaboration
with my editorial advisers, I invited seven scholars whose work represents diversity in perspective to join me in the Introduction. I charged
these researchers with reflecting on historical and
recent developments in the field of literacy from
their own six frameworks and to identify how the
entries in the encyclopedia represented those developments. By doing so, I anticipated giving
readers a glimpse into the myriad ways in which
multiple perspectives have been and are represented in shaping the field.
The first of these scholars, Suzanne Wade,
presents an instructional perspective on literacy
from a framework of teacher education and
scholarship. Her piece reminds us of changes in
literacy at the classroom level and of the political
nature of literacy instruction. Her perspective is
particularly timely as literacy professionals begin
to reflect on and address national reports on
epistemology and pedagogy in literacy.
A second perspective by Yolanda Majors presents a personal and community-based consideration of literacy. Writing from personal memories and reflective insights, she reminds us about
the ways literacy learners are influenced by ritualized events outside the classroom. Her stories
show how social and cultural expectations can
influence literacy development and practice that
may be at conflict with or estranged from literacy
expectations inside the classroom.
xiii
Introduction
The third view by Allan Neilsen brings an international perspective to literacy. Although this
encyclopedia focuses on literacy in the United
States, many of its contributors are scholars and
practitioners from other nations who face the
same issues and research the same topics.
Neilsen’s thoughts particularly challenge expanding notions of the literacy landscape in a
global sense. His words direct us to refocus constructs of literacy so that literacy implies more
than simply substituting the word literacy for the
word education.
Lorri Neilsen expands on this global theme
with a fourth view—a feminist perspective that
examines the influences of world events on literacy development and practice. In her essay,
Neilsen examines power and access issues that
can determine the literate behaviors and skills
learners acquire. Her words direct us to those entries that examine underlying principles and
consequences of literacy assessment and instruction.
A fifth frame on literacy is offered by Michele
Knobel and Colin Lankshear. These researchers
trace the field historically and provide a sociocultural perspective on literacy theory and instructional practice. Their words remind us of
the diverse and sometimes conflicting directions
in literacy. Their ideas question the unity of the
rubric of a “field” of literacy and cause us to reexamine our ideas about shifting the centrality of
literacy development and practice from the classroom to the outside world.
Finally, Patricia Alexander presents a view of
literacy as a landscape of changes. Her focus
traces development of notions of literacy from a
cognitive perspective with reading at the core of
literacy to a social perspective that encompasses
new terrain. Her view identifies the silences in
the encyclopedia that represent uncharted territory for future work in literacy.
When these views are taken together, it appears that literacy, with its myriad issues and directions, is more of a landscape than a field. It is
also a landscape that is ever changing and becoming increasingly more inclusive. Like the
world, literacy really is many landscapes or literacies, touched and reformed like the earth itself by the times in which we live.
The contributors to these volumes have not
only taken us on a journey through these landscapes, they have also assisted in identifying how
the territory of literacy may expand and evolve in
the future. Together, we invite our readers to join
us in extending this journey by perusing the geography represented in the entries of these volumes. We anticipate that your travels will be both
engaging and enlightening.
Barbara J. Guzzetti
II
The challenge of discovery lies not in seeking
new landscapes but having new eyes.
—Marcel Proust
When a first edition of a compendium such as
the Literacy in America comes out, we might
wonder what it tells us about the current state of
literacy—in theory, research, practice, and policy. Looking back in time, we might then wonder,
how have things changed? And have they really
changed? How was literacy defined then—and
now? Are the goals, assumptions, and accepted
methods of literacy research different, and what
paradigms influence how we think about literacy
and research? What do we know today about students, both inside and outside of classrooms,
that we did not know before? What makes a difference in student success, and who has access to
the resources and benefits of literacy? What are
accepted practices for literacy instruction, and
how have they changed? How have methods and
uses of assessment changed? Was literacy as
politicized then as it is now? What is the role today of technology? What should it be? How have
advances in technology changed what it means
to be literate in schools and society?
These questions are important because the
ways in which they are answered have profound
effects on teaching and learning in classrooms.
First, these questions and their answers delimit
the topics that get attention, the concepts that
mark our discourse about literacy and education, and the assumptions that underlie what literacy researchers and educators do. Second, they
influence the ways we view students, which literacies in students’ lives count, how we define
achievement and success, and how we frame
problems in literacy learning (in other words,
where blame is placed when students do not succeed). Third, they influence our views of what
texts are legitimate, and therefore sanctioned,
and our views of what constitutes learning and
how it can and should be assessed.
xiv
Introduction
Of course, change has different meanings for
different people. A perusal of dictionary definitions illustrates how change can range from superficial differences such as “to put a fresh covering on” (as in “to change a bed”), to greater
transformations or transitions from one state,
condition, or phase to another (as in “She
changed as she matured” or “the changing of the
seasons”). Change can also mean substituting, or
replacing of one thing for another (as in “change
methods, change sides, a change of ownership”).
Change is not neutral, but rather quite value
laden. For example, it may be viewed in terms of
progress and innovation, as with new directions
and discoveries. Nevertheless, such a positive view
is not always the case. Whereas one person may
value an innovation, another may view it as a fad,
a loss, or a reactive pendulum swing, which may
(or may not) ultimately achieve a balance. Even
the idea of balance is not a goal that everyone
strives for, out of concern that a favored theory or
instructional approach may become diluted.
As you read Literacy in America, you will see
topics, paradigms, and programs that have both
long and short histories. On the topic of classroom instruction, for example, entries range
from approaches that are as traditional as the
ones we, and generations before us, experienced
as schoolchildren (see, for example, Transmission Instruction) to more recent participatory
approaches that include Book Clubs, Concept
Instruction with Text, Cooperative Learning, Dialogue Journals, Inquiry-Based Instruction, Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy, Literature
Circles, Peer Discussion, and Process Writing.
Another change reflected in this encyclopedia
is today’s emphasis on context, which is considered important for both literacy research and
practice. A good deal of cognitive literacy research, which focused on students’ learning, took
place in laboratories or settings outside the classroom. Results were aggregated in search of generalizable patterns that could presumably be applied across students and classrooms. Although
student characteristics such as race, class, sex,
ethnicity, and language may have been reported
in the methods sections of research studies, these
characteristics were largely ignored when results
were presented and implications for instruction
were drawn. Usually, the only variable of importance was ability level. Results were then used to
inform classroom practice, translated into rec-
ommendations for instruction applicable to all
settings.
Literacy research today includes a much
greater focus on students as unique individuals,
whose identities are shaped by their linguistic
and cultural backgrounds; the literacy practices
in their homes and communities; and their class,
sex, age, talents, future aspirations, and positioning in the social hierarchy of schools and society.
These attributes have a profound influence on
students’ learning, literacy goals, and practices;
the texts they value; the strategies they use to
learn and/or cope; their access to literacy; and
whether they succeed in school. Case studies of
individual learners are not new, of course. There
have been many case studies that have served us
well as teaching tools for assessing literacy difficulties and planning for instruction (we no
longer tend to use words like diagnosis and remediation, which imply a medical model and the
search for pathology). Many of the case studies
today emphasize students’ strengths as well as
their needs and seek to understand their lives
and identities outside of school as well as in the
classroom. Like many of today’s case studies, entries in this encyclopedia focus on the role of different literacies in family, peer, and community
life (see Adolescent Literacy, Adult Literacy, Family Literacy, Literacy in Informal Settings, Literacy in Play, Recreational Reading, and Workplace
Literacy). Other entries focus on the effects of labels such as “at risk” and “failing,” asking hard
questions such as how students might be viewed
differently if schools were different and conceptions of success were expanded. Entries that address issues of diversity in culture and language
as well as social justice include: At-Risk Students,
Bilingualism, Biliteracy, Diversity, Ebonics, Gender and Discussion, Gender and Post-Typographical Text, Gender and Reading, Gender and
Writing, Literacy and Culture, Multicultural Literacy, The Political Nature of Literacy, and Social
Justice and Literacies. Even the conception of
“literacy” has changed from being viewed as a
monolithic entity and has taken on its plural
form—literacies—to reflect multiplicities of
uses, forms, and subjectivities.
Literacy in settings other than school and expanded views of learning also bring with them
expanded views of text. Consider, for example,
the entries on Graffiti, Popular Culture, Television and Reading, and Zines). The encyclopedia
xv
Introduction
also includes entries that suggest how texts in
classrooms have expanded beyond basal readers
and textbooks to include Multimedia, Post-Typographic, Refutational Texts, and Trade Books.
Other entries emphasize today’s interest in technology, with topics such as Computer-Assisted
Instruction, Distance Learning, Early Literacy
Software, Hypertext, Instant Messaging, Listservs
in Literacy, and Software for Older Readers.
These new topics require an expanded repertoire of research approaches and theoretical perspectives, or new eyes, if you will, drawn from
many different disciplines. Thus, in addition to
cognitive approaches, we find entries in the encyclopedia on Activity Theory, Critical Literacy,
Discourse Analysis, Discursive Theory, Feminist
Post-Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and
Structuralism, Semiotics, Social Constructivism,
Sociolinguistics and Literacy, and Transactional
Theory. Expanded views of research and theory
and the emphasis on individual learners, with
their linguistic, cultural, and personal histories,
have paralleled changes in instructional research
and practice. The earlier concept of research “informing” instruction in a unilateral direction has
shifted to one in which research, theory, and
practice inform one another in reciprocal ways.
This iterative process is reflected in a growing interest in action research, teachers as researchers,
and university-school partnerships. Concurrent
with these trends are expanded views of knowledge as contextual, constructive, social, divergent, and open to continual reinterpretation.
Further, research on instruction draws from
other perspectives as well. Consider, for example,
the renewed interest in Lev Vygotsky’s work that
is one basis of instructional scaffolding.
This brings us to the issue of what changes in
the field of literacy have most directly affected
teaching in classrooms—the topics, policies, curricular and instructional approaches and programs, and assessment practices that impact
teachers and students in classrooms and that reflect teachers’ needs and concerns. One of the
most profound changes at the school level is inclusive education (for a related topic, see Mainstreaming). Although focusing on individuals
with disabilities, advocates of inclusion seek to
change the philosophy and structure of schools
so that all students, despite differences in language, culture, ethnicity, economic status, gender, and ability, can be educated with their peers
in the regular classroom in their neighborhood
schools. To many, inclusive education represents
a shift from changing individuals (who must become “ready” and earn the right to be in integrated settings) to changing the curriculum and
pedagogy to meet students’ needs.
Instead of locating literacy problems in students (or their families), many literacy educators
emphasize changing the curriculum and instructional practices to meet the needs of students.
Curricular and instructional approaches that
promote the active, social construction of
knowledge, that are interactive, experiential, and
inquiry based, and that provide guided instruction have been recommended as ways to include
and motivate students who have traditionally
been excluded from success in the mainstream.
Thus, the encyclopedia includes entries on Biliteracy, Bilingualism, Ebonics, Multicultural Literacy, Multicultural Literature, and various gender
issues, all of which represent a shift from the
“one-curriculum-fits-all” philosophy of the past.
A large repertoire of specific approaches and
practices that have been developed for all grade
levels and for all facets of literacy are featured in
the encyclopedia. Approaches for teaching beginning reading include the entries on Balanced
Literacy Instruction, Individualized Reading,
Linguistic Approaches to Reading Instruction,
Phonics Instruction, and Whole Language and
Whole Language Assessment. These approaches
include and overlap with topics such as Comprehension Strategies, Fluency, Narrative Text, Oral
Reading, Questioning, Read-Alouds, and Silent
Reading, to mention only a few of the entries.
Specific methods associated for the most part
with helping students become motivated, independent learners in the content areas include
Graphic Aids, KWL and KWL+, Mental Modeling, Reciprocal Teaching, Semantic Feature
Analysis, Semantic Mapping, Structural Analysis,
Study Skills and Strategies, Think-Alouds (used
for instruction and assessment), and Vocabulary
Instruction. Finally, because writing today is
considered such an important and integral part
of literacy, the encyclopedia includes entries on
Dialogue Journals, Process Writing, ReadingWriting Relationships, and Writing across the
Curriculum.
Literacy has always been political in nature because it is so important in society, communities,
and individual lives. How literacy is taught, what
xvi
Introduction
is taught (influenced by curriculum guidelines
and standards), who gets the greatest resources,
how special services are delivered (inclusion versus
pullout), and how literacy and learning are assessed are high-stakes issues. Teachers, parents, administrators, children, and politicians all have different concerns and stakes in accountability,
mainly through forms of high-stakes testing that
include norm-referenced and criterion-referenced
achievement tests, minimum competency testing,
National Assessment of Educational Progress, and
the English Language Arts Standards. At the same
time that high-stakes testing stands at the forefront in federal funding and accountability, more
informal authentic assessments are of great importance and value to teachers as part of the instructional assessment cycle. These types of assessment are included in entries such as Assessment
Interviews for Parents and Teachers, Classroom
Writing Assessment, Kidwatching and Classroom
Evaluation, Miscue Analysis, Portfolios, PriorKnowledge Assessment, Reading-Attitude Measures, and Reading-Interest Inventories.
It is intriguing to wonder what literacy educators and researchers will be debating, researching, and teaching when the next encyclopedia of
literacy is published. Will we look back on today’s changes as a steady progression or as old
relics? What questions will we be asking? What
should they be? Ideally, we will be open not only
to new discoveries but also to seeing existing
landscapes through new eyes, as Marcel Proust
would have us do. This will entail open-mindedness, as well as reasoned critiques of past, current, and future views of literacy research, theory,
and practice.
Suzanne E. Wade
contributed to this encyclopedia see these and
similar questions as intricately connected, both
in complexity and in the various ways of responding to them. By its very nature, however,
the practice of literacy leaves to those who wish
to think about it the task of unmasking its technology, purposes, and contexts of use. These two
volumes provide a range of foundational, comprehensive implements necessary for beginning
to do just that.
As a comprehensive resource, this encyclopedia enables those seeking an understanding of
the various aspects of literacy to draw upon the
wisdom and authority of experts from a variety
of disciplines. Variety here is key and necessary,
since today the dominant view of literacy characterizes it as an area of inquiry in which the parts
make up the whole. Scholars cannot adequately
address the consequences of the interactions between reader and text, writer and audience,
teacher and student without taking into consideration the economic, social, functional, and cultural consequences of the act. None exists separately. Nonetheless, each of the parts making up
the whole can be considered separately without
losing track of their mutual interdependence.
One part in particular—literacy outside the
classroom—is addressed here through such entries as Ebonics (African American English),
Family Literacy, Graffiti, Instant Messaging, Literacy in Informal Settings, Popular Culture,
Workplace Literacy, and other entries within this
category. From anthropologists to historians, sociologists to classroom practitioners, disciplined,
probing minds interact here to provide the
scholarship to interpret a picture of the social
and cultural correlates of literacy. This picture is
sometimes quite local and personal in both context and purpose for literacy.
For instance, as a young girl I stood at the intersection where the politics of voice, power,
class, and race meet. And, like many African
Americans, I lived and learned in a place where
grown folks communed at kitchen tables over
cups of Sanka and packs of Pall Mall Golds in the
morning hours or on front porches swept clean
of dust, rocks, and fallen leaves at dusk. It was
here where the adults told, shared, and reinvented stories and meanings about life before an
echoing stage of young listeners. We—a peripheral audience of children—watched, listened,
learned, and later imitated. As Shirley Brice
III
The collection of entries in this encyclopedia
constitutes a foundational tool kit essential to
understanding literacy and its many manifestations, both inside and outside the classroom.
Such a resource is essential, as there is growing
concern among all levels of educators regarding
the meaning of knowing and teaching, and the
active role of reading, writing, and speaking in
both endeavors. How is meaning created as a
reader engages with a text, as a writer recounts
personal history for an audience, as a teacher interacts with students during a discussion of
metaphor in The Color Purple? Those who have
xvii
Introduction
Heath (1988) suggests, these ritualized events
were an occasion for learning in a stream of
stimuli, from which we the children would select,
practice, and determine the rules of speaking and
interacting with words.
We learned at an early age how to listen to and
perceive these interactions between adults as well
as to determine how these interactions related to
the world around and beyond. The rules of these
verbal dances were not laid out per se. Instead,
they were passed down in grown folks’ talk about
things in their world. They did not ask or tell us
what, how, and why. Rather, they detailed the responses of personalities to events; they praised,
they derided, they questioned the reasons for
events and compared new items and events to
those with which they were familiar (Heath,
1988). They did not simplify their talk about the
world for our benefit. They taught, and we
learned in the landscape the meanings of their
words.
Around me stories came to life, and I was
called on to create an imagined background for
them. These were stories, in artifact and word, of
our parents’ childhood at a time when African
Americans were “colored” and a loaf of bread
cost a dime. People I’d never met would be resurrected and bit by bit pieced together with the
tongues of enchanted detail for my mind’s eye.
From my mother’s lips, strangers were made familiar and were given the breath of life in words
and gestures that shaped, colored, and lent
meanings—meanings that played out within a
scenery long since decayed. For long afternoons
through late evenings we’d sit, listen, and learn.
Here, functions of literacy outside the classroom are real and familiar. Unfortunately, however, they are all too often overlooked when we
think about literacy, primarily because literacy is
often associated with a specific purpose and
form of language taught in classrooms. When the
purposes of language in the classroom are too
distant from those outside students’ lives, resistance and failure are most likely to result. By contrast, when the purposes of literacy in the classroom can be related in familiar socially and
culturally situated ways, education is much more
successful.
Such socially and culturally situated ways of
teaching and learning have traditionally been
given little consideration within the educational
world. Much of this oversight is because there are
few data that address such forms of literacy acquisition. In addition, there are also problems of
inaccessibility and the lack of alternative points
of view and critical reassessments. Such alternative points of view are necessary if we want to
gain insight into how people experience learning
and teaching beyond school settings.
While offering invaluable insight within the
field of literacy, the intellectuals who contributed
to these volumes have committed themselves to
broadening the landscape of education. As testimony to this, we have witnessed an expansion in
recent years in the scholarship on literacy across
community, classroom, and even workplace, a
form of scholarship with univocal origins. Those
who were once confined within their own domains of inquiry in anthropology, linguistics,
psychology, and literary theory are converging,
combining their expertise toward productive
multidimensional ends. Through their contributions, these individuals endeavor to provide educators at all levels with a valuable resource, one
that helps to dismantle old notions of a one-sizefits-all approach to literacy. In part or in whole,
this encyclopedia provides tools useful in understanding the complicated relations among the
dimensions of literacy. To the reader belongs the
pleasure of investigating them.
Yolanda J. Majors
IV
Museum literacy. Museum literacy? Many of us
thought the literacy proliferation of the past
decade had peaked with emotional literacy. Nevertheless, even a relatively small sample of the
2,520,000 “literacy” sites, unearthed by a web
search engine in just a tenth of a second, suggests
that this proliferation is just hitting its stride: visual literacy, numerical literacy, Jewish literacy,
financial literacy, consumer literacy, health literacy, food literacy, dance literacy, film literacy, art
literacy, wine literacy, sexual literacy, information literacy, environmental literacy, electronic
literacy, digital literacy, nutrition literacy, geographic literacy, chemical literacy, biology literacy, library literacy, geoscience literacy, and museum literacy (see Ecological Literacy, Media
Literacy, Multicultural Literacy, Multiple Literacies, and Visual Literacy).
Perhaps it’s a lack of imagination that’s responsible for the current practice of baptizing such
wide-ranging human endeavor and accomplishxviii
Introduction
ment as “literacy.” For example, when we finally
realized that sexual education involves more than
technical understanding of reproduction systems,
we weren’t quite sure how to name the new incarnation, so we just substituted literacy for education in the old name because it had worked already for computer education, art education, and
so forth. Perhaps this apparent proliferation of
literacies is the result of shrewd marketing of old
wines in new bottles by educational entrepreneurs. The cultural cachet of literacy is undeniably desirable, and what better way to give biology or accounting a face-lift than to have them
join the burgeoning family of literacies where, it
seems, there’s always room for one more.
Asking why there are suddenly so many new
players in the literacy landscape isn’t prompted
by concerns about professional turf. Nor is it
motivated by a desire for a singular circumscription of the notion of literacy. Instead, the question arises from a very basic communication issue: when people use the term literacy, what do
they mean? How are they understood? We need
to determine what, if any, common conceptual
ground these many new notions of literacy
share—because if literacy means everything, it
means nothing.
Historically, in Western culture, literacy has
meant the ability to read and write. More specifically, this has meant the ability to read and write
words—the dominant sign system in Western
culture—and assemblages of words, called texts,
that have been configured to explain, persuade,
entertain, and so on. Tacit in this notion of literacy is that words and, by extension, texts are the
places in which meaning resides.
In this scheme, the division of labor is clear.
Writing is an act of text production by which an
author uses personal knowledge of the world, the
context, and linguistic conventions to choose and
arrange words skillfully in an attempt to convey
intended meanings precisely. Reading then becomes an act of text consumption by which a
reader uses personal knowledge of the world, the
context, and linguistic conventions in an attempt
to discern the author’s meanings accurately.
So how do we get from reading and writing
word texts to wine literacy or visual literacy? Not
easily; because the logocentric (word-centered)
worldview that underwrites most of our cultural
practices—including curriculum, pedagogy, and
assessment in public schools—makes it very,
very difficult for us to think about reading or
writing without reference to words. Imagine the
responses you might get if, for example, you
asked people on the street if they could read a
shiraz (Australian grape) or write a seascape.
Breaking the vicelike grip of logocentrism and
expanding our notion of what it means to be literate depend on clarifying the nature of words
and their epistemological function in our lives.
Rather than seeing words as inherently meaningful we need to understand them as symbolically
meaningful, as socially and culturally sanctioned
signs that we configure in endless ways to codify
our understanding of everyday experience across
myriad contexts: the color red represents danger;
a thumbs-up gesture represents approval; a downturned mouth represents sadness; the inability to
read the printed word represents illiteracy. Of
course, depending on the situation, red might represent passion; thumbs-up might represent a request; a downturned mouth might represent a
sign of sexual interest. Realistically, given the privileged status of words in mainstream culture, the
inability to read the printed word will continue to
represent illiterateness in most contexts.
Nevertheless, if we accept that the nature and
function of words are symbolic and if we recognize that words are only one of many types of
symbols or signs by which we make sense of our
worlds, it becomes possible to reconceptualize
literacy in more inclusive ways. Writing becomes
an act of configuring culturally sanctioned
signs—word, gesture, sound, color—in one or
more medium, for instance, in print, film, paint,
clay, fabric. Text becomes a configuration of
signs—haiku, mime, symphony, photograph,
tapestry. Reading becomes an act of interpreting
configurations of culturally sanctioned signs (see
Multimedia, and Semiotics).
Implicit here is that all textual activity is
agenda driven. Writing and reading are done for
some reason: to develop theories, pursue relationships, sell products, defend the weak, placate
the annoying, console the heartsick—but not just
any theory, relationship, product, or weakness.
The political innuendo implicit in the notion of
agenda reminds us that our textual acts are not
naively utilitarian but rather are underwritten by
particular assumptions about the nature of reality and knowledge, by ideological beliefs, as well
as by social and moral values. There are no neutral or innocent acts of writing or reading; there
xix
Introduction
are no neutral or innocent texts. We write, and
read to clarify, preserve, disrupt, advance and resist what we know, believe, and value about our
worlds and our places in them (see Critical Literacy, Critical Reading, Resistant Reading, and The
Political Nature of Literacy).
In this scheme, to write a painting becomes a
process of configuring line, shape, hue, tone, texture to achieve some agenda—social commentary, aesthetic experimentation, cultural celebration, personal catharsis. Similarly, to read a
painting becomes a process of interpreting a particular configuration of visual signs to satisfy
some agenda—learn about technique, experience visceral response, appraise authenticity,
psychoanalyze the artist. Mary Pratt’s painting
Pomegranates—Open and Closed, for example,
understood as an assemblage of signs configured
to achieve some agenda, becomes a text in the
same sense as Peter Carey’s novel True History of
the Kelly Gang.
Embodied in this revisionist notion of literacy
is a subtle shift in the locus of meaning. If signs,
and therefore texts, are not inherently meaningful but rather socially negotiated, the significance
or meaning of any assemblage of words, paint,
gesture, or sound can also be seen as indeterminate and socially negotiated—brokered in the
contexts from which it emerges through the age,
experiences, interests, needs, and agendas of
those who engage with texts as authors or as
readers (see Context in Literacy, Literacy and
Culture, Social Constructivism, Social Nature of
Literacy, and Subjectivity).
Subtle, too, is the possibility that authors and
readers can satisfy differing agendas through the
same putative texts. With the constraints of intentional fallacy loosened considerably, authors
and readers have more leeway in negotiating
what they want or need from texts. Thus, although Pratt might have intended Pomegranates—Open and Closed as meditation on common objects, her text can be read plausibly as a
comment on human relationships. And although
Carey might have intended True History of the
Kelly Gang as a recreational adventure tale, it can
also be taken up as a chronicle of racism and class
struggle in colonial Australia. This is not to say
that authors or readers can operate unfettered;
communal conventions and practices tend to
prevent any descent into interpretive relativism.
Finally, this particular revisionist scheme
brings new responsibilities. Writers need to become more critically reflexive in order to understand what and whose agendas their texts are intended to serve and whether they condone their
own participation in the process. Readers need to
monitor critically not only their own textual
agendas but also those of the authors with whose
texts they engage, asking “What’s going on here?”
“For whom?” “What forms of representation are
being privileged?” “Why?” (see Critical Literacy,
Critical Media Literacy, Critical Reading, and Social Justice and Literacies).
So, we return to our communication conundrum: what do we mean when we invoke the notion of literacy? What, if anything, do print literacy, wine literacy, and museum literacy have in
common? The simple answer is that they are all
semiotic processes; they are all concerned with
learning to write and read—to make sense of—
our lived and virtual experiences.
Obvious? Maybe. But if it is obvious, we don’t
act as if it is. In fact, we don’t act as though anything other than words are concerned with
meaning-making. This is most blatant in the visual and performing arts, which many seem, at
best, as interpretive acts performed with varying
degrees of skillfulness and, at worst, as recreational or leisure activities used as a reward or
change of pace—as “time off ” from the real curricular work of schools, working with words and
numbers. In more subtle ways this epistemological marginalization is true of mathematics and
the sciences, too. Rather than seeing numbers,
equations, and theorems as ways of exploring
and representing lived phenomena, students are
groomed for seamless algorithmic performance
and prodigious accretion of facts.
This hegemony of words continues even at a
time when cultural studies, and particularly media studies, have emboldened us to refer confidently to government, race, sex, disease, restaurants, and train compartments as text(ual); and,
on a grander scale, to talk blithely about reading
the world. These everyday metaphorical invocations of conventional literate activity “work” as
conversational glosses because they allude to the
primary analogical processes of reading and
writing texts for meaning. To move beyond intellectual glibness, we need to use the underlying
architecture of this analogy to scaffold our
moves from conceptually familiar and comfortable ground to less certain but more promising
xx
Introduction
terrain: to make the familiar strange (e.g., words
as signs), and to make the strange familiar again
(e.g., painting as writing).
The idea that meaning is socially constructed
and symbolically mediated through multiple,
culturally sanctioned sign systems has circulated
among literacy educators and researchers for
more than twenty years and has always held great
promise for more broadly based conceptualizations of literacy. Yet this idea hasn’t had any sustained or widespread impact on literacy curriculum, pedagogy, or evaluation because we haven’t
found ways to make it comprehensible or viable
for teachers, parents, administrators, curriculum
designers, and assessment specialists. In fairness,
the obstacles to new notions of literacy are only
partly conceptual; many teachers and teacher educators are working to transform curriculum
and pedagogy in literacy education (as reflected
in the entry Teacher Education in Literacy). The
difficulties are also political and ideological.
Conservative sensibilities and collective memories of previous innovations gone wrong have
created resistance, among administrative and
parent groups in many educational jurisdictions,
to any seemingly radical reformulations of literacy and literacy pedagogy. The problems are also
partly perceptual. Many teachers feel that they
aren’t skilled enough in “alternative” sign systems
to offer their students worthwhile experiences in
different ways of knowing (“I can’t draw/sing/
dance/use Photoshop, so how could I ever help
my students?”). Concerns about products and
production values obscure the epistemological
possibilities of alternative sign systems and different media. We need to remind ourselves that
the overarching pedagogical agenda for new or
multiple literacies is not to groom cinematographers, recording engineers, set designers, or
other cultural experts; it’s to help us develop
broader repertoires for experiencing and representing—knowing—our everyday worlds.
In fact, when all is said and done, the most
compelling reason for embracing more inclusive
notions of literacy is to enable us to know our
worlds in many ways. This is particularly urgent
for those in our collective care who are “at risk”
because they can’t participate fluently in cultures
underwritten by conventional notions of literacy.
If we think more inclusively about what it means
to be literate—to embrace not just the notion
but also the practice of multiple literacies—we
are more likely to create sanctioned spaces in
which all of us can participate meaningfully and
joyously in the worlds of ideas and feelings.
Allan Neilsen
V
At this writing, three events coincide. From Signal Hill in Newfoundland, the world marks the
one-hundredth anniversary of Guglielmo Marconi’s triumph, the first transatlantic radio
transmission, a feat no one believed possible at
the time. An international report conducted in
2000 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the state of
literacy across the world releases information
that places North American adolescents at the
top among their peers on the globe. And, from
outside her country, an Afghan woman, Dr. Sima
Samar, emerges in the wake of the post-September 11, 2001, conflict to become one of two
women appointed to serve in the transitional
government of post-Taliban Afghanistan. These
are critical, and particular, conjunctions at the
beginning of the new century in a time of uncertainty: what are we to make of these events in
light of the scope of our work in literacy, education, and research?
As the selections in this volume reveal, such
seemingly disparate events in our local and
larger worlds can be seen as important markers
in literacy, particularly as we view our literacies
through the many lenses we consider feminist.
Just as there is no single perspective on literacy
and literacy research, there is no single feminist
perspective on what we know, how we know it,
and how we presume to learn more to create and
support just and democratic environments for
teaching and learning. As Rebecca Luce-Kapler’s
discussion of gender and writing illustrates so
well, our ontologies and epistemologies both
shape and are shaped by the cultural, political,
social, and psycho-emotional contexts in which
we live and work. We cannot step over them in
order to speak of our positionings; we are inside
them.
Similarly, when we imagine more educative
and socially just environments for education and
research, we must understand that how students
become literate—and what their literacy looks
like or gives them the power (or not) to do—is
shaped by the environments in which they learn.
What does an eight-year-old Metis girl in a classxxi
Introduction
room in Northern Alberta learn about reading,
writing, agency, and life as she completes another
worksheet on “ing” words, listens to a story
about a Southern boy’s adventures, and uses her
emergent literacy skills to fashion a form of survival in a classroom where the world she knows
is only minimally represented, if at all? In what
ways do the literate behaviors she acquires, or
into which she is inducted, affect how she sees
the world, and who she might become?
Here, then, in such a question, we may reach
for some common point of consensus—if that is
the appropriate word—in feminist perspectives
on literacy, learning, and research. As illustrated
by the contributions to this volume, the questions feminist researchers ask are myriad: they
concern the texts and discourses available or unavailable to students, teachers, and researchers;
the educational environments, teaching behaviors, strategies, and practices inherited, perpetuated, applied, and resisted; and the ways and
means we consider in a demonstration of what
literacy is, how we measure literate behaviors,
what values are implicit in these choices and decisions, and further, how we might investigate literacy practices, and who decides. But regardless
of the diversity of these perspectives among feminist researchers, we seek—as we presume all educators and investigators in literacy seek—a
greater understanding of the mysteries of reading, writing, and learning.
Most feminist theorists, researchers, and educators seek to understand and re-vision the political, cultural, and social relations that privilege
certain perspectives, voices, approaches, texts, research methods, or sets of discursive practices
over another. The term feminist, whether or not
it is accompanied by a descriptor such as liberal,
post-structuralist, or radical, is necessarily a political word, used with political intent, and effecting political impact. In the last decade of the
twentieth century, the field of literacy shifted and
broadened to include notions of multiple literacies, issues of social justice, and multiple perspectives on literacy research. Without question,
such a shift forced reassessment of what counts
as literacy, what counts as research, and what
matters in the teaching and learning enterprise.
These are unquestioningly political issues, and as
we push investigation of them further, we must
necessarily tap into larger political and global dimensions of literacy and life. Reading the word,
as Paulo Freire reminded us, is reading the world.
Writing the word, writing and reading texts and
lives: these, too, are literacies of living.
And now, early in this new century, with world
events forcing our attention to larger global and
humanitarian issues, our shifting understandings of literacy continue to broaden and deepen.
Many voices from many disciplines have urged
such a shift; the field of literacy, especially where
feminist and social justice issues are concerned,
has been informed by a number of theorists and
writers. Maxine Greene has advocated an expansive and diverse approach to literacy as fundamental to democracy, Donna Haraway has influenced our understanding of technologies as
gendered, Valerie Walkerdine and Pam Gilbert
have reminded literacy educators that class and
gender are critical factors regardless of a teacher’s
best intentions, and Patricia Hill Collins and
Cynthia Dillard, among other African American
educators, have brought to the field a long-overdue recognition of the intersection of race and
feminist epistemologies. Donna Alvermann has
written extensively of feminist post-structuralism and literacies, JoBeth Allen of social justice
issues, and Lorri Neilsen of feminist post-structuralist perspectives on research, particularly the
role of alternative discourses and genres.
What their works have in common has caused
a reassessment of reading and writing in our
lives: each reminds us we must keep the field
open, diverse, and inclusive (see Social Justice
and Literacies); that we must refuse fundamentalist and fractured notions of literacy and being;
and that we are located in particular settings and
positions, even as we attempt to work toward a
common good. Several of the entries in these
volumes, such as Resistant Reading, and Subjectivity, reflect these growing understandings of
how we must balance local and larger visions.
And whether the issue is agency, voice, class, culture/ethnicity, gender, or technologies, we recognize that literacy is the seed from which perspectives and power germinate. We recognize that we
still have much to learn, and much to do.
Less than 100 years ago, reading researchers devised a machine on which a subject-reader rested
the chin so that the researcher might document
eye movements and thus offer hypotheses about
reading speed and comprehension (the entry Eye
Movements provides an overview). In the not-sodistant past, researchers measured the circumferxxii
Introduction
ence of male and female skulls in order to offer
hypotheses about intelligence. In the late 1960s,
we parceled language into manipulable bits of
syntax—t-units and causal connectives, to name a
few—and isolated these in our research in the
hope that we could determine which units had
salience and could thus create, for readers and
teachers alike, texts that had a certain logic, linearity, or predictability, regardless of context. At
the time, our questions were located in the individual as representative of a norm, and in the text,
as representative of accepted cultural norms. As
researchers, we did not consider that these norms
may have supported a privileged, exclusive, and
limited view of literacy. The notion that our entire
enterprise was politically shaped—and that it
shaped us, politically—was, wittingly or unwittingly, foreign. Politics was World War II or the
Cold War; politics was a seat in the House of Representatives or in Parliament. These had nothing
to do with teaching, learning, research, or literacy.
However, as we see how our perspectives on
literacy have changed, educators and researchers
are increasingly able to recognize and inform one
another on where the universal and the particular meet, exploring how these affect schooling
and research. The one-hundredth anniversary of
Marconi’s transmission calls to mind the breathtaking growth in technologies over the last century and, among other implications, reminds us
of the remarkable ways in which our gendered
social practices repeatedly reinforce and replicate
themselves in emerging media, in spite of our attempts to resist (see Marion Fey’s entry, Gender
and Post-Typographical Text). Such media are
multiplying rapidly in the schools and from the
outset have pressed us to consider countless
questions about literacy, gender, and authority,
as Donna Alvermann’s contribution to these volumes illustrates (see Critical Media Literacy).
The OECD test results on literacy that rank
North American adolescents higher than most
(Canadian students at third, U.S. students at fifteenth, among thirty-two countries) do not necessarily prompt everyone to celebrate; rather, the results invite us to consider how we measure and
assess literacy growth; whose values are implicit in
those measures; which countries are “excelling” at
the expense of others; which cultures and forms of
literacy are going unnoticed or are being allowed
to die, having been overtaken by the weight of
other dominant cultural and political forces.
Finally, the selection of Sima Samar as interim
deputy prime minister and minister responsible
for women’s affairs in Afghanistan’s transitional
government reminds a feminist researcher in literacy of several issues. First and most obviously,
Samar’s tenuous and marginal role reminds us
that women, regardless of education, continue to
have a voice much more limited than their numbers in the population would suggest (and, although cultural practices and values differ,
women in North America do not necessarily enjoy representation in greater degree). Further, her
role as the minister responsible for women’s affairs reminds us that we, as a global culture, continue to struggle with issues of inclusion and representation. Do we hope for a time when women’s
affairs do not need their own department? In
schools, do we study African American poets, or
do we study, simply, poets, looking carefully at
our curricula to ensure that all voices are represented in ways that reveal our rich cultural landscape? Among many other implications, we might
consider how this signal event, the circumstances
surrounding it, and our awareness of those events
have forever altered our perspective on a number
of fronts: global, cultural, social, and personal.
The glib phrase education for freedom has deeper
and more resonant tones now than ever before.
Literacy is our access and our angle on the aspects of our world. Our literacies are how we live
inside and respond to our worlds. Although our
literate behavior has its own fingerprint, we are
ecological and global beings; we read and write
in local and larger contexts and in communities
that shift, that create us as we help to create
them. We can resist these contexts, subvert them,
reshape them, challenge them, and draw from
them. In our increasingly expansive understanding of literacies, educators and researchers are
recognizing that literacy is not only of the head,
it is of the body, the senses, the heart. The gendered—some say patriarchal—assumptions that
literacy is only of the mind and not written on
the body are being questioned. Educators in
greater numbers are abandoning miseducative
and unsustainable literacy-learning activities and
helping students and teachers to consider more
holistic, embodied, community and globally directed approaches to text, whether the text is
conventional print or a student-created multimedia production (see Media Literacy, and Gender and Discussion).
xxiii
Introduction
Students themselves are becoming authors of
their own literacy learning, taking up roles that
their teachers once held, demonstrating and
stretching new conceptions of literacy in the
process. Similarly, classroom teachers look to
students and to each other for approaches and
inspiration, not to an external authority they
may once have relied upon, because they understand that the knowledge they create together
creates connection and new possibilities. Such
knowledge comes from both boys and girls, from
diverse cultural and religious perspectives, from
many subject positions, in many voices and in
many keys. Educational researchers continue to
push our notions of “research literacies” to include participant-shaped qualitative inquiry,
narrative approaches, arts-based inquiry, among
other research methods and texts.
All of these shifts recognize and embrace the
complexities we’ve spawned as we have redefined
literacy in the last several decades. And all of
these shifts are consistent with most conceptions
of feminist perspectives on literacy and learning.
If it is an equitable world we seek, then our
search must, in practice, articulate the local with
the global, particular people with universal connections, the word and the image with communities here and beyond. For every electronic text
a student beams across the continent, there is a
debt to Marconi and an opportunity to examine
access and privilege. For every state-mandated
literacy test, there arise questions of policy, values, and educating for a market economy. And
for every instance of redressing gender imbalance, however minimal, there are millions of
young girls across the world now hoping,
through their literacy and schooling, to achieve a
measure of human potential unlimited by culture or gender. Feminist researchers and educators see the connections among these and look
for the possibilities to address them.
Lorri Neilsen
and aimed at enabling nations and individuals to
“progress” economically and socially (see Adult
Literacy). At this time within First World countries like the United States, however, official statistics indicated that adult illiteracy was almost nil.
Existing adult literacy initiatives in such countries
were small-scale, largely voluntary endeavors. In
the First World, “literacy” teaching occurred only
in marginal spaces of nonformal education work
intended to provide a “second chance” for those
whose illiteracy was often seen as directly associated with other debilitating or dysfunctional conditions and circumstances—like unemployment,
imprisonment, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, inferior physical and psychic health, and so on.
Three contemporaneous factors played key
roles in literacy emerging as a new center of gravity within formal education. The first was the rise
to prominence of Paulo Freire’s work within the
larger context of the radical education movement
of the late 1960s and early 1970s. His work with
peasant groups in Brazil and Chile exemplified
how literacy work could be central to radical approaches to education aimed at building critical
social praxis. The second was the dramatic discovery—many called it an invention—of widespread illiteracy among adults in the United
States during the early 1970s. This alleged literacy
crisis coincided with early awareness of profound
structural change in the economy as the country
moved toward becoming a postindustrial society.
Postindustrialism entailed far-reaching restructuring of the labor market and employment, as
well as deep changes in the major organizations
and institutions of daily life. Large numbers of
people were seen as poorly prepared for these
changes. This “literacy crisis” quickly spread to
other emerging postindustrial societies. The third
factor was the increasing prominence of a sociocultural perspective within linguistics and the social sciences that impacted strongly on conceptual and theoretical understandings of textual
practices. Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole’s
seminal work, The Psychology of Literacy (1981),
followed by Brian Street’s Literacy in Theory and
Practice (1984), provided strong research-based
theoretical and conceptual bases from which to
critique established approaches to the teaching of
reading and writing in schools and an escalating
emphasis on “basics” and “functional literacy” fueled by the “literacy crisis.” In this essay we adopt
a sociocultural perspective.
VI
A field of scholarly and pedagogical activity directly known as literacy emerged only comparatively recently in formal education. Before the
1970s, literacy was associated mainly with educationally disadvantaged adults and, in particular,
with Third World settings. Beginning in the
1960s, numerous nonformal adult literacy programs were implemented in developing countries
xxiv
Introduction
The emergence of a literacy field within formal education was, of course, superimposed on
an already long-established field known as “reading.” Psychology-dominated conceptions of
reading became prominent in the 1800s. Language was conceptualized as a fixed system of
communication, and reading as a discrete set of
mental skills to be mastered in a simple-to-difficult progression. From this perspective, becoming a reader involves first learning the alphabet,
then small words, larger words, entire sentences,
and so on. Thanks largely to psychological conceptions of what people do with print, reading
held dominion over writing in terms of research,
theoretical development, and pedagogical focus
within formal education for almost 200 years.
Educationists in the United States and
throughout the West have long regarded literacy
as a largely psychological ability—an essentially
private possession wired into our heads. Reading
(and, secondarily, writing) means mastering decoding and encoding skills, involving cognitive
capacities seen as integral to “cracking the alphabetic code,” word formation, phonics, grammar,
comprehension, and the like. These skills serve as
building blocks for accessing meaning, for communicating, and so on. According to this view,
once people have literacy they can use “it” to
learn, and to pursue many other benefits, including employment, knowledge, leisure and recreational pursuits, and personal development.
With the turn to science that marked the
1950s through the 1970s, psychological approaches to understanding reading and writing
became more attuned to individual differences.
Educators began promoting the need for individual students to work at their own pace. A new
emphasis on higher-order thinking brought related shifts in focus from reading accuracy to
reading comprehension. This was also associated
with a new emphasis on self-directedness and
self-responsibility for learning to read (and, at
times, learning to write) that culminated in
stand-alone “kits” containing purpose-written
texts, purpose-produced filmstrips, flashcards,
and the like. Among the best-known artifacts
here were the ubiquitous Science Research Associates (SRA) reading kits of the 1960s. Commercial reading schemes based on the principle of
having students engage with simple-to-complex
sequences of skills proliferated in the 1970s and
quickly became “must-have” items in schools. By
the mid-1980s, researchers oriented by psychological theories—especially psycholinguistics—
had further refined earlier studies of reading development into an exact science that focused
particularly on understanding how children successfully encode, decode, and make meaning
from printed texts.
From the late 1960s on, the dominance of psychology within the field of reading was increasingly challenged by emerging humanistic theories of reading and writing. These confronted
psychological theories that mainly attributed
reading and writing failure to individuals, rather
than taking into account home background,
reading materials, teacher approaches to reading
and writing instruction, and so forth. The humanistic perspective is characterized by concern
with the child’s holistic development. This includes engaging in “authentic” or “naturalistic”
learning experiences, attending to the aesthetic
dimension of language use (including a new focus on oral language uses), and conceiving
knowledge as being (best) built collaboratively
rather than individually. It also regards language
production as an art rather than as a set of discrete subskills to be mastered sequentially from
the simple to the more difficult. From this perspective, reading and writing (and speaking) are
referred to collectively as language arts.
Theories of natural learning promote the idea
that children should learn to read and write in
the same way they learn to speak: via full immersion into and engagement with a textual world.
This also resulted in a shift from teacher-directed
pedagogy to child-centered pedagogies. Humanistic theories also underpinned the development
of process approaches to learning to read and
write that were influenced directly by analyzing
what real (adult) readers and writers do when
they read and write. The emphasis on authenticity encouraged a shift away from heavy reliance
on lockstep basal reading programs toward using
“real” children’s literature in classroom reading
programs. Perhaps the best-known teaching approach to emerge from humanistic theories of
language use is whole language, with its dual emphasis on social cooperation (e.g., communities
of learners) and on individual differences in talents and backgrounds (see Authentic Assessment, Language Arts Instruction, Language Experience Approach, and Whole Language and
Whole Language Assessment).
xxv
Introduction
The 1970s and 1980s also witnessed the emergence of sociocultural theories. These became increasingly popular during the 1990s, influencing
pre-service and in-service teacher education
courses and reading and writing instruction to a
notable degree. This theoretical development
had begun with the emergence of social cognition theories of language use derived from Lev
Vygotsky and Alexsandre Luria (see Constructivism, and Social Constructivism), and the
growth of Marxist/critical theories of language
practices. This perspective has been influenced
directly by anthropology, history, sociology, and
philosophy as well and can be credited with
bringing the term literacy into common use
within education. Sociocultural theories promoted wider—although never predominant—
recognition among educationists that “literacy”
is inherently ideological, multiple, contested, dynamic, and contingent. Previously, the notion
that reading and writing involved a singular, autonomous, neutral technology (alphabetic print)
to be mastered through acquisition of cognitive
skills and understandings had reigned supreme.
From a sociocultural perspective, literacy is a
matter of social practice. Literacies are bound up
with social, institutional, and cultural relationships and can only be understood when they are
situated within their social, cultural, and historical contexts. Moreover, they are always connected to social identities—to being particular
kinds of people. Literacies are always embedded
in discourses (see Sociolinguistics and Literacy).
Texts are integral parts of innumerable everyday
lived, spoken, enacted, value- and belief-laden
practices that are carried out in specific places
and at specific times (Gee, Hull, and Lankshear,
1996). Reading and writing are not the same
thing within a youth zine culture, an on-line chat
space, a school classroom, a feminist reading
group, or different kinds of religious ceremonies.
People read and write differently out of different
social practices. These different ways with words
are part of different ways of being a person and
different ways and facets of life. From a sociocultural perspective, it is impossible to separate out
from text-mediated social practices the “bits”
concerned with reading or writing and to treat
them independently of the “nonprint” bits like
values and gestures, actions and objects, talk and
interaction, tools and spaces (Gee, Hull, and
Lankshear, 1996). They are all nonsubtractable
parts of integrated wholes. “Literacy bits” do not
exist apart from the social practices in which
they are embedded and within which they are acquired. If, in some trivial sense, they can be said
to exist (e.g., as code), they do not mean anything. Hence, they cannot meaningfully be
taught and learned as separate.
From one angle, the future could scarcely be
brighter for the literacy field. Reduced “welfarism”—requiring individuals to be more selfsufficient—intensified informationalism, the
rich rewards attached to high-order symbolic
analysis and manipulation in postindustrial
economies, and the brave new world of global
electronic communications have massively
upped the ante for literacies. New literacies are
being invented daily on the streets, in workplaces, and in cyberspace. So far as literacy scholars and educators are concerned, there are seemingly boundless new realms to be explored,
understood, and taught.
From other angles, however, the picture is less
rosy. Two aspects seem especially noteworthy.
First, the literacy “field” is deeply internally conflicted. From a sociocultural perspective, psychology-based approaches to teaching literacy as
largely decontextualized skills offends the principles of efficacious learning. Moreover, it advantages those students for whom skills-based
pedagogy confers opportunities to become increasingly fluent, using skills they have already
acquired within authentic practices in their
homes and communities. From this same standpoint, humanistic approaches privilege those social groups whose home and community-based
discourses approximate more closely the comparatively narrow range of textual (book/literature-centered) practices that tend to dominate
whole language and process reading and writing
pedagogies under classroom conditions. Wholelanguage educators may well see themselves as
operating out of a sociocultural perspective.
Many sociocultural literacy educators, however,
would deny this, on the grounds that the pedagogy does not immerse learners in mature versions of authentic social practices but, rather, often involves highly schoolish caricatures of a
narrow and middle/professional class-oriented
range of social practices. Meanwhile, official literacy education policies and classroom pedagogical responses incline more and more toward
psychological skills-based approaches in pursuit
xxvi
Introduction
of encoding and decoding competence on the
part of as many learners as possible.
The second aspect concerns the role and place
of the classroom within literacy education. Ultimately, the literacy field may be divided on this
point. Although the classroom is suited to bookcentered learning and a range of drill and skill
procedures and has spawned a repertoire of distinctive school discourses, its capacity to accommodate authentic practices in which diverse
everyday literacies are embedded is strictly limited. In addition, many new and emerging literacies associated with social practices mediated by
electronic communications and information
technologies that are potentially capable of being
engaged within classroom-like settings are seen as
too risky or otherwise inappropriate for formal
education. The internally conflicted “field” of literacy could actually split along a line that divides
those educators, theorists, and researchers whose
work continues to be predicated on the classroom
as the principal and proper site for literacy education from those whose work presumes that literacy education belongs mainly elsewhere.
Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear
VII
The benefits of a professional encyclopedia are
many. It gives the user ready access to the theories, perspectives, and programs valued within a
community of practice. Each term is thoughtfully
overviewed, carefully explicated, and well contextualized by acknowledged experts who craft their
explanations and descriptions for readers whose
needs are varied and who may not be immersed
within the culture or traditions of that community. And so it is for Literacy in America, the twovolume encyclopedia for the domain of literacy.
Still, the editor and contributors for these volumes had loftier goals in mind than merely creating a compilation of literacy theories, perspectives, and programs. Their stated intentions were
to emphasize recent orientations, influences, and
approaches and, in so doing, reveal trends taking
shape in the study and practice of literacy. Although each individual contribution may incorporate a sociohistorical framework, the uninitiated reader of this encyclopedia needs more
guidance to discern trends within literacy’s complex realm. Such an accomplishment would be
analogous to discerning the landscape of a geographic area by reading descriptions of various
cities or landmarks found there. Instead, when individuals desire a broad, integrated look at a physical terrain, they wisely turn to a topographical
map that reveals the contours of that landscape.
In a similar way, I want to create such a topographical profile based on the configuration and
confluence of literacy terminology compiled
within these two volumes. This topographical
profile should make the trends and transformations referenced in the individual entries of these
volumes more transparent to readers. However,
rendering a topographical profile of the complex
and abstract domain of literacy is not the same as
creating a map of a physical terrain. In fact, it
takes a massive undertaking like this two-volume
encyclopedia with its hundreds of detailed, expertly crafted overviews to concretize the domain, thus allowing such a rendering. Therefore,
using this encyclopedia as my guide, I want to
take a critical look at the literacy landscape.
Specifically, I want to discuss three general dimensions of the literacy landscape suggested by
the contents of this informative encyclopedia
and to compare those features to past chartings.
First, I begin with an examination of the boundaries and regions of the literacy domain. I do so
for the purpose of answering this critical question: What constitutes the field of literacy? In
other words, how does this current assemblage
demark literacy from other domains of research
and practice? Such an exploration may also reveal how experts today and in the past have conceptualized this realm. Second, I look deeper inside the domain of literacy to identify regions of
increasing activity and rapid expansion. Finally, I
undertake a similar inspection to locate areas
that appear fallow or seriously underdeveloped.
Before proceeding, I must emphasize that areas
of relative activity or inactivity are those of the
domain of literacy and should not be perceived
as shortcomings of this encyclopedia. In fact, the
form of mapping I present here is only possible
because of the richness of this encyclopedic
work, which allows me to pinpoint these contours in literacy’s landscape.
Several features of the overall landscape of literacy, as represented in these volumes, are immediately apparent. First, literacy is a vast and diverse domain that encompasses a range of
linguistic, sociocultural, pedagogical, and communicative theories, processes, and approaches,
from eye-movement research to discursive the-
xxvii
Introduction
ory and from reader’s theater to reading clinics
(see entries on these topics). Despite this scope
and diversity, there are a few shared elements
that distinguish literacy from surrounding domains. Fundamentally, literacy is concerned with
language and the forces that influence its nature,
acquisition, and use.
Second, much of the territory now called “literacy” was once largely subsumed under the
realm of “language arts.” Yet this transformation
from language arts to literacy is far more than
titular. It signifies a dramatic reconceptualization
of the landscape. Specifically, under that older
moniker, language arts, this territory fundamentally consisted of four rather discrete regions—
reading, writing, speaking, and listening. There
was little cross-fertilization of ideas from region
to region, little in the way of shared features, and
limited concern with the social, cultural, and political undercurrents that bind them together.
Today, the landscape of literacy is noticeably
more fluid and overlapping, particularly as it relates to the regions of reading and writing. As in
the past, however, reading seemingly dominates
the landscape, although writing is a realm of increasing significance and far more intertwined
with reading. Speaking and listening, which have
historically been areas of modest activity, have
been reframed and increasingly absorbed into
the realms of reading and writing. Nowhere is
this transformation more evident than in dissolution of the old realm of speech. That is, we find
that the formal area of speech has literally disappeared from the landscape. In its place, we find
numerous entries in these volumes related to
oral communication and verbal interaction
linked to both reading (see Discussion, Oral Language, and Peer Discussion) and writing (see Dialogue Journals, and The Discussion Web). With
only one entry to its credit (see Active Listening),
the old realm of listening has experienced a similar dissolution and absorption.
Further, it is evident that the boundaries of literacy have widened in recent years, spreading
into new and uncharted territories. These new
regions are often represented in these volumes by
entries dealing with alternative literacies (see
Critical Media Literacy, and Ecological Literacy).
These entries also address the sociocultural
forces shaping literacy processes in classrooms
and the broader society (see Gender and Discussion, and Feminist Post-Structuralism).
Because mappings are routinely influenced by
social, cultural, and political factors of the time,
they are typically biased renderings. The same can
be said for the depiction of literacy based on this
two-volume encyclopedia. Within this compilation, the aforementioned emergent regions have
been somewhat exaggerated in scope relative to
the entire domain of literacy. This enhancement is
particularly apparent from the vantage point of
everyday educational practice, where more traditional aspects of literacy (see Phonics Instruction,
Predictable Books, and Questioning) still hold
sway. However, according to the editor of this
work, this enhancement was intentionally undertaken to highlight recent lines of inquiry within
literacy for audiences that may be more familiar
and absorbed with traditional dimensions of the
domain.
As with the concepts related to oral communication and verbal interactions, the clustering of
theories, perspectives, and programs in these volumes is indicative of increasing activity or rapid
expansion upon the theoretical, practical, and political landscape of literacy. In many ways, those regions of development reflect the changing society
in which we live and in which literacy operates. For
example, among the widespread theoretical transformations that have changed the global landscape
of education, and thus literacy, is the apparent shift
from strongly individualistic to social conceptions
of knowledge and knowing. In essence, the nature
of learning and development in past decades was
described in terms of theories or models that dealt
almost exclusively with cognition or changes in an
individual’s mind. The goal was to improve the
quantity and quality of one’s existing or prior
knowledge or to enhance the efficiency with which
one’s knowledge could be activated and applied.
Today, by comparison, there is much more concern with the social nature of learning and development. This change is manifest in the growing interest in the influence of group membership on
literacy achievement and practice (see Gender and
Reading, and Social Nature of Literacy). It is also
visible in the way that those groups construct
shared knowledge through cooperation and collaboration (see Constructivism, Social Constructivism, and Social Nature of Literacy).
Those transformations from individual to collective perspectives are reflected both explicitly
and subtly in the literacy encyclopedia entries.
For example, the encyclopedia includes an ex-
xxviii
Introduction
plicit point-counterpoint discussion of schema
theory. Schema theory was a theoretical model of
individualistic knowledge structures that dominated the literacy domain for much of the 1970s
and early 1980s. The premises and richness of
that theory are considered herein (see Prior
Knowledge and Misconceptions, Schema Theory, and Story Grammar), along with the limitations or shortcomings of that theory as seen
from a sociocontextual vantage point. In addition, there are many subtle markers of the shift to
more socially constructed, socially shared models of knowledge and knowing. The discussions
of constructivism and context in literacy, for instance, address this theoretical shift within the
literacy community, as do entries dealing with
social orientations (see Gender and Writing,
Graffiti, and Resistant Reading) and socially
shared practices (see Book Clubs, The Discussion Web, and Scaffolded Literacy Instruction).
Moreover, beyond social membership or orientation, there are clusters of entries in this encyclopedia that mirror the growing presence of
computer-based technologies. Had I sketched literacy’s landscape in the 1970s, I would have seen
scant evidence of technology—perhaps a few
references to television or the media. In today’s
mapping, however, the outcropping of computer-based terminology is distinctive and casts
a large shadow over the domain of literacy. That
shadow extends to pedagogical practice (see
Computer-Assisted Instruction, Distance Learning, and Electronic Jigsaw) and student assessment (see Dynamic Assessment). It also embraces the basic conceptualization of text (see
Multiple Texts) and modes of communication
(see Instant Messaging, and Reading Online).
Despite its visible presence, computer-based
technology’s overall impact on the nature, acquisition, and practice of literacy remains ill-determined. That is largely attributable to the fact that
these technological changes are occurring at such
a rapid pace that the literacy community has
been unable to extensively and thoroughly track
their effects. It will be interesting to return to
that dimension of the literacy landscape in the
future to see whether the community has developed a richer, more sophisticated understanding
of the impact of technology on the prevailing climate and culture of the domain.
The areas of rapid expansion are also suggestive of powerful political and pedagogical under-
currents transforming the broader educational
environment to which literacy belongs. The time
and attention devoted to the topic of assessment
is a monument to those powerful forces. Assessment has always been a component of the literacy
landscape. In decades past, however, the conversations about assessment would have dealt primarily with individual diagnosis. Vestiges of those
conversations still dot the current landscape (see
Cloze Procedure, Informal Reading Inventory,
Reading Diagnosis, and Reading-Interest Inventories).
Alongside those more individual and more
traditional assessment landmarks are new and
imposing structures. These new monoliths represent efforts to broaden our assessment repertoire (see Authentic Assessment, and Portfolios).
They are also markers of a dramatic shift away
from assessment as a means of improving literacy instruction for individual students to a
mechanism whereby the government and the
public hold districts, schools, administrators,
and teachers accountable (see Accountability and
Testing, High-Stakes Assessment, National Assessment of Educational Progress, and Public
Opinion and Literacy). Although there is much
debate and speculation within the literacy community regarding these new assessment thrusts,
we have yet to ascertain the long-term benefits or
the potential risks they pose.
There is no question that literacy is a domain of
high activity and interest within the wider educational sphere. Yet there are still regions that remain undercultivated or suffer from neglect, as is
to be expected in any complex domain. Two of
these fallow areas can be identified by the lack of
attention they garner within the extensive compilation in this encyclopedia. The first deals with the
relative inattention given to successful or highly
competent readers versus those perceived to be at
risk or in need. The second considers the discontinuity between key ages and stages of literacy.
Historically, the literacy domain, as with the
broader educational community, has been
deeply concerned with those children, youth,
and even adults who have not experienced success or shared in the benefits and pleasures that
linguistic competence affords. This focus is both
understandable and warranted. The continuing
interest in student assessment and the array of
programs and interventions aimed at improving
students’ performance provide ample evidence
xxix
Introduction
of this orientation (see Bilingual Education, The
Even Start Family Literacy Program, The Head
Start Program, Reading Recovery, and Title I).
Yet logically, there would seem to be as many individuals with the potential to achieve competence in the domain of literacy as those who
struggle or have identified needs. If the literacy
community is committed to fostering individuals who not only possess minimum competencies but who also find pleasure and fulfillment in
literacy acts throughout their lifetime, then it
would be wise to reevaluate its consideration of
this overlooked region of the landscape.
Similarly, there are clusters of activity within
the domain related to individuals at differing
points in their literacy development. There are
those young children just becoming acquainted
with this awesome domain of literacy and all the
power and potential it presents (see Early Literacy, and Early Literacy Assessment). Further, the
experts in these volumes discuss students who
have entered a new phase of life and schooling,
and for whom the lure and value of literacy has
changed for better and for worse (see Adolescent
Literacy, and Middle-School Literacy). In addition, there are references within this encyclopedia to even more cognitively and physically mature populations—populations still struggling
with the demands that a highly literate society
poses (see Adult Literacy Testing, and Developmental and College Reading).
Surprisingly, as in times past, when the regions
of literacy—reading, writing, speaking, and listening—existed as separate, discrete areas of research
and practice, I see limited attempts to integrate
these ages and stages of literacy development.
That is to say, what is conspicuously absent in the
domain of literacy, as marked by this compilation,
is any deep understanding of or reflection about
the processes and conditions that allow for progression across these regions of growth and
change. What confluence of factors and forces
urge young children forward from a region of
emerging literacy, where they are only becoming
acclimated to this immense terrain, to the place
where they are willing and able to delve more
competently into the resources of the domain?
How do their maturing abilities and evolving
needs take root and expand into adulthood, ensuring that literacy remains fertile and productive
ground throughout their life? These are clearly
questions that members of the literacy community are ill-prepared to answer. Further, this void
in literacy’s landscape will persist until the community learns to draw on the vast resources of
surrounding domains, such as development, motivation, and educational psychology, that can enlighten and inform our research and practice.
Such cross-domain fertilization can only enhance
the existing landscape and interject new vitality
into the literacy domain.
As this brief charting reveals, the domain of
literacy is not only extensive and rich with resources but also alive with activity. By surveying
the informative and well-chosen entries in this
encyclopedia, as I have done here, areas of emergent development or undercultivation become
more readily apparent. Indeed, this survey reveals the conscious efforts to integrate across regions within the landscape. The emerging areas
of new exploration and the concern with literacy’s place within the broader educational, social, cultural, and political contexts are advances
to be celebrated. Nevertheless, the literacy community cannot overlook the fact that there are
still segments of this domain that it has failed to
cultivate or has allowed to wither from neglect.
As a community committed to the practice and
processes of literacy for all individuals across the
lifespan, literacy educators, administrators, and
researchers must take this occasion, the landmark publication of Literacy in America, as an
opportunity for self-reflection and reassessment.
Only then can this community prepare for the
next decade of literacy’s research and practice
and ensure the continued health and prosperity
of this critical domain.
Patricia A. Alexander
References
Gee, J., G. Hull, and C. Lankshear. 1996. The New
Work Order: Behind the Language of the New
Capitalism. Boulder: Westview Press.
Heath, S. B. 1988. Protean Shapes in Literacy Events:
Ever-Shifting Oral and Literate Traditions. In E. R.
Kintgen, B. M. Moll, and M. Rose, eds., Perspectives
on Literacy, pp. 348–370. Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Scribner, S., and M. Cole. 1981. The Psychology of
Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Street, B. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
xxx
Contributors
Ira E. Aaron, Emeritus
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Patricia L. Anders
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Richard Beach
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Martha A. Adler
University of Michigan–Ann
Arbor
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Nicki L. Anzelmo-Skelton
Southeastern Louisiana
University
Hammond, Louisiana
Thomas W. Bean
University of Nevada–Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada
Peter Afflerbach
University of Maryland–
College Park
College Park, Maryland
Bonnie B. Armbruster
University of Illinois–
Urbana-Champaign
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
Patricia A. Alexander
University of Maryland–
College Park
College Park, Maryland
Gwynne Ellen Ash
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware
JoBeth Allen
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Richard L. Allington
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
Janice F. Almasi
State University of New
York–Buffalo
Buffalo, New York
Marino C. Alvarez
Tennessee State University
Nashville, Tennessee
Donna E. Alvermann
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Deborah J. Augsburger
Lewis University
Romeoville, Illinois
R. Scott Baldwin
Edinboro University of
Pennsylvania
Edinboro, Pennsylvania
Diane Barone
University of Nevada–Reno
Reno, Nevada
Rebecca Barr
National-Louis University
Evanston, Illinois
James F. Baumann
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
xxxi
E. Jo Ann Belk
University of Memphis
Memphis, Tennessee
Beth Berghoff
Indiana University/Purdue
University
Indianapolis, Indiana
Roberta L. Berglund
Independent Consultant
Oak Brook, Illinois
Camille L. Z. Blachowicz
National-Louis University
Evanston, Illinois
Randy Bomer
University of Texas
Austin, Texas
Connie A. Bridge
University of Illinois–Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Kathryn Brimmer
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan
Contributors
Lorelei R. Brush
American Institutes for
Research
Washington, D.C.
Robert C. Calfee
University of California–
Riverside
Riverside, California
Tracy Carman
Literacy Volunteers of America
Syracuse, New York
Ronald P. Carver
University of Missouri–Kansas
City
Kansas City, Missouri
Marrietta Castle, Emerita
Western Illinois University
Rock Island, Illinois
Earl H. Cheek Jr.
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Meredith Rogers Cherland
University of Regina
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
James Christie
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Michelle Commeyras
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Henry T. Dunbar
Reading Is Fundamental
Washington, D.C.
Kathleen E. Cox
University of Maryland–
College Park
College Park, Maryland
Pamela J. Dunston
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
Jane L. Davidson, Emerita
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois
Jonathan Eakle
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Alan Davis
University of Colorado–Denver
Denver, Colorado
Jacqueline Edmondson
The Pennsylvania State
University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Deborah J. Davis
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Laurie Elish-Piper
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois
Susan Deese-Roberts
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico
John Elkins
University of Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia
Martha Dillner
University of Houston–
Clear Lake
Houston, Texas
Deborah R. Dillon
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Cynthia B. Elliott
Southeastern Louisiana State
University
Hammond, Louisiana
Billie J. Enz
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Caroline T. Clark
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
Carol N. Dixon
University of California–Santa
Barbara
Santa Barbara, California
Karen S. Evans
Marquette University
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Kathy Cochran
Furman University
Greenville, South Carolina
Janice A. Dole
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
Bettina Fabos
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
Jill E. Cole
Wesley College
Dover, Delaware
Mark Dressman
University of Illinois–
Urbana-Champaign
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
Mark Faust
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
John P. Comings
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Ann M. Duffy
University of North Carolina–Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina
xxxii
Marion Harris Fey
State University College of New
York–Geneseo
Geneseo, New York
Contributors
Anna Figueira
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Margaret Finders
Washington University
St. Louis, Missouri
Peter J. Fisher
National-Louis University
Evanston, Illinois
Jill Fitzgerald
University of North
Carolina–Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Amy Seely Flint
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
Rona F. Flippo
Fitchburg State College
Cambridge, Massachusetts
James Flood
San Diego State University
San Diego, California
Linda Flower
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Barbara J. Fox
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Edward Fry, Emeritus
Rutgers University
Rutgers, New Jersey
Lee Galda
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Margaret Gamboa
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Linda B. Gambrell
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
Georgia Earnest García
University of Illinois–
Urbana-Champaign
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
Maryl Gearhart
University of California–
Berkeley
Berkeley, California
James Paul Gee
University of Wisconsin–
Madison
Madison, Wisconsin
MariAnne George
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan
Shawn M. Glynn
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Kenneth S. Goodman,
Emeritus
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Yetta M. Goodman
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Judith L. Green
University of California–
Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, California
Ruth D. Handel
Montclair State University
Upper Montclair, New Jersey
Violet J. Harris
University of Illinois–
Urbana-Champaign
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
Jerome C. Harste
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
Douglas K. Hartman
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Kathy N. Headley
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
Harold L. Herber, Emeritus
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York
Alison H. Heron
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Elfrieda H. Hiebert
University of Michigan–Ann
Arbor
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Kathy Highfield
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan
John Guthrie
University of Maryland–
College Park
College Park, Maryland
Richard E. Hodges
University of Puget Sound
Tacoma, Washington
Barbara J. Guzzetti
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Kerry A. Hoffman
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
Margaret Carmody Hagood
College of Charleston
Charleston, South Carolina
Taylor Holt
Rutgers University
Rutgers, New Jersey
Diane Hamm
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Stephen E. Hornstein
St. Cloud State University
St. Cloud, Minnesota
xxxiii
Contributors
George G. Hruby
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Michele Knobel
Central Queensland University
Queensland, Australia
Cynthia Lewis
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
Sarah Hudelson
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Bethel H. Kogut
Laubach Literacy International
Syracuse, New York
Mitzi Lewison
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
Cynthia R. Hynd
University of Illinois–Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Kimi Kondo-Brown
University of Hawaii–Manoa
Honolulu, Hawaii
Jimmy D. Lindsey
Southern University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Gay Ivey
University of Maryland–
College Park
College Park, Maryland
Susan P. Kornuta
East Baton Rouge Parish
Schools
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Laura R. Lipsett
The Ohio Center for Essential
School Reform
Reynoldsburg, Ohio
Bob W. Jerrolds, Emeritus
North Georgia College and
State University
Oahlonega, Georgia
Stephen Krashen
University of Southern
California
Los Angeles, California
Rebecca Luce-Kapler
Queens University
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Jerry L. Johns, Emeritus
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois
Linda D. Labbo
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Denise Johnson
College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, Virginia
Missy Laine
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio
Mary Johnston
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan
Colin Lankshear
University of Ballarat
Ballarat, Australia
Michael L. Kamil
Stanford University
Palo Alto, California
Diane Lapp
San Diego State University
San Diego, California
Wendy C. Kasten
Kent State University
Kent, Ohio
Christine Leland
Indiana University/Purdue
University
Indianapolis, Indiana
Francis E. Kazemek
St. Cloud State University
St. Cloud, Minnesota
Laurie Kingsley
University of Missouri–
Columbia
Columbia, Missouri
Noma LeMoine
Los Angeles Unified School
District
Los Angeles, California
Susan Davis Lenski
Illinois State University
Normal, Illinois
xxxiv
Allan Luke
University of Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia
Carmen Luke
University of Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia
Jeff MacSwan
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Yolanda Majors
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Anthony V. Manzo
California State
University–Fullerton
Fullerton, California
Ula Manzo
University of California–
Fullerton
Fullerton, California
Peggy VanLeirsburg Marciniec
University of Wisconsin–
Superior
Superior, Wisconsin
Contributors
Howard Margolis
Queens College of the City
University of New York
Queens, New York
Katherine Maria
College of New Rochelle
New Rochelle, New York
Larry Mikulecky
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
Mary Jane Mitchell
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prisca Martens
Towson University
Towson, Maryland
Elizabeth Birr Moje
University of Michigan–
Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Mona W. Matthews
Georgia State University
Atlanta, Georgia
Karla J. Möller
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
Sandra McCormick, Emerita
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
Charles Monaghan
Independent Scholar
Brooklyn, New York
Kathleen M. McCoy
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
E. Jennifer Monaghan
Brooklyn College of the City
University of New York
Brooklyn, New York
Ann McGill-Franzen
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
Michael C. McKenna
Georgia Southern University
Savannah, Georgia
Virginia R. Monseau
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, Ohio
David W. Moore
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Maureen McLaughlin
East Stroudsberg University of
Pennsylvania
East Stroudsberg, Pennsylvania
Sharon Arthur Moore
Peoria Unified School District
Glendale, Arizona
Susan McMahon
National-Louis University
Evanston, Illinois
Gretchen Morrison
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Jeff McQuillan
California State
University–Fullerton
Fullerton, California
Timothy G. Morrison
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah
John Micklos Jr.
Reading Today
Newark, Delaware
Lesley Mandel Morrow
Rutgers University
Rutgers, New Jersey
Jacqueline Y. Munyer
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland
xxxv
Donna M. Murphy
Edinboro University of
Pennsylvania
Edinboro, Pennsylvania
K. Denise Muth
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Allan Neilsen
Mount Saint Vincent
University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Lorri Neilsen
Mount Saint Vincent
University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Susan Neuman
University of Michigan–Ann
Arbor
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Sherrie L. Nist
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Stephen P. Norris
University of Alberta
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
David G. O’Brien
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Donna M. Ogle
National-Louis University
Evanston, Illinois
Penny Oldfather
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Michael F. Opitz
University of Northern
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
Nancy Padak
Kent State University
Kent, Ohio
Contributors
†Ann Watts Pailliotet
Whitman College
Walla Walla, Washington
Gaoyin Qian
Lehman College
Bronx, New York
Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Taffy E. Raphael
University of Illinois–Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Jeanne R. Paratore
Boston University
Boston, Massachusetts
Timothy Rasinski
Kent State University
Kent, Ohio
Lavada Jacumin Parmer
University of Mobile
Mobile, Alabama
John E. Readence
University of Nevada–Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada
P. Elizabeth Pate
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Lynn Reddy
National Institute for Literacy
Washington, D.C.
P. David Pearson
University of California–
Berkeley
Berkeley, California
David Reinking
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
M. Christina Pennington
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
Kay Pentzien
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan
Stephen Phelps
Buffalo State College
Buffalo, New York
Linda M. Phillips
University of Alberta
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Gay Su Pinnell
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
Cheryl Pocius
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan
Lynne Hebert Remson
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
D. Ray Reutzel
Southern Utah University
Cedar City, Utah
Carole S. Rhodes
Adelphi University
Garden City, New York
Victoria Gentry Ridgeway
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
Pat Rigg
American Language and
Literacy
Tucson, Arizona
Victoria J. Risko
Peabody College of Vanderbilt
University
Nashville, Tennessee
Victoria Purcell-Gates
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
xxxvi
Richard Robinson
University of Missouri–
Columbia
Columbia, Missouri
Theresa Rogers
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada
Kellie Rolstad
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Jonathan Rose
Drew University
Madison, New Jersey
Nancy L. Roser
University of Texas–Austin
Austin, Texas
Kathleen Roskos
John Carroll University
University Heights, Ohio
Martha Rapp Ruddell
Sonoma State University
Rohnert Park, California
William H. Rupley
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
Leslie S. Rush
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyoming
Martha H. Rusnak
Lewis University
Romeoville, Illinois
Terry Salinger
American Institute for
Research
Washington, D.C.
S. Jay Samuels
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contributors
Amy C. Sass
Rutgers University
Rutgers, New Jersey
Norman A. Stahl
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois
Diane L. Schallert
University of Texas–Austin
Austin, Texas
Steven A. Stahl
University of Illinois
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
Barbara R. Schirmer
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio
Patricia Lambert Stock
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Judith A. Scott
University of California–
anta Cruz
Santa Cruz, California
Jeanne Swafford
Mississippi State University
Starkville, Mississippi
Timothy Shanahan
University of Illinois–Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Kathy G. Short
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Michele L. Simpson
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Yvonne Siu-Runyan
University of Northern
Colorado
Greeley, Colorado
Peter Smagorinsky
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
Karen Smith
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
M. Cecil Smith
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois
Michael W. Smith
Rutgers University
Rutgers, New Jersey
William Earl Smith
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio
Susan Swan
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Janet P. Swartz
Abt Associates
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Anne P. Sweet
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C.
Joy Sweet
Right to Read
Washington, D.C.
Barbara M. Taylor
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Shane Templeton
University of Nevada–Reno
Reno, Nevada
Robert J. Tierney
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada
Cheri Foster Triplett
Virginia Tech University
Blacksburg, Virginia
Brenda Turnbull
Policy Studies Associates
Washington, D.C.
xxxvii
Norman J. Unrau
California State University–
Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California
Richard T. Vacca
Kent State University
Kent, Ohio
Sam Vagenas
University of Phoenix
Phoenix, Arizona
Sheila W. Valencia
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
Johan W. van der Jagt
Southeastern Louisiana
University
Hammond, Louisiana
Suzanne E. Wade
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
Kenneth J. Weiss
Nazareth College of Rochester
Rochester, New York
Mary Ann Wham
University of
Wisconsin–Whitewater
Whitewater, Wisconsin
Terrence G. Wiley
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Arlette Ingram Willis
University of Illinois–Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Peter Winograd
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Linda S. Wold
Purdue University Calumet
Hammond, Indiana
Contributors
Carolyn F. Woods
Harrison County Schools
Gulfport, Mississippi
Crystal Marie Wooten
Phoenix Parks, Recreation, and
Library Program
Phoenix, Arizona
xxxviii
A
Ability Grouping
formed within classes also became more common during the 1920s and 1930s.
Researchers in the 1930s asked whether the
practice of ability grouping really led to the creation of a group of students who were similar in
their knowledge. Upon investigation, they found
that student performance in one area (e.g., reading) was not highly related to that in another
(e.g., math) and that classes formed to be high
ability and low ability in a particular area were,
in fact, highly overlapping in that same area
when measured by a different test.
A second question pursued by researchers
asked whether students grouped by ability
learned more than comparable students in more
heterogeneous groups. The literature includes
two major waves of reviews on achievement outcomes, one in the 1930s and the other in the
1960s. Reviewers of both periods emphasize the
equivocal and inconsistent results from study to
study and criticize the quality of the quasi-experimental studies. Yet, basing their studies mainly
on the same evidence, they draw quite different
conclusions. Whereas early reviewers tended to
conclude that ability grouping benefited “slow”
students, many in the later group of reviewers
discerned a tendency for ability-grouped high
achievers to learn more than comparable students in heterogeneous groups but for abilitygrouped low achievers to do less well than those
in heterogeneous groups.
Concern about whether and how students
should be organized for classroom instruction
stimulated theoretical and ideological debate.
One assumption underlying ability grouping
and tracking strategies is that the content of instruction needs to be matched to the prior
knowledge of students for them to realize optimal learning. Yet if ability groups were not as
Ability grouping refers to the division of students into groups on the basis of their intelligence or achievement. Within-class grouping occurs mainly in elementary-school classes and
mainly for reading instruction. For within-class
grouping, group membership can be modified
over time since all groups are taught by a single
teacher and different groups can be formed for
other content areas. Further, in those subject areas in which the class is instructed as a unit, children have the opportunity to interact with classmates who vary in ability. Between-class grouping
in elementary schools or tracking in high schools
refers to the assignment of students to classes on
the basis of achievement in an effort to increase
the homogeneity among students within classes.
In these classes, students interact only with other
students of roughly similar achievement.
Historical Literature on Ability Grouping
The impulse to regularize education in the
United States goes back at least to the time of
Horace Mann in the 1830s. Ability grouping into
classes was first documented somewhat later in
1862 in the St. Louis schools. Although it is more
difficult to date the emergence of ability grouping within classrooms, one of the earliest references, found in the Story Hour Readers Manual
(American Book Company, 1913) suggests separate groups for those who are “slow and need
more assistance” and those who “progress rapidly.” Schools at the turn of the century expanded
rapidly as new waves of immigration occurred.
Educators responded with a variety of school reforms, including various grouping schemes
identified with their respective cities (Detroit;
Joplin, Missouri; Denver; Gary, Indiana; Winnetka, Illinois; Dalton, Georgia). Reading groups
1
Ability Grouping
Students in this picture are grouped by ability (Elizabeth Crews)
thing in different schools or even in the same
school. The educational experiences of students
vary markedly across tracks or groups, depending on the level and quality of the curricular materials used, the capabilities of teachers, and the
aggregate characteristics of students from class
to class. Reviews of this literature focus mainly
on the results from case studies and surveys
(Barr and Dreeben, 1991; Oakes, Gamoran, and
Page, 1992).
Concern with equality spawned several lines
of inquiry, some going beyond narrow ideological concerns and leading to conceptualizations of
ability grouping as part of the social systems of
schools and classrooms. Some of the more interesting research of the 1970s and 1980s stems
from concern with the mechanisms, such as curriculum differentiation and instructional quality,
through which social background might influence education and life chances. Rebecca Barr
and Robert Dreeben (1991), for example, argue
that the rate of curricular presentation is responsive to average group ability, which in turn influences students’ learning.
homogeneous as generally assumed and if results
concerning learning were equivocal, could the
practice be justified? Questions focused not only
on whether the practice of ability grouping was
educationally sound but also on whether it violated the principle of equal educational opportunity. Were some children being discriminated
against by being placed in low-level reading
groups or in low-ability classes? The Moses v.
Washington Parish School Board (1971) decision,
for example, was based on the argument that the
practice was not acceptable since educational research does not justify its use.
Research on Ability Grouping
in the 1970s and 1980s
Research in the 1970s and 1980s reflects trends in
educational research toward examining the
processes through descriptive research methods.
During this period, the research on ability
grouping became more broadly conceptualized,
focusing on the instruction that ability groups
receive. It has become clear that membership in
an ability group or track does not mean the same
2
Ability Grouping
terest in such issues in the 1990s. A number of
sociological studies have focused on tracking in
the middle grades and high school (see, for example, Dauber, Alexander, and Entwisle, 1996).
Relatively little recent research has focused on
ability grouping within elementary-school
classes, however.
Three influences have combined to shape the
practice of ability grouping in elementary-school
reading instruction. First, as mentioned previously, constructivist theories of learning and
views on “whole language” led in the 1980s and
1990s to experimentation with total-class instruction and more individualized and flexible
forms of grouping. Second, immigration policies
in the previous decades resulted in an increase of
students from other nations in American
schools. Third, initiatives to include students
with special needs in regular classes are encouraged (mainstreaming, inclusion).
Given this set of conditions, what might their
impact be on ability grouping? Shifts away from
grouping on the basis of ability for instruction in
elementary schools have been striking. Sharon
Kletzien (1996) examined the reading programs
in 300 schools, nationally recognized by the Blue
Ribbon School Recognition programs of the U.S.
Department of Education. From the subset with
clearly described grouping patterns, the dominant pattern of ability groups within heterogeneous classes decreased from 92 percent in
1985–1986 to 52 percent in 1991–1992. Increases
showed during that same period for the use of
heterogeneous and flexible groups in heterogeneous classes (6 percent to 36 percent). However,
because these were “Blue Ribbon” schools, the
shift would likely be somewhat less in schools
more generally.
Yet even for award winning programs, a decline from 92 percent to 52 percent in a well-established practice such as ability grouping is remarkable. An extensive case-study literature also
documents the shift from ability-grouped reading instruction to total-class instruction and to
more flexible forms of classroom grouping.
Many reports describe approaches used by teachers to form heterogeneous and flexible groups
(e.g., Radencich and McKay, 1995). Some case
studies focus on the implementation of literature
circles and reading workshops; others describe a
combination of alternative formats. Similarly,
analyses of frequently used basal-series manuals
reveal that suggestions are made for instruction
in student-led groups, for students working in
pairs and individually, as well as in teacher-led
small groups.
In addition to studies of grouping practices,
more interpretive forms of research focus on
teachers’ and students’ perceptions of ability
grouping and more flexible forms of grouping.
Sally Watson Moody, Sharon Vaughn, and Jeanne
Shay Schumm (1997), for example, interviewed
twenty-nine third-grade teachers about grouping decisions and practices. The teachers reported feeling constrained by administrative demands for them to provide total-class reading
instruction; most would have preferred using
mixed-ability grouping arrangements. In a similar study involving teachers from grades three to
five, most reported combining whole language
with basal instruction. The most common
grouping formats for reading instruction tended
to be whole class, followed by small groups, and
then pairs. For each of these formats, teachers
tended to favor mixed-ability over same-ability
membership.
A somewhat different perspective on ability
grouping was elicited from students about their
work in mixed-ability groups. Third-grade students who were interviewed expressed concerns
about the noise and other distractions in small
groups and the difficulty in getting help from
teachers. Lower-achieving students were concerned about being teased and embarrassed by
peers; higher achievers focused on the slow pace
and limited challenge of the work.
Increases in immigration concurrent with increases in the number of special learners in regular classrooms have led to highly diverse classes.
Unlike the first few decades of the twentieth century, when increased student diversity led to the
adoption of ability grouping, the responses of
educators are currently more mixed. Moreover,
increased class diversity has occurred at a time
when teachers are in the process of implementing total-class instruction and more flexible
forms of classroom organization.
This coincidence of forces has spawned a body
of research, much of it conducted by researchers
from the field of special education, to assess the
effectiveness of alternative ways of organizing
students for instruction. The implicit argument
in this research is not that ability group represents a viable solution but that other forms of
4
Ability Grouping
Concerning the structure of groups, the assertion is repeatedly made that ability groups, once
established, are highly stable. Observational evidence, however, suggests some mobility between
ability groups within classes, in the range of 20 to
35 percent in grades one to three and from 10 to
25 percent in grades four to seven. It also shows
that teachers change the number and composition of groups over the course of the school year.
Teachers show different patterns of group
changes; more effective teachers tend to move
more students up than down. There has been relatively little documentation of the stability of
ability-group membership from year to year, but
there appears to be a high degree of stability in
group membership during the primary years,
when ability grouping is employed.
Along somewhat different lines, other researchers consider how individualized versus
more traditional forms of teaching influence
classroom authority, friendship among students,
the attribution of status, and collaboration
among teachers. They argue that traditional
forms of instruction (restricted curricular tasks,
ability grouping, and comparative grading) serve
as the occasion for attributing low status to low
achievers, thereby depressing their interaction
and learning.
Explanations based on case studies of classrooms and schools tend to focus on the quality
of instructional interaction, the perceptions and
attitudes of participants, and their interpretations of events. Rather than positing models in
which events and activities are examined for
their relationships, these researchers describe the
intentions of participants and the constellations
of factors that characterize the instructional experiences of low- and high-achieving groups and
classes.
Case studies in elementary and high schools
examine the academic task characteristics of low
and high groups. With respect to the curriculum,
low-group members typically cover less material,
complete simpler assignments, and perform
more drill and skill work than students in
higher-achieving groups. Although content differences have been emphasized, these differences
may be of minor significance in relation to the
similarities in curriculum that characterize U.S.
elementary-school instruction: Most children in
a grade in the same school use the same reading
textbooks and related materials, and although
groups may proceed at somewhat different paces
through the materials, the curricular tasks are essentially the same.
Case studies also reveal the nature of the interaction during instruction. In elementary schools,
low reading group members tend to experience a
greater number of intrusions and less time on
task than do students in higher-achieving groups.
Lower-group members read orally more often,
focus on smaller units of print, have decoding
rather than meaning emphasized, are asked more
questions that require recall of information
rather than reasoning, receive different prompts
from teachers, and are provided more structure
through the provision of advanced organizers for
lessons than their higher-group peers. Although
some instructional researchers also claim that
low-group members receive less instructional
time, others have not found differential time allocations. Findings are similar in middle- and highschool classes.
Interpretive studies at the secondary level link
the instructional treatment of students to
teacher assumptions about the potential learning
of their students. Because they are perceived as
being unwilling or incapable of completing academic work, they are given simplified tasks and
learn correspondingly little. Similarly, it is typically concluded that low-achieving students are
being treated unfairly and that their instruction
is causing them to achieve poorly. It is assumed
that low-group members would learn more if
they participated in more challenging instruction. But before it can be concluded that the
same instruction is appropriate, low groups and
classes need to receive and respond positively to
the same kind of instruction that their higherachieving peers receive.
Only a limited number of reviewers have explored the results from survey studies and casestudy descriptions in combination. Adam
Gamoran and Mark Berends (1987), for example, draw from both types of studies to explore
how ability grouping works. They not only explore the mechanism intervening between group
structure and learning but also provide rich descriptions of classroom events.
Recent Research on Ability Grouping
Researchers have shown intense interest in ability grouping during most of the twentieth century, but they have shown especially selective in3
Accountability and Testing
Moody, Sally W., Sharon Vaughn, and Jeanne S.
Schumm. 1997. “Instructional Grouping for
Reading: Teachers’ Views.” Remedial and Special
Education 18 (6):347–356.
Oakes, Jeannie, Adam Gamoran, and Reba N. Page.
1992. “Curriculum Differentiation: Opportunities,
Outcomes, and Meanings.” In P. W. Jackson, ed.,
Handbook of Research on Curriculum, pp.
570–608. New York: Macmillan.
Radencich, Marguerite C., and Lyn J. McKay, eds.
1995. Flexible Grouping for Literacy in the
Elementary Grades. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
grouping are more effective than total-class instruction. In one of the most comprehensive reviews of this literature, Batya Elbaum and colleagues (1999) employed the method of metaanalysis to statistically integrate the results from
research that met specified criteria for inclusion.
Using this approach, they summarized the findings from studies conducted between 1975 and
1995. The majority of studies (sixteen out of
twenty) involved regular as well as special-education students (learning disability [LD] and behavioral disorder [BD]) working in pairs; the remaining studies involved students working in
small groups or combined grouping formats. The
results from this meta-analysis indicated that students working in pairs learned more than comparable students receiving total-class instruction.
Some research on ability groups and tracking,
then, continued into the 1990s, but this research
focused mainly on ability grouping and tracking
at the middle- and high-school level. In elementary schools, by contrast, there was little examination of the nature or consequences of ability
grouping. Research focused instead on alternatives to total-class instruction such as learning in
pairs and small groups and their effect on learning, particularly for groups of special learners.
Rebecca Barr
Accountability and Testing
Accountability, according to Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary, means being responsible, being answerable. Educators have always
been responsible for students’ success in school
(however it may be defined), and students have
always been responsible for their learning. In this
sense, accountability in education is not new.
The more pragmatic definition, however, and
certainly the one that is common today, connotes
serious consequences—assigning praise or
blame, rewards or punishments—to the people
and institutions responsible (see High-Stakes Assessment). Although many believe that such high
stakes mark a new twist on accountability, high
stakes can be traced back to the 1860s when inspectors in England and Wales toured the country examining children’s reading, arithmetic, and
learning in other subjects and then used the results to allocate teachers’ salaries. More recent
history locates accountability in the original Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) (1965), which demanded that evaluation and accountability be tied to federal funds
for the education of children in poverty (see Title I). This created an enormous need for normreferenced tests, and it cemented the link between testing and the accountability component
of Title I; no other type of measure could have
systematically provided information on the
progress and achievement of thousands of students across the country. Later, in the 1970s and
1980s, the minimum competency testing (MCT)
movement further strengthened the link between testing and accountability, and it reified
high-stakes testing. During this time, students
were required to pass a test of basic, minimallevel skills in order to graduate from high school.
Along with the high-stakes concept, MCT also
See Also
Context in Literacy; Cooperative Learning;
Individualized Reading; Peer Discussion
References
Barr, Rebecca, and Robert Dreeben. 1991. “Grouping
Students for Reading Instruction.” In R. Barr,
M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson, eds.,
Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp.
885–910. New York: Longman.
Dauber, Susan L., Karl L. Alexander, and Doris R.
Entwisle. 1996. “Tracking and Transitions through
the Middle Grades: Channeling Educational
Trajectories.” Sociology of Education 69
(4):290–307.
Elbaum, Batya, Sharon Vaughn, Marie Hughes, and
Sally W. Moody. 1999. “Grouping Practices and
Reading Outcomes for Students with Disabilities.”
Exceptional Children 63 (3):399–415.
Gamoran, Adam, and Mark Berends. 1987. “The
Effects of Stratification in Secondary Schools:
Synthesis of Survey and Ethnographic Research.”
Review of Educational Research 57 (4):415–435.
Kletzien, Sharon B. 1996. “Reading Programs in
Nationally Recognized Elementary Schools.”
Reading Research and Instruction 35 (3):260–274.
5
Accountability and Testing
introduced what is now a well-accepted view of
testing—that testing can serve as both a measure
and a lever of reform. Not only could tests provide information about students’ mastery of basic skills, but teachers and students could also use
these tests to identify the content of instruction.
The 1980s and early 1990s saw an expansion of
the use of standardized tests for accountability,
accompanied by concerns about their validity
and negative effects on teaching and learning.
creased as well. For example, by 2008, students in
twenty-four states will have to pass a state exam
to graduate from high school, and by 2003, seven
states will required children to pass state tests to
be promoted in certain grades (“A Better Balance,” 2001). At the teacher level, test results are
being used in some states to reward teachers
monetarily for good student performance, and
they are influencing the retention and recruitment of teachers. And at the school level, test results are increasingly being used for state governance of education. Schools are being accredited
based on scores, and some states have even given
their education departments the power to close,
take over, or overhaul chronically low-performing schools. Some research suggests that in the
current environment, there may be no “lowstakes” accountability, even when states try to
minimize the consequences. Teachers in states
with public reporting but low stakes seem to experience as much pressure as those teaching in
states with high-stakes tests.
States have responded to the accountability
call in a wide variety of ways. For example, they
have set different cut-off scores for acceptable
performance, included different students in the
testing program, used different measures for assessing performance (i.e., performance assessments, multiple-choice tests, classroom work),
tested at different grades, and provided different
levels of rewards, sanctions, and supports. Less
apparent are the different ways that states have
developed to report student progress and to rank
schools. The most common method is to report
absolute performance, or current status, often in
terms of the average score for students at the
tested grade levels or the percent of students who
meet or exceed preestablished standards. Florida,
for example, uses this method to grade schools
from A to F, based on students’ performance on
the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.
Many states that report current status also include a measure of improvement, sometimes referred to as value-added. Some states compare
scores for students at the same grade level over
two years (i.e., fourth grade in 2000 compared
with fourth grade in 2001); others compare
school performance of groups of students across
years (fourth grade in 2000, fifth grade in 2001).
Some states track the performance of individual
students across years, and still others measure
the change in percent of students who fall in the
The Current Context
The current situation with regard to testing and
accountability, based in the standards movement
of the 1990s, grows out of this long history (see
Standards). Standards-based reform was conceptualized to address some of the problems of the
past: overemphasis on basic, low-level skills; narrowing of the curriculum to fit the test; inflated
test scores; test-like instructional methods; and
differential expectations for students. Rather
than having a test set the content of instruction,
educators at state and local levels have defined
demanding content standards (what students
should know and be able to do) and performance standards (how good is good enough)
that apply to all students, including those served
by Title I. The indicator of success is students’
performance rather than district compliance
with state regulations or other “inputs” such as
course offerings, personnel qualifications, and
the like. In addition, the standards movement
calls for several other reforms: (1) assessments
that are aligned with these standards, (2) student
performance that is standards-based rather than
norm-referenced, (3) development of new performance-based assessments, and (4) attention
to providing high-quality opportunities for students to learn. Although these changes mark a
dramatic shift in education, accountability remains the linchpin in the system, and state tests
remain the primary source of data for accountability. In fact, as of 2001, forty-eight states publicly reported test scores, forty-five of them reported school-level data, and thirty-one set
cutoff scores for student performance. Thirtythree states used, or planned to use, test scores to
hold schools accountable, and fourteen of them
relied solely on test scores; no other data were
used (“A Better Balance,” 2001).
In the current accountability environment,
stakes for schools, students, and teachers have in6
Accountability and Testing
lowest performing group. Finally, states also vary
in the degree to which they include indicators
other than test performance in the accountability
system (e.g., dropout rate, mobility, socioeconomic status), but these indicators rarely carry
enough weight to offset the test scores. With such
variability in accountability systems, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of
these accountability systems or of the standardsbased reform effort. Accountability models that
include different factors and different ways of
evaluating progress yield dramatically different
results and lead to substantively different conclusions.
high-stakes accountability has replicated some of
the concerns associated with earlier testing efforts (e.g., narrowing of the curriculum, inflated
test scores, extended test preparation), in spite of
the fact that content standards are supposed to
drive instruction rather than a test. Furthermore,
although many new tests tend to focus on
higher-level understanding and include a combination of open-ended and multiple-choice
items, there are concerns about the measures
themselves (i.e., alignment with standards, reliability, validity).
Second, many are concerned that policymakers underestimate how long it takes to implement new content standards and substantive
changes in curriculum and instruction. In an effort to motivate change and set high expectations
for all students, policymakers have often set performance standards on state tests that are unrealistic for students and teachers to reach in a
short time. When the emphasis is on quick results, the tendency is to focus too much on
boosting test scores and less on instigating deep
and meaningful changes in teaching and learning. Some measurement experts have suggested
that test scores might be better used as trailing
indicators rather than as leading indicators of
change. In other words, test scores are more
likely to show change after schools have ample
opportunity to put into place new instructional
strategies and curriculum; that is, after opportunity to learn, for both teachers and students, has
been assured.
A third caution is related to the first two:
schools, teachers, and students must be provided
with needed support if they are going to be held
accountable for improvement. That support may
be in the form of professional development for
teachers and administrators, additional resources for struggling students, higher pay for
educators, materials and texts for instruction,
and the like. Evidence is clear that simply implementing new assessments or accountability requirements will not, by itself, produce lasting
and meaningful change. Yet recent research suggests professional development opportunities are
inadequate to meet teachers’ needs. In 2001,
forty-two states provided funds for professional
development, but the funds didn’t necessarily go
to all the schools and districts in a state, and the
discrepancies across states were dramatic (e.g.,
less than $100 per teacher each year in Utah,
Concerns and Issues
High-stakes testing and accountability are implemented by policymakers with the intention of
improving education. Many believe that such accountability in a standards-based system can create incentives for educators to focus on important content outcomes, help policymakers
allocate resources to schools in need, and inspire
effort on the part of teachers, administrators,
and students. Nevertheless, concerns about highstakes accountability are well documented in
practitioner journals, scholarly journals and reports, and position statements by professional
organizations (e.g., American Educational Research Association; International Reading Association). The issues are too complex and too numerous to present in this entry (for a review, see
Fuhrman, 1999; Linn, 2000, 2001). I highlight
three of the more pressing issues to give a sense
of the difficult terrain.
First, there are concerns about overreliance on
test scores as the primary accountability indicator. Most educators and measurement experts
caution against using any single test to make
high-stakes decisions, especially about individual
students, yet the evidence is clear that state test
scores continue to dominate accountability efforts. One reason is that even though there is unequivocal support for using multiple measures,
just what these other measures might be or how
they would work is unclear. Furthermore, tests
are relatively inexpensive, can be externally mandated, are quickly implemented, and yield results
that are visible and accessible to the public.
Against such forces, expanding accountability indicators will be difficult.
This current overreliance on a single test for
7
Active Listening
Active Listening
$3,500 per teacher each year in Alaska). Similarly, although fifteen states required that students receive additional help if they failed to pass
the test to earn a high-school diploma, only nine
paid for such assistance (“A Better Balance,”
2001).
Active listening is the ability to listen constructively to make meaning from the utterances of
others. It requires listening with interest and acceptance and has an empathetic component—
being aware of the speaker’s feelings and being
able to allow yourself to appreciate the speaker’s
point of reference (Studer, 1993–1994). The listener’s attitude is critical in active listening and
includes the following: (1) desire to understand
what the speaker is saying, (2) desire to be helpful to the speaker, (3) desire to accept the
speaker’s feeling regardless of his or her disclaimer of your own feelings, (4) knowledge that
feelings can be transitory, not permanent, and
(5) ability to perceive the speaker as having an
identity separate from your own.
Active listening is guided by the following
rules: noticing attitudes and feelings conveyed in
the message; telling speakers what you heard
them say; using words in retelling that are different from the speaker’s without changing the
meaning of the utterance; avoiding sending messages that are evaluative or questioning (unless
clarification is needed); and paraphrasing the
utterance to show your understanding of what
was said.
In active listening, there are four basic techniques that are used to help the speaking-listening process. First, active listeners encourage
speakers in order to convey interest and keep the
speaker talking. They do this by using noncommittal words or phrases with a positive tone, for
example, “I see,” “Uh-huh,” “That’s interesting.”
Second, active listeners restate the speaker’s utterance to show that they are listening and that
they understand the facts of the utterance. They
do this by restating the basic ideas and facts that
they heard and say, for example, “If I understand
your comments correctly, your idea is. . . .” Third,
active listeners demonstrate that they understand the speaker’s feelings; they do this by restating the speaker’s basic feelings, for example,
by responding, “You feel that . . . ” or “You were
disturbed by . . . .”
Finally, active listeners summarize by pulling
important facts and ideas together. They do this
by restating and summarizing both ideas and
feelings that the speaker has expressed. Examples
are “These seem to be the key ideas you mentioned” or “If I understand you, you feel this way
about the situation.” Cognitive active listening
The Future
Accountability and testing are guaranteed to be
in our educational future. In fact, indications are
that the role of both is increasing. In the face of
such efforts, there is a pressing need to address
existing concerns and issues. Kenneth Sirotnik
and Kathy Kimball (1999) suggest that we need
standards for standards-based accountability
systems, and indeed, many knowledgeable and
thoughtful people have offered strategies for
dealing with the challenges. As might be expected, recommendations focus on many facets
of the problem, including establishing a more
comprehension accountability system; improving tests and models for evaluating progress;
providing more resources for students, teachers,
and schools; and supporting and elevating the
role of classroom-based assessment. These recommendations are likely to focus the attention
of educators, researchers, and policymakers in
the coming years as accountability and testing
continue to occupy a prominent place on the reform agenda.
Sheila W. Valencia
See Also
High-Stakes Assessment; Reading Assessment; Standards; Title I; Writing Assessment
References
“A Better Balance: Standards, Tests, and the Tools to
Succeed: Quality Counts.” 2001. Education Week
20:17.
Fuhrman, Susan H. 1999. “The New Accountability:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education
Policy Brief.” Available: http://www.cpre.org.
Linn, Robert L. 2000. “Assessments and Accountability.”
Educational Researcher 29 (2):4–16.
———. 2001. The Design and Evaluation of
Educational Assessment and Accountability
Systems. CSE Technical Report 539. Los Angeles:
National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing.
Sirotnik, Kenneth A., and Kathy Kimball. 1999.
“Standards for Standards-Based Accountability
Systems.” Phi Delta Kappan 81 (3):209–214.
8
Children listen actively to taped messages (Elizabeth Crews)
Activity Theory
requires the listener to construct meaning
through synthesizing, analyzing, interpreting,
and evaluating the messages of speakers. It is an
active process that demands that the listener
construct meaning through inferencing and
questioning for clarification.
James Flood and Diane Lapp
negotiate the values of the societies in which
they grow.
An example of how studying culture can inform educational practice comes from an
ethnography conducted by Shirley Brice Heath
(1983). Heath studied a set of small communities in the Carolina piedmont region, including
a small African American neighborhood
(Trackton), a small white Christian fundamentalist community (Roadville), and the middleclass community with which they shared a
school district. She found that the three communities had distinctly different orientations to
reading that affected their prospects for success
in school.
In Trackton, families encouraged high levels of
sociability. Children were encouraged to go outside and play and otherwise interact with others
in their community. A highly literate person was
one who could perform verbally. In contrast,
solitary and isolated activities such as quiet reading were viewed as antisocial and were thus discouraged. This community, then, enculturated
its members with a belief that literacy is interactive and performative.
In Roadville, reading was taught through Bible
study. The Bible was treated as a revered text that
revealed an absolute, literal truth that was not to
be questioned. Children in Roadville, then, were
deeply enculturated with a belief that written
texts have an invariant meaning that is not open
to question.
The middle-class families fostered an orientation to reading that more closely matched that of
the school. Quiet, solitary reading was encouraged, and discussions of texts allowed for interpretation. The consequences of these three different cultural orientations to reading were that
the children from middle-class families had
greater success in school. Heath’s study illustrates
that understanding the development of whole
cultures can help reveal how individuals within
those cultures learn how to think over time. Activity theorists argue that it is particularly important to understand cultural differences when
students perform differently in school and to rethink educational practice to allow for more equitable access to school success. Changing the
context of education can provide people with
different developmental trajectories with opportunities to use their culturally learned knowledge
in their formal learning.
References
Studer, Jeannie R. 1993–1994. “Listen So That Parents
Will Speak.” Childhood Education (Winter):74–76.
Activity Theory
According to activity theory, people’s thought
patterns originate in the cultural life that surrounds them. In other words, people are born
into cultures that have particular values, goals,
ways of thinking and acting, and other factors
that contribute to a cohesive and orderly society.
By participating in the social practices of their
cultures, people adopt the ways of thinking that
are consistent with life within those cultures.
Their thinking thus takes place in relationship
with other people, both those who are immediately present and those who have helped to build
the culture that they grow into.
Activity theory is generally attributed to Aleksei Leont’ev (1981), a student of Lev Vygotsky’s.
Vygotsky’s (1978, 1987) sociocultural psychology is thus central to an activity theory perspective. There are three important themes that are
central to understanding human development
from Vygotsky’s perspective: an emphasis on human development, an assumption that human
consciousness has social origins, and a belief
that mental processes are mediated by tools and
signs.
An Emphasis on Human Development
Activity theorists are concerned with both the
development of whole cultures and the development of individuals within those cultures. Understanding how a culture develops is central to
understanding how societies structure life to
shape how people within them learn to think
and view the world. Activity theorists thus focus
on development at several levels, including culture as a whole, the many subcultures that exist
within them, the overlapping cultures that affect
development in an increasingly global world,
and individuals as they appropriate, resist, and
10
Activity Theory
An Assumption That Human
Consciousness Has Social Origins
As Heath’s study shows, cognition has a cultural
basis. People learn how to think by taking part in
the life around them. In particular, they learn
how to think by listening to and participating in
the talk that surrounds them. This facet of activity theory helps to explain how people come to
hold particular worldviews, and more specifically, how worldviews vary across different cultures. A clear example would be that of a child
who grew up in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s.
This child would have been surrounded by discourse and artifacts that offered genocide as a legitimate societal goal. Through participation in
this culture, the child would have accepted this
view and would have been considered a good citizen within the confines of this society for pursuing this goal, even while it was regarded by members of other cultures as heinous and criminal.
An individual’s goal of perpetuating Aryan supremacy originates in the overriding goal of Nazi
culture and is adopted by members of that society. Belief in Aryan supremacy might be taught
directly by the society’s elders, or it might be
more subtly suggested through the hidden ways
in which the environment promotes development toward these goals. Social life in a Nazi culture is permeated with these beliefs, thus making
Aryan supremacy appear to be a natural, unquestionable fact of life.
From an educational standpoint, activity theorists attempt to reveal the norms—particularly
those that appear to be natural, unquestionable
facts of life—that prevail in educational settings
and consider their consequences. The norms of
the white middle class are so well ingrained in
school culture that they appear to be the natural
way for school to be conducted. Anyone who
comes to school with a different cultural orientation to literacy, behavior, or other routines is
judged as deficient, even if that person might be
viewed as highly competent in another setting.
Entering an environment, such as school, that
recognizes and affirms only one way of solving
problems creates disadvantages for those not enculturated to those modes of action.
Luis Moll and James Greenberg (1990), for instance, were concerned with the poor performance of Hispanic students in U.S. schools. In
particular, Moll was troubled that some educational psychologists argued that Hispanic stu-
dents were cognitively deficient because of their
scores on standardized tests and their performance on school-based tasks. To provide a different
perspective on the cognitive competence of Mexican American students, he conducted a community ethnography that documented extensively
the cognitive tasks accomplished in everyday life.
He found that families, many living on ranches,
were skilled at repairing and maintaining sophisticated machinery, planning and operating budgets, extracting medicine from insects, and executing myriad other complex tasks in their home
life. He also found that in the Mexican American
community, most tasks were carried out in
groups. People shared funds of knowledge so that
goals could be reached collaboratively.
These same students, however skilled at home,
would perform poorly in school. Although the
Mexican American community valued and encouraged collaboration, collaboration was discouraged and often punished in school. In contrast, schools operated according to traditional
U.S. values and emphasized individualism. Mexican American students were thus mismatched
with the middle-class values by which the school
operated. Furthermore, rather than solving
problems in situ, students were evaluated in
school according to their ability to solve problems in abstract situations. Moll argued that instead of being incompetent at problem solving,
these students were ill-matched with the school’s
way of presenting problems to be solved.
Moll’s research, like Heath’s, illustrates the
ways frameworks for thinking exist first in culture. These frameworks are then adopted by people as they participate in cultural practices over
time. From an educational standpoint, it is important to understand which value systems dominate school practice and to look at school failure
as potentially a result of mismatches in cultural
norms and expectations.
A Belief That Mental Processes
Are Mediated by Tools and Signs
The notion that cognition is mediated by tools
and signs refers to the ways people think by
means of psychological tools. Many activity theorists focus on speech, believed to be the “tool of
tools.” Others have argued that students have a
“tool kit” that includes many ways of thinking
that schools typically do not recognize.
Those who study speech often focus on speech
11
Activity Theory
genres, that is, the ways in which speech is orchestrated in whole systems of vocabulary, syntax, tone, and other factors. In an everyday example, a person might speak to a baby using soft
tones, a simple vocabulary, repetition, and terms
of endearment. This same person would probably switch to a different set of language codes
while preparing a legal document. Each of these
situations requires knowledge of the appropriate
speech genre for successful communication.
The speech genre of classrooms is typically associated with the discourse of the white middle
class. One characteristic of this speech is its politeness, particularly its indirectness. When
teachers want students to do something, rather
than ordering them to do so, they suggest that
they might do so; for example, they say, “Is this
where your scissors belong?” Students from
other cultures might find this baffling, expecting
instead something along these lines: “Put those
scissors on that shelf.” Such students are likely to
be confused by the prevailing speech genre of
school, and they become defined in school terms
as uncooperative because they do not respond
appropriately to the indirect imperative.
Literacy researchers have found speech genres
to be a rich source of study. Carol Lee (1993), for
instance, has studied the African American
speech genre of signifying—a form of verbal
jousting—and finds it central to understanding
important works of African American fiction,
such as The Color Purple and Their Eyes Were
Watching God. She developed instructional
strategies to enable urban African American students to study their own language processes and
identify their features, and then use that knowledge to inform their reading of sophisticated fiction. She argued that African American students
use rich and imaginative figurative speech in
their daily lives that is rarely applied to their
school learning. Lee’s research illustrates one way
that teachers can alter the kinds of speech genres
allowed in their classrooms to enable a broader
array of students to have access to success.
Other researchers have focused on how to
broaden not just the speech genres of classrooms
but the variety of tools that students can use in
their thinking. Peter Smagorinsky (1995) and his
colleagues, for instance, have looked at ways
teachers can open up students’ cultural tool kits
to allow for drawing, music, drama, dance, and
other media as means of interpreting literature.
These studies have found that when students are
given their choice of interpretive media, they
typically engage in the same kinds of cognitive
processes they use when speaking or writing.
Students relate literary characters to personal situations, go through an extensive process of composition (plan, compose, revise, edit, share),
work collaboratively, and come to new realizations as they compose. These studies suggest that
students’ thinking during literacy events may be
enabled by using a variety of literacy tools. Furthermore, a greater range of students can have
access to interpretive success than is possible
when only written evaluation is provided.
Contribution of Activity Theory
to Literacy Research
Activity theory serves as a useful framework for
understanding how and why things happen in
particular situations. It serves as a particularly
valuable lens for studying issues of cultural diversity, especially when the institution of school
must provide an arena in which learners from diverse backgrounds share facilities, spaces, texts,
and experiences. When the assumptions that
structure life in school are so ingrained and invisible that they appear natural, immovable, and unquestionable, then students enculturated to different ways of interacting and learning appear to
be ill-adapted and are often assumed to be cognitively deficient. For educators interested in issues
of equity for diverse populations, activity theory
provides a perspective with great explanatory
power. Furthermore, it suggests that changing the
setting of schooling ought to be a key strategy in
addressing educational inequity. This direction
runs in sharp contrast to efforts to make students
from diverse backgrounds more middle class in
an effort to improve their school performance.
Peter Smagorinsky
References
Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words:
Language, Life, and Work in Communities and
Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Lee, Carol D. 1993. Signifying as a Scaffold for Literary
Interpretation: The Pedagogical Implications of an
African-American Discourse Genre. Research
Report No. 26. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Leont’ev, A. N. 1981. Problems of the Development of
Mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
12
Adolescent Literacy
cohort will enter the adult world of the new millennium and be expected to read and write more
than ever before in human history. Members of
this generation will need advanced levels of literacy in order to perform their jobs, manage their
households, carry out their roles as citizens, and
conduct their lives. These adolescents will need
advanced levels of literacy to deal with the
plethora of information they will encounter
everywhere they turn. Literacy will be needed for
them to fuel their imaginations to mold the
world of the future. In a complex world, their
ability to read and write will be essential (Moore
et al., 1999).
Such sentiment validates the belief that literacy
development beyond the early grades deserves attention. Students continue the process of learning
to read, and some even continue to struggle with
the basic processes of reading and writing, beyond the elementary years. Adolescents require
support in the decoding, comprehension, and
studying of the various texts they encounter in
school and in their daily lives. There is still much
to be learned about the practices unique to the
different texts, disciplines, and unique situations
of adolescence. The need for additional specialized literacy practices is further complicated by
the demands of a changing and increasingly more
technological world. Allan Luke and John Elkins
(1998) have explained that in today’s world, adolescence and adulthood involve the constructing
of communities and identities in relation to
changing textual and media contexts. Becoming
an adult also involves finding a way of moving
forward in an increasingly explosive and uncertain job market, in a society that is by nature
risky, where texts of any type are used to make,
define, and position individuals at every point
and in virtually every walk of life—in the mall, in
school, on-line, and even face-to-face.
In addition, the need to reexamine our focus
on the literacy learning of adolescents seems
clear, particularly if we look at how our current
conceptualization of literacy in the middle and
secondary schools, in secondary reading and
content-area reading, has limited our thinking.
Secondary reading, as it is generally understood,
carries with it notions of reading in a lab setting.
In this type of setting, students who have not
learned to read are closeted and work individually with grade-leveled sets of materials supposedly designed to elevate them to the appropriate
Moll, Luis C., and James B. Greenberg. 1990.
“Creating Zones of Possibilities: Combining
Social Contexts for Instruction.” In L. C. Moll, ed.,
Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications
and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, pp.
319–348. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smagorinsky, Peter. 1995. “Constructing Meaning in
the Disciplines: Reconceptualizing Writing across
the Curriculum as Composing across the
Curriculum.” American Journal of Education
103:160–184.
Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in Society: The
Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner,
and E. Souberman. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
———. 1987. Collected Works. Vol. 1. Edited by
R. Rieber and A. Carton. Translated by N. Minick.
New York: Plenum.
Adolescent Literacy
Adolescent literacy refers to the effort to reconceptualize the literacy of adolescents by going beyond the school- and textbook-based definitions
of literacy (e.g., secondary reading, content-area
reading) and acknowledging that there are multiple literacies and multiple texts—texts that
transcend the traditional adult-sanctioned conceptions and definitions of a text (Alvermann et
al., 1998; Moje et al., 2000). The adolescent literacy movement acknowledges that the expanded
definition of text now includes but is not limited
to CD-ROMs, popular music, television, the Internet, films, and magazines. The cues that adolescents get from these texts and these literacies
play a significant role in the development of their
emerging individual and social identities. Further, adolescent literacy advocates that schools
must provide the time and space for students to
explore these multiple texts and the new literacies that are concomitant with them. Enough researchers and practitioners in the field of literacy
have now supported the importance of adolescent literacy for it to be considered a hot topic for
reading research and practice for the new millennium (Cassidy and Cassidy, 2000–2001).
Cognizant of the importance of adolescent literacy and the serious attention it deserved, the
International Reading Association established
the Commission on Adolescent Literacy. The
commission called for renewed attention to the
literacy needs of adolescents by stating that this
13
Adolescent Literacy
Adolescent girl demonstrates the many literacies in her life with the posters on her wall (Barbara Guzzetti)
focus on adolescents was created as a means of
moving away from the constraints imposed by
current concepts of literacy to a broader and
more generative view.
To provide additional impetus for this more
generative view of literacy, the Commission on
Adolescent Literacy pointed out in 1999 that
adolescents have not been given the same support as beginning-level readers in elementary
schools. Although state and federal dollars allocated to literacy programs for younger readers
had increased and federal funding for research
was focused in the early grades with the Reading
Excellence Act during the mid-1990s and federal
funding for the Center for the Improvement of
Early Reading Achievement, the commission
emphasized that monies for adolescent readers
had actually decreased and research support was
negligible. Thus, the commission advocated new
programmatic efforts to develop adolescents’ literacy growth that revolved around the following
seven principles: First, students need access to a
wide variety of reading material that they both
grade level in reading so they can then be successful with their subject-matter materials. Such
reading brings with it vestiges of remedial reading, which limits its usefulness, given the full
range of adolescents’ reading needs.
Content reading or content literacy, by contrast, carries with it an association that every
teacher should be a teacher of reading. This notion makes sense to content-reading specialists,
but not to subject-matter teachers. In fact, the
saying that every teacher should be a teacher of
reading has probably done more to influence
teachers to object to reading instruction in their
content areas than anything else, since they are
trained to be teachers of content, not teachers of
reading. Traditional definitions of content-area
reading are usually confined to the in-school
reading and writing of subject-matter materials,
thus making reading instruction one-dimensional. As a consequence, with both secondary
reading and content-area reading, instructional
methods and materials might not match the literacy needs of individual adolescents. Thus, the
14
Adolescent Literature
want to and are able to read. Second, students
need instruction that builds both the skill and
desire to read increasingly complex materials.
Third, students need assessment that shows
them their strengths as well as their needs and
that guides their teachers to design instruction
that will help them grow as readers. Fourth, students need expert teachers who model and provide explicit instruction in reading comprehension and study strategies across the curriculum.
Fifth, students need reading specialists who will
assist individual students having difficulty learning how to read. Sixth, students need teachers
who understand the complexities of adolescent
readers, respect their individual differences, and
respond to their individuality. Finally, students
need homes, communities, and a nation that will
support their efforts to achieve advanced levels
of literacy and provide the support necessary for
them to succeed (Moore et al., 1999).
One study that demonstrated this more generative view of literacy for adolescents was conducted by Thomas Bean, Shannon Bean, and
Kristen Bean (1999). In this article, Bean and his
two adolescent daughters described the multiple
texts and multiple literacies the young women
used over a two-week period. Not only did they
use their various content-area textbooks, but
they also used computers, conventional phones,
cell phones, pagers, the Internet, electronic mail,
art, music, drama, film, video games, and an assortment of digital aids, such as calculators and
palm pilots. This study illustrated that these two
adolescents wanted to participate in literacy
practices that were suited to the way they viewed
their daily lives, and they wanted to be viewed as
competent literacy users who already possessed
the knowledge, skills, and plans necessary for the
world of the future. Thus, they moved far beyond
the narrow confines of how literacy is currently
conceptualized in our schools. The study also illustrates the notion that for adolescents to be literate in today’s society, they must become sociotechnically literate and skilled at multitasking
—epitomizing the broader and more generative
view advocated by adolescent literacy in which
the role of the adolescent in the teaching and
learning of literacy is central and highlighted.
This more generative view of adolescent literacy can also be promoted in our middle and secondary classrooms. Elizabeth Moje and her colleagues (2000) have recommended that teachers
consider the following. First, watch and listen to
adolescents in a variety of contexts; pay attention
to what they can do and think about ways to bring
that skill into the classroom. Second, use interdisciplinary project-based teaching strategies that
engage students in group-based inquiry about
questions or problems of interest to them in their
daily lives. Finally, draw from the texts that adolescents value and offer them alternate text representations that contrast with the traditional
school texts they typically encounter. All of these
suggestions require a deep respect for adolescents
and the creation of a challenging, responsive literacy curriculum that puts adolescents first.
John E. Readence
See Also
Content-Area Literacy; Middle-School Literacy;
Popular Culture; Secondary-School Reading
Programs
References
Alvermann, Donna E., Kathleen A. Hinchman, David
W. Moore, Stephen F. Phelps, and Diane R. Waff,
eds. 1998. Reconceptualizing the Literacies in
Adolescents’ Lives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bean, Thomas W., Shannon K. Bean, and Kristen F.
Bean. 1999. “Intergenerational Conversations and
Two Adolescents’ Multiple Literacies: Implications
for Redefining Content Area Literacy.” Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42 (March):
438–448.
Cassidy, Jack, and Drew Cassidy. 2000–2001. “What’s
Hot, What’s Not for 2001.” Reading Today 18 (3)
(December/January):1, 18.
Luke, Allan, and John Elkins. 1998. “Reinventing
Literacy in ‘New Times.’” Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy 42 (September):4–7.
Moje, Elizabeth Birr, Josephine Peyton Young, John
E. Readence, and David W. Moore. 2000.
“Reinventing Adolescent Literacy for New Times:
Perennial and Millennial Issues.” Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (February):
400–410.
Moore, David W., Thomas W. Bean, Deanna
Birdyshaw, and James A. Rycik. 1999. “Adolescent
Literacy: A Position Statement.” Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (September):
97–112.
Adolescent Literature
The term adolescent literature has been used over
the years to describe literature for adolescents,
junior teen novels, juvenile fiction, and most
commonly as young adult literature, due to the
15
Adolescent Literature
pejorative nature of the terms juvenile and adolescence (Bushman and Haas, 2001). Definitions
of adolescent literature also vary. Some leaders in
the field suggest it is literature that features adolescents as its major characters. Others say the
determining criterion is the reader: if the reader
is an adolescent, then the literature is adolescent
literature (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001). However, most academic scholars rely on the authors’
intentions and believe it is literature written by
authors who envision adolescents as their primary audience, writing for youths between the
ages of eleven and eighteen.
college campuses. Such a course is often required
for certification to teach English-language arts or
reading at middle and secondary levels. Middle
and secondary teachers who once would not
have considered using adolescent novels now
regularly assign works by authors such as Robert
Cormier, S. E. Hinton, Lois Lowry, and Walter
Dean Myers (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001). Scholarship has been productive as well: master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, critical studies of
authors and themes, journal articles, textbooks,
conference presentations, and workshops represent significant forms of literary research.
Yet adolescent literature continues to have a
historical stigma. Many teachers still consider it
literature for younger or struggling readers, not
literature worthy of critical study. It is often
viewed as most appropriate for upper-elementary or middle-school reading (Monseau, 1996;
Monseau and Salvner, 2000; Stover, 1996). In addition, the trend in the last fifteen years or so has
been for publishers to market to younger and
younger audiences (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001).
High-school curricula continue to reflect the
“canon” of literary works that rarely impart adolescent experiences. Most teachers want students
to learn to love literature but may not consider
that this might never happen if students are required to read literature they do not understand
and fail to have enjoyable, let alone critical, engagements. Such curricular choices may be
slowly changing, perhaps due to students who
simply refuse to read or cannot read the “classics.” Reading requirements may also change
with growing teacher appreciation of the increased diversity and sophistication of this literature, along with the publication of books and
the addition of college courses for teachers that
reflect new curricula and practices. With the rise
of reader response (see Reader Response) and
other new literary theories, teachers are finding
that students are more apt to engage with adolescent literature, which encourages them to have
more meaningful experiences (Soter, 1999).
Historical Perspectives
Contemporary adolescent literature has existed
in various forms for more than fifty years. In the
1950s, fewer than sixty books published yearly
focused on adolescents as their primary audience, whereas by the late 1960s, adolescent literature became known as the most rapidly expanding literary genre. During the 1970s, the
majority of larger publishers did not have separate divisions devoted to adolescent literature,
but by the 1990s, most did. From the mid-1970s
to mid-1980s, financial and critical bases
changed for many authors who were now earning a living exclusively by writing adolescent literature (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001). This popularity was aided by television and movie
industries that sought stories that would appeal
to a youth-oriented society, helped by a publishing industry that discovered teenagers were willing to spend money on paperbacks. Most libraries today have separate young adult sections.
Bookstores ranging from the large chains to the
independently owned to those in cyberspace
(e.g., Amazon.com) have extensive young adult
literature sections, complete with book reviews
and recommendations for readers.
Criticisms
The field of adolescent literature is ever-changing, just as young adults themselves are, and it reflects the society in which adolescents matriculate. This literature has undergone a continuous
cycle of criticism, first for being formulaic, and
more recently, for “too real-to-life situations”
(Nilsen and Donelson, 2001). It is a field that
continues to gain respectability and commercial
viability. Undergraduate and graduate courses in
young adult literature are prominent on most
Style and Characteristic Features
Adolescent literature is diverse in terms of style
and content. This genre includes novels, short
stories, poetry, drama, and nonfiction, as well as
stories of adventure and accomplishment, romances, mysteries, tales of the supernatural,
folklore, humor, fantasy, science fiction, history,
16
Adolescent Literature
autobiography, series books, and informative
nonfiction. The late 1960s gave rise to “new realism,” or “problem novels,” meaning coming-ofage stories about rites of passages from childhood to adulthood. Protagonists are written into
difficult situations and settings, use language the
way adolescents talk (e.g., profanity, slang, dialects), and exhibit adolescent attitudes (e.g.,
questioning of authority, alienation from adults,
and so on) (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001). Problem novels demonstrate the philosophy that adolescents are more likely to be happy and successful when they have realistic expectations
garnered from both good and bad in society.
With realistic expectations, they are able to make
better life decisions. Real-life problems include
relationships, violence, war, race issues, AIDS,
mental illness, pregnancy, death, and moral
dilemmas. Proponents state that such books help
adolescents to understand their own and other
people’s feelings and behaviors. Sometimes referred to as bibliotherapy (see Bibliotherapy), the
belief is that adolescents can benefit psychologically from reading and talking about problems of
fictional characters. Discovering other people
have problems provides adolescents with some
comfort and opens avenues for communication.
Many critics, however, are concerned with the
“bleak” trend in adolescent literature that deals
with such serious issues. Yet adolescent literature
in this way is much like the classics, depicting
adolescents in predicaments, often in contemporary settings. Of course, not all books are bleak.
Many include humorous and lighthearted experiences. Typically, adolescent literature offers
hope to readers and may encourage teens to read
for efferent and aesthetic reasons when they otherwise may be uninspired to read.
in the past twenty years, the National Council of
Teachers of English (NCTE) has published numerous rationales for commonly challenged
books that are available upon request.
Awards and Honors
Numerous awards and honors are presented annually to adolescent literature. These include the
Newbery Medal sponsored by the American Library Association (ALA), awarded to the author
deemed to have made the most distinguished
contribution to literature published the preceding year. The Newbery Medal awards both gold
and silver honors. The Coretta Scott King Award
is presented annually by the ALA, given to a
black author and black illustrator whose works
encourage and promote world unity and peace
and serve as inspiration to youths. The Scott
O’Dell Historical Fiction Award is presented to a
work of historical fiction set in the New World,
written by a U.S. citizen and published in the
United States. The ALA’s Best Picks list is published annually, and various other professional
associations and journals also publish recommended books. Many authors are multiple honorees of various awards over multiple decades,
including Walter Dean Myers, who was almost a
solo voice in the 1980s when he began publishing
about the experiences of African American
youths (primarily males) and the dignity of their
life experiences, told in realistic settings with authentic dialects.
Authors
Today’s writers include women and men from
diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds
from all over the world. Many authors reflect
themselves in their work, using autobiographical
experiences to help them connect with their adolescent audience. Many writers come to this
genre from other occupations. For example,
Gary Paulsen lived in a variety of locations and
held a variety of jobs before becoming a writer.
Paulsen includes his own journeys in his adventure and survival stories about teens struggling
to survive nature’s extremes.
Many of these authors are prolific and have
published vastly different books, strong proof of
the literary excellence of their work. Numerous
authors are favorites of adolescent readers and
their teachers and librarians. Some who are repeatedly recognized include the aforementioned,
Censorship
Censorship has been an issue with adolescent literature since the late 1960s. With the popularity
of new realism or problem novels, adolescent literature was deemed by some as no longer “safe.”
Censors come from liberal and conservative ends
of the political spectrum. Books have been criticized for profane language, antisocial behavior,
teen pregnancy, sex, biases on social issues, and
religious or irreligious perspectives. The irony is
that many censors assume that the classics have
no objectionable words, actions, or ideas. In answer to the growing number of challenged books
17
Adolescent Literature
as well as Richard Peck, Katherine Paterson,
M. E. Kerr, Gary Soto, Francesca Lia Block, Angela Johnson, Paul Fleischman, Paul Janeczko,
and Mel Glenn. Donald R. Gallo has anthologized multiple collections of diverse short stories
written by a variety of authors. Paul Janeczko,
both poet and anthologist, has been praised for
his collections of poetry centered around connecting themes. Secondary English teacher and
poet Mel Glenn’s collections include stories told
in poem format and poems that present biographical sketches of wide-ranging teen perspectives and experiences.
1996); selecting and teaching adolescent literature (Bushman and Haas, 2001; Monseau and
Salvner, 2000; Reed, 1994); reading with multicultural perspectives (Brown and Stephens,
1998); including adolescent literature in the
middle-school curricula (Stover, 1996); using
adolescent literature as a complement to the traditional secondary canon (Herz and Gallo, 1996;
Kaywell, 1993); and using new literary theories
when reading adolescent literature (Moore,
1997; Soter, 1999). The Twayne United States
Young Adult Authors series is written by a variety
of scholars in the field and presents critical biographies of established authors.
Laura R. Lipsett
Professional Associations and Publications
There are various professional associations and
publications that promote and review adolescent
literature. The NCTE, the International Reading
Association (IRA), and the ALA feature presentations at their annual conferences and frequently ask authors to speak. Two national professional organizations grew dramatically during
the 1980s and are still growing in popularity: the
Assembly on Literature for Adolescents (ALAN)
of NCTE and the Special Interest Group on Adolescent Literature (SIGNAL) of the IRA. ALAN
publishes the ALAN Review, devoted solely to
promoting adolescent literature. This journal offers articles written from a variety of perspectives
along with interviews with authors, middle- and
secondary-school teachers, librarians, publishers, and university professors. IRA publishes the
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, featuring articles on reading interests, literature, and
reviews of new books. The ALA publishes Booklist, which contains reviews to guide librarians’
purchases. The School Library Journal and Voice
of Youth Advocates (VOYA) provide best-book
lists and reviews. NCTE’s English Journal prints a
column titled “Young Adult Literature,” featuring
issues and trends as well as reviews. NCTE’s
Voices from the Middle, aimed at middle-school
teachers’ interests, publishes “Clip and File: Reviews of Books for Middle-Level Readers,” written by student readers in the same format as the
ALAN Review’s “Clip and File: YA Books.”
See Also
Adolescent Literacy; Bibliotherapy
References
Brown, Jean E., and Elaine C. Stephens. 1998. United
in Diversity: Using Multicultural Young Adult
Literature in the Classroom. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Bushman, John H., and Kay Parks Haas. 2001. Using
Young Adult Literature in the English Classroom.
3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/PrenticeHall.
Herz, Sarah K., and Donald R. Gallo. 1996. From
Hinton to Hamlet: Building Bridges between Young
Adult Literature and the Classics. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Kaywell, Joan F. 1993. Young Adult Literature as a
Complement to the Classics. Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon.
Monseau, Virginia R. 1996. Responding to Young Adult
Literature. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Monseau, Virginia R., and Gary M. Salvner, eds.
2000. Reading Their World: The Young Adult Novel
in the Classroom. 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Moore, John Noell. 1997. Interpreting Young Adult
Literature: Literary Theory in the Secondary
Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Nilsen, Alleen Pace, and Kenneth L. Donelson. 2001.
Literature for Today’s Young Adults. 6th ed. New
York: Longman.
Reed, Arthea J. S. 1994. Reading Adolescents: The
Young Adult Book and the School. New York:
Merrill.
Soter, Anna O. 1999. Young Adult Literature and the
New Literary Theories. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Stover, Lois Thomas. 1996. Young Adult Literature:
The Heart of the Middle School Curriculum.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pedagogical and Reference Texts
Several scholars have published books, some in
revised editions, on the following subjects: field
and genre (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001); responding to adolescent literature (Monseau,
18
Adult Literacy
Adult Literacy
Adult Literacy Learners
Adult literacy learners are a diverse group in
terms of their racial, ethnic, language, age, and
even socioeconomic status. A large number of
low-literate adults are over the age of sixty—
products of a schooling system that was very different from the current educational system. In
addition, many low-literate adults are also classified as low income. It is not possible to determine a causal relationship between literacy and
income, but a strong correlation does exist. A
growing number of low-literate adults are also
English-language learners (ELL) who may or
may not be literate in their native language. In
addition to these demographic features, it is important to note that adult literacy learners also
face affective issues in the process of becoming
literate. First, many adult literacy learners have
had negative experiences with schooling and
must therefore overcome these feelings in order
to become engaged in adult literacy education. In
addition, many low-literate adults are faced with
a number of stressful situations that result in little available time or energy to pursue literacy education. Some common challenges include
working multiple jobs to “make ends meet,” single parenting, financial problems, housing problems, domestic violence, isolation, transportation problems, and child-care problems. The
challenges faced by adult literacy learners often
affect their engagement with adult literacy programs, persistence in programs, and educational
progress in programs.
Adult literacy is broadly defined as an adult’s
ability to read, write, listen, and speak in order to
accomplish daily events in society, in the family,
and on the job. Traditional definitions of adult
literacy focus on functional aspects of literacy
and the acquisition and use of specific reading
and writing skills. More recent definitions of
adult literacy may include references to computing, solving problems, viewing, and visually representing. Other definitions describe adult literacy as a political and transformative process that
is embedded in social, cultural, and power contexts. Adult literacy can also be defined in relation to the educational programs designed to
teach adult learners, such as adult basic education, workplace literacy, family literacy, and English as a Second Language (ESL) programs.
Definitions of adult literacy have changed significantly during recent years. Although in the
early 1900s literacy was often defined as the ability to sign one’s name, expectations have increased steadily through the years in terms of
what it means to be literate. In 1958, the United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defined an adult as literate if he or she could to read and write a simple
statement about daily life. The definition of
functional literacy was first used as a result of the
1940 U.S. Census, which defined an adult as literate if he or she had completed at least five years
of school and was able to pass an examination
written at the fourth-grade level. In 1978, UNESCO defined literacy as the ability to use reading, writing, and calculation in activities necessary for effective participation in one’s group and
community. The 1991 National Literacy Act defined literacy as an adult’s ability to read, write,
speak English, compute, and solve problems at
the level necessary to accomplish goals, function
at work, and develop to one’s potential. Building
on this definition, in 1992, the National Adult
Literacy Survey (NALS) defined literacy in three
areas: prose literacy (finding and using information from connected texts, including newspapers, stories, and poems); document literacy
(understanding and using information from
charts, tables, graphs, maps, and so on); and
quantitative literacy (using information in prose
and document texts to complete mathematical
operations).
Adult Basic Education
Adult Basic Education (ABE) programs focus on
helping adults learn basic skills and prepare to
earn the General Equivalency Diploma (GED).
Most programs begin with adults who are reading at approximately the fourth-grade level (see
Adult Literacy Programs). Adults who are reading at lower levels may be taught by volunteer tutors or in adult education programs. ABE programs are generally federally funded and are
administered by the individual states. In the
1990s, it was estimated that 3 million adults were
enrolled in ABE programs across the United
States. Although some workplace literacy programs are criticized for not helping workers become literate, their real problem is that they focus on job-specific skills that are not easily
transferred to other contexts.
19
Adult Literacy
criticism of some family literacy programs is that
they promote deficit views of low-literate and diverse families rather than building on the unique
strengths and attributes of each family.
English as a Second Language Adult Literacy
With the increasing number of English-language
learners (ELL), English as a Second Language
(ESL) programs are being offered for adults in
conjunction with ABE, workplace, family literacy, and other educational programs (see Adult
Literacy Programs, The Even Start Family Literacy Program, and Family Literacy). These ESL
adult literacy programs tend to retain many of
the characteristics of the program in which they
are housed (e.g., ABE, workplace literacy, family
literacy). Most ESL adult literacy classes are divided into beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels. Beginning classes tend to focus on
oral English proficiency and beginning reading/writing instruction. As students move into
intermediate and advanced classes, the focus
shifts to include more emphasis on reading/writing proficiency in English.
Legislation, Policy, and Adult Literacy
During the civil rights era in the 1960s and the
Right to Read Campaign in the 1970s (see The
National Right to Read Foundation), the public
began to hear about the need to view literacy as
a right for all. In addition, it was perceived that
lack of literacy was a national shame. In 1981, a
number of professional organizations and other
groups formed the National Coalition for Literacy to work toward increasing literacy in the
United States. This group supported a media
blitz about adult literacy that increased public
awareness of adult literacy issues and challenges.
In 1982, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary
Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor convened hearings on adult literacy. The Adult Literacy Initiative (ALI) was
passed in 1983 to provide limited funding to private volunteer groups interested in supporting
adult literacy. In 1985, the National Adult Literacy Project (NALP) commissioned a study of
adult literacy programs to determine effective instructional approaches for adult literacy learners.
The results of the 1992 National Adult Literacy
Survey (NALS) increased concern about adult
literacy issues, as the numbers indicated that
many adults in the United States scored in the
Woman reading a book on the University of Minnesota
campus (Skjold Photographs)
Family Literacy
The term family literacy was coined by Denny
Taylor (1983) in her book Family Literacy (see
Family Literacy). Another key work that laid the
groundwork for the development of family literacy was Shirley Brice Heath’s (1983) book Ways
with Words, which described the varied uses, approaches to, and conceptions of literacy within
three different communities. In the 1980s, family
literacy programs began to appear as a way to assist low-literate parents and their young children
develop literacy skills. Such programs typically
have four key components: adult literacy, early
childhood education, parent education, and parent and child together-time. Support and funding for family literacy programs have been provided by the U.S. federal government through
Even Start. In addition, much funding for family
literacy has been provided by the National Center for Family Literacy, the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, and a number of private businesses and foundations. A common
20
Adult Literacy
lowest levels of the assessment (see Adult Literacy Testing). All of these events resulted in increased awareness, concern, and priority for
adult literacy in the United States.
With the advent of the “Republican revolution” in the mid-1990s, federal legislation began
to emphasize welfare reform in relation to adult
literacy education. With the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, the nation’s welfare laws were reformed, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
system was created to provide block grants to
states. States were expected to move welfare recipients into work within a two-year period.
PRWORA was then altered as a result of the Department of Labor’s 1997 Welfare-to-Work Program. This legislation provides money to states
to prepare and support welfare recipients for the
workforce. The Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) of 1998 includes, as Title II, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, which replaced
the Adult Education Act and the National Literacy Act as the basis for federal funding and involvement in adult literacy programs. Individual
state policies may vary, but these pieces of legislation have had a significant impact on adult literacy. The overall result of the welfare reform
legislation has been to put added pressure on
adult literacy programs to provide education
and training that will prepare all students to secure employment within a relatively short time
frame. As a result, many adult literacy programs
and educators find themselves struggling to reconcile competing viewpoints about adult literacy education: namely, how can beliefs about
adult literacy education that focus on social action, change, and empowerment be pursued in
light of the recent trend of emphasizing economic growth over other outcomes of adult literacy education?
ucation to female homesteaders in isolated areas
of Canada.
In 1911, Cora Stewart, a superintendent of
schools in Kentucky started “Moonlight schools”
for adults to attend in the evening after work. She
wrote special materials for the schools and used
volunteers to provide the instruction. The curriculum focused on basic language, history,
civics, agriculture, rural life, and sanitation.
As a result of World War I, the U.S. military
discovered that thousands of soldiers could not
read well enough to follow printed directions
necessary for their jobs. The military played a key
role in raising awareness of adult literacy problems, as well as in establishing functional literacy
training programs to teach job-oriented literacy
skills to military personnel. Although the U.S.
military has been involved in adult literacy education for a number of years, its work has not
been extended to the civilian population.
Frank Laubach is best known for the worldwide initiative of “Each One Teach One” that he
began in 1929. This approach to adult literacy
was built on the belief that literate adults have a
responsibility to help other adults become literate. As an educator, sociologist, and minister,
Laubach sought to teach adults to read life skills
materials and religious texts. His approach to
reading instruction was based on phonics, using
key words for vowel and consonant sounds. He
developed literacy programs in over sixty countries and developed literacy charts and primers
in over 150 languages. His approach resulted in
the development of the Laubach Way to Reading
series. In 1969, Laubach Literacy Action (LLA)
was organized in the United States and Canada.
In the 1990s, more than 80,000 volunteers and
100,000 learners were involved in Laubach Literacy Action programs.
Paulo Freire, a radical social transformationist,
worked with Brazilian peasants to demonstrate
the political, sociocultural, and transformative
aspects of literacy. He espoused a liberatory approach to literacy education in his Pedagogy of
the Oppressed (1970), rather than the traditional
model of education that he described as the
“banking concept,” wherein the teacher dispenses
knowledge and the learner is passively filled.
His work established the political nature of literacy, as well as challenging traditional models of
education commonly used with adult literacy
learners (see The Political Nature of Literacy).
Early Influences on Adult Literacy
The roots of adult literacy reach back several
hundred years. In the late 1800s and early 1900s,
Alfred Fitzpatrick initiated a crusade in Canada
to take education to the people. He developed
the concept of the laborer-teacher who assisted
his fellow workers with reading, writing, math,
and citizenship. He founded the Reading Tent
Association, later known as Frontier College. He
also supported female “outriders” to provide ed21
Adult Literacy Programs
Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words:
Language, Life, and Work in Communities and
Classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Hull, Glynda, ed. 1999. Changing Work, Changing
Workers: Critical Perspectives on Language,
Literacy, and Skills. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Martin, Larry G., and James C. Fisher, eds. 1999.
The Welfare-to-Word Challenge for Adult Literacy
Educators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, Denny. 1983. Family Literacy. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Issues and Challenges in the
Field of Adult Literacy
A number of critical issues and challenges face
the field of adult literacy. One ongoing debate focuses on the need for adult literacy educators to
obtain specific credentials. One side of the argument stresses the need for adult literacy educators to be well prepared to teach adults, whereas
the other side advocates the current trend in
adult literacy wherein volunteers and individuals
who are interested in working with adults are
able to do so. Another issue is the heavy reliance
on grants and other “soft monies” to fund adult
literacy programs. As a result of this funding approach, many adult literacy programs are developed and implemented, only to find they must
dissolve when the grant funding ceases. In addition, the high percentage of low-literate adult
learners with undiagnosed learning disabilities
(LD) is a challenge for adult literacy educators
who may not have any preparation for working
with students with LD. Another related issue is
the high cost of diagnosing learning disabilities
for adult learners; to have modifications on the
GED, however, they must have documentation of
a disability. Questions about how to pay for the
diagnosis and where the responsibility lies remain unsolved. Another challenge is the rapid
growth in demand for ESL adult literacy programs that often outpaces the development of
programs to serve these populations. Another
ongoing challenge is the need for additional research about how adults acquire literacy and
what the effective approaches to adult literacy instruction are. For much of its history, adult literacy has relied on research and instructional approaches used with school-age populations.
With increasing knowledge about adult development and learning, research conducted with
adult populations is needed to answer critical
questions about how to educate diverse adult literacy learners effectively.
Laurie Elish-Piper
Adult Literacy Programs
Adult literacy programs are instructional programs that help adults, both immigrants and
those who have not been successful in the K–12
system, to improve their ability to read, write,
and speak English; to compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job and in society; to achieve their
goals; and to develop their knowledge and potential. The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey
(NALS) estimated the population of adults who
have very low literacy skills (NALS Level 1) at between 21 and 23 percent of all Americans over
the age of sixteen (see Adult Literacy). The NALS
estimated that an additional 25 percent of the
adult population had literacy skills that were low
in relation to the demands of contemporary society and its economy (NALS Level 2).
More than half of the people who scored in
NALS Level 1 do not speak English, are over age
sixty-five, or have cognitive or physical handicaps. A large proportion of the remaining NALS
Level 1 adults probably have learning disabilities
or grew up in environments that did not support
the acquisition of literacy skills. People who
scored in NALS Level 2 are more likely to be native-born adults who did not do well in school
and who have not been in jobs that required
them to use literacy skills.
The adult literacy programs that provide educational services to this population are funded by
federal, state, and local government agencies and
by private funding sources. Approximately 4 million adults participate in these programs each
year, but half of these students stay in their program for less than thirty hours. Total expenditures for these services from all sources is estimated to be $1.2 billion annually.
See Also
Adult Literacy Programs; Adult Literacy Testing;
Family Literacy; Laubach Literacy
References
Askov, Eunice N. 2000. Handbook of Adult and
Continuing Education. Edited by Arthur L. Wilson
and Elisabeth Hayes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New
York: Seabury Press.
22
Adult Literacy Programs
History of Adult Literacy Programs
Adult literacy programs have a long history in the
United States. Colonial newspapers published
advertisements for private tutors who taught
adults to read. The first commitment of government funds took place during the Revolutionary
War, when General George Washington directed
chaplains to teach soldiers to read and write at
Valley Forge. The U.S. Army and Navy continued
to teach literacy to soldiers and sailors during the
nineteenth century, but government support did
not expand until the twentieth century.
In the early part of the twentieth century, services were targeted at the large influx of immigrants who did not speak English. Military testing during World War I found that a large
number of native-born Americans were illiterate
or had low literacy skills. Several state and national efforts supported adult literacy programs
during the 1920s, and then in the 1930s, the
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the
Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided
adult literacy programs as a way to educate adults
and employ educated unemployed workers as
teachers. After World War II, military testing
again identified adult illiteracy and low literacy as
a significant problem. The Eisenhower administration was concerned about this issue and established the National Commission on Adult Literacy to look for a solution through a government
program, but no program was established until
Congress passed Lyndon Johnson’s Economic
Opportunity Act in 1964. This act included, as
Title IIB, the Adult Basic Education program. In
1966, federal funding for adult literacy programs
was moved to the Office of Education and then
to the Department of Education.
By the middle of the twentieth century, adult
literacy programs began serving three distinct
populations, and these services have continued to
the present day. Adult English for Speakers of
Other Languages (ESOL) programs help immigrants learn to speak, read, and write English.
Adult Basic Education (ABE) programs help
adults improve their literacy and math skills.
Adult Secondary Education (ASE) programs help
adults acquire a high-school credential, usually
by passing the General Equivalency Diploma
(GED) test. All three programs include the improvement of reading, writing, and math skills.
In 1999, federal funding for adult literacy programs became part of the Workforce Investment
Adult immigrants in an English as a Second Language
(ESL) class (Michael Siluk)
Act (WIA) as Title II, the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act. The new law consolidated
over fifty employment, training, and literacy
programs into three block grants to states to be
used for adult education and family literacy, for
disadvantaged youth, and for adult employment
and training services. Although WIA is focused
on preparing people for employment, it also supports services geared toward adults pursuing
their education for other purposes, such as citizenship, parenting, or their own personal improvement. At the state level, WIA funds may be
administered by an education agency or an employment and training agency. Each state is required to match WIA funds, but a handful of
states provide funds that are five to ten times as
great as the federal share. Approximately 30 percent of funding comes from federal sources and
60 percent from state sources. The remaining 10
percent comes from local governments, corporations, foundations, individuals, and local institutions (libraries, for example).
Structure of Adult Literacy Program Services
Program formats vary widely. Some programs follow a classroom format, some use one-on-one tutoring, and some provide one-on-one tutoring to
several adults working individually within a class.
In recent years, computer technology and electronic media have been integrated into instruction and used for self-study. Large programs offer
classes at different skill levels, whereas smaller
programs often form classes of students who are
at different levels. Most students are involved in
23
Adult Literacy Programs
instruction for three to five hours a week, though
some attend for only a few hours a month and
others for up to twenty hours per week. Some
programs run in closed cycles of a few months to
a year, whereas others have ongoing classes with
an open-entry admission policy. Instruction
takes place in a variety of venues, including community centers, workplaces, libraries, prisons,
community colleges, churches, homeless shelters, and schools.
Several specialty programs that focus on the
needs of specific populations have developed out
of an expressed need by students and through legislative mandates. Family literacy programs support learning among several generations in the
same family with the goal of helping both adults
and children improve their reading skills. Workplace literacy programs take place at a student’s
place of employment, and the content of instruction is drawn from work tasks. Corrections education takes place in prisons and jails and is focused on helping inmates improve their
employability so that they will be less likely to return to prison. Transitional education programs
help adults who pass the GED test to gain the academic literacy skills needed to be successful in
post-secondary education and training programs.
Student proficiency levels are usually assessed
with one of several standardized tests upon entry
into a program. This information is used to assign students to a class, but it is also used as a
baseline assessment that is then matched later
with a second test score for program accountability purposes. The most commonly used tests
are the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE), the
Adult Basic Learning Examination (ABLE), and
the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment
System (CASAS). All three are norm-referenced
tests developed to measure the reading comprehension of adults.
Adult literacy program students are either recent immigrants or adults who, as children,
failed to acquire strong literacy skills in school.
Although no national study has examined the
skills of adult literacy program students, a study
of several hundred ABE students found that almost 85 percent had weak print skills, low reading fluency, and limited oral vocabularies and
background knowledge. ESOL students who are
literate in their own languages stay in programs
longer than other groups of students and appear
to make progress. High-school dropouts with
ninth-grade literacy skills or higher stay in ASE
programs for a short period of time before taking the GED test. GED students are usually successful. ESOL students who are not literate in
their own languages and ABE students drop out
early and usually make slow progress.
Most program participants are between the
ages of eighteen and sixty-five. An analysis of
1990 census data and the 1992 NALS data estimates that among this age group, approximately
7 million adults do not speak English well, 25
million do not have a high-school diploma, and
35 million speak English and have a high-school
diploma but have NALS Level 1 or 2 skills. These
are unduplicated counts. This latter group rarely
participates in adult literacy programs.
Evaluations and Reform
of Adult Literacy Programs
Evaluations of adult literacy programs have
identified a number of weaknesses, including
low retention rates, lack of full-time staff, inadequate teacher preparation and support, and little
research available to inform program design.
These weaknesses are the result of low funding
levels. Although the national average funding is
approximately $300 per participant each year,
the range is probably between $100 and $1,500.
With this level of funding, adult literacy programs find it difficult to serve students who need
well-trained teachers and long-term services.
In 2000, a reform movement began with the
publication of From the Margins to the Mainstream: An Action Agenda for Literacy. This document has set the following goal: by 2010, a system of high-quality adult literacy, language, and
lifelong learning service that will help adults in
every community make measurable gains toward
achieving their goals as family members, workers, citizens, and lifelong learners. To meet this
goal, the document sets three priorities. The first
is to increase resources by both changing existing
policies to support higher quality programs and
expanding federal, state, and private funding.
The second is to increase access by providing:
better outreach to potential students, support
service to make it possible for them to study, and
more convenient ways to learn, including the use
of technology. The third is to focus on improving
the quality of instruction by supporting programs to develop goals and standards that reflect
the concerns of all stakeholders and that address
24
Adult Literacy Testing
Adult Literacy Testing
systematic program quality issues, provide better-trained staff, and expand research and development efforts.
Several national organizations and agencies
support the implementation of adult literacy
programs and are contributing to the reform
agenda. The U.S. Department of Education’s Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL)
administers state block grants under Title II of
WIA, manages the WIA accountability system,
the National Reporting System (NRS), and supports several research and development efforts.
The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), which
is funded through the Department of Education
but overseen by a board that is appointed by the
president, promotes improvement of services
through research and development, communications, and consensus-building activities. The National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and
Literacy pursues research and disseminates research findings. The National Coalition for Literacy is a consortium of institutions interested in
adult literacy that advocates policies that improve and expand services. Laubach Literacy and
Literacy Volunteers of America support volunteer and community-based literacy programs.
The National Center for Family Literacy promotes family literacy and provides funding,
training, and technical assistance to programs.
These institutions and the many adult literacy
programs they support constitute a third education system that fills the gaps left by the K–12 and
post-secondary education systems.
John P. Comings
Adult literacy testing refers to the assessment of
adults’ reading, writing, and arithmetic skills
through the uses of different kinds of measures.
Adult literacy testing is conducted for two broad
and largely unrelated purposes. First, it is used to
measure the literacy skills of adults enrolled in
adult education programs, such as Adult Basic
Education (ABE), English as a Second Language
(ESL), and General Equivalency Diploma
(GED), or high-school equivalency programs.
Standardized tests are frequently used to determine adults’ reading, writing, and math skills
prior to entry into these programs and to measure gains in their literacy skills following instruction. The second purpose pertains to recent
federally mandated efforts to determine the literacy skills of adults in the United States—and by
extension, adults in comparable nations.
The tests that are used for these purposes
consist of two types: standardized tests (which
are norm referenced) and competency-based
tests (which are criterion referenced). Standardized tests are widely used in adult literacy programs because state and federal agencies overseeing adult education mandate their use for
reporting student achievement. These tests assess reading and listening comprehension, oral
responses to visual and verbal prompts, knowledge of the mechanics of writing (e.g., grammar, spelling, punctuation), and math. Competency-based tests are growing in popularity
because they are presumed to better meet students’ needs. They are relatively easy to administer and score but more difficult to interpret.
Assessing adults’ literacy skills is a vexing problem in basic education, for several reasons. First,
there is little consensus on the definition of literacy (Venezky, Wagner, and Ciliberti, 1990). How
adult education programs define literacy determines the kinds of instruction offered and the
tests used to measure literacy skills. There is little
uniformity in curricula or instructional methods
across the spectrum of literacy programs. Second, many of the measures used to assess adults’
literacy skills have questionable validity, as several have been normed on populations that are
different from the population of adults having
low literacy skills (i.e., school-age children and
youth). Third, standardized measures of adult literacy are often administered by instructors with
little knowledge about appropriate test adminis-
See Also
Adult Literacy; Adult Literacy Testing
References
Comings, John, Barbara Garner, and Cristine Smith,
eds. 2000. Annual Review of Adult Learning and
Literacy. Vol. 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
———. 2001. Annual Review of Adult Learning and
Literacy. Vol. 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
———. 2002. Annual Review of Adult Learning and
Literacy. Vol. 3. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kirsch, Irwin S., Ann Jungeblut, Lynn Jenkins, and
Andrew Kolstad. 1993. Adult Literacy in America:
A First Look at the Results of the National Adult
Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics.
National Institute for Literacy. 2000. From the
Margins to the Mainstream: An Action Agenda for
Literacy. Washington, DC: National Institute for
Literacy.
25
Adult Literacy Testing
tration procedures. Frequently, test-giving procedures are violated (e.g., too much time is given),
thereby invalidating the tests. Fourth, the test results are often misinterpreted.
It is largely assumed that adults who participate in literacy programs are illiterate, that is,
lacking in literacy ability to such an extent that
they cannot read, write, or do math. However, it
is more accurate to say that many, if not most, of
the adults in these programs have low literacy
skills. That is, they have some reading, writing,
and arithmetic skills, but these are not sufficient
for them to function well at home, in their communities, and at work. Some adults have learning
disabilities that affect their ability to adequately
read and write. Other adults may be competent
readers or writers but have poor math skills. Participants in ESL programs may be literate in their
native language, but not in English. Or they may
be low-literate in their native language and unable to read and write in English.
1994), however, each state sets its own benchmark for passing the tests. Although reading is
not assessed, much reading is required and individuals need to have high-school-level reading
skills to be successful on the GED tests. Most
test-takers participate in a GED preparation program prior to taking the tests, but participation
is generally not required, and many people prepare for the GED tests on their own.
Standardized Literacy Skills Tests
There are a number of commercially available
tests that have been adopted by adult literacy
programs around the United States. The most
commonly used tests are the Adult Basic Learning Examination (ABLE), Basic English Skills
Tests (BEST), Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS), English as a Second
Language Oral Assessment (ESLOA), Reading
Evaluation Adult Diagnosis (READ), and Test of
Adult Basic Education (TABE). Standardized
reading-achievement tests from batteries such as
the Wide-Range Achievement Test are also used.
The tests that are most frequently used in adult
literacy programs, the TABE and the CASAS, will
be briefly described.
Tests of Adult Literacy
Adult literacy programs are usually required by
individual states to adopt specific tests for program accountability and data-reporting purposes. The U.S. government also requires that
states receiving federal funds for adult education
report student achievement data for basic education programs. The assessment of students’ literacy skills before and after literacy instruction is
often secondary to program accountability.
There is no single test used to assess the literacy
skills of adults in basic education programs, with
the exception of high-school equivalency programs. Here, the GED tests are used.
The TABE
This is a norm-referenced test that only recently
has been normed on adults rather than children.
The TABE is designed to measure reading, mathematics, language, and spelling skills. Both English- and Spanish-language versions are available. The TABE has two forms (versions 5/6 and
7/8) covering grade levels from 0.0 to 12.9. A locator test can be used to help literacy instructors
with placement of students into appropriate programs by matching learners’ test performance to
level of instruction. There is some evidence,
however, that few literacy programs actually use
the locator test to appropriately place students or
to plan instruction (Inman and Trott, 1999). A
limitation of the TABE is its focus on determining grade-level reading ability rather than identifying learner competencies.
High-School Equivalency Examination
The GED tests are sponsored by the American
Council on Education and are generally administered by community colleges and university
testing centers to adults who lack a high-school
diploma. The GED tests are norm referenced.
They require adults to demonstrate competence
in five formal categories that represent a typical
high-school curriculum: Interpreting Literature
and the Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and Writing Skills. The test questions are
multiple choice, except for Writing Skills, in
which examinees write essays. Passing scores are
set so that 70 percent of graduating high-school
seniors would obtain passing scores (Lowe,
The CASAS
The Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment
System of California has developed learner competencies, assessment tools, and training manuals for adult basic education programs. A major
revision of the CASAS was completed in 1994.
26
Adult Literacy Testing
The CASAS focuses on a large set of adult competencies that closely match those identified by
the U.S. Department of Labor as the skills necessary for work (Secretary’s Commission on
Achieving Necessary Skills, 1991). Adult competencies in real-life contexts are assessed by the
CASAS. These competencies go well beyond traditional literacy skills and include: basic communication (e.g., writing a letter), consumer economics (e.g., using catalogs to order consumer
goods), community resources (e.g., using maps),
health (e.g., filling out medical-history forms),
employment (e.g., interpreting wage and benefits forms), government and law (e.g., interpreting a ballot), computation (e.g., arithmetic and
measurement skills), learning to learn (e.g., using thinking skills), and domestic skills (e.g.,
home care). The CASAS is used in California and
several other states by federally and state-funded
adult literacy programs. States using CASAS also
require the TABE for reporting adults’ progress.
Adult Literacy Testing
for National Assessments
As noted earlier, the second purpose of adult literacy testing is to determine the literacy skills of
the populations of adults in the United States
and Canada, and to a somewhat lesser extent, in
other Western developed nations, such as Germany and the United Kingdom. There have been
a number of efforts devoted to assessing adults’
literacy skills in the United States over the past
three decades. The most recent efforts occurred
in 1985 and 1992. Another national assessment is
planned for 2002.
The assessment method used was developed
by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). ETS
defined three purportedly distinct forms of literacy skill: prose, document, and quantitative
(PDQ) literacy. Each type was measured by a
separate scale, an approach thought to better reflect the multifaceted nature of literacy than a
single scale. The PDQ assessment results in a
profile of literacy skills. The advantage of this
approach is that it eliminates the arbitrary use of
a cut point or single standard to distinguish “illiterate” from “literate” adults. The three skill domains encompass the predominate types of text
materials and literacy tasks that “typical” adults
encounter in everyday life.
Prose literacy is the ability to understand and
use information from texts that include editorials, news stories, poems, and fiction. Examples of
prose tasks include finding information in a
newspaper article or inferring a theme from a
poem. Document literacy is the ability to locate
and use information contained in materials such
as job applications, payroll forms, transportation
schedules, maps, tables, and graphs (Kirsch and
Jungeblut, 1985). Examples include locating an
intersection on a street map and entering personal information on a job application form.
Quantitative literacy means being able to apply
arithmetic operations by using numbers embedded in printed materials (Kirsch and Jungeblut,
1985). Examples include balancing a checkbook
and summing purchases on a catalog order form.
Item response theory (IRT) is used to estimate
adults’ literacy abilities from their responses to a
small number of tasks that are administered. IRT
is a statistical method for scaling individual test
items for difficulty in such a way that a given test
item has a known probability of being correctly
completed by an individual performing at a given
Limits of Standardized Tests
Standardized adult literacy tests are not useful for
diagnosing adult learners’ skill deficits, particularly at the lowest literacy levels (Burt and
Keenan, 1995). Tests such as the TABE, for example, determine grade-level reading ability rather
than identifying learner competencies. These tests
are also not achievement tests in the sense of determining what students have learned in their literacy classes (Lytle and Wolfe, 1989). The information that the tests provide is generally not
useful to students themselves as the scores don’t
translate into tangible learner goals or indicate
what adults need to learn. Because practitioners
in adult literacy programs are often not well
trained in standardized test administration, their
uses of these tests may invalidate the results (Business Council for Effective Literacy, 1990). Greater
efforts need to be devoted to training adult literacy educators in the proper administration and
interpretation of standardized assessments.
Despite the limitations of standardized measures, it is certain that they will continue to be
used in adult literacy programs. The data derived
from such measures are assumed to be objective,
and the tests are relatively easy to administer and
can be given quickly to large groups of students.
The results can be readily reported in a manner
familiar to most people (e.g., mean scores or
grade levels).
27
Adult Literacy Testing
level of proficiency. An 80-percent probability of
correct response was the criterion used by ETS.
The difficulty level of each literacy task was then
placed along a scale. The resulting performance
of groups of test-takers was also plotted along the
same scale. Thus, scoring of the PDQ measures
was based on the difficulty of each scale item, the
probability of correct responding, and respondent and task characteristics.
ETS adopted a 500-point scale, with five “levels” of literacy ability, for the purposes of reporting the results of adult literacy assessments. Level
1 (0–225) is the lowest level. Adults who perform
at this level are able to locate single pieces of information in brief texts and can accomplish relatively simple arithmetic operations. In contrast,
adults at Level 5 (376–500) are able to make
high-level inferences, using their background
knowledge, when reading densely packed and
complex texts and are able to perform multiple
quantitative operations sequentially. There is
some evidence that rather than assessing three
dimensions of literacy ability, the PDQ approach
actually taps into a single, general literacy ability.
Stephen Reder (1998) has shown high intercorrelations among the three scales.
The PDQ approach was first used for the
Young Adult Literacy Survey (Kirsch and Jungeblut, 1985). This survey was conducted in 1985
to assess the literacy skills of a nationally representative sample of American adults age twentyone to twenty-five. The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) was the first nationwide
assessment of adults’ literacy abilities in the
United States. More than 26,000 adults, age sixteen and older, participated in the NALS, completing both the PDQ tests and an extensive
background interview that gathered data on demographic characteristics, language, labor-force
participation, education background, civic participation, and literacy practices.
The NALS results showed that about one-half
of the adult population (estimated at 90 million
adults) scored at the two lowest proficiency levels on the PDQ tests. Less than 5 percent scored
at the highest level. These findings led to greater
public attention to the problems of adult literacy
in the United States.
The National Center for Education Statistics
plans to conduct its National Assessment of
Adult Literacy in 2002 to evaluate the “state” of
adult literacy at the beginning of the twenty-first
century. Data from this study will be compared
to the NALS in order to examine trends in adult
literacy over a ten-year period and determine
whether the United States has been successful in
improving adult literacy.
M. Cecil Smith
See Also
Adult Literacy; Adult Literacy Programs
References
Burt, Miriam, and Fran Keenan. 1995. Adult ESL
Learner Assessment: Purposes and Tools.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for
ESL Literacy Education. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, ED 386 962.
Business Council for Effective Literacy. 1990.
“Standardized Tests: Their Use and Misuse.”
BCEL Newsletter for the Business Community 22
(January):6–9.
Inman, Patricia, and Charles E. Trott. 1999. Pre-GED
Assessment and Certification in Illinois: Final
Report and Recommendations. De Kalb: Center
for Governmental Studies, Northern Illinois
University.
Kirsch, Irwin S., and Ann Jungeblut. 1985. Literacy:
Profiles of America’s Young Adults. Final Report.
Washington, DC: National Assessment of
Educational Progress, U.S. Department of
Education.
Kirsch, Irwin S., Ann Jungeblut, Lynne Jenkins, and
Andrew Kolstad. 1993. Adult Literacy in America:
A First Look at the Results of the National Adult
Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of
Education.
Lowe, Jean H. 1994. “Assessment of Adult Learners:
Purpose and Context.” Mosaic: Research Notes on
Literacy 4:2.
Lytle, Susan L., and M. Wolfe. 1989. Adult Literacy
Education: Program Evaluation and Learner
Assessment. Columbus, OH: Clearinghouse on
Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, ED 315 665.
Reder, Stephen. 1998. Dimensionality and Construct
Validity of the NALS Assessment. In M. C. Smith,
ed., Literacy for the Twenty-First Century: Research,
Policy, Practices, and the National Adult Literacy
Survey, pp. 37–57. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary
Skills. 1991. What Work Requires of Schools: A
SCANS Report for America 2000. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Labor.
Venezky, Richard L., Daniel A. Wagner, and Barrie S.
Ciliberti, eds. 1990. Toward Defining Literacy.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
28
Artists’ Books
American Reading Forum
tack. In its mentoring program and in other sessions, graduate students are provided an opportunity to meet with leaders of their field without
being cast into the role of sycophants. Small
stipends are made available by members of the
organization to help defray conference expenses
for some of the organization’s most promising
graduate-student members.
Over the years, the organization has refined its
goals to include the following: to provide a true
forum for reading education where new research
can be generated, research in progress can be refined, completed research can be reported, and
reported research can be evaluated; to provide
for the translation of reading research, theory,
and philosophical deliberations into sound practice, but with no research, discussion, or contemplation to be discarded because its implementation is not immediately apparent; and to insure
that in the field of reading, no idea is too bold or
new to be given a hearing and none too old to be
given consideration. More information can be
found on the ARF web site: www.fd.appstate.
edu/arfonline.
Bob W. Jerrolds
The American Reading Forum (ARF) is composed of a small group of scholars who seek to
submit reading research and instructional practices to intense empirical scrutiny. The ARF was
organized in 1980 and held its first annual conference in Sarasota, Florida, in December of that
year under its original name, the American
Reading Conference. The formation of the group
grew out of concern that the papers presented at
reading conferences and in reading journals were
not subject to sufficient review and discussion.
As reading programs expanded rapidly in the late
twentieth century, an examination of those programs revealed too many instances in which individuals had six or seven minutes to present
their research or scholarly papers. Since these
conferences usually ran from two and a half to
four days with several hundred presenters scheduled, there was little to no scholarly exchange regarding the presentations. The charter members
of the organization were chiefly leaders in the
reading fields, joined by some of their graduate
students. A high percentage of the charter members had been presidents and members of the
boards of other reading organizations.
From its founding, the ARF has restricted its
membership to 100–125 people. Its three-day
conferences are always held in Florida at or near
the end of the first semester of the school year.
The programs continue to be limited to about
forty papers, thus allowing time for reaction and
discussion. One of several innovative aspects of
the organization is that the papers are not submitted for consideration for publication in the
organization’s yearbook until several weeks after
the presentation at the annual conference. Thus,
the authors can profit from criticism and suggestions received at the conference. Members of the
audience are invited to submit reaction papers
for possible publication in conjunction with the
papers that are accepted for publication. The
yearbook is peer reviewed and is indexed with
major reference sources.
The ARF has always sought to encourage and
support graduate students who show the promise of becoming outstanding researchers and
leaders in the reading field. The organization has
tried to provide a forum in which researchers in
training can present their research and ideas
about research, receiving helpful criticisms and
suggestions without being subjected to savage at-
References
Jerrolds, Bob W. 1990. “History of the American
Reading Forum.” Yearbook of the American
Reading Forum 10:193–198.
Artists’ Books
An artist’s book is a work of art in a book or
booklike form that incorporates or exploits visual, tactile, structural, or textual elements. This
sort of book can vary from mass-produced
copies to limited editions with hand-set printing
to one-of-a-kind books with painted embellishments. Artists’ books can assume many forms,
ranging in style from the artist’s taking preexisting books and altering them to books made from
nontraditional materials such as metal, beads,
scraps of unusual paper, and natural objects like
sticks or leaves. Some books are made to conceal
all within; the pages may be glued, nailed, or fastened together in some manner so that the book
may never be opened. Other books have smaller
books hidden within so that there are several
books to open. Some artists’ books are handbound with special bindings, whereas others
have pages that are loosely held together or are
not bound together at all.
29
Assessment Interviews
Assessment Interviews
Assessment interviews are oral questionnaires.
They are conversations between a teacher and a
student that are guided by predetermined questions and goals but allow for open-ended queries
and spontaneous discussion when appropriate.
Although assessment traditionally includes written tests, individual student work, portfolios,
and grades, assessment interviewing provides an
additional dimension. Emelie Lowrey Parker
and her colleagues (1995) explain that when oral
interviews are used, educators can gain insight
into a child’s perspective and gather important
information at a personal level. The child is then
an active part of the assessment process. Assessment interviews can show that an educator values students’ voices, and this simple fact can motivate students to continue in their literacy
development.
The goal of assessment is to determine students’ instructional needs. Assessment should
permeate the literacy curriculum daily so appropriate curriculum can be created to meet those
needs. Terry Salinger (1998) lists three types of
assessment: standardized, observation, and interviews. Although all three should be used to
gain a full picture of a student’s abilities, interviews can supply an educator with students’ own
views of their preferences, attitudes, strengths,
and weaknesses. Assessment interviews show not
just a product but a reflection about that product
as well.
An example of an assessment interview is included in the Motivation to Read Profile (MRP)
developed by Linda Gambrell and her colleagues
(1996). The MRP has two parts: a written reading survey and a conversational interview. The
three sections of the conversational interview
consist of factors related to narrative text, informational material, and reading motivation and
habits. These educators realized that although
the written survey was an important part of the
profile, the conversational aspect of the assessment made it even more valuable. The purpose
of the conversational interview is to gain insight
into what motivates a student to read, to reveal
interests that may inform the curriculum, and to
elicit authentic knowledge about a student’s
reading experiences and abilities. The assessment
can follow a predetermined script, but tangents
are anticipated and encouraged in order to provide a depth of understanding between teacher
Crystal Wooten, author of artist books, displaying one
of her books (Barbara Guzzetti)
As more and more people became interested
in handcrafted books in recent decades, the form
of the book led artists to a new nontraditional
format for expression. The book format has offered artists countless avenues for expression.
Each artist’s book varies greatly.
Hence, the definitions of an artist’s book are
numerous, and somewhat controversial. Some of
the controversy arises from the idea that a book
has to behave like book; otherwise, it becomes
sculpture. Also, artists’ books do not always conform to all aspects of a traditional book. Often,
artists’ books are dangerously close to crossing
the border between book and sculpture. When
viewing such books, one important aspect to
take into consideration is the artist’s intent. The
intent of the artist makes an artist’s book different from other books because it was conceived
and executed from the beginning as a work of art
and as an artist’s book.
Crystal Marie Wooten
See Also
Children’s Literature
References
LaPlantz, Shereen. 1995. Cover to Cover. Asheville,
NC: Lark Books.
30
Assessment Interviews for Parents and Teachers
and student. Specific questions from the MRP
ask students to tell about interesting things they
have read or learned, how they found out about
these materials, and what was important about
what they read. The questions probe what the
students have read recently and what they think
they need to learn to become a better reader. Although these questions were developed to apply
to a majority of students and educators, teachers
should always feel free to adjust, expand, or revise the questioning to fit the students’ needs or
the teacher’s concerns.
Thomas Gunning (1996) also suggested some
interview questions that would be appropriate to
assess reading, adapted from Mary Jett-Simpson
(1990). These questions ask students to reflect
upon how they get ready to read, what they do
when reading is difficult, and how they understand what they have read. Questions similar to
these could be constructed for other areas of literacy learning such as writing, listening, speaking, and spelling. Sharon Martens Galley (1996)
recommends video- or audiotaping some interviews in order to show evidence of a student’s literacy progress. These tapes can then be revisited
for further reflection or self-assessment purposes.
Conducting assessment interviews takes patience and expertise. The interviews need to be
informal and friendly, but also productive and
efficient (Salinger, 1998). Interviews do not need
to take place very often or be held for too long.
Two or three questions asked monthly may work
best for young children, whereas longer interviews held twice yearly may suit older students.
The keys to successful assessment interviewing
are well-chosen, thought-provoking questions
and a probing, caring interviewer.
The advantages of assessment interviews are
clear. Although students may be able to participate successfully in other forms of assessment,
the interview allows the educator to extend and
adapt the questions to obtain a wider range of
information, especially from the student’s perspective. For the student who is not proficient at
more traditional types of assessment, the interview format may be even more crucial. The educator can conduct an interview to determine
strengths, weaknesses, and curriculum needs
when other forms of assessment do not produce
the necessary results. However, weaknesses in the
assessment interview are present as well. The
usefulness of the interview depends on the will-
ingness and ability of the students to discuss
their literacy habits and beliefs (Gunning, 1996).
Sometimes, information received from an interview may need to be verified by other assessment
methods. A combination of assessment techniques—standardized, observational, written,
and oral—may provide the best representation
of a student’s literacy progress.
Jill E. Cole
See Also
Assessment Interviews for Parents and Teachers;
Classroom Writing Assessment; Reading
Assessment; Writing Assessment; Writing
Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts
References
Galley, Sharon Martens. 1996. “Talking Their Walk:
Interviewing Fifth Graders about Their Literacy
Journeys.” Language Arts 73:249–254.
Gambrell, Linda, Barbara Martin Palmer, Rose Marie
Codling, and Susan Anders Mazzoni. 1996.
“Assessing Motivation to Read.” Reading Teacher
49:518–533.
Gunning, Thomas G. 1996. Creating Reading
Instruction for All Children. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Jett-Simpson, Mary, ed. 1990. Toward an Ecological
Assessment of Reading Progress. Schofield:
Wisconsin State Reading Association.
Parker, Emelie Lowrey, Regla Armengol, Leigh Baxley
Brooke, Kelly Redmond Carper, Sharon Cronin,
Anne Cooper Denman, Patricia Irwin, Jennifer
McGunnigle, Tess Pardini, and Nancy P. Kurtz.
1995. “Teachers’ Choices in Classroom
Assessment.” Reading Teacher 48:622–624.
Salinger, Terry. 1998. “How Do We Assess Young
Children’s Literacy Learning?” In Susan B.
Neuman and Kathleen A. Roskos, eds., Children
Achieving: Best Practices in Early Literacy, pp.
223–249. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Assessment Interviews
for Parents and Teachers
Interviewing can be defined as having a conversation with a definite purpose. Once the purpose
for the interview is established, questions are
generated to assist the interviewer in obtaining
the desired information. Interviews of parents
and teachers yield information that can be used
to study a variety of attributes related to reading
or writing, such as attitudes, perceptions, and
feelings about the causes of a particular problem
31
Assessment Interviews for Parents and Teachers
Teacher discussing a student with the student’s parents (Laura Dwight)
tinent information about the children’s health
and family history, and information about their
children’s previous school experiences. To begin
such an interview, parents might be asked a
question such as, “Tell me about what your child
reads at home.” If the child is struggling with
reading, the parents might be asked to tell about
their child’s reading or writing problem areas.
Simply asking parents to talk about their children can be an excellent way to build credibility
with them, garnering their support and assistance with the activities that will be performed
by their children both in and out of school.
Other sample questions are: “How do you think
your child learned to read?” “How is reading
used in your family?” “How is writing used in
your family?” and “Do you visit the library?”
Parents’ cultural backgrounds will most likely
influence the interview. It is necessary to know
how authority figures are viewed within the parents’ culture in order to ensure that appropriate
conversational rules are used. There are some
guidelines that can be used to enhance the
chances of a successful interview. These include
meeting in a private setting, avoiding educational
area. Current research has revealed that interviews can provide reliable and valid information
that cannot be obtained from other assessment
measures. Further, because they can be very informal, much like having a conversation, interviews can be an excellent way to begin a more
comprehensive assessment of children. At other
times, the interview can be made more structured through the development and use of an interview guide. In these instances, a tape recorder
is often used so that responses can be further analyzed. When thinking about using interviews to
assess reading or writing behaviors, several different individuals need to be considered. Parents
and teachers are valuable information sources
that can shed light on how children approach
and think about literacy-related events.
Interviewing Parents
One of the goals of interviewing parents is to obtain their assistance in understanding their children. Parents can yield information about the
reading habits of the family such as the parents’
view of reading, parent-child relationships, parents’ attitudes about their children’s reading, per32
At-Risk Students
jargon, listening actively, keeping note taking to a
minimum, asking open-ended questions to get
parents to talk, and assuring parents that the information they provide will be kept confidential.
that as valuable as it can be, information from
previous teachers is just that. When using an interview to access their perceptions of students,
we have to guard against absorbing any preconceived ideas about individual children. For this
reason, interviews with teachers are best used after the new teacher has had some time to get to
know the children.
Michael F. Opitz
Interviewing Teachers
Teachers who have worked with students are able
to provide additional information about students that cannot be gained from other sources.
For example, an interview with a teacher can reveal the teacher’s perception of learners and how
the children have adjusted to the school environment. Identifying a teacher’s perception of learners is necessary because this information can
then be used in selecting teaching strategies for
specific lessons that will make students’ success
more likely. Discovering teachers’ perceptions of
the children’s ability to adjust to the school environment and expectations can reveal specific behaviors that may be interfering with learning.
Once identified, these behaviors can be replaced
with those that facilitate academic growth. How
children’s reading and writing was assessed and
diagnosed as well as the specific type of reading
instruction that was given to children can also be
revealed during an interview. Information such
as this can often be a contributing factor to how
children perform as they read and write. For example, if children appear to rely on using visual
cues at the expense of using meaning, the interview could very well reveal that the children were
taught with a phonics approach.
As with interviews with parents, these teacher
interviews should have a definite purpose, and
specific questions must be established to reveal
the information that is sought. Questions such as
“How would you describe this child’s reading?”
“What did you use to determine what the children needed to learn?” “What kinds of reading
materials did you use?” “How do you make decisions about what children need from day to
day?” “Did you have any concerns about any of
the children that are now in my classroom?” are
but a few of the questions that can be asked of
teachers. Asking these questions in sincere, genuine ways makes for the best possible interview.
The teacher being interviewed senses that there
is a sincere desire to know rather than an attempt
to obtain information to pass judgment on what
has occurred in the past.
Information from these interviews needs to be
held in confidence. We also need to keep in mind
See Also
Assessment Interviews
At-Risk Students
At-risk is a term that entered the educational vernacular as a result of the widely read and often
quoted study A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Educational Reform (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983). Central to this
study’s findings was the conclusion that thencurrent educational policy and practice, specifically with regard to reading instruction, caused
substantial numbers of U.S. children to be at-risk
for failure in learning to read and, ultimately, for
being successful in school. In the nearly two
decades since its initial use, at-risk has acquired
many diverse meanings and has become a common expression used by educators, policymakers, the media, and the public alike to describe
children and adolescents who exhibit one or
more of a broad range of social, familial, economic, linguistic, cultural, and educational conditions associated with school failure. Thus, the
term in its popular usage has evolved from its
initial focus on educational policies and practices that place learners at-risk to a description of
the learners themselves; during the 1980s and
1990s, it very nearly replaced the labels traditionally used to refer to the student experiencing
reading problems—the “remedial reader,” “disabled reader,” “delayed reader,” and the like (see
Delayed Readers).
Along the way, at-risk has achieved common
use with little or no agreement as to its exact
meaning. Essentially, those who use it have their
own definition in mind: Some assume a rather
specific definition limited to an urban, innercity, poor and marginalized student population,
whereas others use a broad-based definition of
the term to refer to any student whose academic
success is in jeopardy or who may be in danger of
33
At-Risk Students
dropping out of school, whether the origin of the
perceived risk is sociocultural or educational.
Dorothy Strickland and Leslie Mandel Morrow
(2000) identify factors that place young children
at risk for failure in learning to read: (1) children
with a history of preschool language impairment
or delay, (2) children with limited proficiency in
English or whose home English dialect is different
from the dialect of instruction, (3) children
whose parents had difficulty learning to read, (4)
children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, (5) children who lack motivation to learn
to read or have few experiences with purposeful,
pleasurable reading, (6) children from poor
neighborhoods whose families lack sufficient resources for adequate housing, health care, and
nutrition, and (7) children who attend schools in
which classroom practices are deemed ineffective,
regardless of community socioeconomic status.
Richard Vacca and Nancy Padak (1990) give a definition of at-risk, older students: (1) students who
are alienated from a system that has failed them,
who never learned to read and rarely attempt to
do so, (2) students who learned to read but whose
participation in school is marginal, who can read
but only do so under duress, and (3) students
who demonstrate characteristics of “learned helplessness,” who feel they do not have the resources
for overcoming failure and are further limited by
low self-image and negative attitudes.
learning to read when provided regular classroom reading instruction” (Klenk and Kibby,
2000) and these difficulties frequently follow
them throughout their academic careers and
sometimes throughout their lives.
Interventions
The question then becomes: How do we meet the
needs of this small but significant portion of
schoolchildren who struggle with literacy and
are at-risk for school failure? The predominant
approach throughout the twentieth century,
which continues today in practice, was a medical
model in which a specialist diagnosed the student’s reading problem and provided remediation. For the most part, Title I remedial reading
programs in public schools, which were intended
to serve at-risk students (see Title I), were and
still are based on this medical deficit model in
which the goal is to find out which of the skills
taught in regular classroom reading instruction
are missing for each student and then apply
teaching to correct for those missing skills (Ruddell, 2001). To accommodate for this medical
model, since their inception Title I remedial
reading programs have predominantly been
“pullout” programs in which, at the elementary
level, children leave their regular classrooms at
specified times and go to the remedial-reading
class to work individually or in small groups with
a reading specialist for the purpose of filling in or
catching up on reading skills that were missed or
not learned in regular instruction. For middlelevel and high-school students, Title I instruction is substituted for one elective class during a
semester or year and may occur in small-group
or individualized instruction in a resource- or
remedial-room setting. Although it is difficult to
assess Title I pullout programs with any accuracy
because of the many nuanced differences in Title
I remedial programs across the country, the general finding of studies conducted over the past
twenty years is that the instruction these programs offer, for many complex and varied reasons, appears to assist students toward higher
reading achievement but rarely promotes them
to a level comparable to their mainstream peers
(Klenk and Kibby, 2000). It is important to point
out, however, that for many individual children,
Title I remedial-reading instruction has provided
much-needed and very successful support toward academic success.
Criticisms of the Label
Of concern to some educators is that we may be
labeling too many students as “at-risk” by including students who exhibit any difference from
the mainstream or who have talents not traditionally acknowledged in schools (Ruddell,
2001) and that our use of such labels as “at-risk”
(or “disabled” or “remedial”) lead to the implicit
conclusion that something is wrong with the students themselves (Klenk and Kibby, 2000). As a
result, many educators seriously question the inclusion of linguistically and ethnically diverse
students as a group into the category of at-risk
and prefer terms for students who are experiencing difficulty with literacy that describe a situation rather than label the learner: “readers in
trouble,” “struggling readers,” “delayed readers,”
and the like. But whatever label or term is used to
identify the situation, the fact is that “a small but
significant portion of otherwise normal American children encounter major difficulties in
34
At-Risk Students
Another approach for assisting at-risk learners
that gained widespread acceptance in the 1990s
was “early intervention,” in which the goal was to
identify at-risk students—students scoring below the twentieth percentile on reading tests—
very early in the learning-to-read stage of first
grade and provide systematic, intensive one-onone instruction to prevent reading problems.
Marie Clay’s Reading Recovery program (1979)
was the primary model for early intervention
programs and was used or adapted in many
schools throughout the United States (see Reading Recovery). As with the Title I programs,
Reading Recovery was predominantly a pullout
program that provided systematic skill instruction and practice, writing experience, silent and
oral-reading practice, and reading for pleasure.
ing problems in learning to read and write are
not missing out on large blocks of regular classroom instruction. Title I and regular classroom
teachers are now frequently joined by America
Reads volunteers who work one-on-one to tutor
primary-grade children identified as at-risk in
in-school and after-school programs. No research is currently available to evaluate the usefulness of the volunteer programs.
Currently, instruction for at-risk children and
older students remains centered in Title I and
early intervention programs, and as can be imagined, these programs vary widely according to
specific school and district characteristics and
needs. A recent trend by policymakers and
politicians is to address the many complex of issues associated with risk of school failure by setting higher academic standards, administering
more and more high-stakes tests (see HighStakes Assessment), and retaining students in
grade until they pass the tests. Schools responding to such policy and legislative mandates are
attempting to provide various forms of Saturday-school, after-school (called “Cool School” in
some districts), and summer-school programs
that offer alternative experiences and instruction
for students at-risk rather than simple repetition
of grades that students have already failed (Posnick-Goodwin, 2001). “Pre-classes” or “halfclasses,” in which students do not repeat a grade
but are placed in a class between two grade levels
(e.g., pre-seventh grade between sixth and seventh grades), are considered to be intervention
rather than retention or remedial instruction.
“Pre-kindergarten” classes are for children who
have not yet started school and who exhibit characteristics or meet criteria deemed to place them
at-risk.
There is still little or no evidence to determine
the usefulness of these forms of intervention. Previous experience with mandatory minimumcompetence testing in the 1970s cautions that “intervention” based on high-stakes testing may
cause dropout among older at-risk students to increase significantly. Thirty-five years of experience with Title I remedial programs cautions us
further about the effectiveness of remedial programs in isolation from regular classroom instruction. The overwhelming evidence about the
negative effect of school retention must give us
pause in instituting wholesale retention programs
for students who do not pass high-stakes tests.
Recent Intervention Approaches
Toward the end of the 1990s, Title I regulations
changed to allow greater freedom for schools and
districts to develop remedial-reading programs.
Concurrently, there was a shift in philosophy regarding the usefulness of pullout programs and
the role of the reading specialist. Specifically, educators began to question the value of removing
students from their regular classroom instruction for the purpose of providing intensive remedial instruction. The concern was that by so
doing, educators systematically deprived them of
the very important developmental instruction
that composes the content of the regular classroom, thus compounding students’ difficulty in
acquiring age- and grade-appropriate literacy
skills. This, in turn, called into question the medical model of diagnosis and treatment of reading
problems, as well as the role of the reading specialist to provide stand-alone instruction outside
of the regular classroom literacy curriculum.
These influences produced new Title I remedial
programs in which the reading specialist works
alongside the classroom teacher in the regular
class to provide services for children identified as
at-risk. In such programs, remedial instruction is
contextualized by and is a part of regular literacy
instruction; the remedial teacher may teach
non–Title I and Title I students together, giving
special attention to the Title I children in a small
group and designing instruction collaboratively
with the classroom teacher to coincide with regular instruction. Of special benefit in this model
of Title I instruction is that children experienc35
Authentic Assessment
Shearer, Brenda A., Martha Rapp Ruddell, and
MaryEllen Vogt. 2001. “Successful Middle School
Reading Intervention: Negotiated Strategies and
Individual Choice.” In Timothy Shanahan and
Flora V. Rodriguez-Brown, eds., National Reading
Conference Yearbook 50, pp. 558–571. Chicago:
National Reading Conference.
Strickland, Dorothy S., and Leslie M. Morrow. 2000.
Beginning Reading and Writing. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Vacca, Richard, and Nancy D. Padak. 1990. “Who’s at
Risk in Reading?” Journal of Reading 33
(7):486–488.
Alternatives to Remediation and Intervention
An alternative to the remedial and intervention
approaches above is typified by the accelerated
school movement led by Henry Levin (1993) in
which the approach to at-risk learners is not to
slow down their progress but rather to accelerate
it, that is, to enrich instruction as one would for
gifted students. Such an approach would result
in instruction that (1) treats at-risk students as
able, eager learners capable of learning from each
other as well as from the teacher, (2) builds on
students’ strengths instead of focusing on their
weaknesses, (3) connects explicitly with students’
prior knowledge, previous experience, and the
own lived worlds, and (4) involves many experiences in which students have the opportunity to
reflect on their own literacy learning and development (Ruddell, 2000). Limited evidence
(Shearer, Ruddell, and Vogt, 2001) suggests that
such instruction is, indeed, beneficial for at-risk
learners and, further, that their literacy accomplishment can, even in middle grades, place them
at a level comparable with their mainstream
peers.
Martha Rapp Ruddell
Authentic Assessment
Two important features characterize authentic
assessment. The first is the proximity of authentic assessment to valued classroom literacy routines. What a student does in the assessment situation is clearly related to the learning and
achievement that are goals of schooling. Authentic assessment emanates from classroom practice,
and it is conducted during regular activities of
the classroom. As authentic assessment is embedded in classroom materials, routines, and instruction, the inferences made from the authentic assessment data may be more directly
connected to curriculum, instruction, and learning. A second meaning for the term authentic assessment focuses on the relationship of the assessment to learning and performances inside and
outside the classroom. In this sense, authentic assessment involves students’ performance of a variety of tasks in social contexts that anticipate the
use of reading in the lives of students as related to
personal fulfillment, creativity, and work.
Combining these two related but distinct ideas
describes authentic assessment in which students
engage in representative and possibly complex
tasks that are connected with regular and valued
literacy activities inside and beyond the classroom. Authentic assessment may describe the diverse ways in which students grow and develop
in the literacy curriculum. Although the two
meanings are related, they reflect the broad and
different manner in which authentic assessment
may be conceptualized. They also hint at the
confusion that may arise from assigning a single
meaning to the term. For example, if a student
spends classroom reading time practicing multiple-choice test items, then a multiple-choice test
may be an authentic assessment, since it reflects
See Also
Delayed Readers; High-Stakes Assessment;
Remediation; Title I
References
Clay, Marie M. 1979. The Early Detection of Reading
Difficulties. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.
Klenk, Laura, and Michael W. Kibby. 2000.
“Re-Mediating Reading Difficulties: Appraising
the Past, Reconciling the Present, Constructing
the Future.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B.
Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr,
eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp.
667–690. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Levin, Henry M. 1993. “Prologue.” In Wendy S.
Hopfenberg et al., The Accelerated Schools Resource
Guide, pp. xi–xvi. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Commission on Excellence in Education.
1983. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Educational Reform. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Posnick-Goodwin, Sherry. 2001. “Intervention and
Retention: Schools Get Tough on Students Who
Don’t Make the Grade.” California Educator 5
(7):6–11.
Ruddell, Martha R. 2000. “Just a Closer Look: The
Current Political Climate of Literacy Education in
the USA.” WSRA Journal 43 (2):1–10.
———. 2001. Teaching Content Reading and Writing.
3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
36
Authentic Assessment
classroom practice and instructional goals. This
is an altogether different notion of authentic assessment—one in which students use reading
strategies in a complex reading performance assessment that relates to their learning of reading
strategies and content-domain knowledge.
The authentic assessment of students’ literacy
development may be conducted with various assessment materials and procedures. Following
from the two definitions given previously, authentic assessment may include running records
and reading inventories (see Informal Reading
Inventory). These are conducted as students
read, with teachers observing and recording the
detail of students’ accomplishments and miscues. From this, teachers use on-line information
about students’ oral reading and silent reading to
develop an account of the processes students use
to decode words and construct meaning. Other
authentic assessment, including performance assessments, portfolios, interviews, and observation forms, allows for the examination of students’ literacy processes and products at varying
degrees of complexity and in the social context
of the classroom. In addition, teacher questioning and students’ answers and retellings are also
authentic when they help determine the nature
of students’ understanding. Such an array of authentic assessments can help describe students’
growth and achievement as they relate to the
complex act of reading.
Acting with the knowledge gained from reading, students may be involved in performance assessments. Sharing of rubrics in performance assessment helps demonstrate the relationship of
instruction and assessment: the means by which
students will be evaluated serve as a map for how
to perform well. In this sense, performance assessment rubrics may serve as a guide to both instruction and assessment. Literacy portfolios
may be authentic assessments, serving as repositories for students’ work and contexts for students’ reflection and self-assessment. Adept use
of portfolios also helps students and teachers
conduct authentic assessment of complex and
long-term projects, such as writing in relation to
reading. The ability to document and organize
the progression of work within the portfolio
contributes to the unique contributions possible
with portfolios.
The popularity of authentic assessment is fueled, in part, by the preponderance of large-scale
multiple-choice tests and their limited ability to
describe students’ complex literacy growth (Valencia, Hiebert, and Afflerbach, 1994). Such tests
are criticized because they provide little or no
formative assessment information and no immediately useful information, and they do not reflect the breadth and depth of learning that occur in a rich literacy curriculum. If complex
learning is specified in standards documents (see
Standards) and curriculum guides, the measures
used to assess it must be capable of reflecting and
accurately measuring this complexity. Authentic
assessment materials and procedures reflect the
complexity of the literacy growth they are intended to describe.
Authentic assessment is often teacher- and
student-centered, which may allow for the immediate and effective use of assessment information in the classroom. Authentic assessment
may serve a formative purpose, as teachers use
the information to shape instruction and provide feedback for students. Some consider authentic assessment to be an optimal means of
measuring and describing the progress of students, teachers, and schools. It is also a means of
revealing epistemologies, theories of what teaching is, how children learn, and what they might
learn. For example, an authentic assessment that
requires students to read two texts and then
write an original account of how the texts are
similar and how they differ does not mesh with
the view of the reader as a passive recipient of information from text.
The characteristics of particular assessment
materials and procedures are not the sole determinants of whether the assessment is authentic.
Rather, it is how these materials and procedures
connect with the curriculum, how information
from the assessment is used, and what the assessment demands of students that signifies an assessment as authentic. Reading assessments must
be considered not as isolated instruments and
procedures but as parts of the complex world of
schooling (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and
National Education Association, 1997). The
promise of authentic assessment is realized, in
part, when it is developed and selected according
to complex criteria. Historically, assessment is
judged by the psychometric standards of validity
and reliability. It is imperative to augment this
important information through the identifica37
Authentic Assessment
tion of the potential benefits and demands of any
authentic assessment. Diane Leipzig and Peter Afflerbach (2000) developed the CURRV (consequences, usefulness, roles and responsibilities, reliability, and validity of assessment) framework
for examining the suitability of assessment for
measuring and describing students’ literacy
growth. Applied to authentic assessment, the
framework can be used to anticipate and examine
the consequences of assessment, its usefulness,
and the roles and responsibilities it creates. This
information complements the important aspects
of the reliability and validity of the assessment.
questions such as: How appropriate is my lesson?
Should I change the learning goals and targets?
How are individual students doing in their small
groups? and How can I accommodate each
learner in this diverse classroom? Similarly, students may receive feedback from authentic assessment that provides details on the ways they
are succeeding or on the ways they need to improve on a particular literacy strategy or skill.
Authentic assessment can provide detailed information on students’ performance at complex
tasks. For example, the innovative curriculum
that asks students to perform tasks that reflect
the complexity of work inside and outside the
classroom must be accompanied by sophisticated assessment that is capable of describing
that complexity. Quality, detailed information
that guides instruction, that informs students
and their families, that demonstrates good learning and teacher ability to conduct such assessment is useful in building goodwill throughout
the school community.
The Consequences of Assessment
The potential consequences of a successful authentic assessment program include effective use
of school time and resources and teachers’ and
students’ participation in the culture of assessment. Authentic assessment may take place during the course of regular classroom literacy activities. Thus, the need to take valuable classroom
time from instruction and learning to prepare
students to take an assessment is lessened. A related consequence is that time and money may
be saved because authentic assessment information is generated in situ. A further consequence is
that students may not have to learn complex
routines of transforming their procedural and
content knowledge for a specific testing scenario,
because authentic assessment is conducted as
teaching and learning occur. Enhanced motivation may be a further consequence: students who
learn to become invested in reading assessment
may be more motivated to learn. Reading assessment that is clearly aligned with instruction and
conducted within instruction may provide
teachers and students with the opportunity to
better understand and use assessment. Students
may develop independence in the important task
of self-assessment, which is central to success in
literacy endeavors.
Roles and Responsibilities
As described by Scott Paris and his colleagues
(1992), authentic assessment is the result of a
complex process of determining learning goals,
relating assessment materials and procedures to
those goals, and developing the expertise to develop, administer, and interpret authentic literacy assessment results. Each of these key areas
demands that clear and specific roles and responsibilities be determined, assigned, and fostered. Teachers must become assessment experts
(Johnston, 1997) and must develop the ability to
effectively collect, interpret, and use assessment
information. This is especially the case in an era
of high-stakes assessments: advocates of authentic assessment must demonstrate that alternatives to multiple-choice machine-scored tests
meet psychometric standards of validity and reliability (see High-Stakes Assessment). To help
teachers meet the challenge presented by such
new roles and responsibilities, school districts
must provide the extensive professional development that is needed—authentic assessment done
well is a challenging task. Students must adopt a
more active approach to assessment, moving
from the passive state that is often fostered by assessments that are removed considerably in time
and space from literacy learning events. In addition, the pertinent characteristics of authentic
Usefulness of Authentic Assessment
Authentic assessment proves useful as it provides
detailed information related to current instruction and complex learning tasks and accomplishments. It is characterized by its close proximity
to instruction and learning and by the immediacy with which it can provide formative feedback
in the midst of teaching and learning. This information can help teachers frame and answer
38
Authentic Assessment
assessment should be supported by the communication of results to all stakeholders, including
students, teachers, parents and families, administrators, board members, legislators, the business
community, and other interested parties. This
information may include the specific nature of a
new assessment, the benefits it offers in relation
to an existing assessment, and examples of the
detail and usefulness of the information that the
new assessment yields.
expertise in developing, conducting, and interpreting authentic assessment information is crucial. As standardized tests are framed by aspirations of the equivalent treatment of each student
who is taking a test, it is imperative that teachers
develop the ability to assess authentically in a reliable manner. That is, they must build a set of
predictable and fair assessment routines to conduct authentic assessment. Further, teachers
must strive to develop reliable means for analyzing the authentic assessment information they
collect. As authentic assessments often involve
examination of students’ written and spoken
work, it is imperative that teachers regularly reflect on how bias for or against a particular language, performance, or student may be present
and held in check. The complexity of tasks and
performances that students undertake in authentic assessment create a corresponding complexity for teachers gathering and interpreting
this assessment information.
Peter Afflerbach
Validity of Authentic Assessment
Authentic literacy assessment must meet rigorous
standards of validity (Messick, 1994). Construct
validity, or the accurate relation of an authentic
assessment to the construct of reading, is made
possible because authentic assessment can more
fully represent the learning and growth that result
from effective reading instruction. Ecological validity may be guaranteed when authentic assessment is done well because assessment takes place
around instruction and learning and does not involve a knowledge-transformation task. It does
not seek to describe reading achievement with
means that are not reflective of typical classroom
literacy acts, and there is little or no perturbation
of the learning environment in the service of the
assessment. Similarly, content validity, or the relation of the authentic assessment to the curriculum and instruction, may be enhanced as the assessment comes from instruction and learning.
Concurrent validity of authentic assessment may
pose a challenge because it hinges on the degree
to which an authentic literacy assessment relates
to other measures of literacy. Authentic assessment may be used because there is strong agreement that existing high-stakes assessments are
not sensitive to the breadth and depth of student
learning. In such instances, high positive correlations between the results of two assessments that
focus on literacy but differ substantially in how
assessment is conceptualized and measured
should not be expected.
See Also
High-Stakes Assessment; Informal Reading Inventory; Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation;
Portfolios; Standards
References
American Educational Research Association,
American Psychological Association, and National
Education Association. 1997. Standards for
Educational and Psychological Testing.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association, American Psychological Association,
and National Education Association.
Johnston, Peter. 1997. Knowing Literacy: Constructive
Literacy Assessment. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Leipzig, Diane, and Peter Afflerbach. 2000.
“Determining the Suitability of Assessments:
Using the CURRV Framework.” In L. Baker, M.
Dreher, and J. Guthrie, eds., Engaging Young
Readers: Promoting Achievement and Independence,
pp. 159–187. New York: Guilford Press.
Messick, Sam. 1994. “The Interplay of Evidence and
Consequences in the Validation of Performance
Assessments.” Educational Researcher 23
(2):13–23.
Paris, Scott, Robert Calfee, Nicola Filby, Elfrieda
Hiebert, P. David Pearson, Sheila Valencia, and
Kenneth Wolf. 1992. “A Framework for Authentic
Literacy Assessment.” Reading Teacher 46:88–98.
Valencia, Sheila, Elfrieda Hiebert, and Peter Afflerbach. 1994. Authentic Assessment: Practices and
Possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Reliability of Authentic Assessment
The determination that authentic assessment is
reliable remains a final goal of determining the
suitability of authentic assessment. There must
be confidence that the authentic assessment materials and procedures that are used with twenty
or twenty-five different students within a single
classroom are fair and consistent. Here, teacher
39
Automaticity and Reading Fluency
Automaticity and
Reading Fluency
Gay Sue Pinnell and her colleagues in 1995) on a
national sample of fourth graders (see National
Assessment of Educational Progress). In this
study, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress found that 44 percent of the fourth
graders were not fluent readers. There were high
correlations between fluency and comprehension. Fourth graders who were not fluent at word
recognition tended to have difficulty with comprehension. As the body of knowledge about automaticity and fluency has increased, there is
growing recognition of its importance.
Although the terms automaticity and fluency are
often used interchangeably, there is a subtle difference in how these two terms are used. Automaticity is the more general term; it refers to a
wide variety of highly skilled behaviors and
thought processes that can be executed with little
conscious effort or attention as the result of long
periods of practice. Reading fluency, by contrast,
although similar to the definition of automaticity, has its use limited to skilled reading performance. Fluency refers to the ability to comprehend a text with little conscious effort or
attention as the result of long periods of practice.
Fluent readers can read orally from a text they
have never seen before with expression, accuracy,
speed, and comprehension. Although most
teachers recognize the importance of reading fluency, unfortunately, little is done specifically to
help students reach this goal. D. Ray Reutzel and
Paul Hollingsworth (1991) found that instruction in reading fluency has been a neglected part
of reading instruction, despite the fact that many
reading authorities consider it to be important.
When David LaBerge and Jay Samuels first
wrote their article in 1974 on automatic information processing in reading, they focused only
on word recognition, but in the last twenty years,
the concept of fluency has enlarged so that it now
includes comprehension processes as well word
recognition. Reading educators use the term
reading fluency in referring to a highly developed
level of skill attainment that may range from ease
of decoding printed material to complicated inferential operations used in constructing meaning from the printed material on the page. For
example, when fluent readers read a text such as
the following, they make numerous automatic
inferences: “The man was puffing away absentmindedly while walking through the woods.
Many animals and trees were destroyed in the
ensuing fire.” In reading this text, the reader automatically infers that the man was puffing on a
lit cigarette, that he dropped it on flammable
material on the ground, and thus caused a fire.
Stages of Reading Development
In the development and assessment of automatic
complex skills such as reading, it is useful to
know what stages the beginning student passes
through on the road to fluency. Knowledge of the
characteristics of each of the stages can be useful
to teachers in their diagnosis and remediation of
reading difficulties. The three stages from beginning to fluent reading are: nonaccurate, accurate
but nonfluent, and accurate and fluent. During
the nonaccurate beginning stage of reading skill,
when students are asked to read a new text orally,
reading speed is slow, with many word-recognition errors, and expression and comprehension
are poor. With considerable instruction and
practice, the student enters the accurate but nonfluent stage. When accurate but nonfluent students are asked to read a new text orally, wordrecognition accuracy is high, speed of reading is
still slow, and oral-reading expression and comprehension are poor. Again, after considerable
practice reading, the student enters the third
stage, which may be termed the accurate and fluent stage. When fluent readers are asked to read
orally from a new text, their word recognition,
speed, expression, and comprehension are good.
Property Lists for Determining Automaticity
There are still other ways to determine when a
student is automatic, or fluent, in reading. Researchers have put together property lists that
can be used to distinguish automatic from
nonautomatic processes. The reason for the
property lists is that some nonautomatic
processes can masquerade as automatic. Property lists help to determine if the execution of a
complex skill was done automatically or not. For
example, a student may be able to read a text
orally with high word-recognition accuracy and
Importance of Reading Fluency
The importance of reading fluency is underscored by a study done by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (as reported by
40
Automaticity and Reading Fluency
speed, and a teacher might mistakenly assume
the student is fluent when in fact the student is
not. The reason for good word recognition coupled with poor comprehension is that if the decoding task consumes considerable amounts of
the student’s cognitive resources, comprehension
suffers. Two additional properties must be exhibited before identifying the student as a fluent
reader. The oral reading should have good expression and the student should be able to recall
some of the major points in the reading passage.
Appropriate expression is important because it is
an indicator that the student comprehends the
passage while decoding it. Lack of expression is
not the sign of an uncooperative student, but of
a student who has difficulty understanding a text
while decoding.
If a student can engage in two complex tasks at
the same time, then at least one of them is automatic. In the case of reading, where decoding
and comprehension are complex tasks, if the student can perform both simultaneously, as is the
case in oral reading with comprehension, then at
least one of the tasks is automatic. We can assume that it is the decoding that is automatic.
Additional properties of complex skills
learned to the automatic level include the ability
to perform the skill with minimal attention,
without conscious awareness, and without interfering with other processes that are occurring at
the same time. The last characteristic is critical,
especially as it pertains to reading. As stated earlier, the decoding task should not interfere with
the comprehension task. If it does, then the student is not yet at the fluent reading stage.
To this property list, we can add additional
characteristics, such as the complex skill that
comes about as the result of long periods of
practice; once it is activated, the automatic skill is
difficult to suppress. For example, we know that
when we are driving an automobile, we should
focus attention on the traffic and we should try
to suppress our desire to read the words on a billboard. Nevertheless, when fluent readers see
words on a billboard, they have difficulty suppressing their desire to read them.
istics of automaticity and fluency may be considered to be on a continuum rather than as bipolar
traits. To illustrate the importance of considering
automaticity and fluency on a continuum rather
than as bipolar traits, consider reading speed.
Reading speed for the beginning reader is characteristically slow. With practice, however, the
speed of reading increases, but the shift to fast
reading is not abrupt. Instead, it is gradual. Data
gathered on reading speed for students over time
reveal a gradual, continuous improvement in
speed in which only the beginning and end
points can be identified as “slow” or “fast.” Reading speed, like other aspects of fluency, such as
accuracy of word recognition or ability to read a
text orally with expression, show gradual and incremental improvement resulting from practice.
Word Recognition
Several researchers, such as Robert Calfee and
Dale C. Piontkowski (1981) and Keith Stanovich
(1985), reported that development of automaticity in word recognition is associated with improved comprehension. To understand why automatic word-recognition skills can influence
comprehension, three basic components of the
reading process must be considered. First, in order to read a text, attention is needed to perform
the decoding and comprehension processes. Unfortunately, the amount of attention that is available for performing these tasks is limited. Second, the words in the text must be decoded, or
recognized. Third, the reader must comprehend
the text. For the beginning reader, the decoding
act is so difficult that all of the available attention
is used up just for that one task, leaving an insufficient amount of attention for the comprehension process. To comprehend the text, the beginning reader resorts to the strategy of switching
attention back and forth from decoding to comprehension, but this strategy places a considerable load on memory. Thus, by switching attention back and forth, the beginning reader
manages to understand the text, but only with
great effort. As the result of extended time spent
in reading practice, the decoding task becomes
automatic. When the decoding becomes automatic, the word-recognition task can be done
with minimal attention, leaving the reader free to
focus attention on the task of comprehension. At
this stage of reading development, when both the
decoding and comprehension tasks are per-
Caveats
Having presented this property list as a binary
dichotomous state—that is, either one is automatic or not—there is a caveat worth stating. A
strong argument can be made that the character41
Automaticity and Reading Fluency
formed simultaneously, we can say the reader is
fluent. One of the reasons that fluency is so important as a reading goal is that automatic word
recognition allows the reader to concentrate on
constructing meaning from the text.
Being a fluent or automatic reader should not
be thought of as a stage in which all text can be
processed with ease. At times, the reader may encounter texts where uncommon words, such as
epistrophe, anfractuous, and contralesional may
appear. If this occurs, the reader is usually not
automatic at recognizing these words, and then
effortful decoding strategies will have to be used.
The highly skilled automatic reader has the option of either recognizing words in an effortless,
automatic manner or in a style that uses high
levels of attention and effort. The beginning
reader, however, does not have these options
available. Virtually all word recognition engaged
in by beginning readers uses large amounts of attention and requires considerable effort, thus
impeding comprehension.
points made in the passage that the student is
reading. What makes this simple procedure such
a good diagnostic tool for reading fluency is that
the procedure requires the student to decode and
comprehend it at the same time. Those students
who are not automatic at word recognition will
find their ability to comprehend while reading
orally to be severely compromised.
Diagnosing Reading Stages
An important aspect of the teacher’s knowledge
of reading instruction should be the ability to assess the stage the reader has reached. A simple
procedure for diagnosing a student’s reading
stage involves selecting a text of one to two pages
in length from the books that the student uses at
school and having the student read the text orally
to the teacher. The text must be one that the student has not read before. Instructions to the student are to read the text orally, and when the
reading is completed, the student must recall as
much of the text as possible. As the student reads
orally, the teacher keeps a record of word-recognition errors, expression, and reading speed. If
the student makes more than 10-percent wordrecognition errors, if the reading speed is less
than eighty-five words a minute, or if there is
lack of oral-reading expression, there is a high
probability the student is not automatic at word
recognition. Of critical diagnostic importance is
the student’s ability to capture some of the
See Also
Comprehension Strategies; National Assessment of
Educational Progress; Word Recognition
References
Calfee, Robert C., and Dale C. Piontkowski. 1981.
“The Reading Diary: Acquisition of Decoding.”
Reading Research Quarterly 16:346–373.
LaBerge, David, and S. Jay Samuels. 1974. “Toward a
Theory of Automatic Information Processing in
Reading.” Cognitive Psychology 6 (2):293–323.
Pinnell, Gay Sue, Jean J. Pikulski, Karen K. Wixson,
John R. Campbell, Phil B. Gough, and Adrian S.
Beatty. 1995. Listening to Children Read Aloud.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Reutzel, D. Ray, and Paul M. Hollingsworth. 1991.
“Reading Comprehension Skills: Testing the
Distinctiveness Hypothesis.” Reading Research and
Instruction 30:32–46.
Samuels, S. Jay. 1979. “The Method of Repeated
Reading.” Reading Teacher 32:403–408.
Stanovich, Keith. 1985. “Concepts in Developmental
Theories of Reading Skill.” Developmental Review
10:72–100.
Instructing for Reading Fluency
If the diagnostic test of reading fluency indicates
that the student is not automatic at the decoding
task, one of the best methods for helping beginning readers become fluent is to use the method
of repeated reading (Samuels, 1979). There are
numerous experimental studies showing the efficacy of this method. The other way to help students become fluent readers is to have them
spend considerable time reading enjoyable books
and stories that are at their recreational level of
ability.
S. Jay Samuels
42
B
Balanced Literacy Instruction
effective than any single one. H. Alan Robinson
(1977) noted that during the 1920s and 1930s,
reading-skill sequences and activities predominated but were often accompanied by supplemental materials that contained “realistic” reading passages. He further reported that in the
1940s and 1950s, skill charts broke word identification and comprehension down into teachable
parts, but basal-reader selections were often integrated into the other language arts.
Although heavy reliance on basal materials
and skill instruction continued into the 1960s,
recommendations for balanced or eclectic literacy instruction were not uncommon. For example, following their research on elementary reading instruction, Mary Austin and Coleman
Morrison (1963) concluded that multiple approaches should be utilized rather than a single
method. A balanced view also appears to represent more contemporary teachers. A mid-1990s
survey revealed that 89 percent of elementaryschool teachers identified with a “balanced approach” and 76 percent concurred that they adhered to an “eclectic” perspective toward reading
instruction (Baumann et al., 2000).
Balanced literacy instruction involves a combination of instruction in literacy skills and strategies
and immersion in literature and literary experiences. The instructional component typically includes teacher-initiated or guided lessons in reading and writing strategies in the context of
authentic literature and composition tasks. The
immersion component includes daily reading
and writing activities such as teacher read-alouds,
self-selected independent reading, written composition, oral expression, and literature response
(Ivey, Baumann, and Jarrard, 2000). Although
current conceptions of balanced literacy vary in
focus and emphasis, most involve some combination of teaching reading and writing strategies
and holistic literacy experiences, with teacher decisionmaking a central tenet. The future of balanced literacy depends upon teachers’ abilities to
orchestrate the multiple instruction and immersion structures required to implement an effective balanced literacy program. It also requires the
support of administrators who will provide
teachers with the freedom to initiate balances that
address students’ unique literacy instructional
needs.
Current Conceptions
Recent research and writings on balanced literacy
instruction have been generated by researchers
and writers such as James Baumann, Susan BlairLarsen, James Cunningham, Ann Duffy, Laurie
Elish-Piper, Jill Fitzgerald, Gay Ivey, Jerry Johns,
Ellen McIntyre, P. David Pearson, Michael Pressley, Taffy Raphael, D. Ray Reutzel, Dixie Lee
Spiegel, Ruth Wharton-McDonald, and Kathryn
Williams, among others. Their ideas and work
ground the following description.
Writers such as Jill Fitzgerald and Michael
Pressley have noted that balanced literacy is not
Historical Precedent
Use of the terms balanced reading or balanced literacy is a recent phenomenon, but there is historical precedent for combining skill instruction and
literary experiences. Although there has never before been a balanced era in American reading instruction, early in the twentieth century several
prominent figures in literacy education advocated a version of a “balanced,”“eclectic,”“combination,” or “composite” reading program. For example, William S. Gray (1925) argued that a
combination of reading methods would be more
43
Balanced Literacy Instruction
a monolithic concept but instead comes in multiple manifestations. Dixie Lee Spiegel’s (1998)
characterization, however, has captured many of
the common features of balanced literacy. She
has argued that balanced literacy is research
based and flexible, grounded on the view of
teachers as thoughtful informed decisionmakers,
and built upon a comprehensive view of literacy.
This comprehensive view includes word identification, meaning construction through efferent
and aesthetic stances, expressive written composition, and the development of an appreciation
and lifelong pursuit of literacy for self-fulfillment and learning.
Balanced literacy is not without its critics,
however. Frank Smith and Constance Weaver, for
example, have warned of the danger of providing
children with an eclectic mix of methods and
materials devoid of focus or philosophy. Further,
David Pearson and Taffy Raphael (1999) have
cautioned that balanced programs may oversimplify the complexities of literacy instruction; instead, they have argued, teachers must exercise
multiple balances of contextual and curricular
factors in order to provide effective literacy instruction. Spiegel (1998) has made clear that
teacher decisionmaking is central to a balanced
literacy approach, which helps teachers become
reflective when determining how to accommodate students’ individual needs through the reading curriculum and instruction.
ing the school day. These teachers reported that
what they learned from working with one student at a time helped them to reconsider the
needs of all students in their classes. Similarly,
Randy Bonner (1999) has described some of the
subtleties of teaching reading that teachers
learned as they tutored individual struggling
readers, developed case studies of their students,
and exchanged their experiences with peer teachers in a study group. We view professional development opportunities such as these as crucial to
the future of balanced literacy instruction.
Ann M. Duffy, Gay Ivey, and James F. Baumann
See Also
Reading-Comprehension Instruction
References
Austin, Mary C., and Coleman Morrison. 1963.
The First R: The Harvard Report on Reading in
Elementary Schools. New York: Macmillan.
Baumann, James F., James F. Hoffman, Jennifer S.
Moon, and Ann M. Duffy-Hester. 2000. “The First
R Yesterday and Today: U.S. Elementary Reading
Instruction Practices Reported by Teachers and
Administrators.” Reading Research Quarterly
35:338–377.
Bonner, Randy. 1999. “Conferring with Struggling
Readers: The Test of Our Craft Knowledge,
Courage, and Hope.” New Advocate 12 (1):21–38.
Broaddus, Karen, and Janet W. Bloodgood. 1999.
“We’re Supposed to Already Know How to Teach
Reading: Teacher Change to Support Struggling
Readers.” Reading Research Quarterly 34:426–451.
Duffy, Gerald G., and James V. Hoffman. 1999. “In
Pursuit of an Illusion: The Flawed Search for a
Perfect Method.” Reading Teacher 53:10–16.
Gray, William S. 1925. Summary of Investigations
Relating to Reading. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Ivey, Gay, James F. Baumann, and Dora Jarrard.
2000. “Exploring Literacy Balance: Iterations in a
Second-Grade and a Sixth-Grade Classroom.”
Reading Research and Instruction 39 (4):291–310.
Pearson, P. David, and Taffy E. Raphael. 1999.
“Toward an Ecologically Balanced Literacy
Curriculum.” In Linda B. Gambrell, Lesley Mandel
Morrow, Susan B. Neuman, and Michael Pressley,
eds., Best Practices in Literacy Instruction, pp.
22–33. New York: Guilford Press.
Robinson, H. Alan. 1977. “Reading Instruction and
Research: In Historical Perspective.” In H. Alan
Robinson, ed., Reading and Writing Instruction in
the United States: Historical Trends, pp. 44–58.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Spiegel, Dixie Lee. 1998. “Silver Bullets, Babies, and
Bath Water: Literature Response Groups in a
The Future
Consistent with current conceptions about the
complexity of balanced literacy, Gerald Duffy
and James Hoffman (1999) recently argued that
the teacher, not the particular method or combination of methods, is the key to effective reading
instruction. The future of balanced literacy depends on teachers cultivating expertise in teaching individual children and then applying that
one-on-one mentality when teaching an entire
class. Cultivating this expertise will undoubtedly
be a complicated process of professional development, particularly when juxtaposed against
the more common, single-session, methods-oriented workshops; however, there are examples
that hold much promise. For example, Karen
Broaddus and Janet Bloodgood (1999) have documented the changes in the philosophy and
practice of experienced teachers who were given
the opportunity to tutor struggling readers dur44
Basal Readers
Balanced Literacy Program.” Reading Teacher 52
(2):114–124.
Bible and its teachings was the earliest impetus
for reading instruction. Nevertheless, the notion
of universal literacy is an American creation
linked to the establishment of free public-school
education. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the work of German educators
influenced the thinking, materials, and methods
used for instructing American children (Hoffman, 2001).
In the earliest American method of teaching
reading, the student learned the names of the individual letters, then repeating syllables using
those letters. This “alphabet method,” going back
to Greek and Roman reading instruction
methodology, assumed that learning the names
of letters by rote would lead to reading words.
Letter names were considered to be the basic
unit. Reading materials for the youngest students
often consisted of several pages of alphabet letters and syllables to recite. It was considered an
educational breakthrough when reading instruction began to use the “word method” as a way to
teach reading rather than beginning with individual letter names (Betts, 1957).
In the word method, famously promoted by
Horace Mann in the first half of the nineteenth
century, students were taught whole words first.
It was assumed that words, rather than letters,
were the basic unit. Because little was known at
the time about helping students learn whole
words and how to apply the words taught in isolation to larger pieces of text or to transfer the
skills to other words, students struggled with this
method. Even though the word method received
a lot of attention in the professional papers of the
time, it never supplanted the alphabet method in
the mid-nineteenth century for teaching beginning reading and had no effect at all on how
reading was taught to older students. Later on,
reading would blend the word method with the
phonetic method for a more successful approach.
Using an entirely different perspective, a sixteenth-century (or nineteenth, depending upon
sources) German educator named Valentin Ickelsaomer experimented with teaching young
children to read using a “phonetic method” in
the early 1500s (Matthews, 1966). This approach
viewed the sounds of letters as the basic unit and
recognized that letters represented multiple
sounds in different words. It was assumed that
teaching beginning readers those sounds would
lead to earlier reading success for more children.
Basal Readers
The most common method of introducing and
practicing reading in the United States is still to
use basal readers, a series of graded passages in
book sets that students read, sometimes moving
through their grade-level text as a class and
sometimes moving through the text in ability
groups that are paced differently. Although the
overall structure looks very much like that of
three-quarters of a century ago, the reading selections and strategies included today have morphed into a different genre—basal anthologies
with selections from children’s trade books (literature) and magazines used to teach reading.
The majority of current basals still use an analytic (learning sound-symbol relationships in
context and through spelling patterns) rather
than a synthetic (learning sound-symbol relationships through systematic, explicit instruction of individual phonemes) approach to word
learning. The morphing continues, with impetus
from “the reading wars” (public debates of the
synthetic versus analytic phonics proponents) of
the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, both with the addition of strong phonics
strands in the basal anthologies and with newer
basals using reading texts that recycle linguistic
approaches from the past.
The Beginnings of Basal Readers
“See Spot. See Spot run. Run, Spot, run!” Many
who read these words will experience a flash of
recognition from first grade. Others will only
recognize the words as the butt of jokes on greeting cards or in comedy sketches. Your reaction
probably depends upon when you learned to
read. Indeed, until Sally, Dick, and Jane “died” in
the early 1970s, roughly twenty-five years after
their introduction on the American reading
scene, an overwhelming number of American
primary-grade children learned to read with
Scott, Foresman basal readers.
But how did children learn to read before
Sally, Dick, and Jane? The history of reading instruction in this country is a fascinating amalgam of sociology, psychology, and the American
fascination with innovation and expediency.
Teaching people to read so they could access the
45
Basal Readers
In America’s earliest years, reading was viewed
as a highly utilitarian activity. The main purpose
for teaching reading was to encourage access to
biblical teachings. Nationalism dominated in the
early days of the United States, and reading materials such as Noah Webster’s eighteenth-century An American Spelling Book (the blue-back
speller) were used to promote patriotism and
moral behavior that would lead to an ethically
strong country (Smith, 1965). Indeed, it was a
breakthrough to introduce the concept of using
connected text whose purpose was as much to
influence the moral well-being of the reader as to
teach reading skills rather than syllables for early
reading. Pleasure reading, however, was not a
goal of schools until much later.
Although the word method was not the predominant way of teaching reading, it exerted
some influence by leading to sentence reading
followed by story reading. With stories as reading
materials in the first set of “graded readers,” reading texts became increasingly more difficult as
the reader progressed through them. Children
might continue with the same reader for more
than one school year as they worked their way
through the reading selections. As a result, several different ages of students could be reading
from the same book.
As the materials were very difficult for beginning readers, with very little repetition of vocabulary, it took considerable time for students to
learn the material. Learning material meant
memorizing it and reciting the memorized text
verbatim to the teacher. Only when students had
“learned the lesson” could they progress to the
next selection. Meaning was not checked. The assumption was that if students could repeat the
words, they knew the meaning of the text, an assumption today’s educators know to be false. Although there were other graded reading materials, McGuffey’s Eclectic Readers dominated the
American scene for nearly 100 years, into the
twentieth century.
ing, the Europeans, particularly the Germans,
produced a great deal of professional literature.
American educators of the time read this literature and sought changes in American schools and
materials that would reflect the advances of such
European educators as Johann Pestalozzi.
Graded readers—the early basals (1840s to
1860s)—were produced partly to fill the recognized need for materials that became gradually
more difficult, but they were mainly introduced
to accommodate readers’ needs in the new system of organizing schools in the cities into
grade-level groupings (Smith, 1965). America set
out to educate its entire populace with public
funds. This challenge brought a wide range of
reading abilities into the school system. The materials needed to reflect the range.
Evolution also occurred as companies producing basal readers proliferated and competed for
market share. The influence on how teachers instructed students began to change with the advent in 1839 of the first “normal school” preparing teachers. The early basals typically included
letter naming and syllable production, along
with spelling, for the youngest readers. The syllables became words, which then evolved into sentence-level reading. Those sentences moved into
a loose story from a collection of sentences.
Through the reading of the words in sentences,
students were taught to decode the sounds of
English. Readers for older students included not
only stories but lessons in grammar and spelling.
Spelling words was the major decoding strategy
employed. The stories in the earliest reading materials were very didactic. Basals remained largely
the same until the early twentieth century, when
stories were made more appealing to children
with the introduction of continuing characters
whose daily lives played out in basal selections.
Contemporary Basal-Reading Materials
Forty years ago, arguments similar to today’s,
though not as intensely followed by the press,
were expressed about analytic versus synthetic
approaches to reading instruction. Nila Banton
Smith’s American Reading Instruction (1965)
pushed that argument back to the nineteenth
century. Teaching the youngest students to read
has garnered the majority of attention in the
field almost since reading instruction became a
separate subject.
Proponents of analytic approaches thought
Changes to Basal Readers
The change from teaching reading via hornbooks
(a primer in which the alphabet and religious material were affixed to a wooden frame underneath
a transparent sheet of horn) to the blue-back
speller to McGuffey’s readers was in response to
several forces. Even though America generated
scant professional material about teaching read46
Basal Readers
the whole process of learning to read ought to be
slowed down so that children learned more reallife skills and explored firsthand academic subjects such as science. Slowing down the process
involved teaching letter names and sounds as
needed by the texts selected rather than apart
from the texts. Analytic approaches allowed more
focus on developing appreciation for reading and
for comprehending text, features missing from
early instruction with synthetic approaches.
Proponents of synthetic reading showed that
with systematic and explicit instruction, children
learned letter names and sounds more quickly
than with analytic approaches. They also argued
that the stilted, unnatural language of the earlier
era’s basal readers for young children did not allow for comprehension anyway, so why not just
get to the core of the language—letter names and
sounds—and be done with it. This would allow
children to explore more difficult, and more interesting, texts earlier than was possible with analytic reading. An early emphasis on comprehension was misplaced, advocates believed. Also,
learning to read ought to be inherently interesting, so there was no need to stimulate interest artificially through text.
Over the past 300 years, there is evidence of
both analytic and synthetic approaches having
ascendance in the materials provided to students. The “reading wars” of the late twentieth
century, however, polarized and politicized the
discussion more than in any other era, led by
Rudolph Flesch’s 1955 best-seller, Why Johnny
Can’t Read—and What You Can Do about It. The
battles are largely waged around beginning reading issues (and not in the teaching of reading to
students who are fluent) and largely concern
word-identification issues rather than the teaching of comprehension.
The last fifty years has seen the ebb and flow of
linguistic approaches to reading. Basal readers
from the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and into the 1960s
show a stronger influence from a controlled vocabulary and the analytic approach than from
synthetic phonics. Workbooks and work sheets
dominated the era, allowing additional practice
with high-frequency vocabulary and, largely, analytic phonics skills. During these decades, more
attention was paid to developing attitudes and
interests around reading than ever before.
Beginning in the late 1960s, reading materials
show the influence of psycholinguistics. With the
advent of the application of psycholinguistics,
vocabulary control was largely lost as language in
readers became more natural. At the same time,
companies produced supplemental linguistic
readers or phonics programs and workbooks
that focused on spelling patterns or isolated
phonics instruction (Aukerman, 1984). Some of
these linguistically influenced materials were altered or provided augmented alphabet systems
that used color or alternative alphabets to regularize the irregularities in English orthography.
Although the reading materials of the 1970s
and 1980s were more interesting than recounts
of bland events in the daily lives of Alice and
Jerry or Sally, Dick, and Jane, they were still
largely stories and still written by the publishing
company as reading instructional materials. It
was not until the 1980s that companies began the
shift toward using actual selections from children’s literature, and the 1990s saw wholesale inclusion of informative texts into the basals. During the 1980s and 1990s, publishers began to call
their materials basal anthologies, reflecting the
new variety in both genre and sources. These
materials included reading and writing workshop structures, flexible reading groups, and
reading and writing across the curriculum.
Workbooks and work sheets were downplayed as
authentic reading, and writing dominated. In the
1990s, publishing companies also began providing crosswalks between their materials and the
emerging state standards.
The 1990s and 2000s also show effects from
the reading wars. Although synthetic phonics instruction never truly disappeared from classrooms except in pockets across the country, the
campaign to make explicit, systematic, sequential
phonics part of nearly every reading program is
underway. Publishers are resorting again to creating texts for young readers. These decodable
texts reinforce and practice the synthetic phonics
skills that are taught in the resurgence of workbooks and work sheets. Publishers, responding
to the demands of lucrative adoption states like
California and Texas, find it difficult to appease
the forces controlling the purchase of materials.
Sharon Arthur Moore
See Also
History of Reading Instruction; Linguistic
Approaches to Reading Instruction; Phonics
Instruction; Phonological and Phonemic
Awareness
47
Bibliotherapy
References
Aukerman, Robert C. 1984. Approaches to Beginning
Reading. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Betts, Emmett Albert. 1957. Foundations of Reading
Instruction. New York: American Book Company.
Flesch, Rudolph. 1955; 1986 reissue. Why Johnny
Can’t Read. New York: HarperCollins.
Hoffman, James V. December 2001. “Words (on
Words in Leveled Texts for Beginning Readers).”
Paper presented at the National Reading
Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Matthews, Mitford M. 1966. Teaching to Read,
Historically Considered. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Smith, Nila Banton. 1965. American Reading
Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
tellectually, attain better understanding of their
own motivation, or achieve awareness of something applicable to their own life.
Classroom implementation of bibliotherapy
consists of a series of sequenced steps. First, the
teacher selects a book, taking into consideration
the needs of students. Second, the students read
the book—and this can be completed either
through read-alouds or totally through independent silent reading. Third, students are given
time for reflection. In the last step, the students
and the teacher discuss the book within a group,
which may range from small to large.
Heidi McCarty and Lynn Chalmers (1997)
suggest that the discussion stage of bibliotherapy
in the classroom should be highly structured,
following a specific sequence that is usually led
by the teacher. The steps are as follows: (1) the
teacher asks students to retell the plot, highlighting the feelings, characters, and situations that
occurred, (2) teacher asks the students probing
questions about their feelings and their identification with characters and events in the story, (3)
students transfer the situation from the book to
real-life situations that will lead them to explore
the effects of certain feelings and behaviors, and
(4) students draw conclusions and generalizations from events depicted in the book.
Bibliotherapy has been found to be effective in
many studies across disciplines. For specific information on the results, see the literature on
bibliotherapy and the education of children
(Nelms, 1993); special education (McCarty and
Chalmers, 1997); counseling (Myers, 1998); and
teacher education (Morawski, 1997).
Diane Lapp and James Flood
Bibliotherapy
Bibliotherapy is an instructional process in
which readers are guided through reading texts
to help them grow in self-awareness (Harris and
Hodges, 1995). Bibliotherapy has been described by many educators and counselors as a
phenomenon that permits children and adults
to see how others confront and solve problems
similar to their own. More broadly, bibliotherapy is a tool in which students read books that
deal with different situations that parallel situations in their own lives, for example, coping
with divorce, losing of a loved one, feeling rejected, or feeling isolated. By reading these
works, children and adults are able to see how
others encounter anxiety and frustration and
how they apply their insight in real-life situations. With the help of a supportive person like
a teacher or parent, children and adults may
gain insight into alternative solutions to their
problems and thereby alleviate their emotional
and mental pressure. Bibliotherapy has the potential not only to solve problems but also to
prevent them.
Bibliotherapy usually consists of three stages
of self-development: (1) identification, (2)
catharsis, and (3) insight. In the identification
stage, students affiliate some real or fictional
character with themselves or with associates. In
the catharsis stage, students emote in response to
compassionate writers who describe progress
they have made in their own painful struggle to
know themselves. In the insight stage, students
become more open to solving their problems in-
See Also
Adolescent Literature; Children’s Literature;
Multicultural Literature
References
Harris, Theodore, and Richard Hodges, eds. 1995.
The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading
and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
McCarty, Heidi, and Lynn Chalmers. 1997.
“Bibliotherapy Intervention and Prevention.”
Teaching Exceptional Children 29 (6):12–13,
16–17.
Morawski, C. 1997. “A Role for Bibliotherapy in
Teacher Education.” Reading Horizons 37
(3):243–259.
Myers, J. 1998. “Bibliotherapy and DCT:
Co-Constructing the Therapeutic Metaphor.”
48
Bilingual Education
Children reading books in English and Spanish (Elizabeth Crews)
For discussion of the second goal, see the entry
Heritage-Language Development.
Confusion about English-language development in bilingual children is understandable.
How can they acquire English, their second language, while being taught in their first language?
Bilingual education can help English-language
development in two ways. First, when we give a
child quality education in the primary language,
we give the child a form of knowledge that makes
English input more comprehensible. A child who
understands history—thanks to history instruction in the first language—will have a better
chance of understanding history taught in English than a child without this background
knowledge; and more comprehensible English
input means more acquisition of English.
Second, there is strong evidence that literacy
transfers across languages, that building literacy
in the primary language is a shortcut to English
literacy. The argument is straightforward: If we
learn to read by understanding the messages on
Journal of Counseling and Development
76:243–250.
Nelms, Ben. 1993. “Teachers and Teaching in Novels,
Biographies, Film, and Song.” English Journal
82:96–98.
Bilingual Education
It is helpful to distinguish two goals of bilingual
education. The first is the development of “academic English” and school success, and the second
is the development of the child’s first language
(the “heritage” language). The development of academic language needs to be distinguished from
the development of conversational language; academic language means the ability to understand
demanding texts, write compositions and reports,
and do story problems. The development of academic language takes considerably longer than the
development of conversational language (Cummins, 1989). The focus here is on a crucial aspect
of goal one: the development of academic English.
49
Bilingual Education
the page (Smith, 1994), it is easier to learn to read
if we understand the language. And of course,
once we can read, we can read—the ability transfers to other languages. The empirical support
for the claim that literacy transfers across languages comes from studies showing that both the
reading process and the reading development
process are similar in different languages. Studies
also show that correlations between literacy development in the first language and the second
language are positive, when length of residence
in the host country is controlled. All the above is
true even when the writing systems of the two
languages are very different (Krashen, 1996).
Effective bilingual programs thus have three
characteristics. First, they provide background
knowledge through subject-matter teaching in
the first language. This should be done to the
point that subsequent subject-matter instruction
in English is comprehensible. Second, they provide literacy in the first language, which transfers
to the second language. Third, they provide quality instruction in the second language, beginning
with second-language classes on the very first
day. In properly organized programs, subject
matter is taught in the second language as soon
as it can be made comprehensible.
cation. Second-language acquirers who do well
in English academic language development and
do well in school in the United States have frequently had a solid education in their primary
language before coming to the United States.
Such children have had “de facto” bilingual education, subject-matter and literacy development
in the primary language, and in some cases extensive formal instruction in English as a second
language. In addition to case histories (Krashen,
1996), studies also report positive correlations
between years of education in the home country
and English proficiency among immigrants (e.g.,
Chiswick, 1991; Espenshade and Fu, 1997).
Financial Success
without Bilingual Education
A popular argument against bilingual education
is the fact that many immigrants have succeeded
economically without it. This is largely the case
for those who arrived in the United States in the
first part of the twentieth century. It is established, however, that immigrants did not do well
in school during this time. But in fact, very few
native speakers of English did well in school in
those days: In 1910, only 13.5 percent of the total population had graduated from high school;
today that figure is around 83 percent.
If immigrants did so poorly in school, how did
they succeed economically? In the first part of
the twentieth century, education was not a prerequisite to economic success. It is now. Years
ago, there was reasonably well-paid work in
manufacturing and agriculture that did not require a high school diploma or college degree.
Today, nearly all work that leads to a decent living requires education: U.S. government figures
show that the earnings of those who are not
high-school graduates are below poverty level,
on average (Krashen, 1999).
The Evidence for Bilingual Education:
Program Evaluations
In all published studies in which the above three
conditions are met, bilingual education has been
a winner. Children in properly organized bilingual programs acquire at least as much of the
second language as children in comparison programs and typically acquire more (e.g.,
Mortensen, 1984; Appel, 1984), in some cases
doing as well as native speakers of the second
language on reading tests. Several critics have
claimed that in some evaluations, “English immersion” programs were found to be superior to
bilingual education. In each case, however, programs labeled “immersion” were really bilingual
education, with a substantial part of the day’s
work taught in the primary language. In other
studies, little or no description of “bilingual education” is provided, sample sizes are small, and
program durations are short (Krashen, 1996).
Public Opinion
Surveys reveal considerable agreement with the
principles underlying bilingual education. In a
series of studies, Fay Shin (reviewed in Krashen,
1996) reported that most minority parents,
along with teachers and administrators, agreed
that “developing literacy through the first language facilitates literacy development in English”
and that “learning subject matter through the
first language helps make subject matter study in
English more comprehensible.” In addition, two-
Effect of Previous Education
The framework presented here helps to explain
cases of apparent success without bilingual edu50
Bilingual Education
thirds of respondents to polls conducted by the
Los Angeles Times (October 15, 1997) and Dallas
Morning News (May 28, 1998) agreed that some
use of the child’s first language in school was desirable: Only one-third preferred “English only.”
If this is so, why did anti-bilingual education
measures pass in California in 1998 (Proposition
227) and Arizona in 2000 (Proposition 203)? Research confirms that the public was not fully
aware of what these initiatives contained. In one
study, 57 percent of voters said they would support California’s Proposition 227 when presented
with the version printed on the ballot. When
given details of the actual initiative (dismantling
successful programs, limiting special help in English to only one year, allowing teachers to be
sued if they violated the new policy), only 15 percent said they would support it (Krashen, 1999).
In addition, according to the Los Angeles Times,
two-thirds of those who supported Proposition
227 did so because “English is so important” (Los
Angeles Times, April 13, 1998). They were unaware of the fact that English-language development is an important goal of bilingual education
and that properly organized bilingual programs
succeed in teaching English.
there is no evidence that Proposition 227 succeeded. Kenji Hakuta (2000) concluded that (1)
districts that kept bilingual education improved,
and (2) districts that never offered bilingual education improved. A major problem is that
nearly all the media focus has been on one district in California—Oceanside. After Proposition
227 passed in 1998, the Oceanside district
dropped bilingual education and enthusiastically
embraced English immersion, and test scores increased. Hakuta (2000) has shown, however, that
gains for Oceanside’s English learners were similar to gains made in many California schools that
retained bilingual education. In addition, the
bilingual program that Oceanside dropped was a
poor one. In an article in the September 2, 2000,
Washington Post, Oceanside superintendent Ken
Noonan stated that Oceanside’s “bilingual” program was actually taught only in Spanish for
four years or longer. It was therefore not a bilingual program but a monolingual Spanish program. As noted above, properly organized bilingual programs introduce English the first day,
and teach subject matter in English as soon as it
can be made comprehensible. The San Diego
Union Tribune (October 5, 2000) confirmed suspicions that Oceanside’s pre-Proposition 227 efforts were dismal, pointing out that before it
went into effect, one bilingual school had a severe shortage of books.
Has Proposition 227 Worked?
It has been claimed that the increase in test
scores in California is evidence that Proposition
227 worked, that dismantling bilingual education was a success. It is true that test scores increased throughout California since Proposition
227 passed but there is no evidence linking this
increase to dropping bilingual education. As
Proposition 227 went into effect during 1998,
new tests (the SAT9) were introduced in California. When new tests are introduced, test scores
typically increase, which is why tests need to be
recalibrated every few years. Typical test-score
inflation is about 1.5 to 2.0 points per year. This
increase accounts for about half of the gains seen
in reading scores for second and third graders in
the SAT9 reading test in California since 1998
and for all of the increase in grades four through
seven, and it suggests that SAT9 reading scores
have actually declined slightly in grades eight
through eleven. Test scores are affected by a
number of factors that have nothing to do with
student learning, such as testing only selected
students and coaching on test-taking strategies.
Even if the use of SAT9 scores were legitimate,
Improving Bilingual Education
Bilingual education has done well, but it can do
much better. The biggest problem for students in
these programs is the absence of books, in both
the first and the second language. It is now established that reading for meaning, especially
free voluntary reading, is a major source of our
literacy competence and that those with more
access to books read more (see Recreational
Reading). Free voluntary reading can help all
components of bilingual education: It is a source
of comprehensible input in English and a means
for developing knowledge and literacy in the first
language, as well as a way of continuing first-language development.
Many children with limited English proficiency have little access to books in any language.
The average Hispanic family in the United States
with limited-English-proficient children has
about twenty-six books in the home, about onesixth the U.S. average (Ramirez et al., 1991).
51
Bilingualism
Literacy: Latino Children and Free Reading Resources in Schools.” Bilingual Research Journal 18
(1–2):67–82.
Ramirez, J. David, Sandra Yuen, Dena Ramey, and
David Pasta. 1991. Final Report: Longitudinal
Study of an English Immersion Strategy and an
Early-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education
Program for Language-Minority Children. Vol. 1.
San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.
Smith, Frank. 1994. Understanding Reading. 5th ed.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
School is not helping to solve this problem. Sandra Pucci (1994) investigated school libraries in
schools with strong bilingual programs in Southern California and found that books in Spanish
were very scarce. Those that were available,
though often of high quality, were usually short
and for younger children. The access problem is
also present with respect to books in English.
Children from low-income families have little
access to books in school libraries, public libraries, and in their communities (see Recreational Reading). Enriching the print environment is not the only recommendation that can
be made in discussing improvement of bilingual
education, but it is an excellent place to begin. If
it is true that learning to read in the primary language is in fact beneficial, then children need
something to read.
Stephen Krashen
Bilingualism
Bilingualism refers to the ability, in an individual
or a society, to speak two languages. Bilingualism
can develop simultaneously, as when two languages are acquired in infancy (simultaneous
bilingualism), or sequentially (sequential bilingualism), as in the case of second-language acquisition (SLA). The field of bilingualism generally concerns simultaneous bilingualism, with
SLA or sequential bilingualism largely regarded
as a separate field (see Language Acquisition).
See Also
Heritage-Language Development; Recreational
Reading
References
Appel, René. 1984. Immigrant Children Learning
Dutch. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
Burnham-Massey, Laurie, and Marilyn Pina. 1990.
“Effects of Reading Instruction on English
Academic Achievement of LEP Children.” Reading
Improvement 27:129–132.
Chiswick, Barry. 1991. “Speaking, Reading, and
Earnings among Low-Skilled Immigrants.” Journal
of Labor Economics 9:149–170.
Cummins, Jim. 1989. Empowering Minority Students.
Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual
Education.
Espenshade, Thomas, and Haishan Fu. 1997. “An
Analysis of English-Language Proficiency among
U.S. Immigrants.” American Sociological Review
62:288–305.
Hakuta, Kenji. 2000. “Points on SAT-9 Performance
and Proposition 227.” Available: http://www.s
tanford.edu/~hakuta/SAT9/SAT9_2000/bullets.
htm.
Krashen, Stephen. 1996. Under Attack: The Case
against Bilingual Education. Culver City, CA:
Language Education Associates.
———. 1999. Condemned without a Trial: Bogus
Arguments against Bilingual Education.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Mortensen, Eileen. 1984. “Reading Achievement of
Native Spanish-Speaking Elementary Students in
Bilingual vs. Monolingual Programs.” Bilingual
Review 11 (3):31–36.
Pucci, Sandra. 1994. “Supporting Spanish Language
Separate versus Unified Systems
Researchers in bilingualism have long been interested in whether children who grow up with two
languages initially develop a unified linguistic
system that later separates or whether these children begin with two separate linguistic systems
from the earliest stages of acquisition. Earlier research on bilingual language acquisition proposed that children initially use both linguistic
systems in an undifferentiated manner and that a
gradual process of separation begins with the
lexicon (vocabulary), then moves on to morphology (rules of word formation), and finally to
syntax (rules of word order). However, critics of
this perspective charged that on close analysis,
there is no compelling evidence for the presence
of an undifferentiated language system in early
bilinguals. Indeed, nearly all of the evidence appears to have relied on the observation that infant bilinguals frequently do not have “translation equivalents” for items in their lexicon, an
observation true of many adult bilinguals as well.
More recently, research has focused on grammatical (rather than lexical) aspects of bilingual
language development, and it has been found
that the two systems appear to be differentiated
from the earliest stages. For instance, Jürgen
Meisel (1990) found that French and German
52
Bilingualism
Bilingual Cantonese-English teacher quizzing students (Elizabeth Crews)
some milk”), with the sentence beginning in English, switching to Spanish, then moving back to
English again. Codeswitching within a single
sentence like this is called intrasentential
codeswitching; codeswitching between sentences
is termed intersentential codeswitching.
In the past, educators and others often assumed that codeswitching was indicative of a
language disability of some kind. It was often alleged that bilinguals used codeswitching as a
“coping strategy” for incomplete mastery of both
languages. However, recent research into the social and linguistic characteristics of codeswitching strongly suggest otherwise.
John Gumperz, whom many credit with inventing the term codeswitching, discovered six
major functions of conversational codeswitching: (1) quotation, (2) addressee specification,
(3) interjection, (4) reiteration, (5) message qualification, and (6) personification versus objectification. Gumperz (1982) analyzed codeswitching
as a discourse strategy and found that participants in his study were able to use it effectively to
convey meaning and build group identity. In an
analysis of a bilingual community in Great
bilingual infants differentiated syntax and morphology as soon as functional categories
emerged, an indication that the two systems had
separated at the syntactic level. Satomi Mishina
(1998) studied tense marking, negation, and
question formation in two Japanese-English infant bilinguals and found that for these children
the two systems were properly differentiated
throughout their linguistic development and that
both learners followed the developmental stages
individually associated with the two languages in
monolingual children. Although simultaneous
bilinguals appear to have separate grammatical
systems for their two languages from the earliest
stages of development, they often mix their languages in a variety of ways—codeswitching, borrowing, and calques among them.
Codeswitching
Codeswitching is a speech style in which fluent
bilinguals move in and out of two (or conceivably more) languages. For instance, a SpanishEnglish bilingual might say, “This morning mi
hermano y yo fuimos a comprar some milk”
(“This morning my brother and I went to buy
53
Bilingualism
Britain, Li Wei, Lesley Milroy, and Pong-Sin
Ching (1992) have more recently developed a social network theory of bilingual codeswitching.
In addition to the social aspects of bilingual
codeswitching, much attention has been given to
the study of its linguistic structure. Like monolingual language, bilingual codeswitching is
highly structured and rule governed. Specifically,
language mixture appears to be constrained by
the interaction of subtle grammatical principles
in bilingual speech. For instance, simultaneous
bilinguals commonly codeswitch between subjects and verbs, as in “Mis amigos finished first”
(“My friends finished first”) but would judge
codeswitches between a subject pronoun and a
verb (like “Ellos finished first,” “They finished
first”) to be ill-formed or ungrammatical. (“Ungrammatical” here means that simultaneous native bilinguals presented with this sentence have
a negative psychological reaction similar to the
reaction English speakers have to sentences like
“Martin built a barn red,” in contrast to our positive reaction to “Martin painted a barn red”; our
subconscious knowledge of grammar tells us
that the first sentence is structurally flawed but
the second is fine.)
A number of linguists have formulated theories about the underlying structure of codeswitching. Shana Poplack’s equivalence constraint and free morpheme constraint are among
the most widely known. Poplack’s equivalence
constraint postulates that codeswitches will tend
to occur where word orders are similar in the two
languages. For instance, in English, object pronouns follow the verb, whereas in Spanish they
precede the verb. Thus, although bilingual codeswitchers regard “I saw la muchacha” (“I saw the
girl”) as well-formed, “Yo her ví” or “Yo ví her”
(“I saw her”) is judged to be ill-formed. In
Poplack’s view, the difference in psychological
judgment is explained by the equivalence constraint: The first example (“I saw la muchacha”)
is well-formed because the English and Spanish
word orders are the same at the junction of the
switch, but the second example (“Yo ví her”) is
ill-formed because English and Spanish word orders differ in this instance. Poplack’s free morpheme constraint posits that codeswitches cannot occur between a free morpheme (a word that
can stand alone, like walk or eat in English) and
a bound morpheme (a meaningful part of a
word that cannot stand alone, like -ed in the En-
glish word walked or -ó in the Spanish habló, “He
spoke”). This constraint is intended to explain
the ungrammaticality of examples like “He
eat-ó” (“He ate”), where a Spanish bound morpheme (-ó, past tense marker) is attached to an
English free morpheme (“eat”).
Although Poplack’s work, carried out in the
early 1980s, is illustrative and perhaps most accessible to nonspecialists, considerable work has
been done on the grammatical structure of
codeswitching since her initial studies. For instance, emphasizing that ungrammaticality in
codeswitching results from the interaction of the
mixed grammars, not from any codeswitchingspecific rules. Jeff MacSwan (1999) proposed a
theory of codeswitching that applies recent work
in syntactic theory (Chomsky, 1995) to the data of
language mixture. In addition, Pieter Muysken’s
(2000) recent work divides codeswitching into
three different types (insertion, alternation, and
congruent lexicalization) and analyzes these in
terms of contrasting grammatical properties of
the languages involved as well as other factors.
(See Romaine [1995], MacSwan [1999], and
Muysken [2000] for detailed discussion of research on codeswitching.)
Contrary to early impressions, the linguistic
study of bilingual codeswitching has revealed
that simultaneous bilinguals, just like monolinguals, are sensitive to extremely subtle requirements of their linguistic systems and use their
languages creatively to satisfy a variety of social
purposes and to achieve a sense of identity as
part of a bilingual or multilingual community.
This program of research has shown that
codeswitching may not be used as an indicator of
language disability.
Borrowings and Calques
Words are often borrowed from one language by
another in situations of language contact. Similarly, language contact often results in calquing,
the use of expressions that appear to use the
grammar of one language but the vocabulary of
another. Although borrowing is common in contact situations, the degree to which speakers are
aware of the non-native character of borrowed
words may differ with each borrowed item.
For instance, a monolingual English speaker
might use the term pork without the slightest
awareness that it was borrowed from French
during the Norman conquest. In contrast, a
54
Bilingualism
speaker might use the expression tour de force
fully aware that the expression is of French origin. In this latter case, the English speaker may
have some grasp of the grammatical structure of
the phrase without having full knowledge of
French grammar. An English speaker who encounters the French word genre may also have
difficulty pronouncing the word (because the
first sound of the word introduces a sequence
that English phonology does not readily permit).
Borrowing should be carefully distinguished
from codeswitching. Borrowed words are usually
marked by what has been called “morphological
nativization.” For instance, Nahuatl, an indigenous language in Mexico that has borrowed
heavily from Spanish, marks Spanish verbs incorporated into the language with the thematic
suffixes -oa (transitive), -(i)hui (intransitive),
and -lia (applicative). Thus, a Nahuatl speaker
might say “Costarihui in neca trabajo” (“That
work is costly”), where the Nahuatl intransitive
suffix has been affixed to the Spanish word costar
(“cost”). So marked, these Spanish words have
been morphologically nativized and can no
longer be regarded as Spanish words, except in
an etymological sense (just as the English word
“pork” is etymologically French, but an English
speaker who uses it is not necessarily a FrenchEnglish bilingual).
Another indication that a word has been borrowed is “phonological nativization.” Here, the
“loan item” (the word borrowed from another
language) is pronounced using the sound system
of the language into which it has been borrowed,
as when English speakers pronounce the Spanish-origin word “taco” with aspiration following
the “t” and a [w]-off glide following the “o,”
among other features characteristic of English
phonology. Most speakers of English who use the
word “taco,” then, use it as an English word and
could not be said to be bilingual simply because
they incorporated this word into their vocabulary. Such speakers are borrowing words from
other languages, but they are not codeswitching.
Codeswitching involves the use of more than one
language in a single sentence or block of discourse and can only be done by bilinguals.
It is also possible to borrow only pragmatic or
morphosyntactic properties while using the phonetic material of the native language; this is the
case of calques, also called loan translations.
These are special instances of borrowing in
which the phonetic properties of words from one
language are used in combination with pragmatic or morphological properties of words
from another. For instance, Nahuatl speakers in
the towns around the Malinche volcano use Nimayana (“I am hungry”); however, while conducting research on Nahuatl in Mexico, Jane and
Kenneth Hill observed a Spanish-Nahuatl bilingual who used the expression Nicpia apiztli,
which literally means “I have hunger,” apparently
modeled after the Spanish equivalent Tengo
hambre (“I have hunger”). Thus, although Nicpia
apiztli is well-formed from the point of view of
grammar (just as English “I have hunger” is wellformed), we might think of this loan translation
as pragmatically, or perhaps stylistically, disfavored. (See Kenji Hakuta’s [1986] excellent
overview of research on bilingualism for further
examples and discussion.)
Language contact is a complex and fascinating
topic that leads to instances of borrowing,
calquing, and codeswitching. A unified account
of calquing and codeswitching might view “loan
translation” as a kind of codeswitching at the
level of abstract grammatical features. Borrowing, by contrast, takes lexical items of one language and accommodates them to the linguistic
requirements of another. (Words that are borrowed “on the spot” are referred to as “nonce
borrowings.”) Crucially, codeswitching and
calquing involve the interaction of two (or more)
distinct linguistic systems, whereas borrowing
takes specific lexical items (their phonetic and
semantic features, primarily) from another language for use in a single linguistic system.
Bilingual Language Proficiency and the
Education of Linguistic Minorities
In a famous and oft-quoted definition of bilingualism, Einar Haugen said bilingualism began
at the point where the speaker of one language
could produce complete meaningful utterances
in another language. Although others have insisted that “true bilinguals” are equally capable of
discussing any topic in either language (“ambilingualism”), a more common view is that because bilinguals typically use their languages in
different domains of interaction, they should be
expected to develop nonoverlapping vocabularies. Indeed, Joshua Fishman has argued that this
“diglossia,” or use of separate languages in distinct domains, has the effect of preserving bilin55
Bilingualism
gualism in communities where social and political forces may discourage it. (See Romaine
[1995] for a detailed review of research on societal bilingualism and language preservation.)
School is a domain of language use, so it is expected that children will develop school vocabulary in whatever language or languages happen
to be used at school. Research has shown that
language-minority children, who speak a nonmajority language that is generally stigmatized in
the larger community, benefit from instruction
in their native language at school (August and
Hakuta, 1998). Bilingual instruction allows these
children to develop school-related vocabulary in
their native language while learning English.
More important, however, it allows them to keep
up academically with other children because
they are able to understand instruction during
the years it takes to master English.
Some researchers concerned with the education of linguistic minorities have characterized
school-related language as a special stage of linguistic development that evidences “complex
syntax” and “expanded vocabulary.” Nevertheless, although there certainly are vocabulary,
speech styles, and other aspects of language that
are peculiar to the school environment, there is
no empirical or theoretical justification for the
claim that these forms constitute a stage of
greater linguistic sophistication. The language of
school is peculiar, like the language of farms or
the language of fast-food restaurants, but the
presumption that it is more sophisticated derives
from social and political values, not empirically
grounded linguistic analysis.
Nonetheless, the view is widespread and has
been extremely influential in the scholarly literature on bilingual education. Jim Cummins
(1979), for instance, proposed the Threshold Hypothesis, in which he hypothesized that negative
cognitive and academic effects result from low
levels of competence in both languages. Following Scandinavian researchers, Cummins referred
to this presumed “low ability” in both languages
as semilingualism but later changed the term to
limited bilingualism.
Although the Threshold Hypothesis has been
widely publicized, evidence presented in support
of the associated idea of semilingualism has not
been persuasive. Christina Bratt Paulston (1983),
for instance, reviewed numerous Scandinavian
studies that sought linguistic evidence for the ex-
istence of semilingualism in Sweden and found
no empirical evidence to support that such a
thing exists. Jeff MacSwan (2000) reviewed reputed evidence from studies of language variation, linguistic structure, school performances,
and language loss and concluded that it was all
either spurious or irrelevant to the basic proposal. A concept related to semilingualism in
Cummins’s framework is the distinction between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills
(BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). Again, critics have been uncomfortable with equating the language of school,
and hence the language of the educated classes,
with language that is said to be inherently more
complex and richer and that places greater demands on cognitive resources. (See Cummins
[2000] for detailed discussion of his views on
language proficiency.)
Although much has been learned, the study of
bilingualism is still very much in its infancy.
Nevertheless, the field appears to be growing and
to be attracting great interest throughout the
world. The social and linguistic analysis of bilingual speech is an exciting field with implications
for linguistics, psychology, education, and a host
of other areas of inquiry.
Jeff MacSwan
See Also
Biliteracy; Heritage-Language Development;
Language Acquisition
References
August, Diane, and Kenji Hakuta, eds. 1998.
Educating Language-Minority Children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cummins, James. 1979. “Linguistic Interdependence
and the Educational Development of Bilingual
Children.” Review of Educational Research
49:221–251.
———. 2000. Language, Power, and Pedagogy:
Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hakuta, Kenji. 1986. Mirror of Language: The Debate
on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
MacSwan, Jeff. 1999. A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Codeswitching. New York: Garland.
———. 2000. “The Threshold Hypothesis,
Semilingualism, and Other Contributions to a
Deficit View of Linguistic Minorities.” Hispanic
Journal of Behavior Sciences 20 (1):3–45.
56
Biliteracy
proficiency in a foreign language for advancement to candidacy to advanced degrees, and
well-educated biliterate individuals are often
held in esteem for their facility in languages
other than English. Members of language minorities who achieve functional literacy in English are often held in lower esteem despite their
biliterate abilities.
Although only a fraction of the world’s estimated 5,000–6,000 languages are used as mediums of school and societal literacy, many societies routinely use more than one language for
governmental, educational, and social purposes.
Canada is officially bilingual and uses French
and English as languages of literacy. India has
two national official languages and fifteen regional languages that coexist with them. Even in
the English–dominant United Kingdom, Wales
has a dual-language policy that encourages the
use of Welsh along with English and now actively
promotes Welsh bilingualism and biliteracy
(Baker and Jones, 2000).
Meisel, Jürgen. 1990. “Grammatical Development
in the Simultaneous Acquisition of Two First
Languages.” In J. M. Meisel, ed., Two First
Languages: Early Grammatical Development in
Bilingual Children. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Foris.
Mishina, Satomi. 1998. “Language Separation in Early
Bilingual Development: A Longitudinal Study of
Japanese/English Bilingual Children.” Ph.D. diss.,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual Speech. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Paulston, Christina Bratt. 1983. Swedish Research and
Debate about Bilingualism. Stockholm: National
Swedish Board of Education.
Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. Bilingualism. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Wei, Li, Lesley Milroy, and Pong-Sin Ching. 1992. “A
Two-Step Sociolinguistic Analysis of CodeSwitching and Language Choice.” International
Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 (1):63–86.
Biliteracy
Functions of Biliteracy
Biliteracy serves a number of functions, including developing the ability to read sacred texts in
classical languages, which are no longer used for
other purposes. Muslims learn classical Arabic to
read the Koran, and orthodox Jews learn Hebrew
to read the Torah. Christian religious scholars
must learn Latin, classical Greek, and Aramaic
and Hindu Sanskrit.
Biliteracy in English and the native language is
often an educational goal for language-minority
students and their parents. Language minorities
refers to language speakers in a society who have
a smaller population or less power than the
dominant-language group. Biliteracy is necessary in order to have access to employment and
to participate in the social, political, and economic life of the dominant society as well as in
local communities. Many communities in the
United States are bilingual and biliterate. In the
United States, native-language newspapers serve
immigrant and other language-minority communities, allowing native-language literacy to
exist alongside English literacy. Foreign-language
newspapers provide a means for first-generation
immigrants to use their stronger language of literacy as they acquire English literacy. Native-language literacy also allows them to maintain connections with their countries of origin and
Biliteracy refers to the ability to use two or more
languages of literacy. There is no consensus on a
definition of literacy. The definition used here
entails the ability of people to use reading and
writing to meet their pragmatic needs and
achieve their goals. Most societies, even those like
the United States in which one language is the
dominant medium of communication, are multilingual and multiliterate. Although biliteracy
and bilingualism are related, they are not identical because a person may be orally bilingual but
not literate or may be orally bilingual and literate
in only one language.
Perspectives on Biliteracy
Biliteracy may be considered from the point of
view of individuals, communities, or societies.
Literacy in more than one language has both
pragmatic and status value. International trade,
globalization, and the need to access and exchange knowledge across languages make bilingualism and biliteracy valuable assets. Historically, in early modern Europe and the early years
of the American Republic, biliteracy was an expectation for those of the educated elite. People
were not considered fully literate if they had not
learned to read Latin or Greek, even if they could
read and write in their vernacular language. Today, some university majors still require reading
57
Biliteracy
Chinese volunteer working with recent immigrant (Elizabeth Crews)
use literacy. Years of schooling are problematic
because merely attending school does not ensure
that a person will become truly literate. Self-assessments are also unreliable because people may
either inflate or depreciate their actual abilities.
Despite their limitations, surrogate and self-assessment data often are the only easily accessible
data.
The 1992 NALS provides some useful biliteracy data that were derived from all three types of
measures. Fifteen states participated, including
California and Texas, which have large Hispanic
populations. Although the methodological design of the direct-measurement portion of the
NALS is somewhat controversial, the schooling
and self-assessment data provide an interesting
profile of the extent of biliteracy among adults.
Biliteracy is most prevalent among language
minorities. Reynaldo Macías (1990) noted that
there are three patterns of literacy among language minorities: (1) native-language literacy,
(2) second-language literacy, typically in English,
which denotes no native-language literacy, and
follow news within their communities that is not
covered in English-language newspapers. Reliance on non-English presses is not new. In
1910, there were 540 German-language newspapers in the United States. Spanish, Chinese, and
Vietnamese newspapers serve similar functions
in biliterate communities today.
Assessing and Measuring Societal Biliteracy
It is difficult, though not impossible, to assess
and measure biliteracy in the U.S. population.
There are three types of literacy measures: direct
measures, such as the National Adult Literacy
Survey (NALS), which directly test individuals;
surrogate measures, which are based on years of
schooling (equating six or eight years of schooling with literacy); and self-assessments, which
derive from surveys such as the U.S. Census,
wherein individuals are asked to judge how well
they read and write. Direct measures are always
preferable but are costly and may lack ecological
validity; that is, they may not accurately simulate
real-world literacy tasks or how people actually
58
Biliteracy
(3) biliteracy, typically in one’s native language
and in English. Nonliteracy, meaning no literacy
in any language, is also a possibility.
According to the 1992 NALS findings based on
self-reported data, approximately 7 percent of
the adult population in the United States was
biliterate. Among whites, the biliteracy rate was
only 3 percent. Only 2 percent of African Americans were biliterate. Biliteracy rates were much
higher for Hispanics, 35 percent of whom were
biliterate, compared to 33 percent who were literate only in English and 27 percent only in
Spanish. Biliteracy was most prevalent among
Asians and Pacific Islanders, among whom
nearly half (47 percent) were biliterate. Higher
biliteracy rates among Hispanics and Asians are
not surprising, given that immigration rates are
higher for these groups (Greenberg et al., 2001).
NALS data indicated that biliterates tended to
have higher levels of education than monoliterates. Among biliterates, 48 percent acquired
some post-secondary education, compared to
only 43 percent for those literate only in English.
Most biliterates do not have balanced abilities
in two or more languages, because their language
experiences and contexts for learning are usually
not parallel across languages. NALS data are important because most national literacy estimations focus solely on English. Their failure to acknowledge literacy among those who are literate
in languages other than English inflates the magnitude of a perceived “literacy crisis.”
The extent to which language minorities become biliterate in English and their native language is contingent on several factors. For those
born in the United States, biliteracy is largely determined by whether they have access to a quality bilingual education program or, later in high
school or college, to a quality foreign- or nativelanguage program that develops literacy in their
home language. For immigrants, the development of biliteracy in their native language and
English is dependent on whether they have had
access to quality education in their native language and whether they have had literacy instruction in English as a foreign language prior
to coming to the United States.
In many countries, English is now being
taught in primary schools; however, the quality
of instruction varies greatly. More Hispanic immigrants come from Mexico than any other
country. Many Mexican immigrants have not
had formal education beyond the primary
grades, although literacy rates and education levels are rising. Basic Spanish literacy rates for the
years 1995–1999 are reported as 92 percent for
Mexican males and 87 percent for females; however, only about 64 percent of the population
reached secondary school (Dutcher, 2001).
English literacy is often a requirement for job
training. Undereducation makes it difficult for
many Mexican and Central American adult immigrants to compete for better-paying jobs, and
many are unable to participate in programs that
would give them skills for job mobility. As a result, some adult-education policymakers are
now advocating training programs that build
from Spanish literacy to allow marginalized immigrants to gain job skills while they develop
oral English and English literacy.
Promoting Biliteracy
For those who value languages, biliteracy presents
both challenges and opportunities. Today, the
majority of the world’s estimated 5,000–6,000
languages are endangered. In the United States,
many Native American languages are likewise being threatened even as their speakers have acquired English and English literacy. Although
writing systems have been developed for many of
these languages, thus ensuring that they are
recorded before they completely disappear, more
proactive measures are needed to ensure their
survival. Historically, Cherokee provides an example of a language that was saved through the
development of a writing system and the promotion of the language in schools. By the mid-nineteenth century, biliteracy in Cherokee and English
was common. Unfortunately, the imposition of
English-only policies in the latter part of the nineteenth century led to a decline in both Cherokee
and English literacy.
For the past several decades, federal bilingual
education policy has sanctioned transitional
bilingual education but has stopped well short of
endorsing maintenance bilingual education. In
transitional approaches, only initial literacy is
developed in the minority language to allow students to keep pace academically while they make
the transition to English literacy. Transitional
models usually wean students away from nativelanguage literacy within three to five years and
are not effective in promoting biliteracy.
Among educational models, maintenance
59
Book Clubs
programs are more effective than transitional
programs in promoting the retention of native
language while developing English literacy for
language minorities. For monolingual Englishspeaking students, immersion programs, which
begin with instruction in foreign languages and
gradually introduce English literacy, have proven
effective. So-called dual immersion, or two-way
bilingual programs, have proven effective when
English-speaking language-majority and language-minority children are brought together in
the same program. These programs divide the
use and development of literacy in two languages. There is a need to ensure that special
consideration is given to language-minority students, because some evidence suggests that these
programs advantage English speakers more than
language-minority students (Valdés, 1997).
Foreign-language instruction provides another path for attaining biliteracy. Unfortunately,
in the United States, opportunities for foreignlanguage instruction are usually delayed until
middle or high school. Goals of foreign-language
instruction do not always promote the goal of
biliteracy. Consequently, many who study foreign languages fail to acquire more than a very
rudimentary knowledge of them.
Recently, national attention has been drawn to
developing students’ heritage languages. Heritage-language learners are those who grow up in
a home where a non-English language is used.
They may either have a passive understanding of
the language or be partially bilingual, and they
may participate in a variety of program types
(Peyton, Ranard, and McGinnis, 2001). Heritage-language literacy is now being promoted in
a number of languages. Mandarin and Japanese
are frequently taught in Asian American immigrant communities, and a number of universities
offer courses in literacy for native speakers of
Spanish, Chinese, and Cambodian, just to name
a few. The promoting of heritage-language literacy offers a promising means for increasing the
number of biliterate people in the United States.
Despite these efforts, given the dominance of
English as a national and international language,
many in the United States lack the motivation to
learn other languages and acquire literacy in
them. Nevertheless, the development of literacy
in languages other than English can have useful
benefits for the monolingual, monoliterate, English-speaking population in trade, cross-cultural
understanding, diplomacy, and national security.
In an age of increasing global interdependence, it
is to be hoped that more people will come to appreciate the value of acquiring literacy in other
languages and that more policymakers will support educational programs that promote this.
Terrence G. Wiley
See Also
Adult Literacy; Adult Literacy Testing; Bilingual
Education; Bilingualism; Diversity; English
as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation
and Assessment; Heritage-Language Development; Language Acquisition; Language Attitudes;
Literacy Definitions; Policy Issues in Testing;
Social Justice and Literacies; Social Nature of
Literacy; Sociolinguistics and Literacy
References
Baker, Colin, and Sylvia P. Jones. 2000. Encyclopedia
of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dutcher, Nadine. 2001. Expanding Educational
Opportunities in Diverse Societies. Washington,
DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Greenberg, Elizabeth, Reynaldo F. Macías, David
Rhodes, and Tsze Chan. 2001. English Literacy and
Language Minorities in the United States. National
Center for Education Statistics. NCES 2001–464.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education
Research and Improvement.
Macías, Reynaldo F. 1990. “Definitions of Literacy:
A Response.” In Robert L. Venezky, David A.
Wagner, and B. S. Ciliberti, eds., Toward Defining
Literacy, pp. 17–23. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Peyton, Joy K., Donald A. Ranard, and Scott
McGinnis. 2001. Heritage Languages in America:
Preserving a National Resource. Washington, DC:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Valdés, Guadalupe. 1997. “Dual-Language Immersion
Programs: A Cautionary Note concerning the
Education of Language Minority Students.”
Harvard Educational Review 67 (3):391–429.
Book Clubs
Since 1989, ongoing collaboration between university-based researchers and classroom-based
practitioners has resulted in the evolution of the
original Book Club model. Initially, the program
was constructed to teach reading comprehension
and critical thinking to elementary children. The
design revolved around promoting support and
instruction for student-led discussions related to
the literature students were reading. Although
60
Book Clubs
this was the focal point, the program included
suggestions for varied contexts for reading; multiple types of responses, both oral and written;
and instruction to foster independent reading
and higher-order thinking. Thus, the design included five components: (1) reading, (2) writing,
(3) instruction, (4) small-group discussions
(book clubs), and (5) total-class discussions
(community share). Although all components
were essential, the exact order and amount of
time devoted varied, depending on student
needs and the instructional focus. Further, teachers’ experiences with Book Club often led to their
merging instruction with community share so
that instruction in the form of brief, mini-lessons could be provided on content relevant to
the curriculum or student needs.
Even though Book Club is evolving, some elements are key to its basic foundation. One fundamental concept is that students need the time
and opportunity to talk among themselves about
topics related to books, for several reasons: (1)
talk helps develop thinking, (2) engagement is
predicated on interest and students are more interested in topics they select, and (3) students’
talk enables teachers to assess their learning.
Since most classes are too large for all students to
have occasion to express their developing
thought, small groups provide the context for
this. Further, this frees teachers to monitor students’ thinking and concept development because they can circulate among the groups, noting both individual student growth and
class-level development. Instruction can then be
better focused on students’ needs, either individual, group, or total-class.
Although the small, student-led discussions
are pivotal to the program, they are not the sole
component. Teachers provide instruction on
multiple ways of responding to texts so that students can foster varied ways of comprehending
texts. Further, teachers stress not only personal
responses but also reactions that enable learners
to engage in critical thought. That is, students respond in ways that help them compare and contrast texts or parts of texts (such as characters,
plots, and settings), evaluate what they have read,
and synthesize ideas across texts. Students respond both orally and in writing and in both
rough draft and polished formats.
Because this is an integrated literacy program,
reading is essential. The key need is for authentic
texts (that is, texts written to communicate
meaning and not to teach reading) that students
find engaging but that also promote independence. Further, instruction emphasizes this
movement toward independence with multiple
types of texts and begins with learners’ needs.
The specifics of all the components have been
elaborated in The Book Club Connection: Literacy
Learning and Classroom Talk. Therefore, this entry will focus next on growth of the Book Club
model by describing how two researchers have
taken the concepts developed initially and continue to work with them in different contexts, exploring other questions.
Susan McMahon and her colleagues proceeded by examining how the Book Club format
can support student learning and talk through
integrated language-arts and social-studies curricula. From 1995 to 2000, in the Language Arts
and Social Studies Integration Project (LASSI),
researchers collaborated with teachers to investigate student responses related to both fictionnarrative and nonfiction-expository texts that
are connected by an integrated theme. Using the
original components as a framework to develop
integrated units, the project expanded it to include additional concepts related to social-studies learning. That is, Book Club focused on developing reading independence, particularly
fostering comprehension and higher-order
thinking. Although these concepts are related to
learning other content areas, researchers on this
project found that teachers needed additional
support in understanding how to incorporate
concepts, skills, and strategies essential to particular content areas. Therefore, research on this
elaboration of Book Club has led to an expansion that supports teachers’ efforts to plan, implement, and assess student learning during integrated instructional units.
In addition to expanding the original framework, LASSI also investigated how students’ discussions can support their learning of social
studies content by examining the differences between student commentary associated with nonfiction-expository texts versus fiction-narrative
texts. Students across several grade levels and
classrooms clearly talk differently about nonfiction texts, often accepting ideas without challenge. This has led to developing instructional
approaches that foster more critical stances
among students reading nonfiction.
61
Book Clubs
autobiographical book clubs, teachers experience
and discuss narrative texts in order to understand their lives and those of their students.
Book Club began as an integrated literacy program that responded to students’ need to discuss
among themselves the books they were reading.
As a literacy program, it included reading, writing, speaking, and listening. The original model
proved successful in helping teachers and students explore multiple ways of understanding
the books they were reading, and it was so successful that the model has served as a basis for
continued research and staff development.
Susan McMahon
Taking an alternative approach to further exploration of the original Book Club model, Taffy
Raphael and her colleagues developed Book Club
Plus in 1997. The goal for this project was to support diverse classrooms of learners as they engage
in age-appropriate texts. With increasing diversity in American classrooms, students enter the
discourse with varied prior experiences, cultural
lenses, and reading abilities. Book Club Plus has
taken on exploration of this topic in order to
identify ways of helping teachers provide suitable
instruction for these students. The premises for
this project are: (1) learning takes time, (2) learning involves multiple interactions with texts, (3)
skills and strategies are learned in communities of
practice, and (4) narrative is pivotal in understanding and sharing this with others.
Book Club Plus also includes another component—professional development. This aspect of
the project encourages teachers to participate in
learning contexts that help them focus on culture
and identity. Through graduate course work and
See Also
Gender and Reading
References
McMahon, Susan I., Taffy E. Raphael, and Virginia
Goatley, eds. 1997. The Book Club Connection: Literacy Learning and Classroom Talk. New York:
Teachers College Press.
62
C
Center for the Expansion
of Language and Thinking
support groups in Canada and the United States.
A coalition of these groups and individuals led to
the organization of the Whole Language Umbrella (available: http://www.ncte.org/wlu/), now
an affiliate of NCTE. The organization is committed to teachers’ sharing successful practices and
supporting each other as they develop classroom
curricula focused on equity and social justice.
CELT members (teacher educators, language
researchers, teachers and administrators in public
and private K–12 schools, authors and book publishers, members and staff of professional organizations) individually and in combination offer
consultation, workshops, and long-range professional development. Topics include whole-language pedagogy in language and sign systems
across the curriculum, miscue analysis, inquiry
curriculum, democratic classrooms, multicultural, multilingual, and multidialectical issues,
children’s and adolescent literature, the evaluation
of reading and writing programs, and other current trends and issues. A recent collaborative project by CELT members culminated in a publication
on teacher education: Whole Language Voices in
Teacher Education, published by Stenhouse (available: http://www.stenhouse.com) (Whitmore,
Goodman, and Center for the Expansion of Language and Thinking, 1996). For additional information, write to: CELT, 100 Heritage Road,
Bloomington, IN 47408, or visit CELT’s web site
(available: http://www.coe.missouri.edu/~celt/).
Yetta M. Goodman
The Center for the Expansion of Language and
Thinking (CELT), founded in 1972, is an international nonprofit educational corporation
grounded in the principles of education for
democracy with the emphasis on language learning and inquiry. It is dedicated to improving education through a dynamic curriculum based on
theoretical understandings about the social nature of language, thinking, learning, and teaching. CELT was initiated in the late 1960s and
early 1970s, when Kenneth S. Goodman, then
professor at Wayne State University, was engaged
in research on readers’ patterns of miscues during the oral reading of whole texts. While miscue
researchers (scholars who focus on deviations in
oral reading from the text) were studying the
reading of students in Detroit, they formed a
study group to further their understanding of
language and its relationship to reading and
writing processes and instruction. As they moved
away from Detroit to other academic institutions
and school districts, they recognized the need for
a professional organization; hence, CELT was
born. CELT, an invitational organization, promotes continuing professional development by
holding rejuvenation conferences for its members. Members meet and present their work at
conferences of the International Reading Association (IRA), the National Council of Teachers of
English (NCTE), and the Whole Language Umbrella. They also organize professional development opportunities for teachers, teacher educators, and researchers focusing on how the use of
language is applied in classroom settings.
CELT members have been active in the conceptualization of whole-language pedagogy and
have been integral to the development of teacher
See Also
Whole Language and Whole Language Assessment
References
Whitmore, Kathryn F., Yetta M. Goodman, and Center for the Expansion of Language and Thinking.
1996. Whole Language Voices in Teacher Education.
York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
63
Children’s Literature
Children’s Literature
trator of the best American picture book published the preceding year. The award committee
considers excellence in the art itself and in how
that art interprets the text (Peltola, 2000).
Children’s literature is the corpus of books written expressly for children, from birth through
age twelve. Adolescent literature, sometimes subsumed under the category children’s literature, is
written for an audience between the ages of
twelve and eighteen. Publications in both children’s and adolescent literature are often referred
to as “trade books,” meaning books written for a
general audience (as opposed to textbooks). As
in books for adults, these trade books span many
topics, themes, and audiences within their range.
These books may be fiction or nonfiction and are
structured as narratives, poetry, exposition, or
descriptive texts. Trade books for children may
be picture books, illustrated books, or full-length
texts. They span the genres of folklore, fantasy,
science fiction, contemporary realistic fiction,
historical fiction, biography, and nonfiction
(Galda and Cullinan, 2002).
Poetry and Folklore
Poetry, a literary form in which experiences and
ideas are brought to our attention in a unique
fashion through precise, distilled language, is another genre of children’s literature. From the earliest cradle songs to the complexities of
metaphoric comments on life in haiku, poetry
for children is available in single-volume picture
books, subject-specific anthologies, author-specific anthologies, and general anthologies that
are structured in various ways. Poetry is a thriving genre, and the National Council of Teachers
of English sponsors an award given every three
years to an outstanding poet for children in
honor of the body of that poet’s work.
Folklore, stories, and songs that began in the
oral traditions of various cultures compose another extremely popular genre of children’s literature. Folklore consists of folktales, fairy tales,
legends, myths, fables, folk songs, nursery
rhymes, and religious tales. In a picture-book
format, folklore is often beautifully illustrated by
artists who use these time-honored stories to express their artistic interpretations. Folklore is
also presented in anthologies that may be organized around tale types, such as trickster tales or
lore from a particular culture. The oral nature of
folklore makes it excellent material for storytelling and drama.
The Newbery Medal is given annually by the
American Library Association to the author of
the most distinguished contribution to literature
for children that was published the preceding
year. Although this award can and has been given
to writers of picture books, poets, and biographers, it is most often awarded to writers of fantasy, science fiction, contemporary realistic fiction, or historical fiction.
Picture Books
Unique to children’s literature is the picture
book, in which the illustrations are of equal or
greater importance than the text in conveying
meaning. This genre, based on format rather
than content, contains books that range from fiction to nonfiction and from fantasy to realism,
addressing historical to contemporary subjects.
A majority of picture books are for younger
readers, with some geared toward the older child
or adolescent reader. Picture books for babies are
often printed on cardboard stock, have only a
few pages, and are dominated by the illustrations
rather than the text. Some of these books tell a
story or present a concept important to young
children. Others try to involve young children by
asking them to participate in certain actions or
gestures. Although many picture books are intended to be read aloud to children, some are
created to be read by children themselves. These
generally contain fewer words, carefully selected,
and rely heavily on the illustrations to convey
meaning. Some are “wordless,” using the illustrations to convey a story or information. In picture
books, authors and illustrators tell stories, create
poems and songs, and present information that
interests children. All genres of children’s literature can be found in picture-book format.
The most prestigious award for picture books
is the Caldecott Award, given annually by the
American Library Association (ALA) to the illus-
Fantasy and Science Fiction
In fantasy, things that could not happen, characters who could not exist, and places that could
not exist in the real world are made believable
through precise description, engaging characters, logical plot, and a compelling theme. This
genre is presented in picture-book format for
young children. In this form, both the illustra64
Children’s Literature
tions and the text create a believable fantasy
world. Many books for preschool children are
fantasy in that they have animal characters behaving as a real child would. In books for older
readers, fantasy writers explore conflicts between
good and evil, asking eternal questions about
life. Animal fantasy, in which animals think, talk,
and act, is popular with many readers. So, too,
are fantasies in which a miniature world is created to explore issues of our real world. Some
fantasies are the classic quest tale in which a hero
leaves home to seek something—an object, a
fate, a future—and returns home changed, and
usually wiser. Other fantasies are literary lore, using traditional folktales and motifs as the basis
for fully elaborated stories. Many fantasies use
fantasy devices such as time slips and magic.
Science fiction is an extrapolation from scientific principles, a logical extension of scientific
possibilities. It explores this question: “If this scientific premise or promise is possible, then what
might the world look like in the future?” Some
science fiction is geared toward younger readers,
presenting a story in which some type of space
travel or alien adventure is a main plot element.
The majority of the books in this genre, however,
are for older readers. They pose engaging questions about ecology, survival, mind control, and
social conditions.
Grandmother reading a children’s book to her
granddaughter (Skjold Photographs)
who created our history, demonstrating how
people’s lives are influenced by their historical
period. Although most of the historical fiction
available today is written by contemporary authors who have deliberately set their stories in
the past, some books, often called historical realism, were actually written as contemporary realism in the past and have become historical by
virtue of the passage of time.
Contemporary and Historical Fiction
Fiction that is both contemporary and realistic is
very popular with children and adolescents, and
this genre is presented in many guises. Although
fantasy creates alternative worlds and science fiction introduces possible worlds, contemporary
realistic fiction attempts to mirror the actual
world as we know it today. In realistic fiction we
find animal stories, adventure stories, mysteries,
sports stories, humorous stories, romances, stories about relationships with others and about
growing up. Contemporary realistic fiction includes many popular series books that focus on
one character or group of characters across several books.
Historical fiction, by contrast, seeks to recreate
a world that existed in the past. The setting for
historical fiction can range from prehistory to almost yesterday, and these renditions are usually
presented in great detail in order to make the
contents both believable and interesting. Books
in this genre often trace the lives of the people
Biography, Autobiography, and Memoir
Biographies tell the story of the life or part of the
life of a particular person, usually paying special
attention to that person’s achievements. Autobiography recreates the story of the author’s own
life. Biographies can be chronological, recounting events in the order in which they actually occurred; or episodic, highlighting a certain period
of a person’s life; or interpretive, in which events
are selected and arranged to create a certain effect, a particular understanding of the subject’s
life. Although most biographies available for
65
Classroom Writing Assessment
children focus on a single individual, there are
some excellent collective biographies available in
which authors present the lives of several people
who share a commonality with others in the
same volume. Biographies range from almost entirely fictional to authentic biographical nonfiction based entirely on documented fact. Memoirs have become increasingly available in trade
books for children and young adults. A memoir
focuses on particular experiences in life that were
especially significant. True memoir is entirely
nonfiction, but many writers have blurred the
boundaries of memoir with fictional accounts of
real-life experiences.
ment of visual literacy. Nonfiction trade books
offer students the opportunity to explore subject
matter deeply and widely.
In the second half of the twentieth century,
children’s literature became big business, expanding to fill the needs of parents and teachers.
As the corpus of trade books grew, children’s literature began to develop multicultural variety.
Although still a literature of the mainstream,
there are an increasing number of outstanding
books that present the experiences and histories
of diverse cultures, present cultural practices,
and explore culture itself (Yokota, 2001). As the
United States becomes a more international
community, its literature for children will also
reflect global diversity.
Lee Galda
Nonfiction
Nonfiction is the largest genre of children’s literature. Trade books in this genre consider topics
that range across the full spectrum of information available to adults, but the author shapes the
coverage of those topics to reach a particular audience. Nonfiction today contains excellent,
vivid writing, artistically beautiful illustrations
that are also appropriate for the subject matter,
and an array of organizational aids that enable
readers to find information efficiently. Recently,
special awards have been established to honor
those who write nonfiction. The first such award
is the Orbis Pictus Award, sponsored by the National Council of Teachers of English. The award
is based on excellence in four areas: accuracy, organization, design, and style.
See Also
Adolescent Literature; Bibliotherapy; Book Clubs;
Critical Literacy; Discussion; Family Literacy;
Gender and Reading; Independent Reading;
Literature Circles; Literature-Based Instruction;
Multicultural Literature; Read-Alouds; Reader
Response; Trade Books
References
Galda, Lee, and Bernice Cullinan. 2002. Literature
and the Child. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Peltola, Bette J. 2000. “Newbery and Caldecott
Awards: Authorization and Terms.” In Association
for Library Service to Children, ed., The Newbery
and Caldecott Awards: A Guide to the Medal and
Honor Books, pp. 1–9. Chicago: American Library
Association.
Yokota, Junko, ed. 2001. Kaleidoscope: A Multicultural
Booklist for Grades K–8. 3rd ed. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Children’s Literature Then and Now
Literature written expressly for children has been
available for about 400 years. The earliest forms
of children’s literature were designed to instruct
and inform, especially regarding proper behavior. The publication of the fairy tales collected by
Charles Perrault in 1697 marked the beginning
of a new purpose of children’s books—to delight. Over the years this has continued to be a
central function of literature for children. Today’s children have available a vast array of
choices in literature, including many genres and
subgenres. Trade books support the teaching of
virtually any school subject, be it composition,
reading, science, social studies, mathematics, art,
or music. Poetry and fiction are often used as
material for exploration of themes; picture
books are often resources for art education and
play an extremely important role in the develop-
Classroom Writing Assessment
Classroom writing assessment is a topic of importance to educators concerned with the development of young writers. From the etymology of
the word assessment, we learn that someone who
assesses has the role of assisting in a process of
judgment. If we extend that definition, we can
view writing assessment in its social context, as
an event in which someone helps writers judge
their own writing. The purpose here is to consider how classrooms can provide these assessment opportunities to young writers of diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds (see Authentic Assessment).
66
Classroom Writing Assessment
What Is Being Assessed?
Written Language and Its Development
Educators’ views of writing as rhetoric and technical skill have been replaced with views of writing as composing meaning (International Reading Association and National Council of
Teachers of English, 1994). Writing is a process of
establishing a purpose for written communication, which draws on resources, models, and invention to accomplish that purpose. When composing text, writers may use or adapt other
writers’ genres and styles, and thus a writer’s previous practice with established rhetoric has value
in that sense. Indeed, humans have invented distinctive genres of writing to accomplish recurring purposes: Expository genres are for description or argumentation; narrative, poetic, and
theatrical genres explore human experience. But
we need to recognize the cultural functions of
genres as well as their continual evolution, and
we must resist prescribing their value. At times,
reproduction of an established genre fits a
writer’s purpose. But at other times, a writer feels
the need to build upon, play with, or abandon
the inventions of the past, and those departures
are crucial to the empowerment of students
whose literacies differ from cultures in power. It
is the writer’s communicative purpose that determines choices of content, text structure, formality, language, and mechanics. The implication for writing assessment is that assessors must
consider the author’s intended purpose for the
writing.
tegrate or omit steps, or recycle through phases
multiple times. But no matter how writers work,
to accomplish their goals, they must coordinate
strands of reasoning and make choices among
many aspects of language and the complex conventions of the print medium.
As writers develop ideas and compose, they
solicit either real or imagined readers to respond
to their emerging text. Indeed, writing and reading can be viewed as transactions between those
who compose text and those who construct
meaning from text (Rosenblatt, 1969); writers
consider their readers, and readers raise issues
for writers (see Transactional Theory, and Reading-Writing Relationships). If we define assessment as responses from a helpful reader and ensuing dialogues between writer and reader, we
see that assessment plays a critical role in the
writing process.
Writing Development and Writing Instruction
Long before children can make interpretable
marks on paper, they compose texts that respond
to and reflect their cultural and linguistic experience. Children tell tales, invent songs, make lists,
compose messages, and create images with language. As young children develop conceptions of
the conventions of written language, they invent
marks or graphics to represent their communicative acts or ask someone to transcribe for
them. At the same time, they develop understandings of written genres as they listen to others read and begin to read themselves. Once children can write in a more conventional sense and
have opportunities to accomplish goals with
their writing, they are positioned to develop understandings of the structure and function of
different genres, including those they invent
themselves (Hall, 1997). Initially, they may interweave multiple forms of representation into
their composing, including graphics on the page,
as well as talk and action that do not make it to
the page. From this point on, writing development is a lifelong process. Developing writers
construct understandings of rhetorical possibilities from what they read and hear, and from
readers’ responses to their texts.
Although young writers benefit from composing text modeled on culturally valued genres, the
goal of writing instruction and writing assessment is neither rhetorical skill nor mastery of
writing mechanics. Skills are essential resources
Writing Process
Composing meaning requires writers to orchestrate a complex set of activities (see Process Writing). The writing process is commonly described
as a series of phases. Writers begin with an idea,
consult resources, and brainstorm possible approaches to implementation. As their purpose
solidifies, they construct a working outline in
graphic or text form. They then draft the piece,
consulting their resources and outline as they
write, perhaps revising the outline and resources
as they work. Before writers revise the draft, they
ask for feedback and then reread the piece, imagining how readers might interpret or misinterpret their text. They revise, then polish the piece,
editing mechanics and readying the piece for
publication. This characterization of writing as a
sequence of phases is simplistic; writers often in67
Classroom Writing Assessment
for students, but mastering them does not assure
that students will become writers who can compose text for a variety of purposes and a range of
audiences. Students need to master genres of
writing that have currency in a range of cultural
contexts and need to take creative risks at the
same time, fashioning text in new ways for new
purposes. Young writers need to envision the
possibility of creating new meanings, even new
genres. In classrooms where students establish
their own goals for their writing, the function of
classroom assessment is not to wield the mighty
red pen but to provide a readership able to make
meaning of developing writers’ work and contribute helpful, formative perspectives.
There are several features of the scenario that
highlight the limitations of testing for assessment
of writing. Although writers can draw from outside resources and reader feedback as they compose, students take only a test. Multiple-choice
item formats provide only an indirect measure of
students’ competence with composing. The test
answers are predetermined, unlike the surprises
we expect and value from each new piece of writing. Summary scores provide little information to
guide improvement in a student’s writing or a
teacher’s methods of writing instruction. In the
minds of many, a traditional test cannot provide
a measure of the complex craft of writing, nor
can it provide writers with useful information
about the quality of their work.
Assessment and Testing: Situating
Classroom Writing Assessment in the Debate
Writing assessment in the classroom both builds
upon and departs from assessment practices
used in other contexts. This section situates
classroom assessment within the debate between
assessment and testing (Wiggins, 1998). Although the contrast simplifies the complexities,
it is a springboard for discussion of the special
role of classroom assessment (Winograd, Martinez, and Noll, 1999) (see Accountability and
Testing, High-Stakes Assessment, and Policy Issues in Testing).
Direct Writing Assessment
Direct writing assessment is evaluation of students’ competence from a writing sample. The
term direct captures concerns about indirect assessment of writing inferred from students’ performance on multiple-choice test items, as just
described. In a typical direct assessment, students are given a writing prompt and a time
limit, and trained raters assign scores capturing
the overall quality of the samples.
Direct writing assessment addresses central
criticisms of traditional testing in that students
compose, and assessors make judgments of their
completed texts. It places authority in the scorers,
who are almost always classroom teachers specially trained for the task. However, concerns
have been raised about the authenticity and value
of this method of assessment as well (Wiggins,
1998; Winograd, Martinez, and Noll, 1999). The
prompt is imposed, and students have limited resources and limited opportunity to revise. Scorers must use a prescribed rubric in prescribed
ways to achieve adequate reliability. When direct
assessment is used for sorting and ranking students, those purposes inevitably press for efficiency and technical quality, and the result may
be a writing experience that is not educative for
either students or teachers (Wiggins, 1998) and is
likely to be particularly problematic for students
writing in their second language or students
from cultures where collaboration is the norm.
Critics worry that students and teachers may
view these brief, solitary assessments and the accompanying scoring procedures as models for
good writing and good classroom assessment.
Testing
Testing evokes a formal occasion of evaluation
and a specific kind of evaluation activity. Consider the following scenario. Students bend over
their desks, responding to items written by outside testing experts. The test is designed to measure students’ achievement in a subject area, and
the scores are used for summative reporting or
for admissions requirements. Students are asked
to demonstrate knowledge of what they have
been taught; the format of the items is multiple
choice, leaving students no opportunity to
choose how to demonstrate what they know.
Students have little understanding of the scoring
criteria and later receive summary scores containing limited information about their performance. This image of testing captures how
testing can feel external to the student and the
teacher, and scenarios like this one are often invoked to set off the advantages of classroom assessments deeply integrated with ongoing
processes of teaching and learning.
68
Classroom Writing Assessment
Rubrics
Although there are controversies about direct assessment as a model for classroom assessment,
the rubrics used for scoring writing samples have
been widely adapted for classroom use. Rubrics
are scales for evaluating the relative quality of a
piece of writing or a collection of writing, and
they focus the assessors’ attention on content.
Red-ink corrections of spelling, grammar, and
punctuation are replaced with judgments on the
effectiveness of the writing. The content and
structure of writing rubrics vary considerably,
and space permits only illustrations of the variations. A rubric might be structured as holistic,
containing one scale for overall quality, or as analytic, with several dimensions such as content,
organization, style, and mechanics. The content
of a rubric may be generic and designed to capture the qualities of good writing, or it may be
specific to particular genres or even particular
assignments.
Rubrics were developed to support objective
evaluation of writing samples, but several
decades of research have demonstrated that scorers’ judgments may be biased and fail to consider
the writer’s intent or the full complexity of the
written piece (Maylath, 1997). Classroom teachers who appropriate rubrics for classroom use
need to be aware of these risks. For example, assessors may be influenced by aspects of language
use such as vocabulary, dialect, grammatical correctness, and complexity—aspects that may not
be crucial to the effectiveness of the writing; they
may be influenced by surface features of the text,
such as length, mechanical accuracy, or neatness.
These biases are technical challenges when
rubrics are used for large-scale testing programs.
Fortunately, in the classroom, teachers’ awareness of these possible biases can become entry
points for assessment conversations.
nities for learning and improvement. In culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms, teachers can use rubrics and other tools to guide assessment conversations but should be prepared
to be surprised by the texts students compose.
The classroom may be best positioned to realize
this vision of educative writing assessment (Wiggins, 1998).
Methods of Assessing
Writing in the Classroom
This section provides an overview of assessment
methods used in the classroom. Although the
section is organized as a list, these practices
should be conceptualized as a coherent assessment system (Spandel and Stiggins, 1997). Developing writers benefit from multiple opportunities for analysis of their writing, and their
teachers benefit from multiple sources of evidence of student learning (see Kidwatching and
Classroom Evaluation).
Written Comments
Pen in hand, a reader responds to text, making
comments about what feelings and insights the
text evokes, and what seems missing or misleading. In the classroom, a teacher who is committed to the benefits of reader response writes comments as a reader, not as a grader, and engages
students in responding to one another’s writing
in much the same way. The students and the
teacher comment at various points in the writing
process, expanding the reader’s role to include
suggestions for strengthening the writing. Since
the writer may not agree with a reader’s perspective, written comments should be entry points
for assessment conversations that allow both
writer and reader opportunities to clarify their
interpretations. Writers benefit from comments
that consolidate what the writing accomplishes
and what it does not, along with suggestions for
strengthening the piece. Teachers often speak of
the importance of providing both commendations and recommendations, linking both to criteria for good writing that have been discussed
and illustrated repeatedly in class discussions
(Wolf and Gearhart, 1994).
Lessons Learned from the Debate
Assessments are designed for particular purposes, and any given method affords certain insights about students’ writing but limits others.
An important theme in the recent testing-assessment debate is that writing assessment tasks and
the criteria used to judge students’ writing
should reflect what teachers want writers to be
able to do. Assessments should inspire young
writers to write with purpose and invention, and
the assessments themselves should be opportu-
Assessment Criteria:
The Special Role of Writing Rubrics
Students need to develop understandings of the
techniques that make writing effective, and as69
Classroom Writing Assessment
sessment criteria provide a technical language
that captures the qualities of effective writing.
Criteria are a framework for class discussions of
writing samples and a guide for student writers
as they compose. To help students evaluate their
progress, rubrics can represent the characteristics of developing writing along performance
continua, with higher levels more closely fitting
the criteria for effective writing. Consider two
examples of rubrics designed for classroom assessment, the first a generic rubric, the second a
genre-specific rubric for narrative writing.
that to my sister,’ Lou cried, moving to shield
Tasha with her body.”).
Rubrics should be resources for student reflection and analysis, not prescriptions for formulaic
texts. Rubrics can inform and act as a scaffold for
a young writer’s work, but they can also constrain and limit the composing process. Completion criteria—for instance, that a piece must
have five paragraphs or that each paragraph
must begin with a topic sentence—may not fit a
particular genre of writing or a particular
writer’s intention. Generic rubrics obscure genre
differences and may discourage a young writer’s
choice and innovation. Vague rubrics provide little guidance, for example, when they define levels in quantitative and comparative terms, perhaps requiring “some supporting detail” or “few
transition words.” Students and teachers are left
to puzzle out where and why these features are
needed in any given piece of writing. However a
rubric is constructed, it should not stand alone.
Teachers can use rubrics to guide students in
analysis of published texts and their own writing,
so criteria become part of the interpretive
process in the classroom. To enhance students’
understandings of the rubric and their perceptions of ownership, teachers can engage students
in the very construction of the rubric itself
(Ainsworth and Christinson, 1998).
A Generic Rubric
Vicki Spandel and Richard Stiggins (1997) developed a model of analytical writing assessment
that contains six traits: ideas, organization, voice,
word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions.
Each trait is defined using a technical language to
capture the components of the construct, and
teachers are encouraged to integrate this language in their writing instruction. To support
judgments of these writing traits, the authors developed performance continua that can be organized as a rubric. For example, for organization,
writing at the beginning level has no real lead or
conclusion, the sequence is confusing, and pacing is too fast or too slow. At higher levels, a piece
demonstrates progressively more effective introductions and conclusions, sequencing, pacing,
and appropriate use of transitions.
Portfolio Assessment
A writing portfolio contains a body of writing,
and portfolio assessment is the process of judging the work (see Portfolios). There are many
models of portfolios and portfolio assessment
(Calfee and Perfumo, 1996). A portfolio can
range from a simple compilation of writing to an
organized presentation of a writer’s work and its
evolution; it can span work from one unit of
study, an entire course, or several grade levels.
Evaluation of the portfolio (often structured as a
rubric) can focus on the range of work, the quality of work, the development of the work, or all
of these; it can be reported as a rubric score or as
written comments. The portfolio may be assembled and evaluated for the purpose of summative
assessment or may be integrated in ongoing
work in the classroom as students review their
portfolio on a regular basis and reflect on their
growth.
Students prepare a typical portfolio as follows.
The writer selects work samples to provide evi-
A Genre-Specific Rubric
Shelby Wolf and Maryl Gearhart (1994) developed a rubric for the assessment of narrative
writing containing five dimensions: theme, character, setting, plot, and communication. The
rubric constructs are drawn from literary analysis, and teachers are provided with instructional
resources to guide class discussions on literature
and students’ narrative writing. Each dimension
of the rubric contains six levels that reflect what
is known about pathways to the development of
narrative writing. For example, the theme dimension at the second level is represented in a
child’s text as a series of simple statements (“I
like my Mom. I like my Dad.”) or in the coherence of the action itself (“He blew up the plane.
Pow!”). At the fifth level, the child’s writing displays beginning use of secondary themes, and
the main theme is increasingly revealed through
discovery rather than delivery (“‘You can’t do
70
Classroom Writing Assessment
dence of growing competence along a number of
dimensions. For example, to demonstrate competence with the writing process, the student selects artifacts from all phases of a writing assignment, including brainstorming, outlining,
drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. To
demonstrate writing in a range of genres, the
student writer selects a poem, a personal narrative, a persuasive letter, and a science report; to
convey growth during the academic year, the selections would reflect early and later pieces or
samples that show growth within a one- to twomonth poetry unit. Student writers make these
choices, organize the samples, and then write a
letter of introduction to the reader, contextualizing the collection in an autobiographical account
of their development as a writer. They prepare a
table of contents to guide the reader, bind the
portfolio, and decorate the cover to produce a
polished presentation of their accomplishments.
Portfolio assessment is more than the process
of collecting and evaluating the portfolio. Portfolios support reflection when students review
their work and confer with teachers or parents to
discuss their growth and set goals for further
work.
Conferences are contexts for student writers
and their readers to negotiate their understandings of texts face-to-face. Each participant comes
away with a clearer understanding of what the
writer has accomplished, what needs to be
worked on, and what resources and strategies
will enable the student to improve.
Self-Assessment
Effective writers try to anticipate the possible
ways that readers may interpret their writing,
particularly when writing for a focused purpose.
A persuasive letter must do more, for example,
than express the writer’s frustration; it must convince critical readers that the issue is worthy of
their consideration. In classrooms where writing
is viewed as a transaction between the writer and
reader, teachers encourage students to read their
own writing as readers. Students may find a quiet
corner where they can read their piece aloud, or
they may assess their draft using the class rubric.
Students may reflect on their learning and
growth in their journal or in their autobiographical portfolio letter of introduction. The goal is
to help students internalize the kinds of assessment dialogues between writers and readers that
occur every day in the classroom (Wiggins,
1998).
Maryl Gearhart
Conferences
Developing writers benefit from many and varied opportunities for someone to help them evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their writing. Conferences range in formality, purpose,
and participation. A teacher might rove through
a classroom as students write, conducting miniconferences with students informally about the
progress of a piece. Or the teacher may arrange
lengthier and more formal times to confer with
each student about writing progress, and those
events may focus on the development of a particular piece of writing or a student’s portfolio. A
peer may read a student’s writing and respond in
person or in writing to strengths and weaknesses;
the process benefits both students, because it illustrates ways that someone’s writing may be interpreted in unexpected ways. In student-led
conferences, students present a prepared portfolio to their parents, showcasing their best writing
and their progress and setting goals for further
improvement (Davies et al., 1992). These conferences provide teachers with valuable opportunities to see how students’ writing reflects their
parents’ cultural and linguistic practices.
See Also
Authentic Assessment; Kidwatching and Classroom
Evaluation; Portfolios; Process Writing; Writing
across the Curriculum
References
Ainsworth, Larry, and Jan Christinson. 1998. Student
Generated Rubrics: An Assessment Model to Help
All Students Succeed. Orangeburg, NY: Dale
Seymour.
Calfee, Robert, and Pam Perfumo, eds. 1996. Writing
Portfolios in the Classroom: Policy and Practice,
Promise and Peril. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Davies, Anne, Caren Cameron, Colleen Politano,
and Kathleen Gregory. 1992. Together Is Better:
Collaborative Assessment, Evaluation, and
Reporting. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Peguis.
Hall, Nigel. 1997. “Young Children as Authors.” In Vic
Edwards and David Corson, eds., Encyclopedia of
Language and Education. Vol. 2, Literacy, pp.
69–76. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
International Reading Association and National
Council of Teachers of English. 1994. Standards
for the Assessment of Reading and Writing.
71
Cloze Procedure
should be typed using blank lines to represent
the omitted words. All blank lines should be the
same length. Depending on the teacher’s purpose, a dash representing each letter of the omitted word can be used. However, this will yield a
significantly higher score than using blank lines
of equal length.
Before they attempt to fill in the missing
words, students should read the entire cloze passage. After filling in the missing words, students
should reread the passage. A lengthy period of
time is usually needed for students to complete
the cloze passage. Younger students and less successful readers will find the cloze a difficult and
frustrating task. These students may not be able
to finish an entire cloze passage.
In scoring the cloze, the words that are supplied by the student are compared with the original words in the original text. Only exact
matches are considered correct answers. Synonyms should only be counted as correct answers if the cloze is being used as a teaching strategy for improving students’ use of context clues
and comprehension of individual sentences.
When teachers use the cloze to assess text
readability, they employ the following criteria to
evaluate the likelihood of students’ success when
reading the text. Students scoring above 50 percent can read the text independently (without
teacher assistance). Students scoring 34–50 percent correct are within the instructional level (the
student can be successful with teacher assistance)
but may need enrichment activities in conjunction with the text to ensure success. Students
scoring below 34 percent will be frustrated by the
difficulty of the text. If the cloze procedure indicates students are at the frustration level (text is
too difficult), an easier text should be used. There
are no criteria for determining functional reading levels when synonyms are accepted.
There are several modifications to the traditional cloze procedure. The Maze is sometimes
used as an introduction to a traditional cloze procedure. It differs from the cloze in that it provides
three answer choices for each deleted word. Answer choices usually follow a pattern: the correct
word, a word signifying the same part of speech, a
word signifying a different part of speech. Some
Maze procedures provide students with a word
bank rather than placing words beneath blanks.
ESL students may find this type of cloze procedure easier. Criteria for evaluating students’ per-
Newark, DE: International Reading Association
and Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Maylath, Bruce. 1997. “Assessors’ Language Awareness
in the Evaluation of Academic Writing.” In Leo
van Lier and David Corson, eds., Encyclopedia of
Language and Education. Vol. 6, Knowledge about
Language, pp. 195–204. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Rosenblatt, Louise. 1969. “Toward a Transactional
Theory of Reading.” Journal of Reading Behavior 1
(1):31–51.
Spandel, Vicki, and Richard J. Stiggins. 1997. Creating
Writers: Linking Writing Assessment and Instruction. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
Wiggins, Grant. 1998. Educative Assessment. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Winograd, Peter, Rebecca Blum Martinez, and Elizabeth Noll. 1999. “Alternative Assessments of
Learning and Literacy: A U.S. Perspective.” In
Daniel A. Wagner, Richard L. Venezky, and Brian
V. Street, eds., Literacy: An International Handbook, pp. 203–209. Boulder: Westview Press.
Wolf, Shelby A., and Maryl Gearhart. 1994. “Writing
What You Read: A Framework for Narrative Assessment.” Language Arts 71:425–445.
Cloze Procedure
The cloze procedure is an informal assessment
that requires the reader to supply words that
have been systematically deleted from a passage
(Harris and Sipay, 1990). The cloze can be used
for several purposes—as an assessment of a student’s ability to construct meaning of individual
sentences using context clues, syntax, and other
information from a specific text (Tierney and
Readence, 2000), as a measure of a text’s readability level, or for placement of students for instruction. The cloze procedure can be used with
readers of all ages, as well as with English as a
second language (ESL) students.
To create a cloze, a teacher chooses a passage
from the middle of a text that is typical of the
material students would be expected to read. The
passage should be 250–350 words in length. The
passage should be one that students have not
read or studied previously. No words are deleted
from the first and last sentences of the passage.
Beginning with the second sentence of the passage, the teacher deletes every nth word (usually
every fifth word). A minimum of fifty deletions
is recommended for high reliability. Generally,
proper nouns are not omitted. The passage
72
College Literacy and Learning
Reading to Every Child. 3rd ed. New York:
Macmillan.
Nurss, Joanne R., and Ruth A. Hough. 1992. Reading
and the ESL Student: In What Research Has to Say
About Reading Instruction. 2nd ed. Edited by S. Jay
Samuels and Alan E. Farstrup. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Tierney, Robert J., and John E. Readence. 2000.
Reading Strategies and Practices: A Compendium.
5th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
formance on the Maze are more stringent than
the cloze due to students’ ability to recognize
rather than supply correct answers. Students scoring 60–70 percent are within their instructional
level when reading the text. Above 70 percent, students can read the material independently, but
below 60 percent, students become frustrated
(Harris and Sipay, 1990). Teachers should analyze
why students made errors and design instruction
to meet their needs (Lapp and Flood, 1992).
The Opin is another modification of the cloze
procedure. This assessment requires the use of
only one or two sentences with one or two important words deleted. Students read the sentences, fill in the blanks, and explain their word
choices. ESL students’ explanations for answers
allow the teacher to determine whether the student has learned the rules of language. As with the
Maze, the Opin does not provide specific information about grade-level reading ability (Lapp
and Flood, 1992). Teachers focus on the students’
word choices to evaluate comprehension.
The cloze procedure has several advantages.
First, it is easier and quicker to construct, administer, score, and interpret than some other informal reading assessments. Second, it can be group
administered. Third, it provides a measure of
students’ ability to use semantic (word and sentence meaning) and syntactic (word-order relationships) cues (Nurss and Hough, 1992). However, like most reading assessments, the cloze
procedure has limitations. First, students’ prior
knowledge of the topic and their ability to use
language will influence their performance on the
cloze (Harris and Sipay, 1990). Second, the cloze
provides only limited diagnostic information.
Little can be determined from the cloze concerning students’ decoding strategies or comprehension. Although some teachers believe that cloze
activities help students focus on meaning rather
than pronunciation of words, there is little research to support the use of cloze as a means for
improving comprehension.
Pamela J. Dunston and M. Christina Pennington
College Literacy and Learning
College Literacy and Learning (CLL) is a special
interest group (SIG) of the International Reading Association (IRA), as revised May 2, 1973,
and serves the same international membership
the IRA encompasses. The CLL’s purpose is to
provide for an exchange of ideas and techniques
concerning remedial and developmental reading
and study-skills programs indigenous to twoand four-year colleges and universities in the areas of methods, diagnosis of students’ reading,
and evaluation of effectiveness of programs,
textbooks, and teaching materials. The mission
of CLL is to propose and encourage the adoption
of certain specific qualifications for educators in
college reading and study programs and to act as
a resource body to aid colleges and universities in
implementing or improving reading and study
programs for their students. CLL’s conference
and business meeting is held during the IRA annual conference, which is scheduled during the
final days of April and into the beginning of May.
For CLL to maintain a SIG status with IRA, a
minimum of 100 CLL members who are also
IRA members must be present.
In order to extend CLL’s exchange of ideas and
techniques, educators and researchers in the
fields of college developmental literacy and study
skills are encouraged to submit articles to the following publications: Journal of College Literacy
and Learning, Innovative Learning Strategies
(ILS), and NewsNotes. The Journal of College Literacy and Learning is an annual, refereed publication related to college and post-secondary
reading and writing improvement. Four copies
of fifteen- to twenty-page manuscripts are submitted to the journal’s editor. Copies of the Journal of College Literacy and Learning are distributed at the annual CLL meeting. Innovative
Learning Strategies is a biennial, refereed yearbook. Authors are encouraged to submit four
See Also
Informal Reading Inventory
References
Harris, Albert J., and Edward R. Sipay. 1990. How to
Increase Reading Ability: A Guide to Developmental
and Remedial Methods. 9th ed. New York:
Longman.
Lapp, Diane, and James Flood. 1992. Teaching
73
College Reading and Learning Association
given biannually in the following categories:
Outstanding Dissertation, Outstanding Service,
Outstanding Writing, and Dedication and Commitment to the Field of College Reading and
Study Skills. Nominations are submitted to the
awards chair for committee review. Plaques are
distributed to the winners at the CLL conference
business meeting. Contact information for the
organization is available through the listserv and
on the web site (available: http://www.ucollege.
uc.edu/cll).
Missy Laine
College Reading
and Learning Association
The College Reading and Learning Association
(CRLA) was founded in 1966 and is the oldest
learning-assistance association in the United
States. CRLA is an organization of student-centered professionals (faculty, staff, and administrators) active in the fields of reading, learning assistance, developmental education, and tutorial
services at the college/adult level. The goals of
CRLA are to provide media for dialogue among
professionals, to cooperate and coordinate with
related professional organizations, to increase the
tools available to improve student learning, to act
to ensure an environment where effective learning can take place, and to provide information
and consultants to bodies enacting legislation directly related to college reading, learning assistance, developmental education, and tutorial
services. Participation in CRLA activities promotes the sharing of ideas and concerns through
networking with those in the field. Membership
in the organization is international, with most
members in the United States and Canada.
CRLA holds an annual fall conference, which
provides opportunities for networking and professional development through participation in
preconference institutes, concurrent sessions,
round tables, and special interest group (SIG) activities. These conferences bring in keynote
speakers who are leaders in the related fields. The
conferences provide opportunities to interact
with experts in the field during structured events
such as Lunch with a Mentor and preconference
institutes with featured speakers and during lessstructured social events such as the Newcomers
Reception and the nightly hospitality suite.
College Literacy and Learning aids colleges and
universities in setting up reading programs for their
students (Planetworks)
copies of their articles pertinent to college-level
reading programs and strategies that enhance
students’ academic success and to include: a description of program models, a discussion of
successful instructional strategies/materials, and
a research report, if available. This journal may
be purchased at the CLL annual conference or by
contacting the ILS editor.
NewsNotes is the College Literacy and Learning newsletter, which includes information on
contacting administrative officers and committee chairs, announcements, important events notices, CLL conference information, and short articles on ideas for the college classroom that
cover such topics as strategies, activities, and assistance for struggling students. Presenters from
the CLL conference are encouraged to submit a
brief summary of their conference presentation.
NewsNotes is mailed to the membership biannually. To submit information, contact the NewsNotes chair.
College Literacy and Learning Awards are
74
College Reading Association
for the group was college developmental reading
and study skills; its original members were located in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.
Since then, however, CRA’s scope has expanded to
include literacy professionals interested in one or
more of its four divisions. Membership has expanded as well; most of CRA’s approximately 500
individual members and 800 institutional members are located in North America.
CRA achieves its purposes in three major
ways. First, the organization sponsors an annual
conference lasting two and a half days, usually
Thursday through Sunday in late October or
early November. The conference agenda always
includes featured sessions led by respected literacy-education scholars, along with symposia,
workshops, and many individual sessions.
CRA also sponsors several scholarly publications. Its quarterly journal, Reading Research and
Instruction, is found in many college libraries. (In
1970–1984, the journal was called Reading
World. Prior to 1970, its title was Journal of the
Reading Specialist.) Conference Proceedings were
published in 1961–1970. In 1989, CRA decided
to begin publishing papers from its conferences
again; an annual Yearbook has been published
since that time. The organization has sponsored
occasional monographs over the years as well.
(Yearbooks and many of the monographs are
available to nonmembers via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service.)
Finally, CRA’s awards program helps to
achieve its overall purposes. The organization
currently gives annual awards for outstanding
dissertation, outstanding master’s research, lifetime achievement, research and scholarship, and
service to the organization. Any student may
submit work for the dissertation or master’s research awards, which are adjudicated by the Research Committee. CRA members nominate
people for the other awards, a process overseen
by the Awards Committee.
CRA’s web site provides general information
about the organization, a list of current officers,
information about conferences, and more. Resources also include Literacy Cases On-Line,
available at http://literacy.okstate.edu.
Nancy Padak
CRLA annually publishes three newsletters and
two editions of the Journal of College Reading and
Learning (JCRL). CRLA has also published The
Tutor Training Handbook and, in conjunction
with H and H Publishing, Starting a Learning
Center Monograph. CRLA established the International Tutor Certification Program in 1989 to
provide professional standards for tutor training
as well as a coherent tutor-training curriculum.
Over 400 programs have been certified at up to
three levels, resulting in increased tutor motivation, rewards for tutor accomplishments, and visibility for the certified program. More recently,
CRLA established the International Mentoring
Certification Program. Both programs provide a
framework for those institutions beginning or revamping tutoring or mentoring programs.
CRLA encourages its members to form state
or regional associations; some groups elect officers and are formally organized as chapters,
whereas other groups are led by CRLA-appointed directors. More information about the
College Reading and Learning Association, including contacts for state and regional associations, can be accessed via the web site (available:
http://www.crla.net).
Susan Deese-Roberts
College Reading Association
The College Reading Association (CRA) is a professional, educational, not-for-profit organization devoted to the purpose of fostering and promoting directly or indirectly the growth and
development of the teaching and learning
processes related to reading at all levels (CRA,
Constitution and Bylaws, 1993). CRA sponsors
four divisions: Adult Learning, Clinical Education, College Education, and Teacher Education.
Members may be affiliated with one, several, or
no divisions.
CRA began in 1958 when a group of college
reading professors met at Temple University in
Philadelphia to explore the possibility of forming
a professional organization for colleagues in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. The professors decided to survey colleagues, and when they
learned that others shared their interest, they organized CRA’s first conference, drew up a constitution for the fledgling organization, and sought
not-for-profit status, which was granted in 1963
(Alexander and Strode, 1999). The original focus
References
Alexander, J. Estill, and Susan L. Strode. 1999. History
of the College Reading Association, 1958–1998.
Carrollton, GA: College Reading Association.
75
Comics
College Reading Association. 1993. Constitution
and Bylaws. Carrollton, GA: College Reading
Association.
Comics
Two types of comics are addressed in the literature in literacy—cartoon or comic strips, such as
those found in daily newspapers, and comic
books, presenting action or adventure stories in
cartoon format. Both comic strips and comic
books have been recommended as alternative
texts to motivate and instruct students. Comics
and cartoons have been used as instructional
materials to foster language skills, provide values
clarification, and promote critical thinking.
Comic books have also been recommended as a
way to teach students the techniques found in
narrative, such as Spider-Man episodes that can
be analyzed to study foreshadowing, dramatic
fiction narration, flashback, irony, symbolism,
metaphor, and allusion (Palumbo, 1979). John
Elliott (1985) pointed out that comics are a
powerful medium as they combine the verbal
and the pictorial. Students can be taught how
the comic conveys its message, thereby enhancing their understanding of the techniques of
other media.
Research on the benefits of using comic books
to enhance vocabulary and comprehension has
shown mixed results. John Guthrie (1978) found
that good readers made similar gains on a standardized reading test when they read either
books or comics, but that poor readers did not.
Richard Campbell (1977) tested the effects of using high-interest comic books with fourth
graders and found some gains in the students’
vocabulary and comprehension compared to
those who did not read comic books.
Comic books and their readers have also been
studied as a recreational or informal literacy
practice. Jeffrey Brown (1997) identified preadolescent and adolescent boys as the primary readers of comic books. Brown interviewed boys at
comic book stores, shopping malls, and comic
book conventions. He found that young males
read comic books for social reasons, for a sense
of community with the characters and the narrative world or with other comic book readers.
Boys read comic books to gain prestige among
other boys, to feel a sense of kinship with comic
book artists and their characters, to emulate
Comics are among the types of literature that can
motivate children to read (Michael Siluk)
moral codes of conduct, and to find comfort in a
world of family turmoil. Boys had intense emotional involvement with the characters they followed and used these characters as role models
for forming their gender identity.
Comics have been criticized for their sex role
stereotyping of both males and females. Females appear less frequently than males in
comics and often remain within the home in
stereotypical roles (Brabant and Mooney,
1986). Comic book superheroes present stereotypical representations of society’s notions of
what a man should be—powerful, tough, independent, resourceful, and dashing. Hence,
teachers may wish to teach students who read
comics to read them critically, and deconstruct
their gendered messages.
Barbara J. Guzzetti
See Also
Critical Literacy; Gender and Reading; Popular
Culture
References
Brabant, Sarah, and Linda Mooney. 1986. “Sex Role
Stereotyping in the Sunday Comics: Ten Years
Later.” Sex Roles 14 (3):412–418.
Brown, Jeffrey. 1997. New Heroes: Gender, Race,
Fans, and Comic Book Superheroes. Ph.D. diss.,
76
Commercial Reading Programs
University of Toronto, Canada. Diss., Abstracts International 59 (06) 1818. (AAT NQ27882).
Campbell, Richard W. 1977. Using Comic Books as an
Alternative Supplement to the Basal Reading
Program at Albert Sidney Johnston Elementary
School. ERIC Document Reproduction Service,
ED 141 797.
Elliott, John. 1985. The Study of, and through, Comic
Books in the Language Classroom. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, ED 263 747.
Guthrie, John. 1978. “Research Views: Comics.” The
Reading Teacher 32 (3):376–378.
Palumbo, Donald. October 1979. “The Use of Comics
as an Approach to Introducing the Techniques
and Terms of Narrative to Novice Readers.” Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Popular
Culture Association in the South, Louisville,
Kentucky.
letter names and each accompanying sound as
well as groupings of letters into syllables. In addition, there were often alphabet verses, with each
one illustrating a specific letter. Sentences from
the Bible were also frequently included as an aid
to teach a variety of moral principles.
During the latter part of the nineteenth century, a large number of graded commercial reading series were developed and published. Of
these, easily the most famous and most influential was the McGuffey reader (Westerhoff, 1978).
These distinctive reading books were among the
first commercial reading materials to be both
grade-level specific and organized according to
increasing difficulty of the material. The contents were generally oriented toward moralistic
themes and provided information that was intended to inspire patriotic feelings in students.
The McGuffey readers are also noted for their
first extended use of various types of the emerging genre of American literature.
The early part of the twentieth century saw increased interest in the teaching of reading as well
as the beginning of the professional training of
classroom teachers in reading. The literacy work
by such individuals as Edmund Huey, Arthur
Gates, and William S. Gray began to be reflected
in the commercial reading materials of this period. Most notably, these changes included a new
emphasis on the integration of reading with various other school subjects, the need to teach
silent versus oral reading, and the adjustment of
reading instruction to meet individual differences in students.
Following World War I, a number of factors
strongly influenced the development of commercial reading materials. Of particular note was
the development of a variety of standardized
reading tests that could measure in a very direct
manner the relative effectiveness of various types
of reading materials. To a large degree, the results
of these tests affected both the format and the
content of many commercial reading programs.
Whereas authors of classroom reading materials
had previously felt little constraint over how they
organized and developed their products, they
now began to see test results as a clear determiner of their products. In addition, the work of
educational philosophers such as John Dewey
began to shape the format and content of many
commercial reading materials. Emphasis shifted
from the use of a series of readers toward a wider
Commercial Reading Programs
Commercial reading programs can be defined as
those published literacy materials that are specifically designed for the teaching of reading. Traditionally, commercial reading programs have included a wide range of components, such as
student readers, workbooks, and supplemental
instructional aids, that is, arts and craft activities,
library books, and various types of technology
aids. The intended use of these commercial reading programs varies, ranging from a complete
reading curriculum to a supplemental part of the
total reading program. Controversial issues associated with commercial reading programs have
involved their content, their use in the classroom, and their cost.
Historical Background of
Commercial Reading Materials
The use of commercial reading materials has had
a long and storied history in reading education.
Almost since the earliest formal teaching of reading, there have been some types of commercially
developed reading books available (Smith, 1934).
In the latter part of the seventeenth and into the
eighteenth century, commercial reading materials were already evident in the public schools.
These early commercial reading materials were
almost always based on religious or moral
themes. The dominant reading textbook of this
period was the New England Primer, which, in a
variety of editions and formats, was eventually
published in more than twenty-five editions. The
lesson format consisted of learning individual
77
Commercial Reading Programs
Advice books were a kind of commercial reading material common in the nineteenth century (John Frost, Easy
Exercises, 1839, p. 21)
basic readers, or basals, these commercial reading materials often centered on events that occurred in the lives of typical middle-class children and their families. Of particular importance
during this time was the introduction and development of teacher’s manuals that frequently
contained detailed instructions on the teaching
of reading. This period also saw a significant increase in the supplemental materials developed
for the reading teacher. Along with the basic
reader, supplements frequently included workbooks, skill exercises, library materials, and various arts and crafts activities. This trend of increasing diversity in supplemental reading
materials continues in today’s commercial reading programs.
If a common theme could be identified in
current reading programs, it would be the emphasis on the use of a wide variety of both traditional and contemporary literature. Typically,
these commercial reading materials have been
influenced by the latest developments in technology, such as the personal computer and the
Internet. Controversial issues related to current
variety of reading materials. These included library books, magazines, and other types of popular literature. Commercial reading materials
were selected according to the individual interests of students, and thus a wide range of reading
resources was found in the typical classroom
reading program. Problems with the use of commercial reading materials in this manner were
quickly evident. Of particular concern was the
lack of available reading materials, especially
those related to a single topic or individual student interest. In addition, teachers were concerned about the adequate provision of needed
reading skills and related opportunities for
meaningful assessment procedures. There was
also the added burden of higher cost associated
with this approach. Although most schools gradually moved back to a basic reading series for
primary instruction, this concept was to
reemerge in a variety of forms, most notably in
the “individualized” approach to reading.
The period surrounding World War II saw the
emergence of reading programs most typified by
the “Dick and Jane” readers. Also referred to as
78
Commercial Reading Programs
commercial reading materials involve the appropriate use of ethnic literature, whether to use
complete or altered text material, and the basic
role of these textbooks in an effective classroom
literacy program.
teacher’s guide, the result is a fast-paced teaching
model that doesn’t take into account whether
students have actually learned the information.
Teachers are assumed to have taught well if they
have taught the lesson, and students are assumed
to have learned if they have responded with the
predetermined answers (position taken by the
National Council of Teachers of English, 1989,
cited in Issues and Trends).
Other content issues include concerns regarding whether images and information about
women and minorities are presented accurately.
Many of the basal anthologies used in classrooms
contain literature that is not equally affirming for
all social groups and in fact tends to represent traditional white middle- and upper-class families.
It has also been suggested that publishers’ attempts to be more multiculturally inclusive have
resulted in new updated illustrations that give the
illusion of ethnic representation while maintaining a story line that is culturally biased toward
middle-class white America’s values and ideas.
Adding to the questions regarding content of
commercial reading programs is concern about
whether the typical excerpts found in basals are
actually faithful to the intended meaning and integrity of the original unabridged versions.
More recently, the emergence of several computer-based commercial reading programs has
given rise to more question and controversy.
Many educators feel that these programs, which
are usually based on an extrinsic reward system,
are not giving students a solid foundation for
lifelong reading. Frequently, these programs provide motivational push by rewarding students as
they move up levels and accumulate points by
reading as many books as possible. Many educators feel that students are reading just carefully
enough to answer the basic knowledge and content questions that typically accompany each
book and are not reading with the depth that is
required for higher-order thinking skills such as
analysis and interpretation. Other controversial
issues regarding computer-based reading programs include cost to schools and book availability. Students are required to choose literature
that is supported by the program because it
comes with an accompanying computer-based
assessment tool. Other books go unread, and decisions to purchase new books are based on
whether they are supported by the program
rather than on qualities of good literature.
Controversial Issues Related
to Commercial Reading Materials
Controversial issues continue to surround the
use of commercial reading programs, among
them questions about their content, their use in
the classroom, ethics in publishing, and high
costs to schools. The basal reader, one of the
most commonly used types of commercial reading programs, has long been at the center of the
controversy. More recently, the rise of computerbased commercial reading programs has only
added to the controversy over effective use of
commercial reading materials in the classroom.
Some believe that the basic role of the teacher as
an instructional leader is being seriously challenged today by various forms of technology, especially the personal computer. Recent advances
such as the development of books on computers
and sophisticated search techniques related to
the Internet have only added to this current controversy over the primary role of commercial
reading materials in an effective classroom reading program.
Much of the controversy has been caused by
the content and sequence of lessons included in
many of the teacher guides that are designed to
accompany basal-reading anthologies. Suggested
instructional plans tend to dramatically limit the
volume of actual in-school reading, despite evidence that extensive time spent reading and writing is what nourishes the development of literacy. Basal-reading programs tend to limit
student reading time in order to allow more time
for extension activities that include workbook
pages and skill sheets. A six-week unit might focus on just one single book. It is argued that
basal-reading anthologies just don’t contain
enough reading material to develop high levels of
reading proficiency in children (Allington,
2001). It has also been suggested that the sequencing of skills in a basal-reading series exists
not because this is how children learn to read but
simply because of the logistics of developing a
series of lessons that can be taught in sequence.
Many educators feel that when teachers attempt
to complete each lesson as presented in the
79
Community Literacy
Community Literacy
More controversy stems from the fact that the
basal industry is big business, producing sales of
more than $400 million annually (Shannon and
Goodman, 1994). This fact raises ethical issues
regarding whose interests are being met. In the
hopes of meeting the needs of many different
schools with many different philosophies, commercial reading programs tend to include an
eclectic assortment of components. Although
this inclusivity attempts to meet the needs of differing beliefs and pedagogies, it is not necessarily
based on sound research or theoretical underpinnings. Because they are eager to make a difference in reading education, parents, teachers,
administrators, and politicians tend to purchase
and implement commercial reading programs
long before the ideas contained therein have
been sufficiently tested or validated (Mosenthal
and Kamil, 1996).
Richard Robinson and Laurie Kingsley
Community literacy refers to adult literacy programs in which members of the community work
with literacy mentors (who are usually university
based) to resolve personal economic, social, or political problems through written and spoken methods. Such problem solving (focused on, for example, issues of youth and respect or problems of
urban unemployment) may result in several different kinds of texts, including performative scripts,
poetry and narratives, and highly polished
brochures geared toward wide audiences. Distinguished from the discourses of advocacy and selfexpression, community literacy is designed to link
personal and public action with probing reflection.
In creating a “local public” around community
questions, it continues a tradition of democratic
discourse (Hauser, 1999). The practice of community literacy, as described by Wayne Peck, Linda
Flower, and Lorraine Higgins (1995), is also a hybrid discourse (a discourse that uses several dialects
or multimedia to serve its purpose). Community
literacy can be defined by four critical features: It is
focused on intercultural dialogue, motivated by a
vision of social change, supported by a strategic
view of writing, and shaped by a process of inquiry.
Community literacy is a view to literate action that
stems from Deweyan pragmatism, Freirian calls
for justice, and a rhetorical, social-cognitive research-based form of problem solving; it is also a
form of inquiry that focuses on the consequences
of intercultural, hybrid literate acts.
Differing from functional literacy (the ability
to read and write), which asks participants to
gain expertise in the dominant discourse to survive in the world at large, community literacy focuses on literate acts (booklets, letters, performances, web pages, and so on) that solve
problems within a specific community context.
Although knowledge of the dominant discourse
can be helpful in this goal, it is not the primary
focus. Differing from expressivist literacy, which
focuses on the free communication of feelings
and perceptions, community literacy is an inquiry-driven problem-solving process that asks
participants to make tough rhetorical choices in
the face of complex and diverse audiences. Expressing feelings and opinions is a necessary part
of this process, but it leads to negotiation and revision of ideas and texts to effect change. Community literacy asks participants to go beyond
their given knowledge by collaborating with oth-
See Also
Basal Readers
References
Allington, Richard C. 2001. What Really Matters for
Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based
Programs. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational
Publishers.
Mosenthal, Peter B., and Michael L. Kamil. 1996.
“Epilogue: Understanding Progress in Reading
Research.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil,
Peter B. Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds.,
Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp.
1013–1046. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
National Council of Teachers of English, Commission
on Reading. 1989. “Basal Readers and the State of
American Reading Instruction: A Call for Action.”
Reprinted in 2000, in Richard D. Robinson,
Michael C. McKenna, and Judy M. Wedman, eds.,
Issues and Trends in Literacy Education, pp.
157–159. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Shannon, Patrick, and Kenneth Goodman, eds. 1994.
Basal Readers: A Second Look. Katonah, NY:
Richard C. Owen Publishers.
Smith, Nila Banton. 1934. American Reading
Instruction. New York: Silver Burdett.
Westerhoff, John H. 1978. McGuffey and His
Readers: Piety, Morality, and Education in
Nineteenth-Century America. Nashville: Abingdon
Press.
80
Community Literacy
ers whose (intercultural) expertise is different
from theirs. Therefore, community literacy is an
intercultural, situated form of problem solving
that draws on multiple kinds of nontraditional
expertise stemming from inner-city teens, single
mothers, and struggling workers (among others).
An example of community literacy in action is
Pittsburgh’s Community Literacy Center. The
Community Literacy Center (CLC) began as a
collaboration between Carnegie Mellon University and Pittsburgh’s Community House (a historic settlement house on the North Side—an
urban, largely African American community).
Plagued by persistent problems of racism, unemployment (resulting in part from the collapse of
the steel industry), poor schooling, police brutality, and gang violence, the North Side was a good
choice for performing situated, intercultural inquiries that used literate acts to enact social
change. At the CLC, mentors from Carnegie Mellon University and local community-based organizations worked with urban teenagers from
local high schools to address problems that have
negatively impacted the youths’ lives. Past issues
have included the police-enforced curfew, the
school-suspension policy, gangs and respect, and
youth unemployment. Teens and mentors collaborate (often across large cultural gaps) to create hybrid rhetorical texts (texts that use their
own home discourse and language but that also
use Standard English to reach a larger audience)
with the goal of effecting positive change. The
culmination of this process is twofold: first, a
publication that is geared both toward those living in the problem and those who have the
power to make changes with the problem; and
second, an exercise called community conversation in which teens perform their texts to a diverse audience to open a problem-solving dialogue as a way to receive feedback on their work
and to move the problem-solving process past
the walls of the CLC.
Community literacy is an intercultural
process. The diverse participants in these literate
acts must learn to cross boundaries of experience, geography, gender, age, discourse, ethnicity,
and class (among other things). The intercultural
nature of community literacy is more than a byproduct of its participant base: widely varied experience and hybrid discourse are seen as a vital
part of the practice and process of problem
analysis and solution. The participants’ goals are
more likely to be reached when everyone’s diverse
expertise is considered in the process of creating
their finished texts. Difference, then, becomes
part of the knowledge from which to build
rhetorically persuasive texts that have a good
chance of affecting the problems they address.
When a mentor and teen work together, this difference can have a generative affect. For example,
teens writing about an experience with gang violence may just wish to tell their story, but the response of the college mentor who fails to get it
pushes such writers to deal with interpretations
they didn’t anticipate. For example, the mentor
could ask: “It seems as if you are saying gangs are
OK. Is that the job you want your text to do?”
The teen could then respond with a different interpretation: “I don’t want people to think that
gangs are good but that kids join gangs for important reasons like respect and protection.” This
process includes further levels of expertise at the
community conversation, where government officials, parents, community workers, academics,
and adults from the community react to the
teens’ texts.
Community literacy is also a strategic process.
Drawing from the theory and research of socialcognitive rhetoric, community literacy helps
writers see their literate acts as a process of goals,
plans, arguments, construction, and negotiation.
As a rhetorical process, community literacy
strives to create texts that are sensitive to audience, context, persuasiveness, and the real possibility of consequences. As a social-cognitive
process, community literacy focuses on the
agency of individual writers who must negotiate
among competing claims, goals, evidence, plans,
and experiences. To help participants navigate
such stormy waters, rhetoric brings strong strategies to the table. For example, mentors and teens
learn to “rival”—to take a rival hypothesis stance
to problems, seeking diverse interpretations that
situate their ideas and literate acts in the complex
contexts of social problems. When teens come to
the CLC with their necessarily bounded experience (which also holds true for the mentors), rival hypothesis thinking can add depth to their
argument. For example, when thinking about the
police-enforced curfew issue, mentors and teens
hypothesized about how diverse people would
see the situation. How did the police interpret the
curfew? Teachers? Parents? Ministers? Local government? Consideration of rivals both widened
81
Comparative Reading
the experience base of the CLC participants and
helped the teens to create stronger arguments
that addressed the viewpoints and experience of
multiple stakeholders in their final text.
Community literacy also focuses on agentdriven writing. Teens and mentors work to create rhetorical artifacts that are then used as persuasive documents geared toward changing
problematic situations. Moreover, this writing
both affects and is affected by the understandings of the teens and the mentors. Writing then
becomes a task on which to focus activity, a
process that engenders learning for teens and
mentors, and an important consequence of the
process itself. Community literacy doesn’t end at
open discussions or with personal writing that
never aims at a wider audience. Instead, the texts
the teens and mentors produce are a type of
rhetorical praxis. For example, the written recommendations about school-suspension policies actually affected the suspension policy for
the school district in question. Moreover, for
teens to have the tangible rhetorical product in
their hands is evidence of their own growing expertise in using rhetorical strategies to solve
problems in their own lives, as well as in their
communities.
Community literacy is also an inquiry. It is in
part a reflective and active process that closely
analyzes the problematic situation with focus on
what it will take to enable more positive consequences. Inquiry is also a process of understanding—of seeing open questions, realizing that social problems are far more complex than our
partial representations grasp, that it is difficult to
engage people in a hybrid discourse and even
more difficult to build understandings that cross
those differences. Part of the inquiry that community literacy supports is not about what to do,
but about how someone else sees the world—and
about what a teen, mentor, or adult can come to
understand through the processes of writing, collaboration, and dialogue. In an inquiry, diverse
literacies are not seen as “bad” or “good” (for example, dominant discourse is not necessarily bad
and oppressive, nor is home dialect always good
and liberating). Rather, these diverse discourses
are seen as vital tools to be used in the teens’ and
mentors’ collaboration to meet given goals.
These inquiries are also situated in local contexts, and their data are the lived experience of
the participants. At the same time, inquiries need
diverse expertise, and collaboration becomes
both a necessity and a process of learning for all
participants.
Community literacy is, in the end, about public deliberation, social change, and praxis. Sharing the ethical and philosophical imperatives of
William James’s and John Dewey’s pragmatism,
Cornel West’s prophetic pragmatism, and Paulo
Freire’s radical critical literacy, community literacy is geared toward real consequences and multidimensional understandings in a complex
world. In this sense, community literacy has
grown from the imperative question of how to
learn across differences of culture, experience,
and values. It is a type of observation-based theory building: given the data, given what we
know, what is the best way to go forward?
Susan Swan and Linda Flower
See Also
Constructivism; Critical Literacy; Diversity; InquiryBased Instruction; Multicultural Literacy;
Scaffolded Literacy Instruction; Social Justice and
Literacies
References
Deans, Thomas. 2000. Writing Partnerships: ServiceLearning in Composition. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Flower, Linda. 1997. Problem-Solving Strategies for
Writing in Classroom and Community. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Flower, Linda, Eleanor Long, and Lorraine Higgins.
2000. Learning to Rival: A Literate Practice for
Intercultural Inquiry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hauser, Gerard A. 1999. Vernacular Voices: The
Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres. Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press.
Peck, Wayne, Linda Flower, and Lorraine Higgins.
1995. “Community Literacy.” College Composition
and Communication 46 (2):199–222.
Comparative Reading
Comparative reading is the scholarly field in
which researchers and theorists undertake the
comparison of reading and related variables
across national and cultural groups. John Downing may be given credit for coining the term
comparative reading in 1969, although William S.
Gray’s earlier work for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) might be identified as the seminal,
although not the first, comparative-reading re82
Comparative Reading
search in the modern era of literacy pedagogy. As
we begin the twenty-first century, the field of
comparative reading will focus initially on two
large multinational comparative-reading achievement studies: the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) undertaken by the International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement (IEA) and the Programme for International Student Achievement
(PISA) as sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Yet given past responses by politicians, journalists,
and even educators to such large-scale projects,
literacy educators need to be fully aware of the acceptable uses of comparative-reading research as
well as potential abuses of such research.
Comparative reading has its roots in the birth
of the field of comparative education. In the
1800s, with the development of national education systems, educators started to examine systems and curricula in other countries. Such a
utilitarian endeavor was designed to inform and
improve local programs and instruction through
the importation and integration of the best pedagogical practices and organizational structures
from prestigious countries such as Switzerland
and Prussia. With the coming of the 1900s, education was viewed as a touchstone for a nation;
hence, comparative education became a method
by which scholars could study the social, economic, and political dynamics of a country as
well as the commonalties and differences between national and cultural groups. Through the
period of World War II, comparative education
continued to focus on the nation-state.
The field of comparative reading traces its
modern history back to the issuance of The
Teaching of Reading by UNESCO in 1949. This
International Bureau of Education survey asked
forty-five national ministries of education to respond to questions about the teaching of reading. Not surprisingly from today’s perspective,
the descriptive responses to the sixteen openended questions seemed to suggest that the definitions of reading and associated variables were
often viewed from different theoretical, cultural,
and practical perspectives from nation to nation.
Cross-national standards for comparative activities did not yet exist. It was with William S.
Gray’s 1953 pamphlets, “Preliminary Survey on
Methods of Teaching Reading and Writing”
(parts 1 and 2), and his pioneering 1956 text, The
Teaching of Reading and Writing, based on his
cross-national interviews, content analyses, and
eye-movement research that a scholarly foundation for the field evolved. In addition, these publications for UNESCO were designed to help literacy leaders, particularly those in developing
nations, to design programs and curriculum for
the delivery of effective reading instruction.
Six years later in 1962, Arthur Foshay and colleagues reported on the UNESCO Institute of
Education project, in which the assessment of
reading achievement of thirteen-year-olds from
twelve nations was one component of what
might be identified as the first carefully designed
comparative study. In 1966, representatives from
around the world came to Paris to attend the
first International Reading Association
(IRA)–sponsored World Congress on Reading.
Then in 1973, the IEA released its ten-nation
comparative literature study report by Alan
Purves, Arthur Foshay, and G. Hanson, along
with its comparative reading-comprehension
study of fifteen countries, reported by Robert
Thorndike. Also in this watershed year, Downing edited Comparative Reading: Cross-National
Studies of Behavior and Processes in Reading and
Writing, a book that was to become the first
comprehensive text in the field of comparative
reading. This critical and empirical analysis of
reading around the world presented both theoretical and methodological underpinnings for
the field of comparative reading, along with case
studies of reading instruction in thirteen countries. With the high visibility provided by the
IEA investigations, the ongoing success of the
World Congresses on Reading and the accompanying proceedings, and Downing’s resolute support for the field in chapters and journal articles, comparative reading began to take on the
nature of an academic specialty.
During the 1980s, the growth of the field can
be observed through the review of the evergrowing number of investigations and case reports covered in Eve Malmquist’s 1982 annotated
bibliography for the IRA, John Hladczuk and
William Eller’s book-length bibliography on
comparative reading in 1987, and in another
work by John Hladczuk, William Eller, and
Sharon Hladczuk in 1989 on worldwide literacy
and illiteracy, as well as annotations in the Annual Summary of Investigations relating to reading. Also in the 1980s, scholars such as Eve
83
Comparative Reading
Malmquist and Hans Grundin, as well as John
Downing, presented models for comparativereading research and theory.
The 1990s saw the release of several monographs and texts on a new cross-national study by
the IEA (Elley, 1994) with the participation of
thirty-two school systems from around the world.
In addition, the OECD sponsored the International Assessment of Adult Literacy in twenty
countries or regions, which for the first time provided reliable cross-national data on adult literacy. Finally, the in the spirit of Downing’s earlier
work, case studies continued, such as Margaret
Harris and Giyoo Hatano’s (1999) edited work
covering cross-linguistic factors in learning to
read and write in nine countries and John Hladczuk and William Eller’s (1992) portrayal of instructional systems in twenty-six nations.
Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, two major cross-national studies of “reading
literacy” are underway: the Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA), under the
auspices of the OECD in 2000, and the Progress
in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS),
under the sponsorship of the IEA in 2001. PISA
will focus on fifteen-year-olds who are about to
make the transition from the world of school to
the world of work. PIRLS will focus on fourth
graders (nine- and ten-year-olds) who are moving from the learning-to-read stage to the reading-to-learn stage. Although there are differences
in the design of each study and the developmental levels of the individuals being tested, there are
similarities in assessment procedures, content of
the assessment devices, and perhaps most important, the belief that reading is an interactive, constructive process. Technical reports will be issued
on a regular basis, and information on the
progress of these two endeavors can be found by
visiting the education section or the links in the
OECD’s web site (www.oecd.org).
With a growing body of cross-national comparative studies, national case studies, and other
reports, it becomes ever more important that the
consumers of such literature understand that
there are both positive uses and common problems associated with the academic and pedagogical writings on the topic. Norman Stahl, Bonnie
Higginson, and James King have drawn upon
writings in the field to describe both in depth.
Their recommendations for appropriate uses of
comparative reading include: describing various
approaches to reading instruction, understanding
both similarities and differences in national and
educational cultures, remedying misperceptions
and developing alternative conceptions of a national or cultural group, making decisions based
on “parallel phenomena” observed in other nations, developing broad-based generalizations of
literacy pedagogy across national boundaries, and
training future teachers and reading professionals.
These writers have also warned against misuses of comparative-reading data, including: the
inappropriate use of case building for or against
a local system based on comparative research, the
misinterpretation or misrepresentation of crossnational or cross-cultural findings, the treatment
of the results of a nation’s literacy assessment as
an “Olympic” event in worldwide pedagogical
games, and the practice of either ethnocentrism
or overidentification with another educational
system or culture.
Downing saw the role of comparative reading
as employing cross-cultural research and comparative study to expand both our theoretical
and practical knowledge of the processes of literacy behavior. With this perspective in mind and
with the careful study of comparative-reading
research, literacy educators may come to understand that any well-defined theory of reading
should be formulated, as appropriate, on constructs that cross traditional national, linguistic,
gender, or cultural boundaries. Further, so as to
promote a more fluid pedagogical worldview in
the profession, both the theory and research of
comparative reading should be an important
cornerstone of both the formal graduate and undergraduate preparation of future teachers and
literacy specialists and the in-service or certification renewal programs for practicing teachers.
Norman A. Stahl
See Also
Reading Assessment; Writing Assessment
References
Downing, John, ed. 1973. Comparative Reading:
Cross-National Studies of Behavior and Processes in
Reading and Writing. New York: Macmillan. Reissued 1979. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms
International.
Elley, Warwick B. 1994. The IEA Study of Reading
Literacy: Achievement and Instruction in ThirtyTwo School Systems. Cambridge: Pergamon.
Gray, William S. 1956. The Teaching of Reading and
Writing. Paris: UNESCO.
84
Comprehension Strategies
Traditional Comprehension Skills and the
New Comprehension Strategies
Twenty years ago, comprehension was taught as
a sequence of separate skills identified in the
basal-reading programs that dominated American reading instruction. Scott Paris and his colleagues (1991) identified skills as automatic procedures that readers used without being aware of
them. Comprehension skills were traditionally
“taught” by having students complete workbook
pages in which they chose “the main idea” of a
paragraph from one of four alternatives or reorganized sentences in the correct sequence of a
paragraph they had just read. It was expected or
assumed that through repeated practice, students would learn these skills and apply them to
the new texts they read. There was no assumption of flexibility in the use of the skills for different texts, tasks, and purposes. There was no
assumption that readers thought about what
they were doing or reflected on whether the skill
was the appropriate one to use.
Nevertheless, a classic study by Dolores
Durkin (1978–1979) demonstrated that students
were not taught the skills effectively. Durkin
showed that by following the directions in the
basal-reading programs, teachers mostly “tested”
the skills rather than “taught” them. In other
words, students were directed to “find the main
idea” and to “create a summary of a story,” but
there was no help or assistance for students who
could not complete these activities on their own.
Further, even if students did complete the activities appropriately, it was often through unconscious awareness or luck rather than through
conscious and deliberate planning and implementation. There was nothing intentional in either the teacher’s instructions or the students’
behaviors. Thus, Durkin convinced a generation
of reading researchers that many students were
unlikely to learn comprehension skills well
enough to apply them to their daily reading.
Durkin concluded that the “mentioning” rather
than teaching of skills was a major problem in
comprehension instruction in American schools.
Durkin’s research presaged work on strategy
instruction, in which students are explicitly
taught how to use a number of strategies to improve their comprehension of text. Unlike skills,
strategies are defined as “conscious, intentional
procedures under the control of readers.” Research conducted over the past twenty years sug-
Harris, Margaret, and Giyoo Hatano, eds. 1999.
Learning to Read and Write: A Cross-Linguistic
Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hladczuk, John, and William Eller. 1987. Comparative
Reading: An International Bibliography. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
———. 1992. International Handbook of Reading
Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Hladczuk, John, William Eller, and Sharon
Hladczuk. 1989. Literacy/Illiteracy in the World:
A Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Malmquist, Eve. 1982. Handbook on Comparative
Reading: An Annotated Bibliography. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Stahl, Norman A., Bonnie C. Higginson, and James
R. King. 1993. “Appropriate Use of Comparative
Literacy Research in the 1990s.” Journal of Reading
37 (2):104–113.
Comprehension Strategies
Comprehension strategies are procedures that active readers use to improve their comprehension
of text (Report of the National Reading Panel,
2000). For example, readers may make predictions
about an upcoming text, they may ask themselves
questions about what they are reading, or they
may summarize a text they just read. Each of these
procedures or activities is considered to be a comprehension strategy that readers use to help them
deepen their comprehension. Most researchers
refer to strategies as conscious processes under
the direct control of readers. They are deliberate,
goal directed, and open to inspection in the sense
that readers are aware of what they are doing and
why they are doing it. Over time, however, and
with practice, comprehension strategies can become automatic procedures that readers use
without conscious planning.
A number of strategies have been researched
thoroughly and have been shown to improve
comprehension. These include strategies such as
identifying existing prior knowledge, visualizing,
inferring, summarizing, synthesizing, predicting,
determining importance, generating questions,
monitoring comprehension, and repairing comprehension breakdowns. The value of these
strategies is that they are useful for developing
instructional procedures and help readers become independent of the teacher (Report of the
National Reading Panel, 2000).
85
Comprehension Strategies
gests that readers benefit from being taught the
conscious and intentional use of strategies.
Strategies are always goal directed. They are applied thoughtfully and with consideration of
better comprehension. In addition, strategies
emphasize reasoning, problem solving, and critical-thinking abilities. Strategies are also flexible
and adaptable. Readers must learn when and
where to apply a particular strategy. If that strategy does not work, readers try another. Finally,
strategies imply metacognitive awareness. Effective strategy users are aware of the strategies they
are using, and they reflect on their reading and
their level of understanding.
Still another contribution to developing notions of comprehension strategies comes from a
body of research on metacognitive strategies.
Linda Baker and Ann Brown (1984) summarized
research that demonstrated convincingly that
skilled readers are aware of whether they understand what they are reading. Further, skilled
readers know what to do when they do not understand. They have developed a number of
strategies that they effectively employ when
comprehension breaks down for them. They use
these strategies flexibly, and they adapt them
when needed for different tasks and purposes.
Less-skilled readers, by contrast, are not aware of
whether they understand or not, and they do not
have a set of metacognitive strategies to use when
comprehension breaks down. However, an important finding from this body of work is that
less-skilled readers can be taught to be metacognitive when they read. When they are taught,
their comprehension improves significantly.
Genesis of Comprehension Strategies
The term comprehension strategies comes from
an amalgamation of related bodies of research
on cognitive and metacognitive strategies. The
foundational body of theory and research for
both cognitive and metacognitive strategies is
drawn from cognitive psychology. This theory
and research emphasizes the active, as opposed
to the passive, nature of the comprehension
process. Beginning in the 1970s, researchers concluded that comprehension was not a passive
process in which readers simply “take in” the exact meaning in a text. Cognitive theory and research suggested that readers construct mental
representations of what they read. These representations result from an interaction between
readers’ prior knowledge and the new knowledge
derived from the text. The resulting mental representations are not exact replications of the author’s intended message but are instead representations based on the range of meanings
included in the text.
Another important body of research informing comprehension strategies is work conducted
in the 1980s on cognitive strategies. This work
was designed to identify strategies that improve
attention, memory, and learning. Claire Weinstein and Richard Mayer (1987) identified several cognitive or learning strategies that improve
learning. These strategies determine how much
is learned and how well what is learned is organized in memory. These strategies range from
basic rehearsal strategies such as repetition to
complex elaboration strategies such as summarizing. Thus, there is a clear overlap between
comprehension strategies and cognitive or learning strategies identified by researchers.
Comprehension Strategy Instruction
According to the National Reading Panel (2000),
an important finding of reading research is that
comprehension strategies can be effectively
taught. When teachers successfully teach comprehension strategies, students’ comprehension
improves. This is especially true for less-skilled
readers.
The seminal work on comprehension strategy
instruction was a series of studies conducted and
summarized by Ann Palincsar and Ann Brown
(1984). These researchers developed an instructional program consisting of the teaching of a set
of four strategies: predicting, summarizing, asking questions, and clarifying hard parts of text.
They taught these strategies directly to lessskilled middle-school students. As part of the instruction, teachers modeled the use of the strategies and provided students with abundant help
and support as they learned the strategies. Students worked in peer teaching groups and practiced the use of the strategies until they could use
them independently. The Report of the National
Reading Panel (2000) reviewed several additional
studies using these reciprocal teaching strategies.
Evidence from their integrative review suggested
that students who learned reciprocal teaching
strategies were able to transfer their use of the
techniques to other texts they read. In general,
the research showed that teaching comprehen86
Comprehension Strategies
sion strategies improved students’ comprehension of text.
Other studies also tested the effectiveness of
other kinds of comprehension strategy instruction. Gerald Duffy and his colleagues (1987)
taught teachers to explicitly discuss the mental
processes and cognitive strategies involved in
comprehension. Specifically, they explicitly
taught students what strategy they were learning,
why they were learning it, why it was important,
and how and when they could use it as they read.
They found that this type of direct explanation
of the reasoning and problem-solving nature of
strategic reading improved students’ awareness
of their strategy use and their comprehension.
Another approach to comprehension strategies is identified as transactional strategy instruction (Pressley and Woloshyn, 1995). This
instruction is similar to the direct explanation of
comprehension strategies used by Duffy and his
colleagues in that the reasoning and problemsolving nature of strategies are discussed. In
transactional strategy instruction, however,
strategies are learned not through the direct explanation of the teacher but through the dialogue that goes on between the teacher and students and among the students themselves. Thus,
transactional strategy instruction is collaborative; learning about the strategies primarily takes
place through the interactive transaction among
students in the classroom.
Despite the differences in the instructional
programs using comprehension strategies, some
common elements of comprehension strategy
instruction can be gleaned. The method occurs
when teachers: (1) model or directly explain the
strategies, (2) provide students with guided practice in the use of the strategies through teacherstudent and student-student discussions, (3)
provide students with independent practice in
the use of the strategies, and (4) discuss the flexible and adaptable use of the strategies for different purposes.
sion strategies to describe not only what readers
do to help them comprehend texts but also what
teachers do to help students comprehend texts.
Thus, there is more than one use of the term
comprehension strategies in the literature and in
educational settings. Usually, comprehension
strategies refer to specific strategies such as predicting, summarizing, visualizing, monitoring
comprehension, and so forth. These strategies
are under the direct control of readers. Readers
learn how to apply the strategies to their reading
of a text. However, sometimes authors use the
term comprehension strategies to refer to specific
activities or procedures that teachers use to help
their students improve their comprehension of
particular texts. Some examples of such strategies include the group-constructed KWL (Know,
Want to Know, and Learned), story maps,
graphic organizers, and cooperative learning.
These are more like comprehension aids and instructional activities than strategies in the cognitive sense. The teacher completes the activity directly with students. As a result of completing the
strategy or activity, students understand a particular text better.
What is the difference between the two kinds
of comprehension strategies? Reader or learner
strategies are taught so that the students themselves control the strategies. Students learn how
to use the strategies and apply them to different
texts they read. There is an assumption that students can transfer the strategies from one text to
another. By contrast, teacher strategies are activities that teachers complete with their students.
Most often, there is no assumption or expectation that students will learn how to use these
strategies on their own when they are reading
without the teacher’s help.
Recently, a proliferation of books has come on
the market to help teachers teach reading comprehension to their K–12 students. These books
often include both reader and teacher strategies
under the term comprehension strategies. However, there is a difference in who controls the use
of the strategy. The advantage of reader or learner
strategies is that the reader or learner exercises
the control, as opposed to teacher strategies controlled by the teacher. So long as teachers understand the purposes and uses of the two kinds of
strategies, they can design appropriate comprehension strategy instruction for their students.
Janice A. Dole
Differences between Comprehension
Strategies and Teacher Strategies
in the Teacher-Practice Literature
Comprehension strategies have been defined in
much of the cognitive literature as strategies
readers use to actively process text to improve
comprehension. The educational literature is
also replete with the use of the term comprehen87
Computer-Assisted Instruction
grams or on-line resources that are designed to
teach skills to students (CAI as teacher), to tutor
students as they practice skills (CAI as tutor), or
to serve as a resource tool (CAI as tool) as students engage in literate acts.
See Also
KWL and KWL+; Metacognition; National Reading
Panel; Reading-Comprehension Processes
References
Baker, Linda, and Ann L. Brown. 1984. “Metacognitive Skills and Reading.” In P. David Pearson, ed.,
Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 353–394. New
York: Longman.
Duffy, Gerald G., Laura Roehler, Eva Sivan, Gary
Rackliffe, Cassandra Book, Michael S. Meloth,
Linda G. Vavurs, Roy Wesselman, Joyce Putnam,
and Dina Bassiri. 1987. “Effects of Explaining the
Reasoning Associated with Using Reading Strategies.” Reading Research Quarterly 22:347–368.
Durkin, Dolores. 1978–1979. “What Classroom Observations Reveal about Reading Comprehension.” Reading Research Quarterly 14:518–544.
National Reading Panel. 2000. Report of the National
Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. Report
of the Subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Palincsar, Ann S., and Ann L. Brown. 1984. “Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and
Comprehension-Monitoring Activities.” Cognition
and Instruction 2:117–175.
Paris, Scott G., Barbara A. Wasik, and Julianne C.
Turner. 1991. “The Development of Strategic
Readers.” In Rebecca Barr, P. David Pearson,
Michael Kamil, and Peter Mosenthal, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 609–640. New York:
Longman.
Pressley, Michael, and Vera Woloshyn. 1995. Cognitive
Strategy Instruction That Really Improves Children’s Academic Performance. Cambridge: Brookline Books.
Weinstein, Claire F., and Richard F. Mayer. 1987. “The
Teaching of Learning Strategies.” In Merlin C.
Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching,
pp. 315–327. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
CAI as Teacher
Some early and current versions of CAI teaching
applications are based on behaviorist learning
theories that rely on direct instruction and students’ mastery of a scope and sequence of performance-based learning objectives. Students are
expected to work their way independently
through progressively difficult levels of skills
mastery until they have successfully completed
and mastered all of the skills included in a course
of study. This approach is based on the assumption that students will learn basic literacy skills
and strategies in an on-screen instructional environment that provides them with initial instruction followed by a learning stimulus (learning
task) and a performance response (feedback on
correctness).
Early versions of CAI teaching drill-and-practice applications were primarily print based and
resembled a series of successively more difficult
worksheets on the screen. Indeed, all aspects of
the programs, from instruction to practice and
assessment, were print based. Programs were also
designed to branch or recycle students through
screens that presented various levels of worksheets in response to their scores on learning
tasks. For example, if a student demonstrated a
below-mastery score (less than 80 percent) on a
Level 5 phonics practice worksheet designed to
teach initial consonant blends, the program
would automatically re-present an instructional
sequence or cycle of remedial lessons on initial
consonants at Level 4. Programs were designed
to provide additional practice and assessment
until students demonstrated mastery at a targeted level. Educators could periodically check
students’ progress as reported in printouts of
whole-class or individual-student scores.
CAI drill-and-practice teaching programs are
primarily designed to serve as stand-alone programs that do not intersect with classroom instruction. Many programs are housed in a computer lab that students are scheduled to visit on a
weekly or monthly basis. Therefore, the lessons
are more likely to be aligned with a preprogrammed scope and sequence or with state
Computer-Assisted Instruction
Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is based
upon the notion that computer applications can
be used in ways that support K–12 students’
learning. Educators first began to consider the
role of computers and computer-assisted instruction with the advent of portable and affordable microcomputers such as the Apple II during
the 1970s (Alessi and Trollip, 1991). The activities included in CAI programs have changed over
the years to reflect the prevalent learning theories of different educational eras. The majority of
literacy-related CAI applications involve pro88
Computer-Assisted Instruction
Students using a computer in the library (Elizabeth Crews)
about the /at/ family”). Special-needs students
are frequently able to use computer-tutoring
programs to help in their academic development. Features of elementary-grade programs
are likely to include various types and levels of
tutoring support in key literacy areas such as decoding, automatic word recognition, spelling,
vocabulary acquisition, and comprehension (see
Early Literacy Software).
learning standards than with daily classroom literacy lessons.
CAI as Tutor
CAI tutoring applications are based on constructivist and sociocognitive learning theories that
rely on features of the program to provide support for student learning (see Constructivism).
The purpose of tutoring-oriented CAI applications is to furnish students with additional practice with literacy skills that have been previously
taught by the teacher in the classroom. For example, many tutoring applications for primarygrade children rely on a game-playing format
that involves an animated cartoon figure that appears on-screen. The figure provides information, offers prompts, or reminds students about
how they may navigate through the program.
Feedback on students’ choices as they play literacy-related games is offered through special multimedia effects such as music, animations, or verbal comments (e.g., “That’s wrong. Think about
the first sound you hear” or “Try again, but think
CAI as Tool
CAI serves as an effective tool when it is used to
link students with interactive resources that are
available on demand. When viewed from a sociocognitive perspective, CAI applications are
designed to scaffold student learning. For example, intermediate-level students may utilize CAI
tool supports that involve a variety of resources
such as supplemental text frames or help menus
that pop up on screen. Lynn Anderson-Inman
and Mark Horney (1998) examined a multimedia version of a science textbook that offered
hearing-impaired students with various re89
Concept Instruction with Text
References
Alessi, Stephen M., and Stanley R. Trollip. 1991.
Computer-Based Instruction: Methods and
Development. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Anderson-Inman, Lynn, and Mark Horney. April
1998. “Profiles of Hypertext Readers: Case Studies
from the ElectroText Project.” Paper presented
at the Annual Conference of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
sources that were designed to support their comprehension. Students clicked on buttons that
linked technical or concept-rich words within
on-screen text passages to supplemental screen
animations (e.g., the word orbit is linked to an
animation of a planet orbiting around the sun),
definitions, additional print-based examples, or
an American Sign Language video translation of
text passages.
Text reader utility programs allow students
who are trying to read difficult materials to
download pages of novels or textbooks onto a
computer screen and have the passages read
aloud on demand. Students thinking about a
book may enrich their perception by participating in e-mail or on-line literature discussion
groups. Students’ writing skills are improved
when they use resource tool features of word
processing programs to compose essays.
Teachers who have adequate resources and
training in using computers in the classroom can
bring their enthusiasm to class and create opportunities for CAI in everyday instruction for students of various literacy abilities. CAI tools are
designed to complement and enrich the classroom literacy curriculum for below-average, average, and above-average students. Successful
implementation is likely to depend upon the
classroom teacher to integrate CAI into the overall literacy program. Successful teachers may
model (demonstrate how to use the program),
mentor (support students’ initial encounters
with the program), manage (make sure that all
students have access to the program), and monitor (make sure that students are all benefiting
from the program) students’ use of applications.
Computer technologies are continually becoming more sophisticated, so it is inevitable that the
role of computer-assisted instruction will continue to evolve. On-screen learning environments are likely to become more complex, interactive, and responsive to students’ demonstrated
literacy learning strengths and needs. CAI is also
likely to demand increasingly complex learning
theories, carefully crafted design interface, and
robust connections to literacy instructional programs within classrooms and in extended online learning communities.
Linda D. Labbo and Denise Johnson
Concept Instruction with Text
Concept instruction with text refers to three central aspects of instruction that foster in-depth
conceptual learning of expository text (informational text). Concept instruction with text is defined as providing extensive opportunities for
students to interact with multilayered knowledge, to transform meaning by manipulating information, and to experience optimal challenge
during reading. Conceptual learning from text
occurs when students have formed a mental representation consisting of four elements. Those
elements include basic propositions about the
domain (facts), relations among the propositions
(facts), concepts or generalizations that broadly
relate propositions to each other, and a network
of concepts. Students with conceptual knowledge can use this network flexibly to solve problems or to serve as an analogy for new learning.
This flexible network and all its parts constitute
an explanatory understanding of the domain (a
network of interrelated concepts that serve as a
critical component in a discipline of knowledge).
For example, when reading an expository text
about an ecological science theme, it is important for students to distinguish among various
features of an animal (e.g., the beak or the foot of
a bird [propositional level]). It is equally important for students to understand how the beak
and the foot are related (both aid in feeding [relational knowledge]) and how a concept such as
feeding (concept level) relates to other ecological
principles, such as defense, predation, or reproduction (network of concepts). To acquire a domain of richly elaborated knowledge, students
must encounter and interact with all these levels
of knowledge.
In concept instruction with text, teachers rely
on texts that contain all levels of knowledge (e.g.,
propositional, relational, and conceptual levels).
Students read, discuss, and write about such texts
See Also
Constructivism; Software for Older Readers
90
Concept Instruction with Text
in a setting in which this material is relevant and
useful. Some examples of this sort of context
might be: a thematic unit, a project, or a set of
student-generated learning goals that establish a
role for the text as an information source. In content areas such as science and history, learning
from text is accelerated by “hands-on” experiences or vivid activities, such as historical enactments. These experiences benefit concept learning by providing concrete referents for the basic
propositions (they see the bird’s beak up close)
and by creating opportunity for spontaneous
questioning (“Why are some beaks so curved?”).
Such interactions foster the process of building
multitiered knowledge.
Concept instruction with text is designed to
increase this kind of knowledge by giving students opportunities to manipulate information
and transform their knowledge. There is evidence that when students create new representations of text, such as concept mapping, constructing projects, building models, or drawing
graphical representations, they rely on deep
structural knowledge of a domain. Thus, they
build knowledge structures to represent domain
principles. For example, through drawing, readers can induce and generate a new and coherent
representation of text because it directs their attention to specific concepts in the text passage.
Finally, concept instruction with text enables
students to experience optimal challenge during
reading. Optimal challenge in reading refers to
the alignment of reading skill with appropriately
difficult text. Motivation theorists posit that
when challenges are slightly ahead of skills, a tension is created that stimulates concentration and
effort (see Literacy Motivation). Optimal challenge is a function of prior knowledge and competence as well as task difficulty (see Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions). For instance, when
students of high competence and prior knowledge are confronted with a difficult task or text,
they are likely to experience optimal difficulty.
However, when students of low competence and
prior knowledge face a difficult task, they will
likely report frustration. Optimally challenging
reading events will be those that are at a student’s
intermediate level of difficulty. That is, they are
neither too easy nor too hard. Optimally challenging reading activities heighten conceptual
learning from text because students learn to be
devoted to deep thinking and concerted atten-
tion. When students can meet increasingly difficult goals, they see concrete evidence of their
growth. This evidence, in turn, increases their
perceptions of competence and willingness to
persist in the face of difficulty. Further, optimal
challenge supports the positive relationship between competence and task value. If students feel
competent in completing a challenging reading
task, they will also be interested in reading and
find reading to be important and useful.
Supporting Competence
for Learning from Text
Concept instruction can be utilized in multiple
domains, including social studies/history or science. For instance, the multiple tiers of conceptual knowledge in history include political
themes such as conflict (and diverse viewpoints
about those themes); evidence of the conflict in
the form of protests or rebellion; particular
events such as the Boston Massacre; and features
of the events, such as persons or their actions.
Exposing students to variegated texts with these
tiers, expecting students to transform the information, and identifying optimally challenging
tasks to perform with these texts is concept instruction with text in history. For example, Bruce
VanSledright and Christine Kelly (1998) examined the reading practices of fifth graders who
were studying the Boston Massacre. The students, who were asked whether they thought it
was important to use more than one book when
studying a colony, realized that multiple texts
would have different information, which would
be important in understanding the Boston Massacre. Evaluating the credibility, bias, and political persuasion of the historical writer is a prominent strategy in history reading. The students’
interest in text was related to their motivation to
understand the historical time period and its
conflicts. Multiple texts increase the likelihood
that texts will be optimally challenging and that
students will cognitively engage in building a
critical understanding.
Several programs have also used conceptual
instruction in science with beneficial results on
reading engagement and conceptual learning
from text. John Guthrie and his colleagues
(1998) implemented a classroom intervention
called concept-oriented reading instruction
(CORI) to emphasize conceptual instruction in
reading and science. CORI teachers were trained
91
Concept Instruction with Text
to provide multilayered instruction, knowledgetransformation activities, and optimal challenge
during an integrated reading/science unit. CORI
teachers used conceptual themes to organize
central disciplinary principles in a multilayered
fashion. The conceptual theme was accessible to
all students and allowed for an ebb and flow between the facts and principles of the domain. Using the theme “birds around the world,” teachers
helped their students to embrace nine ecological
principles (such as defense and predation).
CORI teachers enabled students to search
through multiple trade books to integrate information about the theme. After reading, students
often summarized, made graphic organizers
(student construction of a spatial representation
of text-based knowledge, such as a concept map
or Venn diagram) (see Graphic Organizers),
drew and labeled illustrations of the text information, and created models and artifacts based
on their new understandings gleaned from the
multiple texts. In terms of optimal challenge,
CORI teachers used a wide array of interesting
texts to accommodate a range of ability levels in
order to ensure students worked at the edge of
their competency.
In a typical CORI classroom, students conduct
science activities within a conceptual study
theme. In the midst of a conceptual theme on
aquatic life, a science activity might be to visit a
freshwater habitat for students to collect pond
water and specimens. Students would then ask
personal questions about the animals and plants
they observed. Next, they would search through
multiple texts to find the answers to their questions, and they would choose from an abundance
of books ranging in level of difficulty. For example, students may have begun with an easy text
when the topic was new and knowledge relatively
fragmented. As students gain knowledge, they
become increasingly able to read and gain information from more challenging texts. Students
use multiple knowledge-transformation activities to learn from the text. This includes concept
mapping, illustrating and labeling text ideas, or
conducting experiments based on text information. Finally, students present a display of their
knowledge to classmates. This, too, is accomplished using a variety of knowledge-transformation activities, ranging from poster presentations to the creation of artifacts. In several
quantitative studies of CORI, John Guthrie and
his associates have documented the benefits of
concept instruction on conceptual learning from
text, reading strategy use, and reading motivation (Guthrie and Cox, 2001).
Among other classroom intervention programs that have also emphasized concept instruction with text, Marlene Scardamalia and her
colleagues (1994) implemented a classroom intervention called Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE). CSILE
classrooms contained networked computers connected to a communal database. During a typical
day in a CSILE classroom, students researched
topics using the computers for thirty minutes per
day. They browsed through experts’ and classmates’ notes and information, attached notes and
graphics found in databases, and recorded information found through other avenues. Students
simultaneously used multiple text sources to
gather information (see Multiple Texts). Personal
inquiries were posted in the database to which
other students responded; thus, an ongoing communication among students provided the impetus for knowledge growth.
A series of studies reported the effects of
CSILE on students’ ability to construct knowledge from multiple texts and other sources. For
instance, CSILE students exhibited their ability
to represent knowledge in multiple forms, including graphics, and to better comprehend expository text (see Narrative and Expository
Text). One study analyzed students’ cognitive actions in order to examine whether student usage
of the computer system resulted in differential
conceptual learning from text (Oshima, Scardamalia, and Bereiter, 1996). Indeed, students
who treated information flow from computer to
self as a unidirectional exchange learned relatively few principles and higher-order relations.
In contrast, students who sought to construct
meaning in a bidirectional interchange of textual
information with other students and sources
gained higher levels of knowledge. These students questioned and rebutted information and
acted as co-creators of the knowledge. In addition, high conceptual learners took notes that
were coordinated with the principles of the domain, whereas low conceptual learners wrote
many fragmented notes.
Ann Brown (1997) designed a curriculum
called Fostering Communities of Learners
(FCL), to be used in second- to fifth-grade sci92
Conceptual Change Learning and Texts
ence classrooms. Her general philosophy was that
students develop their knowledge through dialogue in a social learning community. Students
were expected to research some subset of a topic
and produce an artifact based on the content.
One study compared three groups of students
with regard to conceptual learning outcomes.
One group received instruction characterized by
a jigsaw approach, in which teams of students
studying various subthemes of a topic shared
their subset of expertise with classmates so that
all students could integrate subtheme information with the overall conceptual theme and learn
the subthemes of a conceptual unit. During various phases of learning, students were involved in
three participant structures: composing on the
computer, conducting research using multiple
texts, and interacting with the teacher. In these
structures, jigsaw groups worked simultaneously
on the subtopics of a conceptual theme. Students
gathered and presented findings to each other
and engaged in asking questions of peers and
clarifying concepts. A summary of the FCL studies showed that students gained deep-level understandings about the scientific topics of study
as expressed in problem solving by analogy tasks.
Some educators advocate teaching for text recall in content areas. They place a high premium
on recall of important facts in domains such as
history or science. The subject matter is thought
to compose a fixed structure of many facts and
concepts that are to be learned and remembered.
Amount of factual recall is viewed as a good test
of amount of understanding. This view of
knowledge acquisition is thought to be encouraged with a read-and-reproduce model. Although one goal of concept instruction with text
is to assure propositional recall, an equally important goal is to impart principled understanding. In contrast to instruction that emphasizes
accuracy and static “possession” of text information, knowledge in a concept instruction classroom is viewed as multilayered and dynamic.
Taken together, the CORI, CSILE, and FCL
studies show the powerful effects of a conceptual
emphasis in instruction. In each of these programs, students were given multiple opportunities to create relations between the facts and
principles of the conceptual domain, to experience optimal challenge, and to manipulate information in order to transform meaning. It has
been shown that concept instruction helps stu-
dents understand that there are multiple, often
rival, viewpoints within a domain of knowledge.
Students should learn to create their personal
understandings based on text and to reconcile
discrepancies among diverse texts and their own
knowledge. Thus, searching for information in
multiple trade books or original documents, being presented with diverse viewpoints, and manipulating incoming information into a variety
of forms is instrumental.
Kathleen E. Cox and John Guthrie
See Also
Graphic Organizers; Literacy Motivation; Multiple
Texts; Narrative and Expository Text; Prior
Knowledge and Misconceptions
References
Brown, Ann. 1997. “Transforming Schools into
Communities of Thinking and Learning about
Serious Matters.” American Psychologist 52
(3):399–413.
Guthrie, John, and Kathleen Cox. 2001. “Classroom
Conditions for Motivation and Engagement in
Reading.” Educational Psychology Review 13
(3):283–302.
Guthrie, John, P. Van Meter, G. Hancock, S. Alao,
E. Anderson, and A. McCann. 1998. “Does
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction Increase
Strategy Use and Conceptual Learning from
Text?” Journal of Educational Psychology 90
(2):261–278.
Oshima, J., Marlene Scardamalia, and Carl
Bereiter. 1996. “Collaborative Learning
Processes Associated with High and Low
Conceptual Progress.” Instructional Science
24:125–155.
Scardamalia, Marlene, Carl Bereiter, and Mary
Lamon. 1994. “The CSILE Project: Trying to
Bridge the Classroom into World 3.” In Kate
McGilly, ed., Classroom Lessons: Integrating
Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, pp.
201–228. Cambridge: MIT Press.
VanSledright, Bruce, and Christine Kelly. 1998.
“Reading American History: The Influence of
Using Multiple Sources on Six Fifth Graders.”
Elementary School Journal 98:239–265.
Conceptual Change
Learning and Texts
Conceptual change learning (CCL) involves students in perceiving the inconsistency between
their preconceptions and a new conception to be
learned. To learn the new conception, students
may need to reorganize or replace their incom93
Conceptual Change Learning and Texts
plete knowledge structure. Conceptual change
text refers to a type of text that is designed to
help students to see the conflict between their
preconceptions and the new conception by providing scientific explanations of a natural phenomenon. Such text includes the refutational
text and text that is integrated in computer simulations to facilitate conceptual change. Despite
the variations in forms, conceptual change text
explicitly contrasts or challenges intuitive understandings of natural phenomena with scientifically accepted theories. Conceptual change text is
designed in accordance with the four necessary
conditions (i.e., dissatisfaction, intelligibility,
plausibility, and fruitfulness) specified in a theoretical model of conceptual change (Posner et al.,
1982). George Posner and his colleagues argued
that conceptual change is based on the conditions that students should feel dissatisfied with
their preconceptions, that they should understand the new scientific conception, that the new
conception should solve problems that old concepts cannot solve, and that students should have
an opportunity to apply the newly learned conception to a different situation.
tional goals such as self-efficacy and levels of interest, are related to the depth of text processing
in conceptual change learning.
Conceptual Change Text Research
during the 1980s
During the 1980s, researchers in reading education examined effects for a review of different
texts on conceptual change (see Guzzetti et al.,
1993, for a review). Research on conceptual
change texts established that refutational text, in
general, has a positive effect on eradicating students’ misconceptions. Specifically, its effectiveness is shown when it is combined with strategies
like demonstration and the Discussion Web,
which directly challenge students’ misconceptions. Two variations of refutational text are:
refutational considerate expository text and considerate soft expository text. Refutational considerate expository text enables students to gather
appropriate information with minimal effort,
whereas considerate soft expository text is a hybrid text that combines narrative with expository
structures. Both refutational considerate expository text and considerate soft expository text
have also been found to be effective in facilitating
students’ conceptual change.
As Guzzetti and her colleagues (1993) pointed
out, researchers in reading education have been
more interested than researchers in science education in exploring alternative types of text and
text-based strategies in their misconception
studies. That is why the studies investigating the
effects of different types of text were conducted
by researchers in reading education.
Conceptual Change Learning Research
Conceptual change learning has been a focus of
research in reading and science education since
the 1980s. The theory that undergirds conceptual change learning was originally developed
using Jean Piaget’s cognitive model and schema
theory. Researchers since the early 1990s have begun to acknowledge the important role played by
students’ motivational goals, their epistemological beliefs, and various social factors in conceptual change learning. Using a Vygotskian perspective, some researchers have stressed that
conceptual change learning is socially constructed. Conceptual change learning in science
involves both personal and social processes
rather than a purely cognitive process that can be
stimulated simply by challenging students’ commonsense conceptions through discrepant
events. Students’ commonsense conceptions
should be examined in different social contexts.
Other researchers have emphasized the importance of students’ epistemological beliefs and
motivational goals in their levels of cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks, particularly in their willingness to persist at these tasks.
Epistemological beliefs, together with motiva-
Conceptual Change Text Research
during the 1990s
Since the 1990s, new focuses have emerged in research on conceptual change texts. Researchers
have started to examine text structures that are
designed for conceptual change and that investigate students’ responses to the different kinds of
texts used in the process of conceptual change
learning. In addition, a few researchers have begun to use computer simulations that integrate
texts to help students to make conceptual
change.
A large body of research on conceptual change
learning (Chambers and Andre, 1997; Hynd,
Alvermann, and Qian, 1997; see also Guzzetti et
al., 1993, for a review) has documented the effec94
Conceptual Change Learning and Texts
tiveness of refutational text. Researchers have become interested in examining students’ responses to various kinds of refutational texts
(e.g., expository versus narrative refutational
texts) when they are engaged in conceptual
change learning (Guzzetti et al., 1997); researchers are also evaluating the quality of texts
in science textbooks on the complex concepts
that require conceptual change (Shiland, 1997).
Barbara Guzzetti and her research team
(1997) involved high-school students taking science courses in discussing their preferences for
and reactions to the different kinds of text structures, also asking them to comment on which
texts were more credible or helpful in learning
the science concept and to recommend how
physics texts be written to be most helpful and
effective. In conceptual change learning, students
preferred refutational text in general and refutational expository text in particular. Students
liked refutational text because that sort of text
was easier to understand, enabled them to see
why their naive conceptions were at variance
with the scientific conceptions, and helped them
to effectively learn the scientific concept. Students reported that they did not use science textbooks much to learn science concepts. In contrast, they learned the science concepts through
experiments and labs or hands-on activities and
from other sources by studying their notes and
using rote memory.
Students with different kinds of prior knowledge about the concept to be learned responded
differently to the refutational text. Students who
demonstrated a certain amount of prior knowledge but were not familiar with the terms and
concepts found that refutational text was helpful
in providing them with new concepts and terminology, allowing them to better understand explanations of counterintuitive ideas. However,
students who had no prior knowledge of related
concepts found that supplementing refutational
text with teacher discussion was particularly
helpful.
Students also offered their insight into revising
textbooks. They recommended that the refutational section in the text be highlighted to alert
students to the important information and avoid
confusion. Students complained that they were
confused by ambiguous statements in the text.
Therefore, they suggested that refutational text
should directly and unambiguously refute the
wrong, unscientific conceptions. Students’ criticism of expository text commonly found in textbooks included using extraneous, unfamiliar concepts, citing complex examples rather than simple
ones, and describing in imprecise language.
Thomas Shiland (1997) applied the theoretical
model of conceptual change offered by George
Posner and his colleagues (1982) to evaluate the
quality of textbook materials. By operationalizing
the four conditions (i.e., dissatisfaction, intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness), Shiland examined six modern secondary chemistry textbooks on quantum mechanics. He found that the
texts did not provide a sufficient basis for students to accept the quantum mechanical model
over the Bohr model because none of the conditions of dissatisfaction, intelligibility, plausibility,
and fruitfulness were met. The limitations of the
Bohr model were not adequately discussed in the
texts. The quantum model was not intelligibly
presented. The texts did not clearly show how the
quantum mechanical model can correct the
shortcomings of the Bohr model. Students did
not have ample opportunity to apply the quantum model in problem-solving situations.
Since the 1990s, several studies (Biemans and
Simons, 1995, 1996; Carlsen and Andre, 1992)
have focused on the role of the computer simulation in conceptual change learning. Some researchers (Carlsen and Andre, 1992) were interested in combining a computer simulation with
refutational text, while others (Biemans and Simons, 1995, 1996) examined the effects of a
computer simulation integrated with text on
conceptual change learning. These researchers
believed that a computer simulation allowed students to actively test out their preconceptions
and that an active test was more effective for students than reading refutational text. Although
the computer simulation helped college students
overcome misconceptions about electric circuits
and acquire a more developmentally advanced
model of series circuits, its combined effect with
refutational text and its expected advantage over
refutational text was not found (Carlsen and Andre, 1992). The nonsignificant result might be
related to the technical difficulties in using the
simulation.
Based on the four conditions of conceptual
change, Karen Sheila Ali (cited in Biemans and
Simons 1995, 1996) developed a computer simulation model called CONTACT strategy
95
Conceptual Change Learning and Texts
(CONTinuousACTivation) to facilitate conceptual change. Ali’s CONTACT strategy consists of
five steps that include searching for preconceptions, comparing and contrasting preconceptions with the new information, formulating
new conceptions, applying new conceptions,
and evaluating the new conceptions. The activity of “studying the text” is integrated after
searching for one’s own preconceptions or after
evaluating the new conceptions. Students are required to compare and contrast their preconceptions with the scientific information after
they study the text. Feedback is given to ensure
that students learn the correct conceptions. Finally, students have to evaluate the new conception by comparing it with their answer to the
practice question. Students have to state
whether both answers are in concordance with
each other or not. If not, the students have to
study the most important part of the text again.
This procedure has to be followed until students
learn the correct conception. Biemans and Simons (1996) have revised the CONTACT strategy in order to increase the efficiency and flexibility of the strategy and solve the problem of
selective attention. Two major adaptations are
related to the text used in the strategy. One
adaptation concerns the use of visual presentation of the concept. When students are engaged
in searching for their own preconceptions, formulating new conceptions, or applying the new
conceptions, they can ask for a corresponding
picture. Both text information and visual presentation are used to optimize the students’ opportunities to activate their conceptions. The
other adaptation concerns highlighting the most
important information in the text. When students are comparing and contrasting the preconditions with the new information and evaluating the new conceptions, crucial concepts are
accentuated in different colors to focus the students’ attention on essential elements in the text.
Additional adaptations have been made to
spread students’ attention by stressing the comprehension of the whole text in the training
process, accentuating all the important information from the text, optimizing scrolling options
so that students can search for information on
other text screens, and reducing procedural
steps so that students can pay more attention to
the text itself. The studies by Biemans and Simons (1995, 1996) involved fifth- and sixth-
grade students in conceptual change learning.
They found that the original and revised CONTACT strategies had different effects on conceptual change learning among students who had
different degrees of familiarity with the subject
matter.
Research on text with computer simulations
has demonstrated that integration of text into
computer simulations yields some encouraging
results in conceptual change learning as compared to the use of refutational text as a separate
strategy or discrete part of the computer simulation. Refutational text as an integral part of the
computer simulation appears to have some advantages over the traditional use of refutational
text. Researchers could easily accentuate the important information, optimize the scrolling options that help students search for information
in other text screens, and present in multiple
ways the scientific conception in both textual
and visual modes.
Gaoyin Qian
See Also
Narrative and Expository Text; Prior Knowledge and
Misconceptions; Prior-Knowledge Assessment;
Refutational Texts
References
Alvermann, Donna E., and Cynthia R. Hynd.
December 1989. “The Influence of Discussion and
Text on the Learning of Counterintuitive Science
Concepts.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Biemans, Harm J. A., and P. Robert-Jan Simons.
1995. “How to Use Preconceptions? The Contact
Strategy Dismantled.” European Journal of
Psychology of Education 10:243–259.
———. 1996. “Contact 2: A Computer-Assisted
Instructional Strategy for Promoting Conceptual
Change.” Instructional Science 10:57–176.
Carlsen, David D., and Thomas Andre. 1992. “Use of
a Microcomputer Simulation and Conceptual
Change Text to Overcome Student Preconceptions
about Electric Circuits.” Journal of ComputerBased Instruction 19:105–109.
Chambers, Sharon K., and Thomas Andre. 1997.
“Gender, Prior Knowledge, Interest, and
Experience in Electricity and Conceptual Change
Text Manipulations in Learning about Direct
Current.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching
34:107–123.
Guzzetti, Barbara J., Tonja E. Snyder, Gene V. Glass,
and Warren S. Gamas. 1993. “Promoting
Conceptual Change in Science: A Comparative
Meta-Analysis of Instructional Interventions from
96
Considerate Text
learning. Two features of text that help readers
make such connections are coherence and audience appropriateness.
Reading Education and Science Education.”
Reading Research Quarterly 28:117–159.
Guzzetti, Barbara J., Wayne O. Williams, Stephanie A.
Skeels, and Shwu Ming Wu. 1997. “Influence of
Text Structure on Learning Counterintuitive
Physics Concepts.” Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 34:701–719.
Hynd, Cynthia, Donna Alvermann, and Gaoyin Qian.
1997. “Preservice Elementary School Teachers’
Conceptual Change about Projectile Motion:
Refutation Text.” Science Education 81:1–27.
Pintrich, Paul R., Ronald W. Marx, and Robert A.
Boyle. 1993. “Beyond Cold Conceptual Change:
The Role of Motivational Belief and Classroom
Contextual Factors in the Process of Conceptual
Change.” Review of Educational Research
63:167–199.
Posner, George J., Kenneth A. Strike, Peter W.
Hewson, and William A. Gertzog. 1982.
“Accommodation of a Scientific Conception:
Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change.” Science
Education 66:211–227.
Shiland, Thomas W. 1997. “Quantum Mechanics and
Conceptual Change in High School Chemistry
Textbooks.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching
34:535–545.
Coherence
The more coherent the text is, the more the
reader will be able to make internal connections
and construct a coherent cognitive model of the
information in the text. Texts cohere both globally and locally. Global coherence refers to text
characteristics that facilitate the integration of
high-level, important ideas across the entire text.
Local coherence refers to several kinds of links or
ties that connect ideas together within and between sentences.
Global coherence is achieved by the overall
structure or organization of the text. Structure
refers to the system of arrangement of ideas in a
text and the nature of the relationships connecting the ideas. A few basic text structures found in
informational text include simple listing, compare and contrast, temporal sequence, cause and
effect, and problem and solution.
Research has shown that the better organized
the text, the greater the learning. Also, the
reader’s ability to identify and use the organization of the text enhances learning from reading.
Therefore, a considerate text has a clear, easily
identifiable organization. Clear text organization
can be accomplished in several ways, for example, through the use of headings and subheadings, introductions and summaries, topic sentences, and signal words and phrases that
announce the text structure.
In considerate text, headings and subheadings
provide information about upcoming content
and how it is organized. For example, “Problems
of the New Government” suggests a problem and
solution structure, whereas “Distinguishing Poisonous from Nonpoisonous Snakes” indicates a
compare and contrast structure.
In considerate text, introductions and summaries provide clear, succinct information about
the content and organization of an extended text
segment. For example, a chapter introduction
may announce a cause and effect structure by
beginning: “This chapter describes how glaciers
form and how they change the shape of the
land . . .” Topic sentences can provide similar information for a single paragraph. The paragraph
beginning with the topic sentence “There were
four presidential candidates in the election of
Considerate Text
Considerate, or friendly, text is readable, understandable, and memorable. The concept was developed in the early 1980s (Armbruster, 1984;
Kantor, Anderson, and Armbruster, 1983) in response to the perception that some informational texts used in classrooms, especially content-area textbooks, were too difficult for
students to read, understand, and remember.
Considerate text is characterized by features such
as coherence and audience appropriateness,
which were suggested by cognitive theory and research to facilitate learning from reading. The
notion of considerateness thus goes beyond
readability, as measured by readability formulas.
The concept of considerate text can be helpful in
evaluating, revising, and writing informational
text.
According to cognitive theory, readers form a
representation of what is read by making internal connections (connections among information within the text) as well as external connections (connections between text information and
the reader’s prior knowledge and experience).
Texts that help readers make internal and external connections enhance comprehension and
97
Considerate Text
1824” tells the reader to expect the paragraph to
contain a simple listing of the four candidates,
presumably including some descriptive information about each.
Certain words and phrases also signal, or announce, the structure of considerate text. Most
text structures have related signal words and
phrases. For example, “because,” “therefore,” “as a
result,” and “consequently” signify a cause and effect structure, whereas “similarly,”“both . . . and,”
“in contrast,” and “on the other hand” denote a
compare and contrast structure. A text is considerate if these signal words and phrases are used
explicitly rather than left for the reader to infer.
In addition to global coherence, considerate
texts also have local coherence. Local coherence
is achieved by means of several kinds of cohesive
ties that help carry meaning across phrase,
clause, and sentence boundaries. Examples of
common cohesive ties include pronoun reference, or the use of a pronoun to refer to a previously mentioned noun (e.g., “The photocopy
machine is down now. It will be repaired tomorrow.”); substitution, or the replacement of a
word or words for a previously mentioned noun
phrase, verb phrase, or clause (e.g., “The starlet,
her male companion, and a cadre of reporters
entered the hall. The party proceeded to the ballroom.”); and conjunctions or connectives (e.g.,
“Insect sounds are used to warn of danger or to
woo a mate.”). A rather large body of research
has established the importance of cohesive ties in
understanding and remembering text.
In addition to explicit and unambiguous pronoun references, substitutions, and conjunctions, considerate text also contains a clear, logical flow of information and transition
statements that help the reader move easily from
topic to topic. In short, considerate text helps
readers make internal connections among textual ideas, which is necessary for forming a coherent representation of the text’s meaning.
A considerate text describes and explains information adequately for the target audience. A
text is considerate if the author has explained the
material using content, vocabulary, and language
structure at a level appropriate to the reader’s
background knowledge. If the text contains too
much explanation, the reader may become
bored; if too little, the reader will not understand. Unfortunately, some content-area textbooks present topics in such a superficial manner that readers often fail to grasp the concept or
follow the explanation. Or the textbooks overwhelm the reader with too much new information, such as too many new vocabulary words. If
the information load is too great, readers can become frustrated and abandon the task of trying
to make sense of the text. In short, there must be
an adequate match between what the reader
knows before reading and what the author
chooses to write down.
Considerate texts also engage the reader.
Readers must be actively engaged in the reading
process to comprehend and learn. Of course,
other factors besides the text influence the
reader’s engagement, such as the reader’s interest
in the topic and the situation in which the text is
read (for example, whether it is self-selected and
read for pleasure or assigned by a teacher). Aspects of the text, however, can affect the reader’s
attention to and engagement in reading. Two aspects that have been investigated in research are
interestingness and voice.
Interesting features of text include inherently
interesting topics, novelty, unexpectedness, character identification, lively anecdotes, fast action,
and concrete and vivid detail. Research has
shown that such intuitively appealing features of
a text will not necessarily promote comprehension (e.g., Graves et al., 1991; Garner et al., 1991).
For example, readers may recall more interesting
details rather than less interesting important information.
A related aspect of text that might affect engagement is voice. Voice refers to the qualities of
text that help it speak to the reader or form a relationship between the author and the reader.
For example, authors may add voice to text by
using language that resembles oral language, by
making events seem more real or immediate, or
by describing the emotional reactions of the
people in the text. Research has shown that comprehension can be enhanced by text that exhibits
Audience Appropriateness
In addition to making internal connections,
readers must also make external connections between the information in the text and their background knowledge and experience. Considerate
text is appropriate to the needs of the reading audience in that it provides adequate explanation
and elaboration of information and engages the
reader.
98
Constructivism
Textbooks.” Remedial and Special Education
9:47–52.
Beck, Isabel L., Margaret G. McKeown, and Jo
Worthy. 1995. “Giving a Text Voice Can Improve
Students’ Understanding.” Reading Research
Quarterly 30 (2):220–238.
Garner, Ruth, Patricia A. Alexander, Mark G.
Gillingham, Jonna M. Kulikowich, and Rachel
Brown. 1991. “Interest and Learning from Text.”
American Educational Research Journal 28
(3):643–659.
Graves, Michael F., Maureen C. Prenn, Jason Earle,
Marty Thompson, Vivian Johnson, and Wayne H.
Slater. 1991. “Commentary: Improving
Instructional Text: Some Lessons Learned.”
Reading Research Quarterly 26 (2):110–122.
Kantor, Robbie N., Thomas H. Anderson, and Bonnie
B. Armbruster. 1983. “How Are Children’s
Textbooks Inconsiderate? Or, of Flyswatters and
Alfa.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 15 (1):61–72.
both coherence and voice; voice without coherence does not seem to enhance comprehension
(Beck, McKeown, and Worthy, 1995). In sum,
considerate text is appropriate to the reading audience for which it is intended in that it provides
adequate explanation and elaboration of information and is able to engage the reader, perhaps
by providing interest or personal connection to
the reader.
Beyond Readability
Although readability is part of the concept of
considerate text, the concept of considerateness
goes beyond the traditional notion of the “readability” or difficulty of a text. Readability is typically measured by readability formulas, which
are mathematical methods of estimating the
grade level for which a text is suited. Readability
formulas typically involve measures of word familiarity or difficulty and sentence length. Although the familiarity or difficulty of words and
the length of sentences do contribute to the readability of a text, they are not the only, or even the
most important, factors that affect readability.
Constructivism
The term constructivism refers to a philosophical
stance that emphasizes the generative, dynamic
nature of communication and of other intellectual and social processes. Nancy Spivey Nelson
(1997) defines constructivism as a theoretical
metaphor that likens meaning-making to acts of
construction, or acts of building, in which humans are the constructors, meaning or knowledge is their construction, and prior knowledge
and experience are the constructive materials
that are used. With respect to literacy, constructivists maintain that meaning is not located in
texts and is not “taken” from texts by readers. Instead, meanings for texts are generated by readers
in response to textual cues provided by writers,
who had themselves engaged in the generative
process of meaning construction that is known
as composing. Since reading and writing are both
active, creative processes, they have similarities,
and one is not the inverse of the other.
Scholarly work taking a constructivist perspective began to flourish in the late 1970s, although many of the principal tenets were articulated earlier during the nineteenth century by
such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, Giambattista Vico, and Friedrich Hegel. The empirical
and theoretical work from the twentieth century,
which continues on into the twenty-first century,
has tended to cut across disciplinary boundaries,
coming from education, psychology, artificial in-
Usefulness of the Concept
of Considerate Text
The concept of considerate text can be helpful to
educators, authors, and editors. Educators may
wish to consider the features of considerate text
when evaluating instructional materials. For example, textbook adoption committees may evaluate the relative considerateness of the textbooks
they are considering (Armbruster and Anderson,
1988). Teachers may use the concept of considerate text to shed light on some of the reading comprehension problems of their students or to plan
instruction that helps students read and understand inconsiderate text. Authors may use the concept to help them write considerate text, and editors may benefit from the notion in revising text.
Bonnie B. Armbruster
See Also
Readability; Textbooks
References
Armbruster, Bonnie B. 1984. “The Problem of
‘Inconsiderate Text.’” In Gerald G. Duffy, Laura R.
Roehler, and Jana Mason, eds., Comprehension
Instruction: Perspectives and Suggestions, pp.
202–217. New York: Longman.
Armbruster, Bonnie B., and Thomas H. Anderson.
1988. “On Selecting ‘Considerate’ Content Area
99
Constructivism
telligence, linguistics, sociology, anthropology,
and English studies. There are various forms of
constructivism, and they can be differentiated, in
part, by the notion of agency that they present:
whether the constructive agent is portrayed as an
individual, as a small group or pair of people, or
as a large society or community. The various
forms of constructivism to be discussed here, regardless of the nature of the constructive agent,
are those that have had the most significant impact on literacy research and education.
A constructivist orientation has also guided
research into cognitive aspects of composition.
The focus for composition, as for reading, has
been on operations of organizing, selecting, and
connecting. For years, educators and scholars in
composition had attended to the nature of the
written product, but constructivists brought new
attention to the mental product that is created
when writers compose. In considering the nature
of the mental product—meaning—they pointed
out interesting and recursive changes that transpire over the course of composing. In accordance with these perspectives, writing instruction began to give greater attention to the
process of composition.
Besides this large body of work dealing with
comprehension and composition, constructivist
scholarship has dealt with the nature of cognition. Some of this work has been based on Piagetian cognitive-developmental constructivism,
which focuses on, among other things, people’s
ability to take the perspective of others. Other research has been grounded in George Kelly’s
(1955) personal construct theory, which addresses the mental categories through which individuals perceive experiences and other people.
Cognitive Constructivism
In cognitive constructivism, the individual is the
primary agent for construction of knowledge. As
the constructive agent, a person brings his or her
own background, knowledge, and experience to
the act of composing or comprehending and
draws on them in organizing, selecting, and connecting mental material cued by the text. This
constructivist perspective is shaped largely by the
works of Frederic Bartlett, a British psychologist
who published Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology in 1932. He examined the meaning-making processes of individuals through a series of studies that were to
influence constructivist research in future
decades. The best-known study in this collection
is his work with the story “The War of the
Ghosts,” in which Bartlett analyzed the recall
processes of readers and theorized about their
meaning-making processes.
Four decades after Bartlett’s book was published, researchers began to follow Bartlett’s lead
and appropriated aspects of his approach: considering people’s prior knowledge (of the topic,
of the discourse pattern, of the genre, and so on)
and analyzing the kinds of selections and additions they make when integrating their textual
understandings with their own worldviews or
putting them to their own uses. From the late
1970s into the 1990s, numerous constructivist
studies focused on the following topics: knowledge frameworks (e.g., schemas, scripts); text organization, particularly stories but also expository patterns; and the types of inferences, or
additions, that people make when they read. Literacy educators took these new understandings
about reading and developed strategies for enhancing and monitoring comprehension
through active reading processes that drew from
students’ prior experiences.
Social Constructivism
In recent years there has been a growing interest
in the social aspects of meaning-making (Bruffee, 1984), in which groups of people serve as
collaborative constructive agents. Some groups,
which tend to be relatively small, are composed
of people who interact directly with one another,
such as students in a classroom, members of a
book discussion group, or participants in an online listserver. The group engages in shared literary practices, such as discussing a text or authoring a story, and, in doing so, constructs
knowledge that is shared—knowledge that can
be said to be socially constructed. When working
together, group members follow spoken or unspoken discourse conventions. Much of the work
taking this perspective on literate practices is
grounded in the Vygotskian view that intrapsychological development derives from interpsychological interactions with others. These new
perspectives on learning and comprehension altered literacy instruction, as the nature of classrooms became more collaborative than didactic.
However, larger discourse communities or
even societies may also be seen as constructive
100
Content-Area Literacy
agents, collectively building knowledge. Social
constructivism taking this more macro perspective is sometimes labeled constructionism. Communication in large collectives, whose members
do not necessarily come in direct contact or even
know one another, often takes place through written discourse. An example would be a disciplinary
discourse community, communicating largely
through its journals and books and sharing its
knowledge through those forums (Porter, 1986).
Potential scholarly contributions go through a review, or gatekeeping, process and are judged socially in accordance with community norms before they are considered “knowledge.” Even in
large communities, individual members still
identify with one another in terms of shared values, practices, and language, and individuals are
connected through common goals and interests.
Deborah J. Davis
texts, represent sets of potential meanings for students who study a subject. To be literate in a given
subject area, students must use reading, writing,
and speech to construct meaning as they engage
in text-related learning. The ability to use literacy
to learn, however, varies from subject area to subject area. Content-area literacy is always situational. A variety of learner-related, text-related,
and classroom-related factors influence content
literacy in a given subject area. Some of these situational factors include the learner’s prior knowledge of, attitude toward, and interest in the subject; the learner’s purpose for reading and
writing; the language and conceptual difficulty of
the instructional material; the way ideas are organized in text; the assumptions authors make
about their audience of readers; and the beliefs
and attitudes teachers have about the use of texts
in their instructional routines.
Cognitive and metacognitive principles undergird many of the content-area literacy practices evident in classrooms today. Cognitive
processes permit students to think with texts.
Metacognitive processes, in a similar vein, allow
students to be aware of their own cognitive
processes as they read and to engage in self-monitoring activity during meaning construction.
Teachers who hold constructivist beliefs recognize that students learn with text, not necessarily
from texts. The expression “learning from text”
suggests that the flow of meaning is from text to
reader. Learning with text, however, implies that
a transaction takes place between the reader and
the text rather than the transmission of knowledge from text to reader. Within a constructivist
framework, students have much to contribute to
their own learning as they negotiate meaning
and socially construct knowledge through learning situations that require reading, writing, and
discussion.
Content-area literacy requires that learning be
strategic. Strategic readers and writers are not
only knowledgeable about their own reading and
writing processes but also in control of reading
and writing activities. Strategic learners develop
and use a repertoire of strategies to make sense
of text during reading and writing. They know
what, how, when, and why it is important to
monitor what they are reading and writing and
to regulate their use of comprehension and composing strategies. As a result, content-area literacy practices depend on the teacher’s ability to
See Also
Social Constructivism
References
Bartlett, Frederic C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in
Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bruffee, Kenneth A. 1984. “Collaborative Learning
and the Conversation of Mankind. College English
46:635–662.
Kelly, George A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal
Constructs. New York: Norton.
Nelson, Nancy Spivey. 1997. The Constructivist
Metaphor: Reading, Writing, and the Making of
Meaning. San Diego: Academic Press.
Porter, James E. 1986. “Intertextuality and the
Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review 5:34–47.
Content-Area Literacy
Content-area literacy reflects the ability to use
reading, writing, and discussion to learn in a
given subject area. It is often defined as the level
of reading, writing, and discussion skill that
learners need in an academic subject to comprehend and respond to ideas in texts used for instructional purposes. In today’s content-area
classrooms, instructional materials are typically
fixed in typesetter’s ink on printed pages or appear on a computer screen in an electronic environment. More often than not, students encounter these texts as reading assignments made
from textbooks, the Internet, CD-ROMs, trade
books, magazines, newspapers, reference materials, and the like. Instructional materials, like all
101
Content-Area Literacy
scaffold instruction. Scaffolded instruction allows content-area teachers to provide the level of
support that students need to develop and use
reading and writing strategies to learn subject
matter.
of content-area reading practices. The irony behind their resistance toward reading is that content-area teachers genuinely value the role that
reading plays in learning but fail to attend to
reading in their own practices.
The RICA movement has experienced a major
paradigmatic shift since Gray’s time. From the
early 1900s through the 1960s, the predominant
paradigm was skills based. Early on in the RICA
movement, reading researchers were as interested in the identification of reading and study
skills associated with each of the content areas as
they were in the effects of various instructional
variables on the acquisition of reading/study
skills and learning in content areas. As a result, a
popular practice in the 1920s and 1930s was to
list specific reading and study skills unique to a
given content area. Some researchers compared
students’ performance on general tests of reading
with performance on content-specific achievement tests. Typically, they found that the ability
to read generally is related to the ability to read
in a given content area, but not perfectly. As a result, they concluded that there are skills common
to different subject areas, but some of these skills
hold special relationships to achievement in each
of the subject areas.
A recurring issue related to the skills paradigm—locus of instruction—dominated the research on content-area reading (Moore, Readence, and Rickelman, 1983). Locus of instruction
refers to the configuration of instructional variables that affect reading and subject-matter
learning: for example, the appropriate teacher
to deliver reading skills (reading teacher or content teacher); the appropriate location in which
instruction takes place (reading classroom or
content classroom); and the appropriate instructional material (general reading materials
or subject-matter textbooks). As a result, reading researchers studied the effects of teaching
reading and study skills from two fundamentally different instructional approaches: (1) the
“direct” instructional approach, in which the
teaching of reading and study skills is separate
from the content classroom, is based on the assumption of transfer to content areas, and (2)
the “functional” instructional approach, in
which the teaching of reading is embedded
within the context of content learning, using
content course materials. The functional approach is based on the assumption that reading
A Historical Perspective
Content-area literacy is of critical importance in
the academic lives of students because it helps to
shape the learning strategies by which they construct knowledge and think critically about texts.
Like most instructional concepts, the term content-area literacy has evolved over time. It has its
historical roots in two distinct but related educational movements: reading in content areas
(RICA) and writing across the curriculum
(WAC). However, it is only in the past two
decades that content-area literacy has been used
consistently as a descriptor to characterize students’ ability to use reading and writing to learn
in academic contexts. Since the beginning of the
twentieth century, when researchers and scholars
first became interested in the relationship between reading and learning, interest focused almost exclusively on reading in content areas,
with very little attention focused on the role that
writing plays in learning. William S. Gray, preeminent among first-generation reading educators, is often credited with having forged the beginnings of the RICA movement. Today, RICA is
a well-established area of inquiry and study in
the literacy field—so much so that one would
hardly think of it as a movement. Yet at the onset
of the twentieth century, there was little concerted activity within the educational community to champion the relationship between reading and learning in content areas. Beginning in
the early 1900s, however, Gray and others argued
that effective teaching must provide for the improvement and refinement of the reading, attitudes, habits, and skills that are needed in all
school activities involving reading. He is often
associated with what has become an ill-fated
cliché in education, “Every teacher is a teacher of
reading.” The saying did not go over well with
teachers in Gray’s time and continues to be misunderstood, if not rejected, by today’s contentarea teachers. Often cultural and school organizational forces work against the use of contentarea reading practices and exert enormous influence on the way content-area teachers view their
roles, think about instruction, and resist the use
102
Content-Area Literacy
is best facilitated by content-area teachers in authentic-learning situations.
The shift away from a skills paradigm to a
cognitive learning paradigm occurred in the
1970s and 1980s. Reading researchers focused
their energy on better understanding the role of
cognitive and metacognitive processes in reading
and on validating learning strategies grounded
in cognitive and metacognitive principles. As a
result, numerous reading research studies related
to prior knowledge, text structure, metacognition, and strategic learning have had a major influence on today’s content-area reading practices. Early in the shift away from a skills
paradigm, Harold Herber (1970) wrote the first
textbook exclusively devoted to reading in content areas. His seminal work resulted in a renaissance within the RICA movement. Herber developed an instructional model based on a
functional approach to reading in content areas.
He argued that skills taught in reading classes are
applicable to content materials, but students
must adapt the skills to meet the peculiarities of
each subject they study. For nearly two decades,
Herber and his research associates sought to refine and validate promising instructional strategies and procedures designed to guide reading
and learning, some of which form the basis for
content-area literacy practice today.
Since the publication of Herber’s textbook,
numerous other books have been written on
content-area reading practices, all of which reflect a cognitive learning perspective. The proliferation of content-area reading textbooks in the
1980s and 1990s has extended the RICA movement into the twenty-first century. But more important, these books recognized the powerful
bonds between reading and writing. The term
content-area literacy came into play in the mid1980s and 1990s as literacy scholars sought to
better understand and explain how reading and
writing relate to learning. Moreover, they drew
substantively on writing-process research and
the WAC movement to explore the role that writing plays in subject-matter learning. Because so
much of what students write about is tied to
what they are reading, writing across the curriculum is more likely to result in students reading text material on a regular basis rather than
delaying reading until it is time to take a test on
the material. When students write about what
they have read, both the writing task and the dif-
ficulty of the text material contribute to the kind
of learning that takes place. Writing tasks, in
which students connect personal experiences,
thoughts, and opinions, often produce better results than study questions on various measures
of student performance such as time on task and
the recall of information from text.
The WAC movement emerged from groundbreaking writing theory and research conducted
in the 1970s in England by James Britton and his
research team. The researchers were mainly concerned with understanding the types of writing
used by adolescents in various school-related situations. They discovered that writing to learn
centered around the distinction between expressive and transactional functions of language. A
transactional writing function is academic and
formal in nature. It serves to inform, persuade,
and instruct. Transactional discourse is not the
discourse of students’ everyday use of language,
which is more expressive and informal. Transactional functions of writing dominated all school
subjects and were most evident in learning tasks
where students were required to report and
record information being studied (Britton et al.,
1975).
Today, the WAC movement has made its presence felt in middle and high schools as well as on
college campuses. Leading advocates of writing
across the curriculum encourage teachers in all
disciplines to use writing to improve student
learning. They argue that students can use writing to interact personally with ideas and information without the pressure of producing polished, finished products. Teachers assign writing
not to produce excellent pieces of writing but to
get students to explore ways of making sense of
text material.
The WAC movement underscores the importance of the expressive functions of writing,
which are best suited for exploration and discovery. When school-related writing practices encourage informal, everyday language to express
thoughts, feelings, and opinions, students are
more likely to think about and explore new ideas
encountered in learning situations. The expressive function is often missing in students’ writing
in content-area classrooms, especially in situations where teachers have not been exposed to
the theory and practice of writing as an instrument of learning, reflection, and discovery.
Richard T. Vacca
103
Context in Literacy
See Also
Constructivism; Metacognition; Multiple Texts; Study
Skills and Strategies; Transmission Instruction;
Writing across the Curriculum
References
Britton, James, Tony Burgess, Nancy Martin, Alex
McLeod, and Harold Rosen. 1975. The
Development of Writing Abilities (11–18). London:
Macmillan Education.
Herber, Harold. 1970. Teaching Reading in the
Content Areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Moore, David, John Readence, and Robert
Rickelman. 1983. “An Historical Exploration
of Content Area Reading Instruction.” Reading
Research Quarterly 18:419–438.
text, the linguistic context, or the interpersonal
context). Sometimes the term was used in multiple ways within a single article. The researchers
also found that in some areas of study, the term
was theoretically defined in initial research studies (e.g., the linguistic context) but in later studies was assumed by other authors to be understood, and thus left undefined. This assumption
that a particular term is commonly understood
is at the center of the problem.
Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin
(1992) provide insights into why context has become so problematic and why it is important to
understand what counts as context for particular
researchers, readers, and speakers. They present a
view of context as crucial to both qualitative and
quantitative studies and as having a shifting set
of definitions as new perspectives and research
traditions have been developed. In the fields focusing on language study, context has become
viewed as a product of language use (an interactionally accomplished phenomena) rather than
as functioning as a set of constraints on linguistic performance or predefined sets of forms and
contents. Duranti and Goodwin view the concept of context as key to understanding the relationships among language, culture, and social
organization, as well as in the study of how language is structured. They argue that currently,
with the broad range of paradigms concerned
with the study of language in context, a single
definition may not be possible or even desirable.
Rather, what is necessary is the understanding of
how context is used, what it means within a particular situation or study, and how its definition
influences what can be known.
If we adapt Duranti and Goodwin’s argument
to the study of context in literacy, and the converse, literacy in context, the definition of the
term context must be seen as tied closely to theoretical positions on what counts as literacy and
the units of analysis resulting from different theoretical stances to the study of literacy. These relationships vary from traditional views of context as given to views of context as the product of
interactions.
Context in Literacy
What counts as context in literacy is one of the
key issues facing educators and researchers alike.
This was made visible by two comparative studies of the way the term context is viewed across
research programs both within literacy studies
and across fields concerned with language in use.
Lesley Rex, Judith Green and Carol Dixon (1998)
conducted a review of all uses of the term context
in literacy studies published in major literacy research journals—Reading Research Quarterly
and Research in the Teaching of English
(1989–1993) and Journal of Literacy Research
(1996). These years were reviewed to provide a
profile of publications across editorial teams and
to insure that work across theoretically different
periods of time was covered. The 1996 journal
review was conducted to make certain that the
patterns in the earlier review were present at the
time of publication and in the journal in which
the publications would occur. Rex and her colleagues found little consistency in how the term
context was used, few attempts to operationally
or theoretically define it, and little to no overlap
in citations in articles. These inconsistencies
were due to a range of factors such as differences
in the object of study (e.g., the society, a classroom, people interacting, a printed text, and linguistic features of a text), in theoretical perspectives (e.g., linguistic, sociocultural, behaviorist,
feminist, and structuralist), and in the view of
the phenomena studied (e.g., literacy, reading,
writing, and in some recent cases, speaking). Often the term context was preceded by another
term (e.g., the political context, the school con-
Traditional or Predefined Views of Context
The traditional view of literacy often equates to a
single reader with a single text, defining context
as the words around the particular word or bit of
text that readers draw on to make meaning from
104
Context in Literacy
the text. The text is viewed as the container and
boundary in which the meaning is held. The
units of analysis for this definition of context are
the printed words in a sentence, a page, a paragraph, or in some instances, larger segments of
the text. Underlying this view of context are a set
of assumptions about what readers use to make
meaning and what meanings it is possible to
make. From this perspective, meaning is in the
words in the text, both in individual words and
in strings of words. A brief review of language
arts and reading textbooks shows that contextual
surround, the words around a particular word or
bit of text, commonly defines the meaning of
context in such textbooks.
Nevertheless, if we reconsider the findings reported by Rex, Green, and Dixon (1998), context
has also been equated with setting, often treated
as a variable (i.e., social context is defined in
terms of socioeconomic status) or a physical
place (e.g., home context, classroom context, or
community context). From this perspective,
context is a source of influence, but what constitutes context is represented by surrogates. Often
context is reduced to a single aspect and is assumed to remain the same in all ways it is used.
For example, even when home context is a variable, differences in the amount of space available to a child at home to read or do his or her
work, the number of people living in the space,
the relationships of the child to those in the
home or other space, and other aspects of the
home situation may not be considered. A similar argument can be made for terms such as linguistically or culturally diverse classrooms, bilingual speakers, biliterate readers, gifted and
talented students, special-needs students, as well
as traditional classrooms or regular education students. The variation within each category and
the complexity of populations and places makes
the use of these descriptors as definitions of context or even the population problematic.
ity) as contexts for each other, and of contexts as
a product of interactions between and among
people or between a person and the object (artifact) with which she or he is interacting (see
Constructivism, and Social Constructivism). For
example, Fredrick Erickson and Jeffrey Shultz
(1981) argue that context is not given in the setting (e.g., the dinner table) but in what people
are doing with each other. From this perspective,
people read the contextualization cues (e.g.,
pitch, stress, intonation, gesture, eye gaze), kinesics (movements or gestures of participants),
and proxemics (the distance between participants), as well as objects that accompany the lexical items (i.e., words) in a speech event. They
then select among the possible ways of reading
the activity (speech) those that are socially appropriate to what is being proposed and negotiated and then take action in relationship to those
interpretations. Mikhail Bakhtin (1986) argues
that speakers and writers speak/write with an
implicated other in mind, whether physically
present or not, and hearers/readers hear/read
with the speaker/writer in mind. Thus, the context of speaking/writing is a dialogic event with
context represented in the choices of lexical
items and speech genres between and among
hearers/readers.
Research from this perspective examines how
people in interaction socially organize and accomplish the work of interacting by examining
the moment-by-moment accomplishment of
context. What counts as context is signaled in participants’ discourse and actions, what they hold
each other accountable to and for, what they orient to, and how they take up and respond to what
is occurring (see Discourse Analysis, and Discursive Theory). Context, from this perspective, is
not static or given but is constantly being constructed and reconstructed by participants in a
given event. By extension, what counts as literacy
and literacy in context is also produced by participants of the event (see Discourse Analysis).
Context as Socially Accomplished
The conceptualization of context as socially constructed or accomplished is grounded in work
across a number of disciplines, including anthropology, pragmatics, sociohistorical psychology,
sociolinguistics, and sociology (see Sociolinguistics and Literacy). Across these traditions is the
understanding of the social construction of
everyday life, of people and their actions (activ-
Intertextuality as Interacting Contexts
In the 1980s and 1990s, the importance of the
concept of intertextuality (linking two texts
within a single context) for literacy studies has
been recognized (see Intertextuality). Intertextuality has been examined in two principal ways.
For some, it is present in the citations across articles or other texts, linking one text to another,
105
Context in Literacy
not merely one author to another. In this approach, intertextuality has been used as an analytic tool to explore how texts are informed by
and related to others across time, and in some instances, across languages. This perspective is the
more traditional way in which intertextuality,
seen as interacting text, has been examined.
The second way that intertextuality has been
conceptualized draws on the work on social construction and the understanding that words are
not mere lexical items but represent concepts
and bring with them the historical context in
which the concepts were used. David Bloome
and Ann Egan-Robertson (1993) argue that intertextuality is not reflected in the mere juxtaposition of texts but in the actions of people in
everyday life. They provide five criteria that reveal the intertextual nature of everyday life. For
them, intertextuality is (1) proposed, (2) recognized, (3) acknowledged, (4) interactionally accomplished, and (5) socially significant to participants in an event, whether that event includes
multiple people or a single reader with a text.
That is, participants in events, in the choices of
lexical items, the discourse practices they use, the
actions they take, and the speech genres they use
with each other signal what counts as an intertextual link across contexts. This view of intertextuality provides an expanded view of text. It goes
beyond the view of text as a written document to
include people as texts for each other, historicity
of texts, the world as text, and other dimensions
of discourse and actions, among others.
From this perspective, context is both developing in the moment and brought to the moment by participants. One way to view these
types of intertextual links is through the concepts of vertical and horizontal intertextuality.
Horizontal intertextuality refers to the developing context and links between and among texts
in the moment. Vertical intertextuality refers to
the historical linking of texts over time. These
distinctions provide a way of viewing context as
not merely what is present in the here and now;
multiple contexts are always present in any interactions between and among members of a social
group.
working across theoretical perspectives or cultural groups. Joanne Golden (1988) asked: If a
text exists without a reader, is there any meaning?
In reviewing structuralist, phenomenological,
and rhetorical perspectives on reader-response
theory, she explored how these theories conceptualized the relationships among real readers,
ideal readers, and authors. From this comparative study, she argued that theories view meaning
as in the text, as in the head of the reader, or as between the text and the reader, and that each view
brings a different set of relationships among author(s), reader(s), and text(s). Her comparative
analysis suggested that to understand context in
literacy, it is also important to understand how
the theoretical position of the researcher inscribes a particular set of relationships from the
outset, thus implicating particular views of context and its influence in what counts as reading,
author, reader, and text.
Another important conceptualization of the
relationship between context and literacy comes
from sociocultural studies of literacy within and
across local, national, and international contexts. From a sociocultural perspective, a distinction is made between traditional views of literacy and more grounded or socially oriented
views of literacy. Traditional conceptualizations
of literacy view it as a set of skills or processes
that a person develops within his or her own
head. In contrast to this view is the conceptualization of literacy as a sociocultural phenomenon.
From this perspective, people learn and develop
literacy practices within a community. The practices are constructed by members as they interact across time and events, and from these moments of participation, individual members
acquire, develop, and construct the practices
that define what counts as literacy within a classroom, a local community, a nation, and across
national boundaries.
The potential impact of these two conceptualizations can be seen in the ways in which different views of literacy reflect perspectives in the research field when we need to understand what
counts as literacy when literacy is counted. From
this perspective, when researchers want to count
instances of literacy for national and cross-national studies, it is crucial to identify clear units
of analysis, the boundaries of those units, and
the perspectives guiding the research. Without
criteria for understanding the differences, what
Context in Literacy as Culturally Constituted
These views of context and intertextuality suggest that it is important to understand how context in literacy has been viewed by researchers
106
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative Learning
counts as context in literacy will be invisible, the
aggregation of knowledge across studies will be
constrained, and policy implications of work will
be difficult to ascertain.
These differing views of context show that
without an understanding of what each researcher means by context or what each group
reading the research understands context to be,
the influence or role of context in literacy will remain invisible. Any research program has a language that influences what questions are appropriate to ask, what methods are used, and what
can be known. Each of the conceptions of context in literacy presented previously can be understood as one possible representation, not the
representation. Viewed in this way, the importance of understanding and making explicit what
counts as context in literacy studies becomes
crucial to understanding the policy and practice
implications of literacy research.
Judith L. Green and Carol N. Dixon
Cooperative learning is a process to actively engage students in their own learning through
structured group participation. Cooperative
groups can be formed in pairs but are more commonly arranged in small groups. Students interact with each other, exchange information and
ideas, and are held accountable for their own
learning.
Perhaps the most well-known advocate of cooperative learning is Robert Slavin (1983). Slavin
conducted a two-year study of cooperative learning in reading and language arts instruction. Students were engaged in reading and process-writing activities related to stories they read in
heterogeneous learning teams (Stevens and
Slavin, 1995). These students were compared in
achievement to students who had not experienced cooperative learning. Those elementary
students who were exposed to cooperative learning as well as the other strategies demonstrated
higher achievement in reading vocabulary, comprehension, and language expression than those
who were not.
Cooperative learning has also been used as an
instructional approach in content areas such as
mathematics, social studies, and science. It is an
approach that is complementary to inquiry
learning in subject areas. Students in inquiry
form their own questions and in cooperative
groups often use multiple texts to find the answers to their queries.
Research on cooperative learning in subject areas has had mixed results. For example, some researchers in literacy, like Nancy Marshall (1991)
and Cynthia Hynd and her colleagues (1994)
found that when students were placed into cooperative learning groups for science instruction,
those who were the most powerful or influential
speakers persuaded others to accept their nonscientific conceptions. In other words, students in
cooperative learning groups convinced each
other of their misconceptions. Hence, cooperative learning needs to be carefully structured and
monitored with teacher guidance.
Barbara J. Guzzetti
See Also
Constructivism; Discourse Analysis; Discursive
Theory; Intertextuality; Social Constructivism;
Sociolinguistics and Literacy
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late
Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bloome, David, and Ann Egan-Robertson. 1993.
“The Social Construction of Intertextuality in
Classroom Reading and Writing Lessons.” Reading
Research Quarterly 28 (4):304–334.
Duranti, Alessandro, and Charles Goodwin. 1992.
Rethinking Context. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Erickson, Fredrick, and Jeffrey Shultz. 1981. “When
Is a Context? Some Issues and Methods in the
Analysis of Social Competence.” In Judith Green
and Cynthia Wallat, eds., Ethnography and
Language in Educational Settings, pp. 147–150.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Golden, Joanne. 1988. “The Construction of a
Literary Text in a Story Reading Lesson.” In Judith
Green and Judy Harker, eds., Multiple Perspective
Analyses of Classroom Discourse, pp. 71–106.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rex, Lesley, Judith Green, and Carol Dixon. 1998.
“What Counts When Context Counts: The
Uncommon ‘Common’ Language of Literacy
Research.” Journal of Literacy Research 30
(3):405–433.
See Also
Inquiry-Based Instruction; Multiple Texts
References
Hynd, Cynthia, Melinda McNish, Gaoyin Quian,
Mark Keith, and Katherine Lay. 1994. Learning
Counter-Intuitive Science Concepts: Effects of Text
107
Critical Literacy
Groups of students studying together (Michael Siluk)
also critically read a work of art, a movie, a popular toy, or a television news broadcast. Critical
literacy focuses on the issue of power and how
people use language (or art, or math, and so on)
to question and confront injustices both locally
and in the larger society.
Critical-literacy practices teach people how to
gain a greater understanding of the ways social
and cultural forces shape their choices and their
lives. These practices are rooted in the belief that
although democratic principles are regularly
voiced in cultural discourse, they are often not
enacted in daily life. Critical literacy offers a way
to analyze, understand, and confront the social
practices that afford power to certain groups and
deny it to others. Critical linguists argue that
power is exercised through language and that
language study reveals how power supports or
disrupts dominant systems of meaning (Fairclough, 1989).
People who adopt a critical-literacy perspective question the everyday world, challenge the
legitimacy of socially constructed power relationships, interrogate the relationship between
language and power, and consider actions that
and Educational Environment. Research report
no. 16. Athens, GA: National Reading Research
Center.
Marshall, Nancy. December 1991. “The Effects of Social Pressure and Personal Belief on Overcoming
Science Misconceptions.” Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.
Slavin, Robert E. 1983. Cooperative Learning. New
York: Longman.
Stevens, Robert, and Robert Slavin. 1995. “The
Cooperative Elementary School Effects on
Students’ Achievement, Attitudes, and Social
Relations.” American Educational Research Journal
32 (2):321–351.
Critical Literacy
Critical literacy is an approach to literacy that focuses on creating readers who are aware that
texts position people in certain ways and serve
some interests but not others. Critical literacy
goes beyond narrow definitions of text, using a
variety of sign systems as lenses to examine how
power and privilege operate in the world. Just as
people can read a piece of text critically, they can
108
Critical Literacy
can be taken to promote social justice. They analyze popular culture and media and build an appreciation of multiple realities and viewpoints.
Influenced by the work of Paulo Freire (1972),
critical theorists and literacy educators have advocated these practices over the past thirty years.
Although critical-literacy practices are slowly
gaining acceptance by classroom teachers, many
still consider them to be out of the mainstream
and radical.
Critical literacies are rooted in principles of
democracy and justice, questioning and analysis,
resistance and action—all uncommon in the traditional pedagogy that defines a teacher as a
transmitter of knowledge. In addition, these
practices are substantively different from what
are commonly referred to as critical-thinking approaches. Although critical-thinking practices
have focused more on logic and comprehension,
critical literacies have focused on identifying social practices that keep dominant ways of knowing in place. Five dimensions of critical literacy
can be discussed separately, but they are actually
interdependent. These include: interrogating the
everyday world, questioning power relationships, appreciating multiple realities and viewpoints, analyzing popular culture and media, and
taking action to promote social justice.
grammar, and cultural discourses work in terms
of agency, passivity, and power.
Another aspect of interrogating the everyday
world is for individuals and groups to examine
how cultural and historical influences have
shaped all aspects of life, including the experience of schooling. Using education as an example, it is possible to open up pedagogy and curricular content for critique by asking why some
groups benefit from current forms of education
more than others. Critical educators encourage
investigation of a wide range of commonly held
assumptions like beliefs that boys are better at
sports (or math) than girls, students who live in
poverty don’t have many cultural resources to
bring to school, and competitive sports build
character. In an environment where teachers focus on expanding critical literacies, students are
also encouraged to interrogate classroom and
environmental texts by asking questions about
authors’ intentions and what they want readers
to believe (Luke and Freebody, 1997).
As a way of interrogating the commonplace,
Paulo Freire calls for a problem-posing rather
than a problem-solving curriculum where classroom engagements are grounded in the lives and
interests of students. He urges educators to present information to students that is directly related to questions raised in the classroom community and not in a prescribed curriculum. In
this model, teachers and children negotiate curriculum, allowing space for real-life issues and
popular culture to become topics of study. Students play a major role in planning, gathering resources, and assessing learning. The goal is for
teachers to become partners with students in
meaningful inquiry.
Interrogating the Everyday World
Routines, habits, beliefs, and theories about how
the world works and what it takes to be successful guide all aspects of people’s lives. These factors impact the social groups people join, how
they spend their time, and the careers they pursue. Without a critical perspective, these assumptions are seen as sensible and innocent, often just
the way things are, and not in need of examination. A critical stance requires a step outside of
one’s usual modes of perception and comprehension using new frames to understand experience. Patrick Shannon (1995) argues for the development of a language of critique. This
language can then be used to disrupt what is
considered to be normal by asking new questions, seeing everyday issues through new lenses,
demystifying naturalized views of the world, and
visualizing how things might be different. One
way a language of critique can be developed is
through the study of language itself. This includes analyzing how language is socially situated, how it shapes identity, and how words,
Questioning Power Relationships
Advocates of critical literacy suggest that although teaching is a non-neutral form of social
practice, it often takes place with no conscious
awareness of the sociopolitical systems and
power relationships that are part of every teaching episode. Studying how language works can
be a productive tool for deconstructing and reconstructing the relationships between language
and power. Taking a critical-literacy perspective
requires an analysis of how language is used to
maintain domination, how nondominant
groups can gain access to dominant forms of language without devaluing their own language and
109
Critical Literacy
culture, how diverse forms of language can be
used as cultural resources, and how social action
can change existing discourses (Janks, 2000).
As a result of researching and analyzing language and power, educators with critical perspectives challenge the legitimacy of unequal
power relationships, question existing hierarchies, and examine social structures that keep
power in the hands of a few. They interrogate
privilege and status, not just in lives of others but
in their own lives as well. They investigate oppression—especially forms of oppression that
appear to be natural or part of the status quo.
This means that their students study a wide
scope of power relationships ranging from issues
of why some children are marginalized on the
playground to why some groups of people are
marginalized in the larger society. Through these
investigations, participants gain an understanding of the complexities surrounding power relationships and begin to imagine how things might
be different. Students and teachers explore the
use of resistance, dialogue, and public debate as
tools to engage in the politics of daily life.
points of others. They provide examples of the
self as multilayered, fragmented, or fluid. Tensions arise as the same event is interpreted or understood in different ways by different characters. The issues in these books are often messy,
complex, and not easily resolved. Advocates of
critical literacy examine competing narratives
that describe social and political “realities” and
construct counternarratives that challenge the
dominant discourses. In paying attention to
multiple perspectives and realities, they seek to
make difference visible—creating a curriculum
that honors and highlights difference rather than
one that strives for consensus and conformity.
Analyzing Popular Culture and Media
People in today’s world are bombarded with
powerful images from television, radio, computer games, the Internet, and various forms of
print media. Taking a critical stance involves an
examination of how social norms are communicated through the various arenas of popular culture and how identities are shaped by these experiences. Critical-literacy practices lead to an
examination of how individuals and groups are
positioned and constructed by popular culture
and media. Cultural icons like Pokémon and
Barbie are studied in terms of the messages they
convey about what is or should be valued. This
leads to an analysis of how the media and consumer culture are shaping our collective perceptions, responses, and actions.
Appreciating Multiple Realities
and Viewpoints
When people adopt a critical stance, they attempt to stand in the shoes of others in order to
understand experience and text not only from
personal experience but also from the viewpoints
of others. Individuals with a critical perspective
consider various views concurrently as they seek
to gain a richer and more complete understanding of the issue at hand. This often means juxtaposing multiple and contradictory textual accounts of an event (Luke and Freebody, 1997).
Readers interrogate texts in terms of which
voices are heard and which are missing and consider how a story would be different if it was told
from a different perspective, for instance, from
that of the slave rather than the slave owner.
In selecting materials for classroom use, educators who are attempting to develop a criticalliteracy curriculum seek out texts that give voice
to those who have been silenced or marginalized—the migrant farmworker, the unemployed
father, the ridiculed child, the genocide victim
(Harste et al., 2000). They also seek out multiview books where the story is told using a variety
of voices. These books show how identities are
constructed socially, emanating from the view-
Taking Action to Promote Social Justice
Taking a critical stance means using language and
other sign systems to get things done in the
world. This is exemplified by Paulo Freire’s call
for people to become actors in the world rather
than spectators. He also stresses the importance
of praxis—reflection and action that transforms
the world. This sense of agency can be strengthened by reading books and viewing accounts of
the struggles that occur when people take action
to right injustices. Individuals compose their
own narratives, counternarratives, letters, essays,
reports, poems, commercials, posters, plays, and
web pages to promote social change. They participate in discussions that focus on issues of oppression, fairness, and transformation. They use
a variety of literacies to conduct surveys and
gather data to explain, expose, and find solutions
for real-world problems. They use the arts to ex110
Critical Media Literacy
press critical understandings and to get messages
of justice and democracy out into the world. Instead of being positioned as helpless victims,
people use critical literacy to rewrite their identities as social activists who challenge the status
quo and demand changes. They use cultural resources and critical literacies to develop powerful
voices and speak out collectively against injustice.
Mitzi Lewison and Christine Leland
the perceived evils of popular media are often
criticized for their heavy-handed tactics, including censoring, boycotting, or blaming the media
for society’s ills. Such approaches are not what is
meant by critical media literacy. More typically,
critical media literacy is seen as simply being
concerned with helping students develop an
awareness of the power of media messages so
that informed, or empowering, decisions can be
made about their use. This awareness is taught in
various ways. Some literacy educators, especially
those working from a media-studies perspective
(e.g., Semali and Pailliotet, 1999), advocate identifying the various ideological positions that different media texts afford readers, viewers, and
listeners. For this group of educators, knowing
the ways in which individuals are marked by
race, class, and gender is central to pursuing critical media literacy.
Generally speaking, although educators working from a media-studies perspective acknowledge that the process of teaching critical media
literacy will vary according to the text under consideration and the context in which an individual
finds herself or himself when attempting to make
meaning of that text, they adhere to the belief that
it is important to help students identify the biased
and stereotyped messages conveyed through
mass-media production. A major pedagogical objective from a media-studies perspective is to assist readers (viewers, listeners) in becoming adept
at resisting any attempt by the media to manipulate their worldviews. The potential for such manipulation is seen as a threat to personal freedom,
and ultimately to society at large.
Other literacy educators, and in particular
those who view critical media literacy from a cultural-studies perspective, are concerned not so
much with countering the media’s so-called
threatening and manipulative hold on audiences
as they are with striking a balance between pleasure and critique. For this group of educators
(e.g., Luke, 1997; Morgan, 1997), allowing individuals little or no freedom to explore their
pleasures in constructing meaning from media
texts is tantamount to missing opportunities for
developing within those same individuals a
healthy skepticism of the textual messages. Instead of forcing students to critique the very texts
they find pleasurable, educators who take a cultural-studies approach to critical media literacy
look for ways to guide readers, viewers, and lis-
See Also
Critical Media Literacy
References
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. New
York: Longman.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New
York: Herder and Herder.
Harste, Jerome C., Amy Breau, Christine Leland,
Mitzi Lewison, Anne Ociepka, and Vivian
Vasquez. 2000. “Supporting Critical Conversations
in Classrooms.” In Kathryn Mitchell Pierce, ed.,
Adventuring with Books: A Booklist for Pre-K—
Grade 6, 12th ed., pp. 506–554. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Janks, Hilary. 2000. “Domination, Access, Diversity,
and Design: A Synthesis for Critical Literacy
Education.” Educational Review 52 (2):175–186.
Luke, Allan, and Peter Freebody. 1997. “Shaping the
Social Practices of Reading.” In Sandy Muspratt,
Allan Luke, and Peter Freebody, eds., Constructing
Critical Literacies, pp. 185–225. Creskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Shannon, Patrick. 1995. Text, Lies, and Videotape.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Critical Media Literacy
Theoretically speaking, critical media literacy
may be defined broadly in one of two ways: (1) it
is emancipatory, or empowering, in that it seeks
to free people from coercive practices, and (2) it
recognizes that knowledge constitutes power.
Educators who teach critical media literacy
within an emancipatory frame typically focus on
creating communities of active readers, viewers,
and listeners capable of identifying the various
ideological positions that print and nonprint
texts offer them. They also focus on teaching
people how to make informed decisions about
which ideological position they will accept or
take up, which they will resist, and which they
will attempt to modify.
A few extreme emancipatory approaches to
instruction that attempt to free students from
111
Critical Media Literacy
cupy within it is only half the story. The other
half is understanding how the meanings that audiences make of media texts are negotiated in relation to people’s different social circumstances
and positioning (e.g., adult, child, teenager, male,
female, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class) as
well as the cultural contexts in which such texts
are consumed (Luke, 1997). As Storey (1996) explained, texts are never inscribed with meaning
that is guaranteed once and for all to reflect the
intentions of production; instead, such meaning
is negotiated by audiences (readers) and expressed differently within specific contexts and at
specific moments in time.
Researchers in the 1960s and 1970s, influenced as they were by Marxist theory of a society divided along race, class, and gender lines,
focused primarily on how print and nonprint
textual images reflected certain ideological
stances believed to be oppressive to some groups
of people (e.g., women and blacks) while maintaining the status quo, or even furthering the
goals, of other more powerful groups. By the
1980s, researchers began to shift their attention
from analyzing the texts themselves to studying
the audiences for those texts. To understand audience consumption of popular media texts
(e.g., rap lyrics, films, video games, celebrity
magazines), it is necessary to analyze the historical and social conditions in which such texts are
constituted. From a cultural-studies perspective
on critical media literacy, audiences are not passive. They do not merely reflect the images, language, and sounds of commercially produced
media texts; rather, they actively engage in producing their own meanings that then become
part of the historical and social conditions in
which future media texts are constituted and
consumed (Alvermann and Hagood, 2000). It is
this interactivity, coupled with the fact that the
same text may evoke different meanings from
people thought to share common cultural understandings, that can make analyzing audience
consumption such an unpredictable process.
Just as studying audiences’ responses to a particular media text is fraught with uncertainties,
so too is the teaching of critical media literacy. To
reduce such teaching to a focus on audience consumption without also considering the coercive
forces at work in media production is thought to
have potentially serious consequences. For example, it could blind both teachers and students
Students learn how to read and listen critically by the
time they are adolescents (Elizabeth Crews)
teners through a self-reflective process aimed at
teaching them to question their own pleasures
within their own set of circumstances and with
texts of their own choosing.
In today’s media culture, texts are often hybrids of the images, language, and sounds they
incorporate. They are commonly associated with
television, video, multimedia, hypermedia, the
Internet, and other forms of new communication technologies such as instant messaging and
e-mailing. Less commonly thought of as media
texts are the symbolically rich structures through
which people make meaning when they engage
in music, film, dance, drama, art, and other nonprint forms of communication.
Becoming literate in a world that increasingly
mingles print and nonprint texts is part and parcel of living in the twenty-first century. It is also
a function of learning how to identify coercive
power arrangements within the media establishment and what strategies are available for resisting them. But understanding from a media-studies perspective how the intentions of producers
of various media texts may construct people’s
knowledge of their everyday world and the social, economic, and political positions they oc112
Critical Reading
to how the media works on and through them as
subjects of a textual authority that is linked to
larger economies of power and privilege
(McLaren and Lankshear, 1993). Another potential danger in focusing on audience consumption
at the expense of media production is that by
privileging meaning that is constructed at the
point of reception, teachers could run the risk of
inscribing even further the stereotyped thinking
and biases that students bring to their understanding of popular media texts.
This tension between a cultural-studies perspective (with its emphasis on audience consumption) and a media-studies perspective
(with its concern for what texts do to audiences,
that is, how they produce meanings that readers
take up) is reflected in much of the debate surrounding modernist pedagogical discourse.
From the latter perspective, teachers and students are viewed as inhabiting stable membership categories that permit little or no movement
from one category to the other. Moreover, individuals within those categories are perceived as
possessing fairly stable characteristics. Thus,
from a media-studies perspective, teachers are
perceived as knowledgeable (the knowers) and
students as learners (the naive ones).
However, from a cultural-studies perspective,
it is quite possible to imagine situations in which
some border crossing between the categorical
teacher-student “divide” might occur. For example, it is conceivable that students are not as
naive as some teachers might imagine. In fact, to
attribute a certain naïveté to them—to suggest
that they do not recognize the coercive nature of
the media that teachers are trying to make them
aware of (in an empowering sense)—is to suggest that power is something teachers own, a
piece of property of sorts, that can be given away
or withheld at will.
According to Australian educator Wendy Morgan (1997), this view of empowerment is problematic in that it is arrogant and can lead to selfdefeating pedagogical practices. Working from
the perspective that binary oppositions, such as
those between domination (power) and subordination (powerlessness), are suspect, Morgan argues for classroom practices that abandon the
search for villains or heroes in media texts, for
oppressors or emancipators, and for the general
labeling of oppositional categories such as “us”
and “them.” Doing away with such overtly sim-
plistic binaries, Morgan argues, would give
teachers and students alike the opportunity to
explore how people act provisionally—sometimes this way, sometimes that way—at particular times, given particular circumstances. It
would also give rise to challenging pedagogically
the notion that power is a possession to be distributed at will (as, for example, by media producers) and substitute in its place the idea that
power is socially negotiated between audiences
and producers of various media texts.
Donna E. Alvermann
See Also
Critical Literacy; Media Literacy; Visual Literacy
References
Alvermann, Donna E., and Margaret C. Hagood.
2000. “Critical Media Literacy: Research, Theory,
and Practice in ‘New Times.’” Journal of
Educational Research 3:193–205.
Luke, Carmen. 1997. “Media Literacy and Cultural
Studies.” In Sandy Muspratt, Allan Luke, and Peter
Freebody, eds., Constructing Critical Literacies:
Teaching and Learning Textual Practice, pp. 19–49.
Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
McLaren, Peter L., and Colin Lankshear. 1993.
“Critical Literacy and the Postmodern Turn.” In
Colin Lankshear and Peter L. McLaren, eds.,
Critical Literacy: Politics, Praxis, and the
Postmodern, pp. 379–419. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Morgan, Wendy. 1997. Critical Literacy in the
Classroom: The Art of the Possible. New York:
Routledge.
Semali, Ladislaus, and Ann Watts Pailliotet, eds. 1999.
Intermediality: The Teachers’ Handbook of Critical
Media Literacy. Boulder: Westview Press.
Storey, John. 1996. Cultural Studies and the Study of
Popular Culture. Athens: University of Georgia
Press.
Critical Reading
Emmet Betts has been credited for introducing
the term critical reading. Betts viewed critical
reading as the process of making judgments in
reading by evaluating the relevancy and adequacy of what is read in terms of some norms or
standards. A valuable resource for anyone interested in critical reading from a historical perspective is the edited volume Critical Reading
(King, Ellinger, and Wolf, 1967), a compendium
of conceptual, empirical, and instructional literature from a wide variety of sources. The editors
113
Critical Reading
of that volume defined critical reading as an analytical and evaluative process that requires the
reader to make rational judgments about both
the content and style of writing based upon valid
criteria.
In the literature circa 1960, critical reading is
often referred to as the application of critical
thinking to reading printed texts. It has also been
proposed that critical reading is a prerequisite
for, as well as an end product of, critical thinking.
In everyday usage, critical thinking is reasonable
reflective thinking focused on deciding what to
believe or do (Ennis, 1987). Taking into account
and weighing evidence to decide what to believe
is critical thinking, whereas defending unexamined beliefs is rationalizing. Critical thinking is
based on Western philosophical thinkers such as
Immanuel Kant, who heralded the transcendental power of reasoning over superstitious thinking. Interest in critical thinking and critical reading has historically represented a search for a
normative theory of correct reasoning. Although
never explicitly stated in the literature of the
1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, critical thinking/reading was viewed as a way of superseding ideology,
politics, and power relations through a logical,
rational analysis of text. What remained uncontested was that critical thinking itself is an ideological construct with historical roots in ancient
Greece. The critical thinker was assumed to be an
autonomous individual able to impartially reflect, critique, and discover what to believe.
One of the educational challenges with critical
reading has been find a way to test it. Janice Dole
(1977) conducted a multitrait-multimethod
analysis to examine the validity of both the construct of critical reading and several instruments
designed to measure critical reading. Specifically,
she wanted to determine if critical reading, the
ability to interpret information, could be differentiated from literal reading, the ability to derive
information explicitly stated. An empirically distinguishable difference was not found between
critical and literal reading. Dole concluded that
further examination was needed on the operationalization of critical reading to examine its relation to other dimensions of reading comprehension. Measuring critical reading remains an
unsolved educational issue.
Helen Crossen (1948) published one of the
earliest empirical studies of critical reading.
Crossen’s study provides an interesting backdrop
for considering the trajectory of the term critical
reading from then to now. Crossen set out to determine what relationship, if any, exists between
a reader’s attitude toward a topic and the ability
to read critically material about that topic. Her
ninth-grade subjects read about the Negro (sic)
people and the German people (World War II
was in progress). The results gave rise to two
questions. Why did an unfavorable attitude affect
the pupils’ reading about the Negro (sic), but not
about the Germans? And why did pupils who
held unfavorable rather than favorable attitudes
obtain lower scores on the critical reading test?
Crossen’s findings of yesteryear are poignant for
those who are critiquing contemporary teacherpreparation curricula for paying little or no attention to race relations, ethics, and ideology.
Today, there is an educational divide that must
be considered with regard to critical reading.
There are those who seek all-encompassing normative, generalizable theories of reasoning, reading, and critical reading. However, others assume
that literacy practices operate within a sociopolitical context—a context defined and legitimated by those who have the power and authority to do so. From a sociopolitical perspective,
critical readers are engaged in detecting and handling ideological dimensions of literacy and the
role of literacy in enactments and productions of
power (Lankshear et al., 1997).
One finds among the multidisciplinary studies
of literacy challenges to the presumption that
learning to read and write invariably contributes
to social progress, to personal improvement and
mobility, perhaps to better health, almost certainly to cognitive development. Critics reject the
autonomous or instrumentalist approach in
which learning reading and writing is divorced
from a critical analysis of the political and social
order. More than anyone else, the Brazilian educator Freire is credited with drawing attention to
literacy as the practice of power. Freire and others write about a critical reading of the world and
propose that a semiliterate person is one who can
identify words but is unable to read the world.
Reading the world for Freire and those who embrace his project of emancipatory political praxis
through critical literacy involves understanding
the politics of oppression in totalitarian regimes
and in liberal democracies.
In 1961, Francis Chase offered a related vision
of critical reading when he faulted teaching
114
Criticisms of Reader Response
Measure Critical Reading Ability. Ph.D. diss.,
University of Colorado. Dissertation Abstracts
International, AAT 7808892.
Ennis, Robert H. 1987. “A Taxonomy of Critical
Thinking Dispositions and Abilities.” In Joan B.
Baron and Robert J. Sternberg, eds., Teaching
Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice, pp. 9–26.
New York: W. H. Freeman.
King, Martha L., Bernice D. Ellinger, and Willavene
Wolf, eds. 1967. Critical Reading. Philadelphia:
J. B. Lippincott Company.
Lankshear, Colin, James P. Gee, Michele Knobel,
and Chris Searle. 1997. Changing Literacies.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
methods for treating reading primarily as a
process of discerning rather quickly what the author had written. Chase promoted the idea that
teaching reading must also involve developing
the capacity to understand ourselves in the world
in which we live (King, Ellinger, and Wolf, 1967).
There can be little doubt that the term critical
remains educationally viable, but some recognize
it as a “contested concept” (Lankshear et al.,
1997). Educating for critical thinking/reading is
claimed by various discourse communities in education, each one adhering to a set of values—to
different ideologies. When encountering the
term critical reading, we must consider the author’s ideological perspective. In retrospect, it
seems clear that Crossen’s ninth-grade readers of
the 1940s could not engage in a critical reading
text about Negroes or Germans without first examining the ideologies of race and ethnicity that
they ascribed to, explicitly or implicitly. A sociopolitical perspective on critical reading explicitly acknowledges this. In the 1960s, the focus
was more or less on how to read a particular
printed text using established criteria based on
principles of logic. Critical reading, like other literacy practices, was under the influence of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management, wherein
education was about acquiring skills and content
that could be measured for competency. That
treats critical reading as technocratic rationality.
It leads to critical reading in a narrow sense. Today, the imperative is to critically read the self
and the world, which in turn makes possible a
critical reading of the word—the text. A broader
or wider sense of critical reading has developed
since the days of Helen Crossen’s study. To read
critically in the wider sense is to respond to a
particular text as an embodiment of a larger discursive logic (Lankshear et al., 1997). Today,
when one comes across the term critical reading,
it is best to consider the term in light of what can
be discerned about the literacy ideology of the
person using the term.
Michelle Commeyras
Criticisms of Reader Response
Reader response refers to a number of different
critical theories and practices that share an emphasis on the role of the reader and the act of
reading in the interpretation of literary texts
(Beach, 1993) (see Reader Response). Reader response is both a school of literary theory and a
type of classroom practice in the teaching of literature. Criticisms of reader-response theory critique the idea that literary experience exists only
in the mind of the reader and has little to do with
the literary text or the social worlds that surround
it. Criticisms of reader-response teaching practice
critique the idea that only the student’s responses
to a literary work matter and suggest that teachers do more than ask young people to look within
themselves for meaning. Teachers, the critics argue, should expand the focus to include political,
social, and cultural factors that shape the act of
reading. At this point in history, most new and recently established language arts and literature
curricula are grounded in reader-response theory
and espouse reader-response teaching methods.
Criticisms of reader-response theory and practice
can help to keep teachers and others aware of the
need to balance respect for the reader’s response
through literature instruction that also does justice to the artistry of the author’s text and to the
influence of the social world.
See Also
Critical Literacy; Resistant Reading
References
Crossen, Helen J. 1948. “Effects of the Attitudes of
the Reader upon Critical Reading Ability.” Journal
of Educational Research 42:289–298.
Dole, Janice A. 1977. A Validation of the Construct of
Critical Reading and of Three Tests Designed to
Criticisms of Reader-Response Theory
Literary theory, the foundation for our literature
teaching practices, is always a dialogue, a constant exchange of ideas that look at literature
first from one perspective and then from another. In considering the reading process, literary theorists are most often interested in one or
115
Criticisms of Reader Response
more of its aspects—the reader, the author, the
text, the social world. Although reader-response
theory does not represent one clearly unified
theoretical perspective, all reader-response theories focus on the mind of the reader during the
act of reading. Most critiques of reader-response
theory respond to one of two schools of
thought—phenomenology and reception theory—each of which has influenced literature
teaching and curriculum development over the
last thirty years.
factors that shape the reading “self ” and the
reader’s mind.
Criticisms of phenomenology and of reception theory have flourished within the turbulent
postmodern intellectual milieu in which we are
now living, in which no theory is to be considered balanced, and in which no meanings can
ever be fixed. Assuming that language can never
be stable and that history must be considered in
every intellectual endeavor, postmodern (or
post-structuralist) theorists of identity formation show us how readers’ identities are constructed.
Phenomenology
and Philosophical Critiques
Phenomenology, a philosophy articulated by the
German philosopher Husserl (1970), reduces reality to the contents of human consciousness
alone. It proposes the human mind as the source
and origin of all meaning. It provides an ideal
philosophical foundation for reader-response
practices that consider only what happens in the
mind of the reader during the act of reading.
Critics of phenomenology (for example,
Gadamer, 1982) ask how the consciousness of
the human subject came into being in the first
place. They assert that human consciousness is
produced by social conditions, even as it in turn
produces them. They see phenomenology as essentialist, antihistorical discourse because it proposes a consistent, unchanging human self that
stands alone outside of history. Critics of phenomenology argue that the experience of human
consciousness is exactly that: human experience.
They point out that all experience involves language and that language is inherently social, created by and operating within human society.
Pure consciousness, and the unified reading subject, do not exist.
Political Theory and Ideological Critiques
Another branch of criticism of reader-response
theory is rooted in political theory. Terry Eagleton (1996) has said that the political has to do
with how human beings organize their social life
together and the power relations that this involves. He argues that the history of modern literary theory is part of the political and ideological history of our time. No one can find a vantage
point outside the social world where it is possible
to read and interpret literature. “The reader” is a
social entity with political and ideological (as
well as aesthetic) dimensions. Literary theory
can be used for political purposes. Several
schools of literary theory develop this idea
(Marxist, feminist, and postcolonial are among
them). Unlike reader-response theory, each begins with certain ideas about the nature of power
relations. Marxist literary theory concerns itself
with class struggle, feminist theory with power
and gender in literature and reading, and postcolonial theory with the ways in which literary
constructions of the cultural Other work to preserve relations of dominance. These theories represent quite different ways of looking at the
world, at reading, and at literature. Political literary theorists, who are concerned with educating
youth to change the world for the better through
the study of literature, critique reader-response
theory for failing to take account of power in
politics and the social world. They argue that
reader-response theory itself is not apolitical.
When it assumes a unified, rational, essential self
and ignores the impact of the social world upon
the human mind, it promotes a conservative
view of the world as fixed, unchanging, and unchangeable. This is the critique from the Left.
There have also been ideological critiques of
Reception Theory
and Psychological Critiques
Reader-response theorist Wolfgang Iser (1978)
described meaning as the result of an interaction
between reader and text, as an effect to be experienced, not a message to be found. The “reception theorists” also examine the reader’s role in
literature, seeing text as potential, as something
to be realized in the mind of the reader. Critics of
reception theory see it as a liberal humanist ideology. Grounded in phenomenology, it presupposes the unity of the reading subject and fails to
place the reader in history. It ignores the social
116
Criticisms of Reader Response
reader-response theory and practice from the
political Right. Those who understand education
as a form of transmission, in which the knowledge of the teacher is deposited into the heads of
students, do not accept the idea that students are
capable of producing knowledge for themselves.
If “knowledge” of authors, literary historical periods, and literary devices is what must be transmitted from teacher to student, and if this
knowledge is a shared “cultural literacy” that
unites the nation (see the work of critic E. D.
Hirsch), then reader-response teaching practices
are an abnegation of scholarly authority and educational standards.
Or if many students in a class express impatience
with Hamlet and his failure to act, the teacher
can choose to explore with them the psychology
of masculinity with which they have grown up.
The teacher can help them find evidence in film,
advertising, and music videos of contemporary
cultural discourses that mark violence and action as expectations for masculinity. Students
can be helped to understand that they have come
to think and feel as they do through interaction
with what they read, view, and hear. Students
should have the opportunity to learn something
about the forces that have shaped their attitudes
and their minds.
A second approach to criticizing reader-response teaching practices asks teachers to help
students become aware of the cultural and historical forces that surround the politics of reading. The work of Louise Rosenblatt (1978)
pointed out that the meaning of a response
varies according to differences in specific social
contexts, which are in turn embedded in certain
historical and cultural contexts. Teachers should
encourage young readers to think about political
categories like race, gender, and social class in order to raise questions about how these social positions exert a powerful influence over the reading and writing of literature. Teachers ought to
discuss with the students the literary canon, and
how and why the works they read in school have
been selected for them. When young men read
works written from the point of view of a
woman, when Euro-American students read
works written from the point of view of an AfroAmerican, when gay and lesbian students read
works written from the point of view of a heterosexual person, what happens and how do they
respond? How have their identities been constructed in interaction with cultural beliefs
about these social categories? Students need to
consider explicitly the nature of the resistance
they may feel in encountering other points of
view. Power relations are involved and should
not be ignored.
Many alternatives to strictly response-based
teaching practices are now being proposed, all of
them theoretically grounded in other views of
what literature is and what happens when we
read. Some alternatives are text centered, but not
in any narrow way. They rely on postmodern assumptions about language and history and remain sensitive to the world beyond the text.
Criticisms of Reader-Response Practice
Critics of reader-response-based practice say that
it is too individualistic and personal, that it fails
to make explicit the many ways in which the social world shapes reading and the identity of the
reader (Cherland, 2000). It teaches young people
to look only within themselves for meaning.
Teaching literature is more than arranging for a
dualistic interaction between reader and text,
and more than accepting student responses. Yes,
teaching practice should respect what may be
happening in the mind of the reader. But there is
much more that teachers and students ought to
be aware of. There are two important ways to
criticize reader-response teaching practices. One
takes a psychological approach, seeking to correct
the assumption that the young reader has an essential, unified, rational “self ” that responds to
literature in a cultural vacuum. It suggests that
readers need to understand themselves as people
who construct their own identities in interaction
with the cultural discourses that surround them.
A second category takes a cultural/historical approach, seeking to help young readers understand not themselves, but rather the cultural and
historical forces that surround the politics of the
act of reading.
Psychological critics of reader-response teaching practice ask teachers to make young readers
aware of the cultural discourses that have helped
to shape their minds and their responses. If, for
example, a young reader reports feeling anger
with and disgust for Celie upon reading about
incest on the first page of The Color Purple by Alice Walker, the teacher can provide information
about incest taboos in this and other cultures,
and the culture’s tendency to blame the victim.
117
Critique of the National Reading Panel Report
Subject English, pp. 104–116. Toronto: Irwin
Publishing.
Eagleton, Terry. 1996. Literary Theory: An Introduction.
2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1982. Truth and Method. New
York: Crossroads.
Harper, Helen. 1998. “Dangerous Desires: Feminist
Literary Criticism in a High School Writing
Class.” Theory Into Practice 37:220–228.
Husserl, Edmund. 1970. The Crisis of European
Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An
Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy.
Translated by David Carr. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
Iser, Wolfgang. 1978. The Act of Reading: A Theory
of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Leggo, Carl. 1998. “Open(ing) Texts: Deconstructing
and Responding to Poetry.” Theory Into Practice
37:186–192.
Moore, John Noell. 1998. “Street Signs: Semiotics,
Romeo and Juliet, and Young Adult Literature.”
Theory Into Practice 37:211–219.
Rosenblatt, Louise. 1978. The Reader, the Text and the
Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary
Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Singh, Michael Garbutcheon, and James Greenlaw.
1998. “Postcolonial Theory in the Literature
Classroom: Contrapuntal Readings.” Theory Into
Practice 37:193–200.
Other alternatives are centered not on the text
but on power relationships and the politics of literature study.
Contemporary text-centered approaches to
literature teaching include deconstruction
(Leggo, 1998), feminist demonstration readings
(Harper, 1998), and semiotic analysis (Moore,
1998). Each begins with the student’s responses
but then attempts to link them to the psychology
and the structures of the literary text. Moore, for
example, shows students how to find the signs
and codes in the text that have called forth their
responses and then explores with students similar systems of signs in other texts and in wider
cultural patterns of meaning.
Other alternatives to response-based teaching
practices are oriented to the study of power relations in the social world. Feminist approaches
may suggest that students read several works by
female authors who are not often included in the
traditional curriculum. Marxist approaches may
suggest that students remain aware of the role of
money and economic power in, say, To Kill a
Mockingbird, as poor people are silenced in court
and denied in school. Postcolonial approaches
may suggest “contrapuntal readings” (Michael
Singh and James Greenlaw, 1998, first suggested
in the work of literary critic Edward Said) in
which two works that deal with the same time and
place in history are read together, one representing the point of view of the dominant culture and
one representing the point of view of the Other.
In working with alternatives to reader-response instructional practices, the teacher’s
struggle will be to continue to engage students
with literature on a personal level while remaining committed to readings that are sensitive to
the culture. Literature teaching must recognize
that reading is not just a psychological or an aesthetic practice. It is also a social practice that has
political consequences.
Meredith Rogers Cherland
Critique of the National
Reading Panel Report
Although reports of national commissions on
reading research are not new, these efforts have
increased over the past decade with two national
reports in short succession: Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, and
Griffin, 1998) and Teaching Children to Read
(National Reading Panel, 2000). The speed with
which these national endeavors are following
one another reflects changes in the literacy demands of the digital age. At the same time, economic, linguistic, and cultural diversity has increased in American schools. The rapid
succession of national reports demonstrates efforts to understand these changes.
The charge of the National Reading Panel
(NRP) was to assess the status of research-based
knowledge, including the effectiveness of various
approaches to teaching children to read. For top-
See Also
Reader Response
References
Beach, Richard. 1993. A Teacher’s Introduction to
Reader-Response Theories. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Cherland, Meredith. 2000. “Teaching Beyond Reader
Response: Reading the Culture to Know the Self.”
In Barrie R. C. Barrell and Roberta F. Hammett,
eds., Advocating Change: Contemporary Issues in
118
Critique of the National Reading Panel Report
ics such as alphabetics and fluency, their answers
are comprehensive enough to be useful in the
arenas of practice. For the topics of comprehension, teacher education, and computer technology, the panel repeats the educational researchers’ mantra that “more research is needed.”
This critique considers topics that were not considered by the NRP and does not revisit the conclusions of the panel. Specifically, the following
topics are considered: the definition of scientific
research, exclusion of topics raised in the panel’s
regional hearings, and the need to mark a clear
course for future research.
go hand in hand with qualitative analyses that
describe the problems that effective teachers encounter and solve as they implement methods
with particular groups of children.
Exclusion of Particular Topics
Alan Farstrup (2000), executive director of the
International Reading Association, has cautioned against criticizing the report for neglecting certain topics. After all, choices need to be
made in selecting literatures for any review. The
panel failed, however, to explain why it focused
on some topics and ignored others. By listing the
selected topics right after the list of prominent
topics in the regional hearings, the panel makes
the exclusion of particular topics obvious, particularly the use of literature-based approaches
to reading instruction, the role of community
and family in students’ reading development,
and reading development of students learning
English as a second language.
The panel’s failure to attend to literaturebased instruction means that the practices that
dominate American classrooms were left unaddressed. The large reading textbook programs
that are used in the majority of American classrooms continue to be literature based, despite
mandates for phonetically decodable texts from
America’s two largest states that adopt textbooks
centrally. Programs have addressed the mandate
by Texas and California for phonetically decodable texts through ancillary components and
modifications in the first and second of the five
anthologies that form the first-grade program.
The findings of the panel regarding the length of
effective phonemic awareness treatments and the
integration of letter and phoneme manipulation
can do much to direct the proliferation of policies and materials in ways that can support children’s literacy levels and teachers’ interest and
skill in providing appropriate instruction. Without examining the larger context in which instruction of alphabetics and fluency occurs—the
massive textbook programs that continue to
dominate American schools—the connection of
these findings to practice remains uncertain. By
not considering whether and how the texts of literature-based programs promote fluency, the
findings regarding fluency are unlikely to make a
dent in the reading speed and comprehension of
the sizable proportion of an American age cohort that reads slowly and infrequently.
Definition of Scientific Research
The panel identified experimental studies as the
highest standard of evidence. Since few experimental studies were located in the research, studies of a quasi-experimental design were included
in the meta-analyses (statistical integration of research) that provided the basis for the panel’s
findings on topics of phonemic awareness,
phonics, and fluency. Differences in findings related to the rigor of studies, including the use of
random assignment, were not found to be critical in any of the meta-analyses. Throughout the
report, however, reading research is evaluated on
the presence of experimental studies and, based
on this criterion, is found wanting. Such a characterization is unfortunate for the teachers and
teacher educators who use this research and also
relays an incorrect perception about the role of
current reading research in educational reform
to policymakers and the public.
A substantial body of scientific research that
uses designs other than experimental and quasiexperimental designs is available to guide practice. Further, the panel fails to discuss the reasons
many classroom studies do not use random assignment or have the characteristics of those
conducted in laboratory settings. For example, a
critical component in high-poverty schools with
high student achievement is teachers’ commitment to particular reading programs (Adler and
Fisher, 2001). Such a conclusion was obtained
through qualitative investigation—interviews
and observations. Not only would such a finding
not be uncovered in an experiment, but it raises
questions about the random assignment of
teachers to methods. Quantitative analyses are
useful in designing and modifying instructional
materials and methods. These analyses need to
119
Critique of the National Reading Panel Report
The panel also failed to explain why the topic
of community and family programs was not reviewed. Wide-scale federal efforts such as Title I
and the Reading Excellence Act have tied family
literacy efforts to school programs. Extending
children’s literacy into home contexts and involving families and community organizations
in literacy makes sense. How school-based educators attain the expertise to accomplish these
goals requires substantiation. The panel’s reason
for omitting this topic may well have been that
the research base is inadequate. As with teacher
education and computer technology, that conclusion itself would have been useful.
The reason given by the panel for eliminating
reading by students learning English from their
agenda was a recently initiated research program
by the federal government on the topic. A new research program by federal agencies and attention
to a topic in a national report are two very different issues. Overlap of scholars who focus on reading and who focus on second-language learning
has been limited. For American teachers, the children who require their expertise most in reading
instruction are often children who are learning to
speak English. It is all well and good to recommend that children learn to read in their native
languages, as Catherine Snow and her colleagues
(1998) urge, but the exigencies of many instructional situations require teachers to deal with new
or multiple-language groups. By relegating the
literacy learning of English-language learners beyond the purview of reading educators, the panel
has contributed to maintaining the status quo, in
which this population is likely to remain challenged in attaining literacy standards.
Reading Study Group (RRSG) began its deliberations as the NRP was finalizing its report. The
RRSG refers to Report of the NRP and Preventing
Reading Difficulties in its introduction. The
RRSG chose to focus on proficient reading, particularly on comprehension and knowledge acquisition through reading. In making this choice,
the RRSG built on the NRP conclusions regarding comprehension and vocabulary. Connections between the findings of the previous reports on alphabetics and fluency and the
research agenda proposed by the RRSG are less
explicit.
The Report of the NRP includes a number of
critical findings on alphabetics and fluency—
findings at a level of specificity for practice that
have not previously been reported by a national
panel. In order for these findings to make their
way into teachers’ practices and into the texts
that most children read daily, a follow-up panel
to examine the critical topics left unexplored by
the NRP would be required. By recognizing
needs in particular areas rather than ignoring
them, the panel could have fostered a broader
view of research that would support teachers and
children in America’s classrooms at the beginning of the twenty-first century. These classrooms demand a view of literacy for diversity.
Elfrieda H. Hiebert and Martha A. Adler
See Also
National Reading Panel; The RAND Reading Study
Group
References
Adler, Martha A., and Charles W. Fisher. 2001. “Early
Reading Programs in High Poverty Schools: A
Case Study of Beating the Odds.” Reading Teacher
54 (6):616–619.
Farstrup, Alan E. 2000. “What the Panel Really
Said—and Didn’t Say.” Reading Today 18(1):8.
National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching Children to
Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the
Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its
Implications for Reading Instruction. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development.
Snow, Catherine E., M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin,
eds. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young
Children. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
The Research Agenda
Neither handbooks nor reviews of particular
topics in journals provide cross-literature integration or weigh the needs or importance of one
form of research over another. The identification
of a research agenda should be the role of a national panel, and in this regard the NRP comes
up short. Had the panel advised Congress that
evaluations of research to inform practice should
be extended to other topics, it would have rendered a service to the profession. The Rand
120
D
deaf community). The importance of deafness to
literacy development lies in the child’s ability to
acquire enough knowledge of language to understand its written form.
Deaf Students and Literacy
Deafness in children is defined as a hearing loss
severe enough to adversely affect a child’s spoken
communication and educational performance.
For medical purposes, deafness is typically categorized as a severe or profound hearing loss. For
educational purposes, language acquisition and
educational performance, rather than degree of
hearing loss, are the factors used in identifying
deafness. The extent to which hearing loss influences reading and writing development depends
on the type and cause of the loss, the degree of
loss, and the child’s ability to learn language via
visual and auditory modalities. Although hearing loss is medically classified as slight, mild,
moderate, moderate-severe, severe, and profound, in reality no two individuals have the
same pattern of hearing even within these categories. The ability to functionally use hearing for
learning and using language differs from individual to individual.
Deafness is a low-incidence disability. It is estimated that 0.10 percent of children are severely
and profoundly deaf. Approximately 25 percent
of students who are deaf have one additional disability, and 9 percent have two or more other disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). Most individuals with a hearing loss
are able to benefit from some form of amplification, although some deaf students prefer not to
use hearing aids. Many deaf children have received cochlear implants, which are surgically
implanted electronic devices that directly stimulate the auditory nerve fibers in the cochlea.
Children with hearing aids or cochlear implants
tend to learn and use spoken English (or the language of the child’s country or region). Children
who do not rely on amplification tend to learn
and use sign language (or the language of the
Literacy Achievement
Children who are deaf begin to develop as readers and writers from the point in early childhood when they become aware of print in their
environment and the uses of print by significant
individuals in their lives, just as hearing children do. Preschool deaf children have been
found to demonstrate developmentally appropriate knowledge and understanding of written
language and uses of literacy even when language acquisition is delayed in comparison to
hearing children (Williams and McLean, 1997).
However, when deaf children become engaged
in formal reading and writing instruction in
school, their literacy development typically lags
behind their hearing peers. The average reading
level of deaf students who graduate from high
school is fourth grade (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2001).
Achievement of the average deaf student provides no basis for predicting the achievement of
any single child. Many children who are deaf
achieve at reading levels commensurate with
hearing children, and many deaf adults read proficiently. Deaf children have the same cognitive
ability to learn language as children with hearing, and they have the cognitive ability to become proficient readers and writers.
Instructional Practices
Instructional challenges center around the deaf
child’s language ability, prior knowledge and experiences, vocabulary, and word recognition. To
understand written material, the deaf student
121
Deaf Students and Literacy
Deaf student in class (Associated Press/The New Mexican)
the child’s particular knowledge of the many
topics included in a given text passage. The
child’s vocabulary knowledge is also connected
to background knowledge. Literacy instruction
that incorporates vocabulary instruction recognizes that the deaf child often does not have the
same breadth and depth of vocabulary as hearing
children. Knowledge of genre depends on the
child’s reading experience. The young deaf child
tends to have less experience with storybook
reading by parents because of language delays,
and the deaf child often reads less than hearing
peers because of the challenges inherent in reading. Thus, literacy instruction must also involve
building the child’s experience with genre.
It is an open question whether deaf readers
can effectively use letter-sound relationships for
identifying words in print. Certainly, those children with profound hearing losses who do not
benefit from amplification may not develop
phonemic awareness, which is the awareness of
the sounds within spoken words. The reader who
must understand the sentence structures, text cohesion devices, and figurative language that the
author uses. The deaf student needs background
knowledge of the text topic, experience with the
genre, and familiarity with the vocabulary. The
deaf student must also be able to recognize
words in print.
The deaf child’s access to spoken English is
limited, regardless of whether the child uses amplification, has a cochlear implant, or signs.
Thus, understanding the grammatical structures
and meanings of written English is a daunting
task for most deaf children. Literacy instruction
must always take into account the difficulties inherent in reading and writing a language that is
not native to the child. Hearing loss not only directly affects language development but also limits the individual’s ability to take in incidental information, such as through overhearing
conversations and listening to the television
while carrying out another activity. Literacy instruction, therefore, must also take into account
122
Delayed Readers
cannot distinguish the distinct sounds made by
letters and letter combinations is not likely to use
letter-sound relationships for word recognition.
Thus, the word-recognition strategy of phonic
analysis should not be emphasized with deaf students. Literacy instruction for the deaf reader
should be aimed at the word-recognition strategies of structural cues, word analogies, context,
and automaticity.
Promising research into improving the literacy
instruction of deaf students has involved cognitive strategies. This research is based on the assumption that systematic instruction in vocabulary and word recognition must be balanced with
instruction in applying comprehension strategies consciously during reading. Deaf students
must be taught to monitor the successful use of
word-recognition skills and application of background knowledge and vocabulary. Among the
cognitive strategies investigated, it has been
found that mental imagery, self-questioning,
summarizing, predicting, and think-aloud approaches enhance comprehension and stimulate
higher-level thinking in deaf readers (Strassman,
1997).
Barbara R. Schirmer
age learners—even if at a slower rate (e.g., Ehri
and McCormick, 1998). Current perspective
holds that reading behaviors of poor readers are
not unexplained abnormalities but instead reflect reading responses that would be typical for
average students at an earlier stage of learning.
Associated with this view is the conclusion that
with appropriate interventions, it is possible for
these learners ultimately to attain reading success. The approach to eliminating struggles with
literacy has centered on two key factors: searching for the cause(s) of reading difficulties (with
the related hope of finding preventive measures)
and instituting various instructional interventions and programs.
Past Contributions to Our Understanding
From the 1800s through the 1970s, a number of
hypotheses specifying conditions believed to be
causes of low reading achievement proved to be
faulty. Among those conditions were congenital
word blindness, lack of cerebral dominance, inefficient eye movements, common eye defects
such as nearsightedness, and inappropriate diet.
Mild emotional disorders were suggested as a casual factor during this time period; the theory of
“multiple causation” was also proposed. There
were two aspects to this hypothesis, both of
which are still believed valid: first, that more
than one cause may lead to reading delays and
that the cause may differ from person to person,
and second, that multiple causes may at times affect a single individual.
References
Gallaudet Research Institute. 2001. Available:
http://gri.gallaudet.edu/literacyindex.html.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2001.
Available: http://www.nces.ed.gov.
Strassman, Barbara K. 1997. “Metacognition and
Reading in Children Who Are Deaf.” Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:140–149.
Williams, Cheri L., and Mari M. McLean. 1997.
“Young Deaf Children’s Response to Picture Book
Reading in a Preschool Setting.” Research in the
Teaching of English 31:337–366.
Current Views
During the 1980s and 1990s, one crucial step forward in understanding causal factors took place.
Research converged from a number of countries
indicating that low phonemic awareness—characterized by reduced skill in recognizing separate
sounds in spoken language—is a major factor
distinguishing delayed readers from average
achievers. These findings led to today’s robust
trend to institute training programs to increase
phonemic awareness, with generally positive results reported from investigations of this instruction. However, why some individuals have low
phonemic awareness remains unclear, with both
“nature” and “nurture” arguments still under
consideration.
A second currently prevalent theory, advanced
by Keith Stanovich (1986), is labeled “Matthew
Delayed Readers
Delayed readers are individuals who, despite average intelligence and adequate instruction, exhibit significant difficulties in learning to read.
They have also been referred to as disabled readers or remedial readers—and, in some disciplines and some countries, dyslexics. In the
United States, the designation delayed reader is
gaining favor as result of current theory and research indicating that poor readers, no matter
the severity of their difficulties, progress through
the same phases of reading development as aver123
Delayed Readers
effects,” a term that refers to the statement in the
biblical book Matthew about the rich getting
richer and the poor getting poorer. The
Matthew-effects hypothesis blames the tenacity
of reading delays on a cycle of unfortunate situations: for example, low phonemic awareness
leads to difficulty in word learning, which in turn
leads to fewer words learned than is the norm;
fewer words learned results in less text read than
the amount read by average students. Less text
read means less practice with words and thus less
automatic response to text; less automatic response means slow reading, which means—once
again—less text covered, which in itself means
less practice with words, and so on. In addition,
since words are learned from context as well as
from explicit instruction, less text read also
means that the avenue for reading development
is considerably narrowed for poor readers. Further, less automatic response can be deleterious
to comprehension. Currently, this tangled sequence is cited to suggest implications for programming, for example, in support of early intervention. (For more details on causation, see
McCormick [1999].)
kinesthetic approach to word learning in which
words were traced and written as well as practiced through sight recognition and phonics applications. Also during this decade, the first U.S.
textbook on methods for remedial-reading programs was authored by Clarence T. Gray. In the
1930s, Marion Monroe popularized a combination phonics-kinesthetic method for delayed
readers, and in response to one causal theory of
the day, machines were employed to measure
and train eye movements.
The mid-twentieth century saw universities
instituting programs to train reading specialists
(especially after U.S. government–subsidized Title I reading programs were established in the
nation’s low-income schools); allied to this
trend, many states began offering certification
for reading teachers. There was interest in teaching to a student’s “strongest modality” and in
perceptual/motor training (both notions were
eventually discounted by research). The learning
disability (LD) field was given impetus by passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act; this increased the number of LD
classes in schools, with the majority of referred
students sent to these classes because of reading
delays. Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching, characterized by detailed use of assessment information to plan every facet of instruction, enjoyed
some popularity. In tandem with this trend,
there was proliferation of criterion-referenced
tests in which all aspects of reading responses
were quantified, but the Reading Miscue Inventory was also widely advocated to allow qualitative judgments about delayed readers’ reading
behaviors.
Interventions and Programs: Past Trends
In past decades, interventions for delayed readers
have in part followed instructional trends for average readers. In addition to submitting to the
same pendulum swings between phonics programs and whole-word programs, interventions
for low-achieving readers have incorporated the
language-experience approach, that is, instruction based on psycholinguistic principles, linguistic approaches, and computer-based instruction. Moreover, most assessment procedures,
formal and informal, have been similar to those
used with students in general.
The reading disabilities field also has a history
of its own. The early part of the twentieth century ushered in many “firsts.” In 1916, the Elementary School Journal published the first article
on disabled readers, the article featuring a discussion on use of test results to plan remedial
work. At about the same time, the first program
for nonreaders was described, with recommendations for stories structured to highlight phonics understandings (an early call for decodable
text), plus dramatization of words to aid recall.
The first reading clinic was begun at UCLA in
the 1920s, where Grace Fernald introduced a
Present Trends and Issues
The two final decades of the twentieth century
witnessed a number of changes. Some of these
are still ongoing as instructional interventions
for delayed readers. Others are on the wane as
the twenty-first century begins. During those last
decades, the whole-language movement, noted
for deemphasizing certain types of traditional
skills instruction in favor of text immersion, exercised an impact on remedial instruction. Generally, however, this impact was somewhat less
than that seen in regular classroom programs.
Currently, in both settings, that approach to literacy has been replaced to a substantial degree
with “balanced reading instruction,” which aims
124
Delayed Readers
to attend equally to direct teaching of skills and
provision of ample practice in reading authentic
texts.
struction of the nation’s children be based on research, not opinion. In the studies examined,
positive effects are found for the use of synthetic
phonics with delayed readers (as opposed to lessstructured approaches) and phonemic awareness
instruction. In addition, these reports spotlighted the value of repeated oral reading of the
same text, the teaching of a variety of comprehension strategies, and the provision of multiple
exposures to words to deepen understandings of
meanings. However, for delayed readers, negative
results were reported for the use of silent reading
alone to develop strategies, the incidental teaching of phonics, and phonics approaches that
avoid explicitly highlighting sounds in isolation.
In some cases, these findings confirm the conventional wisdom about how to instruct delayed
readers; in other cases, they are stimulating new
views.
Specific Instructional Techniques
The emphasis on comprehension research in the
1980s, which shaped rich strategies for students
who have difficulties understanding text meanings, has given way to revived interest in word
recognition/word identification processes, partly
the result of an influential book published in the
1990s, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning
about Print (Adams, 1990). This book comprehensively reviewed research on factors leading to
word-recognition growth for average readers
and for delayed readers and, among other contributions, confirmed the positive role of phonics
as part of a larger word-learning program. Research evaluated in this book popularized instruction on word identification through analogies and further fueled the enthusiasm for
phonemic awareness training. Other programmatic changes resulted from interest in linkages
between reading and writing in the 1980s, which
led to inclusion of writing and spelling as part of
word-learning instruction in remedial programs
of the 1990s, a trend that continues.
Also generating interest at present is a powerful line of research specifying naturally occurring
phases of word learning (Ehri, 1994). These studies, originally detailed to examine behaviors of
average students, have excited attention among
educators of delayed readers because they show
promise for addressing the most prevalent problem of these learners—word recognition/word
identification difficulties. These data hold potential for preventing misunderstanding of low
achievers’ reading responses and can assist teachers in framing appropriate, effective instruction
for delayed learners at each phase.
Recent attention has also been given to research reviews sponsored by U.S. government
agencies such as the National Research Council
and the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (Report of the National
Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns, and Griffin,
1998). These provide support for specific instructional procedures relevant to general reading achievement, but they also include much of
interest for delayed readers. The commissions
preparing these reviews were formed in response
to a currently prevalent issue: concern that in-
Organized Programmatic Efforts
Title I programs and LD classes remain the
largest providers of special reading instruction in
the United States. Several other distinctive initiatives for at-risk readers begun during the late
twentieth century such as Success for All (a wellknown schoolwide prevention and remedial effort) and Reading Recovery (an early intervention program) also continue in schools as we
move into the early years of a new century. Despite documented effectiveness of one-to-one instruction (Wasik and Slavin, 1993), concern
about costs and budgets in some quarters has led
to development of several other projects that
have shown successes in delivering instruction in
small-group settings to readers at-risk for failure,
for example, the Cunningham Blocks Program
and Early Intervention in Reading.
In addition, the America Reads program has
captured interest but has also stirred issues. This
widespread U.S. Office of Education endeavor to
enlist college-age work-study students as tutors
of poor readers has been applauded by many, but
it has also generated controversy about placing
the instruction of delayed readers in the hands of
minimally trained individuals. Some evidence
has been presented, however, that young at-risk
readers are able to make gains under such guidance, if they participate fully throughout the
program (Fitzgerald, 2001).
Although not in evidence nationwide, there is
a promising trend toward the growing closeness
125
Delayed Readers
of the reading-disabilities and the learningdisabilities fields. Over time, many comparisons
have been made between those individuals who
have been labeled “reading delayed” (or “reading
disabled”) and those labeled “learning disabled”—when the learning disability is reading
related. Consistently, research and practice have
failed to discern any differences in either the instructional needs of these individuals or in the
causes of their difficulties. As a result, in many
parts of the United States, programming for students receiving learning-disabilities services is
increasingly undifferentiated from that provided
in remedial-reading classes.
An issue confronting both the reading-disabilities field and the learning-disabilities field, however, is neglect of those individuals with the most
severe delays. Delayed readers are not all cut from
the same cloth; some have mild delays, whereas
others experience moderate or severe impediments to learning. Students with mild reading
difficulties are most often instructed by regular
classroom teachers, whereas those with moderate
and severe delays more frequently receive services
from specially trained reading teachers or LD
teachers. In some circumstances, where available,
instruction for those with moderate or severe delays may occur in university-based reading clinics. Although the most serious cases are included
in such special programs, their needs are often
different from the majority of students enrolled
in these classes. Unfortunately, only minimal research attention has been given to amelioration
of severe reading difficulties, only infrequently
are teachers trained to provide instruction
known to address the learning problems of these
individuals, and only occasionally are their issues
confronted in journal articles or conference programs—and this is the case in both the readingdisabilities and the learning-disabilities fields.
A second immediate concern is failure to harness the burgeoning promise of technology to
upgrade instruction of the nation’s delayed readers. Creative uses of the tools of this science are
in everyday evidence in regular classrooms, but
programs formulated specifically to resolve the
problems of poor readers are still surprisingly
limited. Drill and practice have been made more
palatable, word processing activities link writing
with reading, and speech capabilities have been
fiddled with, but basically, the best we can say is
that these programs are better than they used to
be. New ideas and “out-of-the-box” thinking are
called for—as well as teacher training for the
most efficacious use of technology.
Another current issue relates to dissemination
of research findings. Often, existing solutions to
instructional problems are slow to reach those
educators best situated to provide direct assistance to delayed readers, that is, teachers in the
schools. The trail of dissemination from university researcher to classroom teacher, reading
teacher, or LD teacher can be murky, convoluted,
prolonged, or simply curtailed. Information may
be poorly communicated or, if well presented,
communicated through outlets infrequently accessed by teachers. A matter to be confronted is
the illogicality of research funding most often being granted for producing new research, whereas
few funds—or influential delivery methods—are
to be had for distributing helpful data that are already available but not widely known.
Lack of attention to research findings may
also be one of the answers to another contemporary question: why are major nationwide efforts
to help poor readers—Title I programs and
learning-disability programs—only modestly
successful? Admittedly, student-achievement
data for these programs have been conflicting at
times, but even so, major successes have not been
in great evidence. It is likely that many students
are more capable readers than they would have
been without the programs, but there are also
many who, despite years of enrollment, remain
well below the average for their classes. When
data are available to explicate answers for students with learning problems, again the question
is: how do we make this information available to
teachers on the firing lines?
A related subject is the question of the best
type of education for teachers of delayed readers.
It is a truism that methods don’t teach, materials
don’t teach, and classroom organizations don’t
teach—teachers teach. The quality of a program
is only as good as the quality of the teaching in
evidence. It may be more than coincidental that
states where budgets limit certification of highly
trained reading teachers often concomitantly see
reading scores fall. Clinical education of reading
teachers at the university level is regaining popularity and evidencing success (Evensen and
Mosenthal, 1999). In addition, intensive training, as in the Reading Recovery model, has been
advocated. As can be seen from the five preced126
Developmental and College Reading
ing issues, many concerns of the time relating to
educating delayed readers are in some way related to educating their teachers.
Sandra McCormick
the reading tasks in which college students engage differ from those required in either elementary- or secondary-school settings, approaches to
text reading also differ. That is, college students
have learned how to read; now they must read to
learn. As such, they must use generative and active reading strategies that embody cognitive,
metacognitive, and self-regulatory processes, selecting such strategies based on the task, the text,
and students’ own characteristics as learners.
Students enrolled in post-secondary institutions have needed assistance in developing
stronger reading and studying practices almost
since the inception of these techniques. As early
as 1927, researchers and university presidents bemoaned the fact that students had great difficulty
in adjusting to the academic demands of college,
particularly tasks that involved reading and
studying. Subsequently, post-secondary institutions designed courses or entire programs to improve college students’ abilities to learn from text.
In the United States, the growth of programs
to promote improved reading at the college level
has been strongly tied to particular landmark
events, mostly through federal legislation. Events
such as the G.I. Bill of Rights in 1944, the National Defense Act of 1958, the civil rights movement, and the Higher Education Act of 1968 all
spurred greater enrollment in post-secondary institutions, thus causing a trickle-down effect of
programs for college students with less than adequate reading skills.
Although legislation dictated student population, two early movements—behaviorism in the
1940s and 1950s and humanism in the 1960s—
influenced the types of programs and instruction
available for college students, as well as the types
of studies that were conducted. Research efforts
focused on program effectiveness and materials
for aiding students’ reading rate, comprehension,
and study skills. Researchers such as George
Spache and Alton Raygor led the way with college reading studies that were presented at the
Southwest Reading Conference for Colleges and
Universities, a precursor to the National Reading
Conference. In the 1960s, humanism also became evident in practice and pedagogy, although
behaviorism continued to influence research.
Two overriding conclusions can be drawn
from the history of college reading. First,
whether the need for assistance was because students lacked basic skills or because the transfer
See Also
National Reading Panel; Reading Clinics; Reading
Recovery; Remediation; Title I
References
Adams, Marilyn J. 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking
and Learning about Print. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ehri, Linnea Carlson. 1994. “Development of the
Ability to Read Words: Update.” In Robert B.
Ruddell, Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer,
eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading,
4th ed., pp. 323–358. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Ehri, Linnea Carlson, and Sandra McCormick. 1998.
“Phases of Word Learning: Implications for
Instruction with Delayed Readers and Disabled
Readers.” Reading and Writing Quarterly 14
(2):135–164.
Evensen, Dorothy H., and Peter B. Mosenthal, eds.
1999. Advances in Reading/Language Research.
Vol. 6, Reconsidering the Role of the Reading
Clinic in a New Age of Literacy. Stamford, CT:
JAI Press.
Fitzgerald, Jill. 2001. “Can Minimally Trained College
Student Volunteers Help Young At-Risk Children
to Read Better?” Reading Research Quarterly 36
(1):28–46.
McCormick, Sandra. 1999. Instructing Students Who
Have Literacy Problems. Columbus, OH: PrenticeHall.
National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching Children
to Read. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development.
Snow, Catherine, M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin.
1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young
Children. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Stanovich, Keith E. 1986. “Matthew Effects on
Reading: Some Consequences of Individual
Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy.”
Reading Research Quarterly 26:360–407.
Wasik, Barbara A., and Robert E. Slavin. 1993.
“Preventing Early Reading Failure with One-toOne Tutoring: A Review of Five Programs.”
Reading Research Quarterly 28:179–200.
Developmental
and College Reading
Developmental/college reading is broad term that
refers to the academic literacy skills necessary to
be successful in post-secondary settings. Because
127
Developmental and College Reading
Japanese exchange student studying with host (Skjold Photographs)
learning proposes that four factors interact to
maximize the characteristics of learners, including their beliefs, motivation, and background;
the characteristics of the task; the characteristics
of the texts; and the strategies selected. According to Jenkins, active learners consider the nature
of the material to be learned and examine the
criterial task, determining the products (i.e.,
recognition or recall) and levels of thinking embodied in that task. Jenkins’s model and similar
models developed by John Bransford and Ann
Brown and her colleagues, and later by John
Thomas and William Rohwer, enabled researchers studying college readers to examine the
variety of contextual variables that can influence
how the reading process is viewed. These investigations altered the way research on learning from
text was conducted.
Especially influential, particularly in light of
the flood of strategy research that took place in
the 1980s and early 1990s, was Merlin Wittrock’s
theory of generative processing. According to
Wittrock (1974, 1986), generative strategies are
behaviors that students choose to employ in order to influence their reading comprehension.
from high school to college was academically
traumatic for students, the solutions to solve
these problems were similar. Second, much of
the early research in college reading simply described effective reading or study-skills courses.
However, with the development of reading and
learning models, researchers began to base their
investigations on stronger theoretical grounds.
This theory draws on the early contributions of
John Bransford, Ann Brown, James Jenkins,
Michael Pressley, John Thomas, William Rohwer,
David Rumelhart, and Merlin Wittrock.
Theoretical Assumptions
Since the late 1970s, both interactive and generative theoretical models have driven research focusing on reading to learn. Interactive models,
though diverse, share the common assumptions
that there are a number of variables that interact
to impact students’ learning from text and that
context is crucial to understanding text. Such
models focus on the importance of the role the
reader plays in text understanding, and they were
crucial in advancing the study of college learners.
James Jenkins’s (1979) interactive model of
128
Developmental and College Reading
Thus, generative strategies require students to be
active and effortful in their reading rather than
passive. That is, students are generating meaning
from their reading assignments by seeking links
between the text and what they already know, by
assimilating knowledge into their existing
schemata or constructing new schemata to incorporate the new information, and by employing strategies that embody a variety of cognitive
and metacognitive processes.
From these theoretical models of reading and
learning, several important generalizations can
be drawn. First, the models imply that there are
no generic best strategies or methods of reading
to learn. Rather, strategies must be generative in
nature and are considered appropriate when they
match the demands of the texts and tasks and the
beliefs and background knowledge of the
learner. Second, reading to learn involves more
than a knowledge of the possible strategies. Students must understand the what, when, how, and
why of strategies and apply them consciously to
their own tasks and texts. Third, these models
suggest that there is a core of essential cognitive
and metacognitive processes that cut across domains and must be embedded in the strategies
selected. The cognitive processes include selecting and summarizing, organizing, and elaborating; the metacognitive processes include monitoring, evaluating, and planning. Influential
researchers who studied specific strategies that
embody these processes include Donald
Dansereau (and numerous colleagues), Alison
King, Marjorie Lipson, Richard Mayer, Sherrie
Nist, Michael Pressley, Michele Simpson, and
Claire Ellen Weinstein.
Pressley and his colleagues, college students tend
to have difficulty selecting or isolating key information and summarizing that information using
their own words. Some of the most widely used
strategies for selecting key ideas are text-marking
strategies such as underlining and highlighting.
Although the research on underlining and highlighting is extensive, the findings are very inconsistent, given the wide array of materials and
methodologies used in the various studies.
Moreover, highlighting and underlining do not
meet Wittrock’s definition of generative strategies because they do not require students to
transform and organize ideas as they do if they
are summarizing the information using their
own words. Researchers such as King, and
Dansereau and his colleagues, suggest that when
students are taught the steps involved in summarizing, their reading comprehension and ability
to monitor improve.
Summarization as a reading strategy has taken
a variety of forms. Nist and Simpson have investigated one such form, textbook annotation, a
cognitive and metacognitive strategy that involves students in writing brief summaries in the
margins of their texts and in organizing key
ideas. Once students have written their annotations, they read what they have written and ask
themselves these questions: Do my annotations
make sense? Do they coincide with what I already know? What ideas still confuse me? How
will I mark these confusing ideas so I can refer
back to them? These questions help the students
monitor and evaluate their comprehension, using metacognitive processes they typically overlook in their reading and studying. Annotation
studies have typically found that students can be
trained to annotate narrative and expository text
and that annotation has an impact on their test
performance and summary-writing abilities.
However, as a generative reading strategy, textbook annotation does have some drawbacks.
Most notably, students perceive annotation as
costly because they view it as time intensive.
Selecting and Summarizing
When students select, they are making decisions
about which text information they should target
for further study, usually through some form of
generative text marking such as text annotation.
Being able to select key information from the
text that matches the task set forth by the instructor is central to this process. Summarizing is
the reader’s ability to put information in his or
her own words. It involves transforming text into
a written form that is precise, succinct, and sensible. Both selecting and summarizing have a
large influence on how much and what text information is learned.
As noted by Nist and Simpson, as well as by
Organizing
Once text information is selected for further
study, students must organize it into a form that
makes sense to them so that it can be more easily
retained. Some texts are considerate and well organized. Other texts, however, require students
to transform the important material in a more
129
Developmental and College Reading
efficient and effective way. Organizing strategies
encourage students to select key ideas and subordinate ideas, to form links across those ideas, and
then to choose a way to visually represent those
relationships in an abbreviated spatial format.
Although there are many spatial formats that
help students to organize what they have read,
most of these are teacher-provided (e.g., graphic
organizers) rather than student-generated strategies. The one exception, however, is concept
mapping.
When students create concept maps, they are
attempting to represent complex interrelationships between and across ideas. Maps sometimes
look like flow charts, depicting a hierarchy or linear relationship, or they can look like charts, representing complex interrelationships among
ideas. Studies on mapping by Dansereau and his
colleagues as well those by Lipson have found
that at-risk college learners performed better on
recall and recognition tasks when they received
explicit instruction on the use of mapping. Mapping appears to be especially effective in situations where students must read complex expository materials, such as in the sciences, and then
demonstrate their understanding on measures
requiring higher levels of thinking. As such,
mapping seems to benefit those students who
have extensive background knowledge about the
topics they are reading.
by generating “why” questions and then answering those questions. Because the teacher is responsible for inserting the elaborative questions
into the student’s reading, this strategy does not
fully satisfy Wittrock’s definition of a generative
strategy. However, elaborative questions can be
the stimulus for students learning the types of
questions they should be asking themselves as
they read. Several important findings have
emerged from these studies. Most important for
college students, it appears that the quality of the
generated elaboration does not have an impact
on students’ understanding when the targeted
topic is one about which they have some prior
knowledge.
Simpson and her co-researchers engaged students in another type of elaborative strategy.
Elaborative verbal rehearsals involve students in
rehearsing aloud the important ideas that
emerge from their reading. An effective elaborative rehearsal consists of relating ideas across text
and to prior knowledge, incorporating personal
reactions or opinions about ideas, including appropriate text examples, and creating new examples or applications. Simpson and her colleagues
found in their training study that college students who used elaborative verbal rehearsals performed significantly better on immediate and
delayed recognition and recall measures than
their counterparts who used rote-level verbal rehearsals (i.e., repeating key ideas and details).
One of the drawbacks to this elaboration strategy
is that students must have a good understanding
of the content before it can readily be used.
Elaborating
In elaborating, students personalize the information to be learned from text. They use their existing knowledge to add information that is not explicitly stated in the text as a way of making the
text easier to learn. As Simpson and her colleagues suggest, they may create analogies or examples, draw inferences, generate images or
word associations, or explain the relationships
among two or more concepts. Pressley and his
collaborators, however, suggest that many college
students do not spontaneously elaborate as they
read their textbook assignments.
There are two different strategies that address
the task of elaboration, a challenging but very
necessary reading process: elaborative interrogation and elaborative verbal rehearsals. Pressley
and his colleagues have conducted numerous
studies on elaborative interrogation, which involves students in making connections between
ideas they have read and their prior knowledge
Monitoring and Evaluating
Readers engage in monitoring in order to evaluate their level of understanding and the appropriateness of the strategies they use to learn from
text. According to Weinstein and Mayer, when
students monitor their comprehension, they establish goals and consciously assess the degree to
which those goals are being met. If necessary,
they modify the strategies they are using to meet
the goals. Monitoring is perhaps the most difficult process to observe and describe.
Although many college students are not
metacognitively aware as they read, studies have
shown that they can be trained to monitor their
text understanding by using a variety of techniques and generative reading strategies. The
most common approach taken by researchers is
130
Dialogic Responsiveness
Dialogic Responsiveness
to teach students how to self-test and create
meaningful questions before they read, while
they read, or after they read (e.g., King, 1992). By
monitoring in this manner, students identify
gaps or errors in their reading comprehension,
thus improving their reading comprehension as
well. To teach students to create task-appropriate
and meaningful questions that elicit higher levels
of thinking, researchers have typically provided
students with generic question stems that encourage them to analyze, explain, compare, contrast, and create new applications (e.g., “What is
an example of . . .?”). Other research studies have
capitalized on the power of collaborative learning, in which students work cooperatively in
dyads or small groups, asking each other questions and answering them in a reciprocal manner. Such findings suggest that answering the
questions is as important as asking the questions
because students are encouraged to clarify their
understanding of concepts when they are explaining an answer to another student or to
themselves.
Sherrie L. Nist and Michele L. Simpson
A synthesis of the multiple interpretations of Lev
Vygotsky’s theories in literacy research suggests
that teachers can be responsive to a student’s
complex literacy needs through supportive dialogue. This phenomenon of support is referred
to as dialogic responsiveness. Social constructivist theories, research, and practice revolve
around the common assumption that human
thought is shaped in communicative activities.
Although they share this common assumption,
social constructivist literacy researchers have focused on varied and often competing aspects of
literacy learning because of competing interpretations of Vygotsky, including sociolinguistic, sociocognitive, sociocultural, socioemotional, and
sociomotivational interpretations.
For example, sociolinguistic interpretations
take into account Vygotsky’s (1978) idea that human learning is mediated by our communicative
symbol systems (i.e., oral and written language).
Thus, sociolinguistic literacy research has focused on the natural language acquisition of
children as they communicate with others using
both oral and written language. Teachers and
parents are encouraged to be responsive to the
literate acts of young children as they use scribbles to write a narrative or use storybook language to read a story. Sociolinguistic interpretations suggest that teachers can have collaborative
conceptual conversations with young children as
they read and write to encourage their continuing language acquisition and that teachers can
encourage peer interaction as another means of
verbal support for young literacy learners.
Sociocognitive interpretations in literacy
learning focus on Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of
the zone of proximal development (ZPD).
Countering Jean Piaget’s idea of a set developmental level, Vygotsky’s ZPD presented the idea
that a child’s developmental potential is even
greater with the assistance of an adult. Sociocognitive literacy research has described how the
instructional dialogue, between a child and an
adult, influences the child’s cognitive development. Verbal scaffolding (a term used to describe the supportive dialogue provided by the
adult/teacher) is encouraged in both code and
comprehension aspects of meaning-making
from text. This requires a teacher’s or tutor’s
constant attentiveness to a reader’s developing
literacy concepts and supported instruction that
See Also
Metacognition; Study Skills and Strategies
References
Bransford, John D. 1979. Human Cognition. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Brown, Ann L., Joseph C. Campione, and Jeanne D.
Day. 1981. “Learning to Learn: On Training
Students to Learn from Text.” Educational
Researcher 10:14–21.
Jenkins, James J. 1979. “Four Points to Remember: A
Tetrahedral Model of Memory Experiments.” In
Fergus Craik and Laird Cermak, eds., Levels of
Processing in Human Memory, pp. 429–446.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
King, Allison. 1992. “Comparison of Self-Questioning,
Summarizing, and Note-Taking Review as
Strategies for Learning from Lectures.” American
Educational Research Journal 29:303–323.
Rumelhart, David. 1977. “Toward an Interactive
Model of Reading.” In S. Dornic, ed., Attention
and Performance VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, John W., and William Rohwer. “Academic
Studying: The Role of Learning Strategies.”
Educational Researcher 21:19–41.
Wittrock, Merlin C. 1974. “Learning as a Generative
Process.” Educational Psychologist 11:87–95.
———. 1987. “Students’ Thought Processes.” In M. C.
Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching,
pp. 297–314. New York: Macmillan.
131
Dialogue Journals
is slightly ahead of the reader’s instructional
level.
Although Vygotsky (1978), who is often
viewed as the father of social constructivism, argued that motivation and emotion are integral
aspects of learning and criticized a history of research that focused solely on cognition, social
constructivists have only recently begun to investigate both the motivational and emotional aspects of literacy learning. Socioemotional and
sociomotivational traditions suggest that personal conversations between teachers and students can create an emotionally safe verbal environment in which students are more apt to take
risks. When students do not feel motivated in literacy contexts, teachers are encouraged to express empathy and genuine interest in their feelings. These types of personal conversations also
provide teachers with the opportunity to get to
know students well enough to help them make
personal connections to literacy.
Sociocultural interpretations of Vygotsky emphasize the complexities of thought and language
development in the communicative experiences
of culture. There are two Vygotskian ideas that
have influenced sociocultural literacy research,
including the notion that there is a reciprocal relationship (each influences the other) between
everyday concepts and schooled concepts in cognitive development and the notion that the development of higher mental processes is mediated
by symbols and tools (Moll, 1990). Thus, sociocultural literacy research has focused on the
everyday language and literacy practices (symbols
and tools) of particular cultural groups and how
these everyday practices are valued and utilized in
the institution of school. Sociocultural interpretations reveal that being responsive to young literacy learners requires that teachers know and
value students as unique individuals, including
valuing the students’ own literacy values and literacy practices. Through child-relevant instructional conversations and supported interaction,
teachers can help students make connections
with their own experiences, construct new cognitive knowledge, and develop literacy skills in the
unfamiliar discourse taught in schools.
A synthesis of these multiple interpretations
of Vygotsky suggests that educators can be responsive to the complex components of learning
to read, including language acquisition, cognition, culture, emotion, and motivation—
through active participation in dialogue. A synthesis of social constructivist literacy research
suggests that teachers can meet the complex
needs of literacy learners through “dialogic responsiveness.”
Cheri Foster Triplett
See Also
Scaffolded Literacy Instruction; Social
Constructivism
References
Moll, Louis. 1990. Vygotsky and Education:
Instructional Implications and Applications of
Sociohistorical Psychology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Tharp, Roland, and Ronald Gallimore. 1998. Rousing
Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in
Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development
of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Dialogue Journals
Dialogue journals are a journal form in which an
ongoing written conversation takes place between two (or more) persons on a regular basis.
In school situations, dialogue journals normally
occur between the teacher and a student or between two students. Outside the school, dialogue
journals are often kept by parents and their children. Teachers (and parents) who become partners with their students (children) in the ongoing and recursive reading and writing encourage
literacy development and share in a more personal side of their children that may not otherwise be possible (Rasinski and Allen, 1988).
The primary purpose of the dialogue journal
is communication and relationship building between the journalists. Jana Staton (1984) noted
that dialogue journals provide a vehicle for focused and continuing conversations in which
two participants bring about new understandings, new ideas, and new meaning.
Karen Bromley (1993) has noted that dialogue
journals in schools serve a variety of instructional purposes. They individualize the learning
experience, provide accurate and authentic models of writing for students to emulate and authentic audiences for student writing, develop
writing fluency through authentic application,
provide a nonthreatening and open context for
132
Directed Reading Activity and Directed Reading-Thinking Activity
writing, validate self-expression and build motivation and self-confidence for writing, nurture
interpersonal connections, and integrate reading, writing, and thinking naturally.
Dialogue journals may be particularly useful in
the literacy development of students of limited
English proficiency (Peyton and Reed, 1990) and
students with significant learning difficulties
(Gaustad and Messenheimer-Young, 1991). Timothy Rasinski and JoBeth Allen (1988) also noted
that dialogue journals provide teachers and parents with a vehicle for conversing with children in
a much more personal and intimate manner than
would normally be seen in oral conversation.
Educators have identified several principles
that are key to successful dialogue journals. An
authentic and intrinsic purpose for the keeping
of a journal between journalists—to get to know
one another better, to overcome problems in the
classroom, and so on—is critical to the success of
a dialogue journal partnership. Recognition that
the journalists are equal partners in the dialogue
journal is essential. Dialogue journalists must allow for freedom of topic; either partner may
freely choose a topic for discussion in the journal. Written communications between journalists should be frequent and continuous over an
extended period of time. Journals are private
communications between the journalists, and
because of the personal nature of many of the
communications, journalists should allow for reflection on and rereading of journal entries.
The process of keeping a dialogue journal involves one journalist making and dating a journal entry and then physically passing the journal
to the partner. After the second journalist
records his or her entry, the journal is returned
to the first journalist. Journal entries can include
observations, questions, statements of problems
and concerns, and responses to entries made by
the journalist’s partner. Conversational topics
can range from student performance in specific
academic areas to the general classroom climate
to personal concerns, at school or home, experienced by the student.
Keeping a dialogue journal, especially when a
teacher keeps dialogue journals with several students, can be time consuming. Bromley (1993)
recommends that teachers initially keep dialogue
journals with only a few students and read and
respond to a limited number of journals each
day. More students can be added by the teacher
as comfort and routine in keeping and responding to students are developed.
Timothy Rasinski
References
Bromley, Karen. 1993. Journaling: Engagements in
Reading, Writing, and Thinking. New York:
Scholastic.
Gaustad, Martha Gonter, and Trinka MessenheimerYoung. 1991. “Dialogue Journals for Students with
Learning Disabilities.” Teaching Exceptional
Children 23 (3):28–32.
Peyton, Joy Kreeft, and Leslee Reed. 1990. Dialogue
Journal Writing with Non-Native English Speakers:
A Handbook for Teachers. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Rasinski, Timothy V., and JoBeth Allen. 1988.
“Parent-Child Dialogue Journals: Family
Learning.” Teaching and Learning: The Journal of
Natural Learning 2:3–13.
Staton, Jana. 1984. “The Power of Responding in
Dialogue Journals.” In Toby Fulwiler, ed., The
Journal Book, pp. 47–63. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
———. 1985. “Using Dialogue Journals for Developing
Thinking, Reading, and Writing with Hearing-Impaired Students.” Volta Review 87:127–153.
Directed Reading
Activity and Directed
Reading-Thinking Activity
Directed Reading Activity (DRA) and Directed
Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA) are two
teaching strategies used to guide students as they
read text. DRA is one of the oldest and most
widely used frameworks for reading instruction.
DRA is designed to assist teachers in providing
systematic group-reading instruction, in guiding
and engaging students in reading texts, and in
providing students with direct instruction in
word recognition and comprehension (Tierney
and Readence, 2000). DRA is commonly associated with basal-reading instruction in the elementary grades but can be used with students at
all grade levels and with a variety of texts.
DRA is a three-step teaching process that involves prereading, during-reading, and postreading activities. In the prereading step, students’
prior knowledge of the topic or concept is activated, or background knowledge developed, and
vocabulary words are introduced. Vocabulary is
presented both orally and visually in the context
of sentences. Students’ purposes for reading are
usually established by the teacher during pre133
Directed Reading Activity and Directed Reading-Thinking Activity
reading. Based on students’ needs and abilities,
silent reading of the text is conducted in one of
two ways: First, students read the text in its entirety and then orally respond to literal, inferential, and interpretive questions posed by the
teacher during postreading discussion; or, second, the teacher divides the text into three or
four sections and then guides students as they
silently read through one section at a time. After
a section of the text has been read, the teacher
orally poses questions and engages students in
discussion before continuing on to the next section. Once each section has been read and discussed, the teacher poses summative questions
related to the entire selection, thereby integrating each part of the text into a more comprehensible whole. The postreading comprehension check and discussion may be followed by
oral rereading or extension activities that connect the text with writing, the arts, or other curricular areas such as math, science, and social
studies. Direct instruction in comprehension
and word recognition is provided during the
postreading step.
Robert Tierney and John Readence (2000)
caution teachers to engage in ongoing evaluation
of DRA’s effectiveness in meeting students’
needs. Instruction should be meaningful to students, related to the reading task, and explained
and modeled by the teacher. Teachers should be
aware that DRA is teacher centered and places
students in passive reading roles.
Unlike DRA, Directed Reading-Thinking Activity engages students in active reading and
thinking and places the teacher in the role of facilitator. DR-TA is an instructional approach that
requires students to predict, set purposes for
reading, and actively seek evidence in the text to
support predictions (Stauffer, 1969). DR-TA is
designed to help students establish purposes for
reading, to generalize, analyze, induce, assimilate, and integrate information, to read critically
and reflectively, and to engage in higher levels of
cognitive reasoning (Widomski, 1983).
DR-TA is a two-part teaching strategy. In the
first phase, the teacher guides and directs students’ thinking as they read the text. During the
second phase, the teacher provides instruction in
identified areas of need, enrichment, and extension. Teachers prepare to use DR-TA by selecting
a text that students will be interested in reading.
Based on the teacher’s familiarity with the text,
four to six stopping points are selected for prediction and discussion. The teacher formulates
open-ended questions to accompany each stopping point. The questions should encourage students to predict what the upcoming reading will
be about, what will happen, or what will be
learned. Teachers encourage students to provide
reasoning for predictions by asking, “Why do
you think that?” Stopping points are usually after
the title, after the first few paragraphs, at points
of high interest, action, or possible confusion,
and just before the end. At each stopping point,
students predict what will happen or what will
be learned based on information from the text
and prior knowledge, confirm or adjust predictions based on new information learned from
reading, and provide proof or support of predictions using the text or prior knowledge. The
process of predicting, confirming, and refuting
predictions helps students connect prior knowledge with information from the text.
The DR-TA lesson begins with the teacher
reading the title of the text aloud and asking students to predict what the story or lesson will be
about. Teachers should note that students’ predictions are listed on the board or overhead at
each stopping point. Students then read the first
few paragraphs silently. At the first stopping
point, the teacher asks students to confirm or
adjust their predictions. Following discussion at
the second stopping point, the teacher asks students to formulate predictions about the next
segment of text. This discussion-prediction pattern is followed throughout the reading of the
text. At the final stopping point, students develop predictions as they decide upon the selection’s ending. Finally, students relate how evidence within the text influenced their decisions.
The heart of DR-TA lies in students’ formulation
of responses to the questions “What do you
think will happen next?” and “Why do you think
so?” The first question elicits prediction, and the
second requires explanation and reasoning.
The second phase of DR-TA involves instruction based on student needs that were identified
in phase one. For example, the teacher may offer
vocabulary instruction if students had difficulty
understanding specific terms. A variety of enrichment and extension activities may be presented at this point, but activity selection should
be based on the teacher’s observation of students’ needs.
134
Discourse Analysis
sentence, it is better to define discourse as language in use. She views language in use as discourse used to mean and do something in realworld contexts that are read and interpreted by
hearers/readers.
Regardless of the definition used, a review of
studies purporting to use discourse analysis in
education shows confusion about what counts as
discourse analysis. Some educational researchers
reduce discourse to talk, and they record talk
merely to identify repeated terms or behaviors or
to code the talk using predefined categories, ignoring the disciplinary roots of traditions that
gave rise to discourse analysis. Often such studies
decontextualize discourse from its context,
equating one instance of talk as equivalent to
other instances of the same term, phrase, sentence, or connected sequences of utterances.
Most of these approaches are grounded in behavioral theories, not theories of language in use,
pragmatics, semiotics, or linguistics, and with
the exception of recent work from a social behaviorist perspective, they ignore the context of
use and the connected nature of talk.
For example, in preset category systems, the
lexical item OK is often coded as praise, ignoring
contextual differences in what is intended by the
use of the term or what is accomplished through
its use. When the context of use is considered, the
term OK can have a variety of meanings depending on how it is spoken, when it is used, what it
refers to, and how members respond to its use. It
can be praise (“OK! That was great!”), a way of
holding your turn at speaking (“Mmmm,
okaaaayyy, ummm, it was Bobbie who did that,
wasn’t it?”), or a way of signaling a change in direction of the activity being undertaken (“OK,
let’s go on now.”), among other uses. (For discussions of different systems for observing interaction see Evertson and Green, 1986; and for context, see Duranti and Goodwin, 1992.)
In contrast, approaches grounded in work on
language in use and in social construction of
everyday life in and through discourse take as a
given that the meaning of each use can only be
understood in the context of occurrence, by considering what precedes it and what follows. Just
how much text preceding or following the bit of
discourse being examined is necessary to establish the context of use differs again by theoretical
perspective, research tradition, analysts’ questions and purpose(s), and types of data available.
The major differences between DRA and
DR-TA are the instructional point for vocabulary,
the emphasis placed on students’ active engagement in the reading-thinking process, and the
teacher’s role. DRA is teacher centered and depends on teacher-formulated purposes for reading and questions for comprehension building.
DR-TA engages students in active reading and
formulation of predictions and places the teacher
in the role of facilitator. When using DRA, vocabulary terms are introduced prior to reading,
whereas vocabulary instruction does not occur
until after reading when DR-TA is used.
Pamela J. Dunston and Kathy N. Headley
See Also
Critical Reading
References
Stauffer, Russell G. 1969. Reading Maturity as a
Cognitive Process. New York: Harper and Row.
Tierney, Robert J., and John E. Readence. 2000.
Reading Strategies and Practices: A Compendium.
5th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Widomski, Cheryl L. 1983. “Building Foundations for
Reading Comprehension.” Reading World
22:306–313.
Discourse Analysis
Any discussion of discourse analysis must start by
defining the term discourse and understanding
how analysis works into the definition. To understand the contribution of discourse analysis to
the study of literacy in schools, other institutions,
and communities, it is necessary to distinguish
discourse analysis from other approaches to the
study of talk and interaction in social groups and
educational settings. Examination of approaches
to discourse analysis across disciplines provides a
picture of diverse theoretical languages used and
variation in the objects of study, purposes, and
methodological tools and processes, resulting in
differences in understandings and in what can be
known through each approach. Adam Jaworski
and Nikalos Coupland (1999) provide multiple
definitions, arguing that most approaches to discourse analysis are based on the understanding
that, at a minimum, discourse refers to connected
talk or written text above (longer than) the level
of the sentence. These perspectives vary on other
dimensions of language in use and context. Deborah Cameron (2001) argues that rather than using the definition connected text greater than a
135
Discourse Analysis
To illustrate these differences and to examine
how variations in approach contribute to the
knowledge available through different traditions
of discourse analysis, five of the most widely
used approaches in education will now be discussed: conversation analysis, critical discourse
analysis, ethnographically framed approaches,
pragmatics, and sociolinguistics. We will present
these approaches, beginning with those focusing
more specifically on language use (form and
function) and then present those that focus more
specifically on what is accomplished in and
through language in use, realizing that these distinctions are for heuristic purposes. In actuality,
these distinctions can be, and often are, blurred
within individual studies.
Central to these traditions is a view of discourse as socially constructed in and through actions and interactions of members of a social
group. Discourse, therefore, emanates from a
group and not solely from an individual, although individuals can and do contribute to the
discourse among participants, make choices
about which discourse practices and processes to
use, and through discourse define what counts as
socially appropriate actions. Differences among
these perspectives are related to the level of context considered (macro society or local moments, or combinations thereof) and whether
they focus on oral or written discourse or the relationship between the two. These approaches
also differ in their views of historicity (the relationship of particular moments of use to previous ones) and intertextuality (the relationship of
present contexts to previous or future actions,
times, places, or events) (see Intertextuality).
formance, and institutional language demands.
These studies examined differences among systems of language and their uses in schools and in
local communities, suggesting a difference model
rather than the then dominant deficit model,
which viewed dialect speakers as deficient in language when entering school.
These sociolinguistic approaches led to the
construction of new understandings of differences in language use and the need to examine
closely academic genres and language demands
of the classroom. Such studies demonstrated
ways in which language variation is ordinary and
occurs across events, actors, groups, and purposes. Sociolinguistic studies led to the need to
understand language that resources students
(teachers and others) bring and how these resources are, or are not, supported in classrooms.
One approach, interactional sociolinguistics,
expanded the object of study and, concurrently,
the ways in which data are collected, segments of
talk are selected, and the units of analysis are
chosen. This approach requires use of analytic
units that involve the ways members construct
extended stretches of interaction, patterns of interaction, demands for participating, and responses to what is said and done. This latter aspect entails examination of chains of action
rather than individual instances of language use.
Authors associated with sociolinguistics include:
Joshua Fishman, Dell Hymes, William Labov, Peter Trudgill, and Walt Wolfram; interactional sociolinguists include Michelle Foster, Erving Goffman, John Gumperz, Monica Heller, Sarah
Michaels, Cathleen O’Connor, Celia Roberts,
Deborah Schiffren, Michael Stubbs, and Deborah Tannen.
Traditions of Discourse Analysis
Pragmatics
Discourse approaches associated with pragmatics have their roots in philosophy of language
and focus on how members use language to
mean and do things in the world. Although the
pragmatics approach shares some goals with sociolinguistic approaches, pragmatics has in the
past focused on what speakers do and how they
convey meaning, by examining units such as
speech acts and pragmatic and discourse principles (e.g., conversational cooperation and felicity
of contributions to topic). Historically, this work
has drawn heavily on the philosophical work of
John Austin, John Searle, and H. P. Grice. For ex-
Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistic approaches to discourse analysis
were some of the earliest used to study language
in use in educational settings (see Sociolinguistics and Literacy). These studies examined such
issues as: language use and its relationship to
race, gender, ethnicity, and class; how such variations in use influenced assessment of the ability
of students; students’ communicative competence and performance; and how schools meet
the needs of linguistically different speakers. Sociolinguistic studies examine differences in language as a system, grammatical use, speech per136
Discourse Analysis
ample, work drawing on Austin tends to analyze
three interrelated aspects of speech acts. It examines locution (actual words used), illocutionary
force (how it was meant to be heard), and perlocution (the effect) of speech acts used by a
speaker to accomplish a particular intention
(e.g., to state something, command someone to
do something, and request something).
This work has importance when issues of
form, intention, and effect on hearers are examined. Central to this work is the distinction between syntax and extralinguistic or prosodic features of language in use that signal to others how
something is meant to be heard (e.g., pitch,
stress, intonation, and pause). Analysis of speech
acts (utterances) often entails marking of
prosodic features of talk as a basis for identifying
illocutionary force and for interpreting meaning,
both intended and read by the other. Using the
example of OK, a pragmatic analysis would view
a rising pitch in American English to signal a
question or a request for confirmation; whereas,
oh-kay, with even stress on each syllable and a
higher pitch than the preceding talk, could be
heard as praise. Because of its focus on language
in use, pragmatics is often seen as overlapping
some approaches to sociolinguistics.
tion to identify mechanisms that members of a
social group use to construct the social organization of actions. Analysis has examined mechanisms such as turn taking, use of names, and
ways members orient to and hold each other accountable to what is occurring. For example, the
IRE sequence (Initiate-Respond-Evaluate) often
found in traditional classrooms is viewed as constituting a key mechanism, the product of which
is a particular type of schooling as experienced
by students. One turn in a sequence is viewed as
placing a demand for a response on the next, and
through the reflexive actions of participants, the
constituent elements of the interaction are identified. Patterns of interaction (e.g., I-R-E sequences) are examined to understand how the
social organization of actions is structured, in
and through the interactions among members in
the moment.
Conversation analysts and ethnomethodologists ask the question “What counts as ———?”
(e.g., literacy, text, gendered actions, or opening
of a conversation) to construct locally situated
understandings of the mechanisms used and the
social organization of actions constructed
through their use. Activities are products of interactions among members. Analysts seek to construct an answer to this question from a member’s perspective by observing closely the
sequence of actions among participants in a particular setting. This approach entails a situated
perspective, and claims are grounded in the social
accomplishment of actions. Analysts look for
isolated, clearly bounded sequences and then
treat these sequences as units of analysis (e.g., a
sequence of instructions; the sequence used to
close a lesson; and 911 calls).
Conversation Analysis
Conversation analysis (CA) also focuses on language in use. However, the goal and methodological practices of CA differ. Conversation
analysis has its sociological roots in the work of
Harold Garfinkel. It is related to work in ethnomethodology and includes work by Carolyn
Baker, Aaron Cicourel, James Heap, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, Hugh Mehan, Doug McBeth,
Alex McHoul, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Don
Zimmerman. CA constructs its arguments from
data, and analysts are enjoined from using evidence or theories from outside of the talk-in-interaction. Among others, issues of context, activity, and gender are viewed as constituted in and
through the talk-in-interaction; they do not
draw on information, beliefs, or theory external
to these interactions. The analyst looks for observable evidence and must be able to point to a
particular utterance (or place) when making a
claim about something in the interaction.
The analytic focus of CA is not conversation
or discourse, but talk-in-interaction. Analysts examine the sequential work of people in interac-
Critical Linguistics and
Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis
(CDA) studies language in its relationship to
power and ideology. Power is viewed in two
ways: in terms of asymmetries that exist between
participants in discourse events and in terms of
unequal capacity to control the production of
texts and how they are distributed and consumed. Texts are both those constructed in a local discursive event (oral or written, or both) and
those created beyond that event (e.g., media,
technological, graphic, and others). CDA is both
a theoretical perspective and a methodological
137
Discourse Analysis
approach used to examine power-ideology relationships in particular sociocultural contexts;
like CA, CDA entails a situated perspective. What
differs is the level of situation under examination
(both the sequential production and larger units
of text) and what lens is brought to the analysis.
For example, Norman Fairclough (1993) argues that a bit of discourse is simultaneously a text,
a discourse practice, and a social practice through
which a larger text or discourse activity or event
is being constructed. Local discourse choices of
speakers/writers are drawn from discourses
within the broader sociocultural contexts. A
range of properties of discourse practices and
texts is regarded as potentially ideological, including features of vocabulary, metaphors, genres, grammatical conventions, style, and discourse strategies (e.g., turn taking, politeness
conventions, and topic appropriateness). Choices
that writers or speakers make in constructing
texts begin to shape and then are shaped by the
connected text(s) being constructed. Through
this process, the writer/speaker/group inscribes
an ideological position within the local sociocultural context.
In some approaches to CDA, the issue of consciousness of decisions is of concern and has led
to ways of addressing the issue of naturalization
of language. Roz Ivanic (1998) used CDA to develop approaches that show students (and others) how the linguistic choices they make in constructing texts are not natural but are shaped by
other texts (intertextuality) or discourse within
their sociocultural ecology. Choices among discourses (and discourse features) also inscribe
identities of the speaker/writer that are then
available to others to read and interpret. CDA examines discourse choices and issues about who
has access to these choices, for what purposes,
and in what ways. Authors associated with critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis include Frances Christie, James Gee, Michael Halliday, Gunter Kress, Jay Lemke, Jim Martin, Teun
Van Dijk, and Theo Van Leeuwen.
settings), with sociolinguistic and other forms of
discourse analysis. The oldest of these is ethnography of communication, sometimes referred to
as the ethnography of speaking. This approach
examines how patterns of language use, in particular communities, or sustaining groups, occur
and what the consequences of their use are for
speakers; how language use marks one as a member of a particular speech group; and how members of one speech community act, interpret,
evaluate, and respond to speakers of other languages or dialects. These approaches to discourse
analysis require overtime examination of who
can speak in what ways, when, where, under
what conditions, and for what purposes. Analysts
also explore the outcomes of these ways of
speaking for a particular speaker in relation to
the event in which the interaction occurred (see
Muriel Saville-Troike, 1989, for a comprehensive
discussion of this approach; other authors include Elinor Ochs, Patricia Duff, Candy Goodwin, John Gumperz, Dell Hymes, Marilyn Martin-Jones, and Bambi Schieffelin).
Studies of the ethnography of communication
have examined differences in speech styles
among groups, language socialization processes,
institutionally framed expectations for language
use, miscommunication among speakers of the
same language or different languages, and contrasts between language of home, school, and
community, as well as between first- and secondlanguage learners. In educational settings, studies drawing on the ethnography of communication have examined, among other topics,
interethnic communication and the relationships between language and identity and between language and perceived ability. More recently, a second area of focus has developed that
brings a broader focus on language and literacy
as socially accomplished. This approach seeks to
answer questions about what counts as language
use and literacy within and across local events,
groups, and settings. Such study views language
as primary to the conduct of everyday life, with
literacy and discourse practices as the outcomes
of the interactions among members of the
group. Discourse analysis, from this perspective,
views discourse as both a process and a product
of local interactions and sees it as intertextually
tied to past and future events constituting human activity. Language is both a resource for
communication and an outcome of communica-
Ethnographically Framed Discourse Analysis
In the past four decades, traditions have developed that bring together ethnographic studies of
the social construction of everyday life within
and across sustaining groups, sometimes called
speech communities (e.g., families, peer groups,
ethnic groups, classrooms, and other institution
138
Discourse Analysis
tion across time and events. Prior uses of language (and literacy) are material resources that
members draw on to construct new interactions,
communicate with others, and read and interpret what is occurring in the present event under
construction. Authors associated with this perspective include David Bloome, David Barton,
Carol Dixon, Michele Foster, Judith Green,
Shirley Brice Heath, Judith Kalman, Greg Kelly,
Elsie Rockwell, Brian Street, and Gordon Wells.
Two traditions have emerged as new theoretical
and methodological directions within this
group: new literacy studies (David Barton, Mary
Hamilton, Brian Street, and colleagues in the
United Kingdom) and interactional ethnography
(Theresa Crawford, Maria Lucia Castanheira,
Carol Dixon and Judith Green [2001], and their
colleagues in the United States).
words but the related actions (nonverbal), contextual cues, and historical ties (intertextual referents). These directions provide new challenges
for authors. Given theory-method relationships,
it is imperative that the logic of discourse analysis used be included in published works as part
of the evidence trail. The richness of this approach brings both challenges and resources to
the study of literacy and language in educational
settings.
Judith L. Green and Carol N. Dixon
See Also
Feminist Post-Structuralism; Intertextuality; PostStructuralism and Structuralism; Sociolinguistics
and Literacy
References
Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with Spoken
Discourse. London: Sage.
Crawford, Theresa, Maria Lucia Castanheira, Carol
Dixon, and Judith Green. 2001. “What Counts as
Literacy: An International Ethnographic
Perspective.” In Joy Cunning and Claire Wyatt
Smith, eds., Literacy and the Curriculum: Success
in Senior Secondary Schooling, pp. 32–43.
Camberwell, Victoria: The Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Duranti, Alessandro, and Charles Goodwin. 1992.
Rethinking Context. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Evertson, Carolyn, and Judith Green. 1986.
“Observation as Inquiry and Method.” In Meryl
Wittrock, ed., The Handbook for Research on
Teaching, 3rd ed., pp. 162–213. New York:
Macmillan.
Fairclough, Norman. 1993. “Discourse and Text:
Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within
Discourse Analysis.” Discourse and Society 3
(2):193–218.
Ivanic, Roz. 1998. Writing and Identity: The Discoursal
Construction of Identity in Academic Writing.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jaworski, A., and N. Coupland. 1999. The Discourse
Reader. New York: Routledge.
Ochs, Elinor. 1979. “Transcription as Theory.” In
Elinor Ochs and Bambi Schefflin, eds.,
Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic.
Saville-Troika, Muriel. 1989. The Ethnography of
Communication: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Implications for
Analyzing and Reporting Data
The five approaches described above represent
some of those available. Others include feminist
and post-structural approaches and theories as
well as cognitive, symbolic interactionist, and
narrative analysis approaches (see Feminist PostStructuralism, and Post-Structuralism and Structuralism). These approaches differ in theoretical
orientations and in the ways they lead to construction of transcripts, analysis practices, and
the conclusions or claims that can be drawn from
the data. Recently, work by sociocultural/ sociohistorical theorists (e.g., Lev Vygotsky and
Mikhail Bakhtin and their intellectual descendants) has raised questions about relationships
between speakers and hearers and about the roles
and relationships among participants across time
and events. These frameworks have led researchers to explore the relationships between
text and talk, speech genres and other forms of
literate practices, identity formations and their
relationships to discourse practices, among other
subjects.
These new perspectives confirm Elinor Ochs’s
(1979) argument that a transcript inscribes the
analyst’s theory of the relationships between and
among actors (speakers) and that the linear transcription inscribes assumed hierarchical/power
relationships rather than representing actual relationships. Many new approaches have explored
ways of representing the interactions among
speakers in ways that represent not only the
139
Discursive Theory
Discursive Theory
ernment offices, or social groups with certain
sorts of genres, such as baseball cards, comic
books, chess, politics, novels, or movies. A person has to be socialized into a practice to learn to
read texts of type X in way Y, a practice other
people have already mastered. Since this is so, we
can turn literacy on its head and refer specifically
to the social institutions or social groups that
have these practices, rather than to the practices
themselves. When we do this, we realize that the
practices of such social groups are never just literacy practices. They also involve ways of talking,
interacting, thinking, valuing, and believing.
Researchers who take a sociocultural approach
to literacy believe that literacy in and of itself, abstracted from historical conditions and social
practices, has no definitive set of predictable effects, for example, causing people to be more intelligent, more analytical, or more modern
(Graff, 1987). Rather, literacy has different effects
in the context of different historically varying social and cultural practices. For example, schoolbased writing and reading leads to different effects than reading and writing as they are
embedded in various religious practices around
the world. Of course, there are multiple and different school-based practices and multiple and
different religious practices, each with multiple
effects.
A Sociocultural Perspective on Literacy
Research that views literacy in its social, cultural,
economic, and historical contexts often uses the
term discourse as a higher-order concept within
which literacy is situated. Before delineating the
range of meanings the concept of discourse has
come to have in this research, it is important to
contrast traditional views of literacy with viewpoints that take a sociocultural and sociohistorical perspective.
Traditionally, literacy has been viewed as the
psychologically defined ability to read and write,
often with an emphasis on basic reading skills
(e.g., decoding and literal comprehension). A sociocultural perspective (Gee, 1996) starts with
the assumption that reading always has to do
with being able to read something. This something will always be a text of a certain type. Different types of texts (e.g., newspapers, comic
books, law books, poems) call for different types
of background knowledge and require different
skills in order to be read meaningfully. In turn,
no one would say anyone could read a given text
if he or she did not know what the text meant.
But there are many different levels of meaning
that can be given to or taken from any text, many
different ways in which any text can be read. A
person can read a friend’s letter as a mere report,
an indication of her state of mind, a prognosis of
her future actions; a person can read a novel as a
typification of its period and place, as vicarious
experience, as art, as a guide to living, and so on
and so forth.
Given this perspective of reading as reading a
certain type of text in a certain way, we can ask:
How does a reader acquire the ability to read a
certain type of text in a certain way? Here proponents of a sociocultural approach to literacy argue that a person acquires a way of reading a certain type of text by being apprenticed as a
member of a social practice wherein people not
only read texts of this type in this way, but also
talk about such texts in certain ways, hold certain
attitudes and values about them, and socially interact over them in certain ways.
Thus, a person does not learn to read texts of
type X in way Y unless he or she has had experience in settings where texts of type X are read in
way Y. These settings are various sorts of social
institutions, like churches, banks, schools, gov-
Discourses
In an influential work, the linguist Norman Fairclough (1995) has developed a critical sociocultural approach to language, along the lines detailed above, in which the notion of discourse
plays a prominent role. Fairclough views both
oral and written language as modes of action in
terms of how people act upon the world and
upon each other. He uses the term “discourse,”
when it is used (in phrases such as “the discourse
of neoliberal economics” or “radical feminist discourses of sexuality versus patriarchal discourses
of sexuality”) as a term for distinctive ways of using language to construe the material and social
world from a particular perspective.
Fairclough goes on to define the notion of an
order of discourse, by which he means the set of
discursive practices associated with a particular
social domain or institution as well as the
boundaries and relationships between them
(Fairclough, 1995). For example, an academic
draws on a variety of ways of using oral and writ140
Discursive Theory
ten language: lectures, discussions, research publications, committee reports, and so forth. Traditionally, businesspeople have drawn on a different order of discourse containing different sorts
of oral and written text types and ways with
words. However, it is common today to see some
elements of the business order of discourse get
imported into the academic one, as colleges and
universities operate more like entrepreneurial
enterprises in the so-called new economy.
In his use of the terms discourse and order of
discourse, Fairclough was influenced by Michel
Foucault’s widely known work (1981). Foucault
was interested in the ways in which, at particular
historical periods, alignments and relationships
among particular types of texts, practices, and
institutions in a society set limits to what is
“sayable” and “thinkable.” He was also interested
in how particular and historically distinctive
ways of talking, thinking, and seeing the world
spread across various linked, but independent,
institutions. For example, Foucault studied how,
in the eighteenth century, institutions such as
prisons, hospitals, and schools began to replace
the use of physical force to discipline people with
forms of discipline based on constant observation (surveillance) and professional or specialist
knowledge about human development and deviance. The prisoner, the patient, and the student
became “clients” of “professionals.”
The linguist James Paul Gee (1996) has also
appealed to the notion of discourse, though he
uses the term in a somewhat different way. He
distinguishes between “Discourse” with a “big D”
and “discourse” with a “little d.” By discourse
with a little d, he means any instance of language-in-use to communicate. Discourse with a
“big D” is a way in which people get recognized
(and recognize themselves and others) as distinctive “kinds of people” through engaging in distinctive and partially repeatable social practices,
whether they are members of a Los Angeles street
gang, lawyers, or biologists of a certain sort,
mental patients of a certain type, or members of
a particular first-grade classroom. A Discourse is
composed of (and integrates) distinctive ways
speaking, acting, interacting, thinking, believing,
dressing, valuing, as well as using various sorts of
tools, and technologies at the right times and
places, so as to get recognized as a particular socially distinctive “kind of person” doing a particular socially distinctive kind of action.
For Fairclough and Gee, literacy is always a
particular way of using written language within a
specific (and historically changing) order of discourse or “Discourse” connected to specific cultures or institutions. Since orders of discourse or
Discourses always involve people’s socially situated identities and are always integrally connected to values and beliefs about what counts as
“acceptable,” “appropriate,” or “normal” kinds of
people, texts, language, and meanings, they are
inextricably “political” in the sense that viewpoints about the distribution of social goods
(such as status, possessions, credentials, or social
worthiness) are always at stake.
Communication across Discourses
The work of Ron and Suzzane Scollon (1981), in
their now classic study of communication between Athabaskans (a group of aboriginals found
in the United States and Canada) and AngloAmericans and Canadians, exemplifies these perspectives in a powerful way. The Scollons believe
that patterns of language-in-use (“discourse patterns” in the “little d” sense of discourse) in different cultures reflect particular “reality sets” or
worldviews adopted by these cultures. Such patterns are among the strongest expressions of personal and cultural identity. The Scollons argue
that changes in a person’s discourse patterns—for
example, in acquiring a new form of literacy—
may involve changes in identity.
For example, Athabaskans differ from many
mainstream Canadian and American English
speakers in how they engage in communication.
They have a high degree of respect for the individuality of others and carefully guard their own
individuality. Thus, they prefer to avoid conversation except when the point of view of all participants is well known. On the other hand, English speakers feel that the main way to get to
know other people’s points of view is through
conversation with them. Furthermore, for
Athabaskans, people in subordinate positions do
not display their talents; rather they observe the
person in the superordinate position. For instance, adults as either parents or teachers are
supposed to display abilities and qualities for the
child to learn. However, in mainstream U.S. society, children are supposed to show off their abilities for teachers and other adults.
Anglo-Canadian and American schools have
adopted a model of literacy based on the values
141
Discursive Theory
of essayist prose style that is problematic for
many Athabaskans. The essay took on this role in
history (in fact, in the seventeenth century) and
the role of the essay is changing in current times
under pressure from new media and technology.
In essayist prose, the important relationships to
be signaled are those between sentence and sentence, not those between speakers, nor those between sentence and speaker. For a reader this requires a constant monitoring of grammatical
and lexical information. With the heightened
emphasis on truth value rather than social or
rhetorical conditions, comes the necessity to be
explicit about logical implications.
A further significant aspect of essayist prose
style is the fictionalization of both the audience
and the author. The reader of an essayist text is
not an ordinary human being, but an idealization, a rational mind posited by the rational
body of knowledge of which the essay is a part.
By the same token, the author is a fiction, since
the process of writing and editing essayist texts
leads to an effacement of individual and idiosyncratic identity.
For the Athabaskan, writing in this essayist
mode can constitute a crisis in ethnic identity. To
produce an essay would require the Athabaskan
to produce a major display, which would be appropriate only if the Athabaskan was in a position of dominance in relation to the audience.
But the audience, and the author, are fictionalized in essayist prose and the text becomes decontextualized. This means that a contextualized,
social relationship of dominance is obscured.
Where the relationship of the communicants is
unknown, the Athabaskan prefers silence.
The paradox of prose for the Athabaskan then
is that if it is communication between known author and audience it is contextualized and compatible with Athabaskan values, but not good essayist prose. To the extent that it becomes
decontextualized and thus good essayist prose,
Athabaskans are less likely to seek to communicate through this method. The Athabaskan set of
discourse patterns are to a large extent mutually
exclusive of the discourse patterns of essayist
prose.
The Scollons describe how Athabaskans use
words, actions, interactions, values, and beliefs to
enact and get recognized as a certain type of Native American or aboriginal people. This is a Discourse in Gee’s sense. Of course, many
Athabaskans can enact and recognize other socially situated identities; that is, engage in other
Discourses. On the other hand, schools want students to use words, actions, interactions, values,
and beliefs to enact and get recognized as “educated” or “literate” people. This also is a Discourse (one that has, like all Discourses, changed
through time). The Scollons point out that at the
level of socially situated identities these two Discourses can conflict with each other.
Furthermore, the Scollons argue that the Discourse of school-based literacy is connected to
an order of discourse, in Fairclough’s sense, that
is a set of different, but related practices with
print, for example, essays, reports, stories, literature, and so forth. However, in this order of discourse one form—the essay—stands out as the
paradigm instance of the values behind schoolbased literacy (which is why the Scollons refer to
school-based literacy as “essayist literacy”).
Instead of the terms “discourse” or “Discourse,” other theorists have used the term culture. However, culture has a great many different
meanings. The terms discourse and order of discourse for Foucault and Fairclough are meant to
single out the ways in which texts and institutions
set limits to meaning at particular times and
places, often across various cultural groups in a
society. The term “Discourse” for Gee is meant to
single out the ways in which people at all different levels integrate words, actions, interactions,
values, beliefs, and the use of objects, tools, and
technologies to enact and recognize multiple,
changing, sometimes conflicting, socially situated
identities, some of which are “culture like” and
others of which are not (e.g., a member of the
Green Party may be affiliated with people across
the world via the Internet without sharing much
culture with these other people).
James Paul Gee
References
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse
Analysis. London: Longman.
Foucault, Michel. 1981. History of Sexuality, Vol. 1.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Gee, James P. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies:
Ideology in Discourses. 2d ed. London: Taylor and
Francis.
Graff, Harvey J. 1987. The Legacies of Literacy:
Continuities and Contradictions in Western Culture
and Society. Bloomington: University of Indiana
Press.
142
Discussion
Scollon, Ronald, and Suzzane W. Scollon. 1981.
Narrative, Literacy, and Face in Interethnic
Communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
the role that social interaction with others plays
in shaping thought. In addition, Mikhail
Bakhtin’s dialogic principle shows that as students share ideas within a discussion, these ideas
are not only combined but are transformed to
provide new understandings that are greater
than the sum of the individual contributions.
Thus, discussion can effectively act as a tool for
critical thinking, provide students with the
chance to socially construct meaning, and allow
teachers to observe, analyze, and shape students’
learning in meaningful ways.
In addition to aiding students in the development of thought, discussion serves as a motivator for students’ learning. This motivational aspect occurs, in part, because discussions allow
students to contribute their own ideas and beliefs, interact more substantively with peers, and
receive instant feedback about these same contributions. Actively participating in the learning
process and receiving quality responses from
peers and teachers are important conditions that
play a key role in learning. Although other conditions are equally important, the ability to participate in a discussion as a learning activity and
to receive feedback that is constructive but nonthreatening is essential.
As noted, effective discussions are planned in
advance, yet they are flexible. This dynamic balance between planning and flexibility ensures
that discussions are used thoughtfully as tools
for learning and that they are efficient and focused. This balance ensures that teachers adapt
to individual students’ needs and to the direction
that learning processes dictate during discussion
sessions. Planned discussions require that teachers identify instructional purposes for the discussion, analyze texts or activities to determine
what content is amenable to discussion, select
strategies that match the goal and content of the
material or problem to be discussed, organize
how students will work together in small groups
or as a whole class while still allowing some student choice in these matters, work with students
to learn appropriate discussion interactions patterns, and design evaluation tools that can be
used before discussions commence, during the
activity, and afterward. These evaluation tools
should include ways for teachers, individual students, and peers to assess not only the process of
learning during discussion but also what was
learned and by whom.
Discussion
Teachers have long used discussions as an instructional tool to promote students’ active processing of ideas to improve learning. Although
discussion serves a number of purposes, the
most compelling reason for its use is the direct
connection between discussion and thought.
Traditionally, teachers have used discussion as a
way to impart information and to assess what
students have learned from the presentation,
previously read texts, or activities students engaged in within larger classroom lessons. For example, what many teachers refer to or enact as a
discussion is often a teacher-directed conversation that follows the Initiate-Respond-Evaluate
format (IRE). In such cases, teachers typically
initiate a question or topic, students respond,
and teachers evaluate such responses. Students
are not given the opportunity to socially construct meaning as they might in authentic conversations or dialogues, nor do they learn to analyze and solve problems or offer evidence for
their responses (Alvermann, O’Brien, and Dillon, 1990).
In contrast, effective discussions are characterized as planned activities in which students
contribute at least half of the talk, interact with
other peers rather than solely with the teacher,
and present multiple views with exchanges
longer than the two- to three-word responses
typical of the IRE format. Wilbert McKeachie
(1986) noted that effective discussions allow
students to critically analyze their own and
other group members’ logic, rationale, and evidence associated with particular stances toward
a topic. In this process, students learn to use the
ideas and products of group interactions as they
formulate their own viewpoints and support for
such stances. Moreover, because discussions are
generated and supported through language, students learn to use language to generate
thought—a crucial component of learning. This
concept is directly supported by Lev Vygotsky’s
stance, which characterizes discussions as opportunities to not only use language to foster
thought but to see what students are thinking
and how they process ideas and to understand
143
Discussion
Students and teacher involved in a discussion (Elizabeth Crews)
points of view or increase awareness of a perspective, or to actively engage students in identifying a problem and the processes and actions
required to solve it. To initiate a discussion, it is
important that both teachers and students be adequately prepared. A requisite knowledge base
from which to begin might include readings, activities, experiences, and a variety of other
sources other than the teacher. Students need to
draw upon these resources; how well students
process these preliminary sources impacts directly upon the quality of discussions. Hence,
teachers need to see discussions as part of larger
instructional planning, including what occurs
prior to and after the session proper. Further, the
appropriate selection of strategies to guide discussions is crucial.
Teachers may select graphic aids that present
central ideas or questions that students may use
to prepare for discussion sessions. These same
aids may be used to amend or expand ideas during interactions or after the discussion. Structures such as these enable open discussions and
Teachers have struggled to plan effective discussions, primarily due to a lack of understanding of the components and characteristics that
make discussions work. Claude Goldenberg
(1992–1993) asserted that there are no explicit
steps that teachers should follow to ensure successful discussions because student learning is
less clearly defined and organized during these
events. Nevertheless, instructionally beneficial
discussions do have common characteristics, including teachers who: pose questions that do not
readily have answers, are responsive to student
contributions and seek to keep the conversation
connected, design and maintain challenging yet
nonthreatening environments, and promote
broad student participation, for example, by allowing students to select when they contribute to
the interactions.
The achievement of goals and the success of a
discussion are attributable to differences in discussion formats. For example, the goal of the discussion may be to clarify ideas, to grapple with a
particular issue, to allow students to see multiple
144
Discussion
contributions, focusing students’ efforts and ensuring that ideas presented are supported with
relevant evidence instead of generalizations or
emotional arguments. James Dillon (1984) proposed alternatives to the teacher’s asking questions, which often lead to IRE sessions. Instead of
this, teachers are encouraged to use the following
techniques: make a declarative or factual statement to start a discussion, make a reflective
statement related to a previous comment, describe a student’s state of mind or the reasons
that student might have for contributing particular statements to the conversation, seek student
elaboration on a statement made by another
peer, encourage students to ask questions generally or ask questions of one another, and maintain a deliberate silence to encourage reflection.
Teachers have also used the devil’s advocate
strategy to help generate discussions and explore
various perspectives on an issue or point of view.
The strategies outlined are ones that promote active learning and student talk; they also promote
comprehension of texts.
McKeachie (1986) asserted that when teachers
select the format needed for a discussion, their
choice also directly affects the type of discussion
that ensues and who controls it. For example,
teachers are often unwilling to relinquish control
of the discussion to allow students to socially
construct meaning. Rather, control is maintained through the selection of content, the pace
of the interactions, and teacher selection of
which students can contribute and which cannot. Thus, goals that are solely teacher-centered
reflect discussion activities that are teacher-centered as well. Likewise, student-centered goals reflect activities that allow students to control the
content and flow of discussion. Note that
teacher-centered discussions are usually ineffective because teachers are not using discussion as
a vehicle for social construction of meaning.
Clearly, the actions of teachers within a discussion are critical. Teachers are required to step
out of their traditional roles, in which they often
dispense information and evaluate learning, and
assume a collaborative role with students. For
example, in the revised role, teachers do not control the content and flow of discussions but
rather facilitate actions, refocus the conversation,
and possibly clarify issues when required. Often,
teachers determine that they need to take a more
active role with difficult texts or when communi-
cation between peers breaks down. During these
moments, teachers scaffold students’ responses,
guiding them to richer contributions and making connections that were not readily apparent to
the students. Also, teachers who successfully conduct classroom discussions are able to build on
students’ prior knowledge and make efforts to
draw all students into the discussion, helping to
curb incidents in which a few students monopolize the discussion. Key to involving all students
as effective contributors during discussion activities is the teacher’s role in helping students learn
effective discussion-interaction patterns. Students do not naturally learn appropriate discussion interactions. Rather, they require support
from teachers who can help them analyze the
course of the discussion when roles are taken up
by particular group members in useful or in less
effective ways, also finding ways to include all
students. Teachers can also support student
learning by modeling effective discussion actions
or strategies; demonstrating how to monitor interactions to determine who is seizing power, silencing others, or monopolizing interactions;
and helping students reflect on which students
are not actively engaged in conversations and
why. The interactions between the teacher and
students and between peers are crucial to
whether discussions promote learning.
Assessment is key to ensuring that discussions
are used to enhance student learning and that
students have positive experiences during interactions. What has historically made discussion
sessions challenging is the teacher’s ability to develop ways to assess learning, to take these assessments and use them in future planning, and
to use the findings to show what students have
achieved. In planning discussions, teachers and
students must consider all possible outcomes
and contributions prior to the discussion, as well
as appropriate follow-up activities that will help
assess the effectiveness of the discussion and students’ learning. Teachers will want to consider
both individual and group assessments; equally
important are self-assessments and peer assessments. All assessments should focus on content
elements (Gambrell and Almasi, 1996) as well as
on the processes that facilitated learning. Evaluating the actions or strategies used by students
during discussions allows teachers to scaffold
students’ learning about the purposes of discussions and the actions that allow them to work ef145
The Discussion Web
fectively and efficiently. In addition, Karen Evans
(2001) noted that content-element assessments
could be generated by thinking about the literacy
skills and strategies that students need to develop
and creating grids of indicators that document
these learnings. The grids can be used in a routine manner, with students being regularly observed during discussions and the evidence of
their learning recorded, accompanied by noting
areas for growth. Similarly, teachers can develop
tools for students to use in order to assess their
own learning, the processes they use, and their
peers’ contributions. Considerable coaching will
be required to help students move beyond surface-level analyses of their own and their peers’
contributions toward focusing on substantive interactions and products.
Effective discussions are possible when teachers consider essential components that must be
addressed, including careful planning, opportunities for constructive and ample student talk,
and ongoing assessment of the interactions and
contributions of all participants. When the conditions are optimal, discussion sessions offer students the experience of using language to generate thought and to create new ideas. An
additional benefit to using discussions is that
students learn in a way that they find meaningful
and motivating.
Deborah R. Dillon and Kerry A. Hoffman
REASONS
NO
YES
CENTRAL
QUESTION
CONCLUSION
Figure 1. Discussion Web
The Discussion Web
The Discussion Web is a graphic aid embedded
in a discussion format that encourages students
to look at opposing viewpoints before determining their own conclusions. It gives all students the
ability to form opinions and share them with a
peer. Too often, classroom discussions involve the
teacher and only a few willing participants. The
Discussion Web, which can be used across grade
levels and content areas, enables students to work
initially in pairs as they work out their shared response to a question posed by the teacher.
The Discussion Web was created by Donna
Alvermann, who combined the WebOutline created by James Duthie (1986) and the think-pairshare technique by Jay McTighe and Frank Lyman (1988). The Discussion Web is formatted as
a dialogue that teaches students to efficiently discuss topics presented in texts. A central question
posed to the students appears in a box in the
middle of a handout page; the students write
their opinions, representing one side or the other
of the issue, on the lines provided on either side
of the box. After oral discussion in small groups,
they record their final conclusion.
There are several steps to a Discussion Web.
First, students think individually about the ideas
they want to contribute to the discussion and
then discuss these ideas with a partner and reach
consensus on their opinions. Next, the partners
pair up with a different set of partners to work
toward a consensus by eliminating any inconsistencies and contradictions in their own thinking.
Then, the two sets of partners, working as a
group of four, come to a decision and join with
another group of four. Finally, the group of eight
decides which ideas a spokesperson from the
group will share with the entire class in the
whole-group discussion that follows.
See Also
The Discussion Web; Gender and Discussion;
Graphic Aids
References
Alvermann, Donna E., David G. O’Brien, and
Deborah R. Dillon. 1990. “What Teachers Do
When They Say They’re Having Discussions of
Content Area Reading Assignments: A Qualitative
Analysis.” Reading Research Quarterly 25:296–322.
Dillon, James T. 1984. “Research on Questioning and
Discussion.” Educational Leadership 42:50–56.
Evans, Karen S. 2001. Literature Discussion Groups
in the Intermediate Grades: Dilemmas and
Possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Gambrell, Linda B., and Janice F. Almasi, eds. 1996.
Lively Discussions! Fostering Engaged Reading.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Goldenberg, Claude. 1992–1993. “Instructional
Conversations: Promoting Comprehension
through Discussion.” Reading Teacher 46:316–326.
McKeachie, Wilbert J. 1986. Teaching Tips: A
Guidebook for the Beginning College Teacher. 8th
ed. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
146
Distance Learning
By talking with partners and pairs of partners
prior to engaging in whole-class discussions, students have multiple opportunities to interact
(Alvermann, 1991). The Discussion Web allows
students to defend their point of view with details
from the text that support their opinions. At first,
many students may need guidance from the
teacher, along with the structure of the Discussion
Web. Later, students may be able to devise their
own topics and manage their own discussions.
The Discussion Web allows those who are typically less prone to talk in whole-class discussions, particularly females (who generally aren’t
called on enough in a teacher-led discussion), to
develop their opinions and feel confident discussing them in small groups and then sharing
within the larger context of the classroom. The
Discussion Web offers a symmetrical discussion
for both males and females; it gives students confidence by requiring all of them to base their
opinions on evidence provided in the text.
The Discussion Web incorporates all four of
the language arts (reading, writing, speaking,
and listening). It can function as a postreading
strategy or as a prereading or prewriting device.
It allows students to work alone, in pairs, in small
groups, and then as part of a whole-class interaction. Adaptations can be made to use the Discussion Web in math with word problems, in science
with experiments, and in social studies for debating viewpoints. Its flexibility for use across a
wide variety of other subjects and grade levels
makes it a usable tool for any curriculum.
Gretchen Morrison
do not have to be physically present at the same
location as the instructor. Thus, learning may
take place at one or more remote sites. The two
basic modes of instructional delivery are asynchronous and synchronous. Synchronous refers
to instruction in which all participants must be
active at the same time. Synchronous delivery
systems are often referred to as “real-time” delivery systems. Asynchronous learning does not require the simultaneous participation of the instructor or the participants. In asynchronous
learning, students can choose the time during
which they wish to receive instruction. Asynchronous learning is often referred to as “anytime, anywhere” learning. Although a key aspect
of distance-learning environments is that students do not have to be physically present, there
are additional distance-education classes that are
conducted in tandem with face-to-face instruction. In this manner, the distance learning takes
place as an adjunct to traditional class instructional modes. This additional instructional time
can be either asynchronous or synchronous. A
key element of the use of all such technologies is
the ability to enhance communication between a
teacher and learners.
Delivery Systems
The original forms of distance-learning delivery
systems were correspondence courses in which
students were given tasks to perform; their work
was then evaluated by an instructor and returned
to them. The instructional vehicle was via either
print text or television. In either case, the mode
of communication and learning was one-way,
that is, student to teacher with no interaction
from others.
Distance learning today tends to be more interactive, and the path of communication is
most often between a teacher and several students as well as among students. Current delivery
systems are built on several technological options. There are four basic forms of such technologies: video-based, audio-based, databased,
and computer-based. Each has a different degree
of interactivity, depending on the manner in
which it is delivered. All can be conducted either
in a synchronous or asynchronous forum.
Video-based delivery of instruction can be
conducted through broadcast television, closedcircuit transmissions, and videotape. It often involves only one-way transmission. When video-
See Also
Discussion
References
Alvermann, Donna. 1991. “The Discussion Web: A
Graphic Aid for Learning across the Curriculum.”
Reading Teacher 45:92–98.
Duthie, James. 1986. “The Web: A Powerful Tool for
the Teaching and Evaluation of the Expository
Essay.” The History and Social Science Teacher
21:232–236.
McTighe, Jay, and Frank Lyman. 1988. “Cueing
Thinking in the Classroom: The Promise of
Theory-Embedded Tools.” Educational Leadership
45 (7):18–24.
Distance Learning
Distance learning involves students participating
in an instructional delivery system in which they
147
Distance Learning
based instruction takes place in a synchronous
environment, if multiple-mode communication
is desired, it is necessary to have audio hookups
that allow students to communicate with each
other and with the instructor. When instruction is
conducted in an asynchronous environment, interaction can take other forms, such as communication via e-mail or listservs. Recently, many
schools have developed means for two-way interactive video hookups by using cameras, microphones, and monitors. This two-way interactive
learning necessitates the connection via satellite
dishes, cable connectivity, or fiber optic linkages
to connect multiple sites. Many feel that this very
closely replicates face-to-face instruction.
Audio-based delivery systems are easier to
transmit since they are less costly and more easily reach a wide audience. Little special equipment is necessary for the transmission of information to the student. The modes of delivery
center on either radio broadcasts or audiocassettes. Audio communication is also being advanced via the Internet, with radio broadcast capabilities that extend well beyond the traditional
radio broadcast frequencies. Radio broadcasts
mandate synchronous learning, whereas audiocassettes can be used in asynchronous learning
contexts. Radio is a one-way communication
medium in which only the instructor communicates with the learner. Increasingly, the use of audio teleconferencing is used to counteract the
one-way communication dilemma. In audio teleconferencing, individuals or groups at multiple
sites can interact. In a literacy program, for example, teachers can use this technology to
arrange for students to “meet” an author of a
book they are reading with little more technology
necessary than using a conference-call option.
Databased technologies are designed to teach
or manage specific aspects of instruction. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is the term used
when a hardware system or software program
helps deliver instructional content. It helps the
teacher teach and helps the student learn. Applications for literacy classes are many. Word processing is an example of a basic, fundamental
mode of CAI practice in a literacy program. It is
vital for students to read, write, and develop
good communication skills. Writing with a computer facilitates text modification and is often
found to encourage written communication that
might not otherwise take place.
Databases, a form of CAI, are designed to help
the user generate files that may contain hundreds
of pieces of information, store it on a disk, and
arrange and sort it. Students can use databases to
catalog books they’ve read and cross-reference
them by genre, theme, author, or many other categories. Software programs that help students
draw or chart are valuable additions to a literacy
program, as are presentation packages that help
foster outlining skills, information processing,
and overall communication ease.
Kenneth Hinze (1989) and Edward Tufte
(1990) have investigated the use of graphics as an
aid in conveying meaning and enhancing communication and have found them to be beneficial.
Computer-managed instruction (CMI) is a means
for instructors to manage the instruction delivered to and worked on in their classes. CMI can be
useful to traditional face-to-face instructors and
also to those using distance-education technologies. Computer-based technologies can provide
instruction and also be an adjunct to audio and
video telecommunication. With additional hardware and software such as modems, a microphone, speakers, and an individual video hookup,
they can provide desktop video conferencing.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC)
refers to using the computer to mediate communication between and among instructor and students. E-mail, computer conferencing, and Internet-based communication make up the most
common CMCs. Computer conferencing is a
text-only asynchronous technology that permits
conferencing between two or more individuals.
The information is maintained on a web site, and
like conversation, messages are shown in threads.
Students can read what others have written and
either respond or not. Computer conferencing is
similar to a “chat” room (chat rooms are like
telephones, except that words are written rather
than spoken), but the communication does not
occur in “real” time. Additional modes of interclass communication can involve listservs or
newsgroups. A listserv is a mailing list in which
topic-specific information is sent to the participants. This information is sent to all who subscribe to the listserv, and these participants can
respond (referred to as “posting”) to all on the
list or to individuals on the listserv. Newsgroups
are also topic specific, but unlike listservs, a user
does not have to subscribe to the newsgroup and
it is open to all who wish to access the group.
148
Distance Learning
Implications of Distance Learning
for the Student and the Instructor
There is a limited body of research on the effectiveness of distance learning. Thus far, research
suggests that the most successful distance learners are those who voluntarily seek further education, have post-secondary education goals with
expectations for higher grades, and are highly
motivated and self-disciplined. When distance
education is combined with face-to-face instruction, students seem to benefit more. Several key
themes pervade the current body of research regarding distance learning from a student perspective, including: the need for interaction
among students, the need for student-teacher interaction, and the role of this pedagogy on student learning. These and other studies also point
out that good distance-learning practices follow
traditional teaching practices, and the conditions
that influence effective instruction may be common across different environments and populations (Russell, 1992).
The implementation of distance education in
both K–12 schools and in higher education can
be a very costly and controversial endeavor. Audio telecommunications involve minimal implementation with low costs, but more advanced
modes of delivery such as two-way interactive
communication are much more costly. Regardless of the technology, distance education involves a great deal of planning on the part of the
instructor and often requires almost three times
the planning time of traditional face-to-face instructional delivery. The planning time decreases
with repetition of courses. The curriculum often
needs to be redesigned, and special activities
need to be created in order to facilitate active
participation by the learners. Teachers need to be
taught about the use of this technology and have
to learn how to use it in the most effective way.
Teachers must be able to assist those learners
who encounter problems with the learning context and with the technological aspects of the
learning environment. Interactive web sites and
distance-learning environments can provide
powerful additions to classes. It has been reported that less than 10 percent of teachers are
actively engaged in the use of these resources,
and those who do use them tend to be very experienced with computers in general.
Particularly in literacy, the use of distancelearning environments can be beneficial. To access
information via distance, particularly if the mode
of instruction is web-based, participants must be
able to communicate effectively. Thus, the importance of reading and writing is paramount to access the content or participate in discussions in a
chat room or in a threaded discussion. The rationale and need for expertise in reading and writing thus becomes more meaningful and relevant,
especially to reluctant readers.
Trade-book publishers offer abundant materials that can be integrated into distance-learning
environments. Numerous authors have web
pages with interactive components that can then
be incorporated in a distance-learning environment by a teacher. In this manner, teachers
“share” expertise with others, and students benefit from the knowledge that is shared by other instructors. Educators can enhance their regular
teaching with the inclusion of some of the elements of distance learning. Students can find
e-pals (electronic pen pals) to learn about other
schools, countries, or cultures. Teacher-education students in college classes can be paired up
with students in elementary or high-school
classes to form e-pal connections with benefits to
both constituencies. Students studying a particular country might interview other students from
that country via e-mail and thereby learn much
more about the mores and culture. Scientific experiments can be conducted at a distance, with
students sharing and comparing data.
As with all educational endeavors, the focus of
distance learning should be on the effect on
the learner. Meeting the instructional goals of
the program and the instructional needs of the
learner should be foremost. Good pedagogy is
vital whether students are engaged in face-toface instruction or are learning at a distance. In
both contexts, the principles of effective teaching
are critical, but with distance-learning situations,
instructors need to be even more organized,
thoughtful, methodical, and mindful of students
beforehand. Since feedback from learners is not
as immediate as in face-to-face instruction,
modifications in the instructional plan and in
the tasks given to learners or the simulations presented may be made, but they will often occur at
a slower pace. Educators, then, must be more
proactive than reactive. The convergence of technology and education benefits and empowers
learners in new and extraordinary ways. Educators and students are increasingly viewing learn149
Diversity
ing at a distance as a viable means of instructional delivery. More and more demands are being placed on both learners and educators, and
the lightning speed of access to information and
communication via technology is having a positive effect on literacy education. Although distance learning is currently in its infancy, the potential and power of this mode of instruction is
burgeoning.
Carole S. Rhodes
is considered the cultural and linguistic mainstream in the United States will continue to increase. The educational and literacy needs of culturally and linguistically diverse children in these
groups may go unaddressed as they are encouraged to assimilate into mainstream discourse. It
is imperative for educators to understand the
connection between culture and literacy learning. Sonia Nieto (1999) has argued that the concept of culture was created by societies to account for the influence of a broad array of
factors. She also noted that as a concept, culture
is multidimensional and learned. Some literacy
educators have been challenged to include the
cultural, linguistic, and literacy experiences of
children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in the curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Understanding how to make meaning is at the
heart of literacy. How people learn to make sense
of their world, or learn to make meaning, is affected by the culture and language into which
they were born. Literacy theories and strategies
that are effective with mainstream groups will
not magically work as well with culturally and
linguistically diverse children. Literacy theories,
methods, materials, and assessment techniques
must be informed by the research of cultural and
linguistic insiders whose area of expertise has
identified culturally responsive and respectful
approaches to literacy education. Moreover, to
improve the academic achievement of children
from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, educators must acknowledge the disparities of the past, the discursive practices of the
present, and the need to affirm and value individual and group cultural and linguistic differences.
The diversity of students in today’s literacy
classrooms underscores the importance of developing curricula, teaching strategies, and policies
to help all students succeed in school. Efforts to
welcome and understand all students—and to
treat their cultural and linguistic backgrounds as
equally valid and important—are paramount in
literacy classrooms. Effective literacy instruction
builds upon the cultural and linguistic backgrounds, ways of making meaning, and prior
knowledge that each child brings into the classroom. Such instruction acknowledges the indivisibility of culture in language and literacy
learning. Understanding and respecting the array
See Also
Computer-Assisted Instruction; Critical Media
Literacy; Early Literacy Software; Electronic
Jigsaw; Hypertext; Instant Messaging; Software
for Older Readers
References
Hinze, Kenneth. 1989. “PC Datagraphics and
Mapping.” Social Science Computer Review
7(1):72–75.
Rhodes, Carole S. 1998. “Multiple Perceptions and
Perspectives: Faculty/Students Responses to
Distance Learning.” Proceedings from the Ninth
International Conference of the Society for
Information Technology and Teacher Education.
Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education.
Russell, Thomas. 1992. “Television’s Indelible Impact
on Distance Education: What We Should Have
Learned from Comparative Research.” Research in
Distance Education (4) 4:2–4.
Tufte, Edward. 1990. Envisioning Information.
Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Diversity
Diversity refers to differences among groups as
well as individuals. In the late twentieth century,
many educators used the term to acknowledge
ethnic/racial, linguistic, and economic differences. The term diversity has also been used in
reference to differences of gender, age, religion,
intellect, and sexual orientation. Schools and
school curricula have not always welcomed, affirmed, or valued diversity as equally valid, important, or desirable as mainstream experiences.
The literacy needs of children from culturally
and linguistically diverse backgrounds are becoming increasingly important in the new millennium as more children of color enter schools.
The rapidly shifting demographics of schoolage children and projections for the future both
suggest that the enrollment of children who are
culturally and linguistically different from what
150
Diversity
Classroom of racially diverse students (Elizabeth Crews)
nicity or racial backgrounds of students in public elementary and secondary schools as follows:
63.5 percent are European Americans (non-Hispanic), 17 percent are African Americans (nonHispanic), 14.4 percent are Latino/a Americans,
3.9 percent are Asian Americans or Pacific Islanders, and 1.2 percent are American Indian or
Alaska Natives. Based on 2000 U.S. Census data,
it has been estimated that school-age children
will be compsed of the following racial/ethnic
groups: 49.6 million Whites, 10.9 million African
Americans, 12.3 Latino/Latina Americans, 2.5
million Asian Americans, and 840,000 Native
Americans. Within each ethnic/racial group
there are commonalties of language and culture
as well as distinct dialectal, religious, class, and
geographical differences. Georgia Garcia and Arlette Ingram Willis (2001) have observed that
there are many differences between and within
each racial category identified by the U.S. Census
Bureau. In addition, Ogbu (1987) has argued
that the type of entry into the country, whether
voluntary or involuntary, and a group’s educa-
of different cultures and languages represented
in classrooms helps educators adopt strategies
for teaching literacy that encourage and support
student achievement.
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners
The U.S. Census Bureau has recognized five major racial groups and asks respondents to selfidentify as: White, Black or African American,
American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, or
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. People who identify as being of Hispanic or Latino/a
origin may be from any race that is part of the
Spanish culture. Respondents who wish to selfidentify as being of mixed race, or multiracial,
are given the option to claim “some other race,”
with sixty-three possible choices.
Children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds currently compose more than
36 percent of the total elementary and secondary
U.S. school population. The social constructs of
race and class are used by the National Center for
Educational Statistics (2000) to estimate the eth151
Diversity
tional history prior to entry are important elements to keep in mind.
In the twentieth century, the largest group of
people of color in the United States was African
American, descendants from Africa, the West Indies, and Haiti. Currently, there are increasing
numbers of Latinos and Latinas in schools.
These students trace their cultural or linguistic
backgrounds to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and
a variety of Caribbean and Central and South
American countries. In addition, there has been
an increase in Asian Pacific Islander groups,
mostly Hawaiians but also including Pacific Islanders, Samoans, and Guamanians; Southeast
Asians, from Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia,
Laos, Burma, and the Philippines; and East
Asians, from China, Japan, and Korea. Many recent immigrants from all groups differ significantly from former immigrant groups in their
levels of education, literacy, social class, religion,
and geographical homeland. They may also have
differences in communication patterns, expectations, and sense of time (Haung, 1993). Children
from 280 different Native American nations are
enrolled in public, private, and tribal schools.
Students in these schools may differ in terms of
their language, traditions, economics, and social
interactions.
Finally, the 2000 census created opportunities
for individuals to acknowledge more than one
racial category. Not surprisingly, millions of
Americans elected to self-identify as biracial
(with each parent being from a different racial
background) or multiracial (with generations of
mixed-race forebears). Educating children from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
and from mixed-race backgrounds requires understanding the distinction between cultural
group identity and individual identity. John
Berry (1986) has encouraged us to remember
that group and individual acculturation may differ significantly. Therefore, it is imperative to acknowledge and address difference, while not generalizing notions of difference to each individual.
requisite for school success. In a similar manner,
Nieto (1999) has written that students’ language
and culture may often interfere with schooling
because they do not conform to the expectations
of schools. Several literacy researchers have
maintained that there are specific teacher knowledge bases that are necessary to acquire before
instructing children in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms.
A teacher’s culture, language, social interests,
goals, cognition, and values—especially if different from the students’—could conceivably create a barrier to understanding what is best for
children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Orange and Horwitz, 1999).
This barrier—what Rosalinda Barrera (1992)
has identified as a “cultural gap”—affects how
teachers respond to children of different cultures. Teachers can break through this barrier by
reflecting on their self-knowledge and by learning to acknowledge and respect the languages,
literacies, literatures, and cultural ways of knowing of their students. When teachers become
aware of their own cultural backgrounds and
values, they have an opportunity to recognize
and address biases, those preconceived notions
that make it difficult for them to accept, understand, and effectively teach their students. It is
also important for literacy teachers to acknowledge and challenge ideologies and policies that
privilege one cultural way of knowing, language,
or literature over others.
There are numerous studies that have documented examples of the relationship between
culture and literacy development and examples
of best practice for a variety of cultural groups:
Native Hawaiian communities, families, and
children; African American and European American children and their families; inner-city
African American families; and many Native
American nations. Cultural and linguistic differences may include the forms of questions that
children are asked as well as expectations about
when and how to respond to questions about the
uses of reading and writing or the styles of oral
narration. There may be differences in language
use and patterns of interactions between adults
and children that differ between diverse cultural
groups and the mainstream. There may also be
culturally specific rules or expectations with regard to behavior and interpersonal interactions
along gender lines.
Literacy Teachers in Diverse Classrooms
Multicultural proponent Geneva Gay has observed that schooling has been narrowly defined
and drawn from one cultural way of knowing to
the near exclusion of all others, forcing some culturally and linguistically diverse children to relinquish their cultural ways of knowing as a pre152
Diversity
Understanding each child’s culture will influence the way teachers frame literacy instruction
and create and use assessment. Literacy instruction should explicitly build upon the cultural
knowledge, ways of making meaning, and prior
knowledge that children bring with them to the
classroom. In this manner, children feel that their
culture, language, and literature are important
and valued at school.
ing. Similarly, Eileen Craviotto and Ana Heras
(1999) have identified characteristics of culturally relevant classrooms: (1) using families as resources, (2) reading multicultural literature, (3)
regarding students as active learners, (4) emphasizing classroom dialogue, (5) providing opportunities for exploration, and (6) using multiple
languages in the classroom. The authors stress
that these strategies can enhance students’ literacy learning.
The literacy needs of children from diverse
backgrounds cannot be divorced from the importance of addressing the linguistic, emotional,
and psychological needs that accompany literacy
learning. Researchers have observed that children from culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds, as well as immigrant children, often seek to develop relationships of caring and
respect with classroom teachers. The long-term
cumulative effects of cultural insensitivity may
be hard to measure using traditional forms.
The literacy curriculum can be an important
venue to help students understand the relationships among culture, power, and literacy. There is
no one best way to teach all students; instead, a
variety of instructional strategies should be incorporated. Diversity training should be a continuous process requiring a long-term commitment because building cultural knowledge and
sensibilities is a lifelong proposition. According
to feminist Adrienne Rich (1979), students and
teachers should enter into an agreement whereby
they will all do their best to respect, educate, and
learn from each another.
Arlette Ingram Willis
Culturally Informed Teaching
Literacy approaches that appear to support the
language and literacy of children from culturally
and linguistically diverse backgrounds must be
coupled with teacher knowledge and commitment. If not, the result is a “tourist approach”
that focuses on celebrating holidays and festivals,
glorifying heroes or exceptional people, and
adding culturally sensitive and appropriate literature. These shallow approaches assume that the
inclusion of multicultural materials is all that is
needed to address diversity in school settings.
Multicultural materials and activities alone are
insufficient for social change. In order to address
issues of cultural and linguistic difference, substantive changes must be made to the curriculum
and instruction. Literacy studies have shown that
students are more academically successful when
they feel welcomed, valued, and challenged by
material that builds upon their prior knowledge,
experiences, and interests.
Dorothy Strickland (1998) identified several
characteristics of relevant literacy instruction for
culturally and linguistically diverse students: (1)
variability exists within and across linguistic and
cultural communities, (2) a student’s conceptual
framework and background experiences are critical to literacy learning, (3) both learning and
teaching are enhanced when context is acknowledged and used, (4) the use of language for real
communication enhances learning, (5) the use of
materials and experiences to which student can
relate helps establish and expand their conceptual framework, and (6) a focus on high-level
thinking and problem solving is critical for all
children. She also emphasized the existing variability across students’ home communities, the
construction of meaning from different perspectives, the acknowledgment of context in literacy
learning, the use of language for real communication, the use of relevant literacy materials, and
a focus on high-level thinking and problem solv-
See Also
Ebonics; Multicultural Literature
References
Barrera, Rosalinda. 1992. “The Cultural Gap in
Literature-Based Literacy Instruction.” Education
and Urban Society 24 (2):227–243.
Berry, John. 1986. “Multiculturalism and Psychology
in Plural Societies.” In Lars Ekstrand, ed., Ethnic
Minorities and Immigrants in a Cross-Cultural
Perspective, pp. 35–51. Berwyn, NY: Swets North
America.
Craviotto, Eileen, and Ana Heras. 1999. “Cultures of
the Fourth-Grade Bilingual Classroom.” Primary
Voices 7 (3):25–35.
Garcia, Georgia, and Arlette Willis. 2001.
“Frameworks for Understanding Multicultural
Literacies.” In Peter Mosenthal and Patricia
Schmidt, eds., Reconceptualizing Literacy in the
153
Dynamic Assessment
teaching and learning that chronicles students’
development.
Age of Pluralism and Multiculturalism. Vol. 9,
Advances in Reading/Language Research, pp. 3–32.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gay, Geneva. 1994. A Synthesis of Scholarship in
Multicultural Education. Urban Monograph
Series. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/
leadrshp/le0gay.htm.
Haung, Gary. 1993. “Beyond Culture:
Communicating with Asian-American Children
and Families.” ERIC Digest (on-line). Available:
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed366
673.html.
National Center for Educational Statistics. 2000.
Digest of Educational Statistics: 1999. NCES
2000–031. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
Nieto, Sonia. 1999. The Light in Their Eyes: Creating
Multicultural Learning Communities. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Ogbu, John. 1987. “Variability in Minority Responses
to Schooling: Non-Immigrants vs. Immigrants.”
In G. Spindler and L. Spindler, eds., Interpretive
Ethnography of Education, pp. 225–280. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Orange, Carolyn, and Rosalind Horowitz. 1999. “An
Academic Standoff: Literacy Task Preferences of
African American and Mexican American Male
Adolescents versus Teacher-Expected Preferences.”
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43
(1):28–39.
Rich, Adrienne. 1979. “Claiming an Education.” In
On Live Secrets and Silence: Selected Prose,
1966–1978. New York: W. W. Norton.
Strickland, Dorothy. 1998. “Principles of Instruction.”
In Michael Opitz, ed., Literacy Instruction for
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students:
A Collection of Articles and Commentaries, pp.
50–52. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Theoretical Framework
The dynamic approach to assessment reflects
constructivist theory and offers a more authentic
expression of current cognitive-developmental
theory than traditional standardized procedures
(Lidz, 1995). Constructivists espouse that students create meaning by connecting what they
know and have experienced with what they are
learning. They construct meaning through these
connections when educators pose relevant problems, encourage student inquiry, structure learning activities around primary concepts, value
students’ points of view, and assess student
learning in the context of the teaching. Because
of the continuous, ongoing nature of dynamic
assessment, it is viewed not as a separate event
but rather as a natural, purposeful component of
the educational process. Students are assessed
naturally within the context of lessons and activities. Teachers then analyze student performance
to inform future practice (Brooks and Brooks,
1993).
From a theoretical perspective, Lev Vygotsky’s
thinking embodies the essence of dynamic assessment: elements of social transaction and discourse, contextual embeddedness, and creation
of a zone of proximal development (Lidz, 1995).
The social nature of the learning process affords
students and teachers frequent, inherent opportunities to negotiate meaning in multiple contexts. Contextual embeddedness encourages participants to view assessment as an integral part of
the teaching and learning process. The zone of
proximal development offers a context for scaffolded learning experiences at students’ instructional levels. Vygotsky’s work suggests that assessment practices that focus entirely on the
child’s unaided performance fail to tap important information that can be identified by analyzing the child’s dynamic performance in the
zone of proximal development, in which the
child responds with adults or more experienced
learners. Opportunities to assess in such scaffolded contexts, in which the student responds
with adults or more experienced peers, reveal
both the learner’s fully matured and emerging
abilities. Such emerging abilities may not be evident without the scaffolds provided by more
competent sources (Minnick, 1987).
Dynamic Assessment
Dynamic assessment is a more authentic alternative than the traditional practice of focusing
on products to assess student knowledge. It is
characterized as dynamic because it is interactive, ongoing, and focused on process. It is distinctive because it evinces the responsiveness of
the learner, offering not a snapshot but an ongoing view of student performance. It demonstrates that assessment is not an educational
add-on but a natural, continuous component of
154
Dyslexia
Dyslexia
Role in Portfolio Assessment
Dynamic assessment is characteristic of the types
of measures often compiled to show growth over
time in portfolio assessment. Such assessment is
goal based, authentic, multifaceted, and reflective,
a continuous process that chronicles development. It is the ongoing nature of dynamic assessment that demonstrates its value in documenting
the learning process, as opposed to using a onetime, summative assessment to document a
learning product. A completed story or research
report, written using the various steps in the
process, is an appropriate summative or product
assessment to support such a goal. In contrast,
dynamic assessments are formative in nature and
delineate the process in which the student engaged to create the product. Evidence of such ongoing assessment might include the student’s
prewriting activity, first draft, peer-review comments, teacher observations, and revisions. These
dynamic assessments also offer both the students
and the teacher more insightful views of learning.
For example, knowing how well they performed
in various stages of the process facilitates future
goal setting for students and gives direction to the
teacher’s future planning.
Robert Tierney (1998) values the alignment of
dynamic assessment with classroom practices. He
suggests that assessments should emerge from
classrooms rather than be imposed upon them.
The formative nature of dynamic assessment contributes to this alignment because the measures
used are often more informal (see Portfolios).
Maureen McLaughlin
Dyslexia, the most common type of learning disability, refers to an inability to acquire functional
reading skills despite the presence of normal intelligence, exposure to adequate educational opportunities, and motivation. Dyslexia affects an
estimated 5 to 10 percent of the school-age population (Feifer, 1998). Dyslexia is a complex,
multifaceted syndrome characterized as a learning disability that impairs the ability to read
words. A prototypical person with dyslexia could
be described as having an underlying neuropsychological deficit in basic reading skills that has
led to secondary problems with reading comprehension, written expression, and math computation (Padget, 1998). Dyslexia has been studied
since the beginning of the twentieth century and
was referred to as word blindness or congenital
word blindness. Although over seventy terms
have been used synonymously for the condition—for example, developmental reading disability or specific reading disability—dyslexia is
the historically preferred term.
A variety of neurobiological mechanisms related to dyslexia, including analysis of specific
brain regions, hemispheric shifting, and genetic
predisposition, have been proposed as the cause
of the condition. Subtle anatomical and functional deviations in the brain correlate with specific types of reading disorders. Analysis of specific brain regions associated with dyslexia have
focused on neural systems serving language primarily in the perisylvian cortex in the left hemisphere. Findings based on electrophysiological
studies, regional cerebral blood-flow profiles,
positron emission tomography (PET) studies,
and postmortem examinations have shown deviations in the cortex and underlying temporal
lobe dysfunction, as well as anatomical lesions in
people with dyslexia.
Hemispheric shifting, based on the specific
strategy used by readers to decode words, appears to be at the forefront of most research involving cerebral processing and dyslexia (Feifer,
1998). Clinical studies have led to the emergence
of two distinct subtypes of dyslexia: surface
dyslexia and phonological dyslexia. Surface
dyslexia is characterized by reading totally by
sound, that is, an overreliance on a phonological
route in which words can be decoded sequentially using grapheme to phoneme conversions,
but words are not recognized on the basis of
See Also
Authentic Assessment; Portfolios; Scaffolded Literacy
Instruction
References
Brooks, J. G., and M. G. Brooks. 1993. In Search of
Understanding: The Case for Constructivist
Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lidz, Carol S. 1995. “Dynamic Assessment and the
Legacy of L. S. Vygotsky.” School Psychology
International 16:143–153.
Minnick, Norris. 1987. “Implications of Vygotsky’s
Theories for Dynamic Assessment.” In C. S. Lidz,
ed., Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional
Approach for Evaluating Learning Potential, pp.
116–140. New York: Guilford.
Tierney, Robert J. 1998. “Literacy Assessment Reform:
Shifting Beliefs, Principled Possibilities, and
Emerging Practices.” Reading Teacher 51:374–390.
155
Dyslexia
Dyslexic student and teacher (Associated Press/The Tennessean)
cent of children who have a parent with reading
disability have the same difficulty. When a child
is identified as dyslexic, there is a 40-percent
chance that one or more siblings will also be
dyslexic (Lyon, 1998).
Kathleen McCoy
meaning or by accessing the semantic lexicon.
People with surface-level dyslexia have poorly
developed sight vocabulary.
In contrast, people with phonological dyslexia
have an almost total inability to apply grapheme
to phoneme rules. They produce errors for derivational paralexias (e.g., running for run) and
read content words better than function words
(e.g., nouns better than adjectives) (Newby,
Recht, and Caldwell, 1993). Oral reading indicates
that they can comprehend the general meaning of
a word but cannot pronounce it correctly (e.g.,
girl is pronounced she, and money as dollar).
Surface-level dyslexia may result from an
overreliance on the left hemisphere, thus suppressing the right hemisphere to detect perceptual features of the text. Conversely, phonological dyslexia may be an overreliance on the right
hemisphere, thus suppressing the phonetic
strategies of the left hemisphere. Investigations
leading to identification of subtypes and the
causes of dyslexia remain one of the most significant and persistent problems in the field of
reading for researchers and practitioners.
Genetic evidence for some types of reading
disabilities with deficits in phonemic awareness
is emerging. One of the most important risk factors is family history. An estimated 23 to 65 per-
See Also
Delayed Readers
References
Feifer, Steven G. April 1998. “Neurological Features of
Dyslexia.” Paper presented at the Thirtieth Annual
National Convention of the National Association
of School Psychologists, Orlando, FL. ED 421 810.
Lyon, Reid G. 1998. “The NICHD Research Program
in Reading Development, Reading Disorders and
Reading Instruction: A Summary of Research
Findings. Keys to Successful Learning: A National
Summit on Research in Learning Disabilities.”
New York: National Center for Learning
Disabilities. ED 430 366.
Newby, Robert F., Donna R. Recht, and JoAnne
Caldwell. 1993. “Validation of a Clinical Method
for the Diagnosis of Two Subtypes of Dyslexia.”
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 11
(1):72–83.
Padget, S. Yancey. 1998. “Lessons from Research on
Dyslexia: Implications for a Classification System
for Learning Disabilities.” Learning Disabilities
Quarterly 21 (2):167–178.
156
E
read to frequently; others, only occasionally. Still
others have received some direct instruction from
their caregivers rather than only informal assistance. Similarly, some children express great interest in literacy, learning about letters and words
on their own, in contrast to other children who
are more content with building blocks and play.
This suggests that some children already exhibit
some of the skills associated with literacy achievement when they enter the primary grades but
that others will need more intensive instruction.
A central goal during the preschool years is to
enhance children’s exposure to and concepts
about print (International Reading Association/National Association for the Education of
Young Children, 1998). In the course of being
read to by their parents or caregivers, children
learn to distinguish many print features. They
learn that print (rather than pictures) carries the
meaning of the story, that the strings of letters
between spaces are words and in print correspond to an oral version, and that reading in English progresses from left to right and from top
to bottom. Children also learn about print from
the labels, signs, and logos they see around them.
Highly visible print labels on objects, signs, and
bulletin boards in classrooms demonstrate the
practical uses of written language. These everyday experiences expose children to print in a variety of forms and to its functions in many different contexts.
A fundamental insight developed in children’s
early years is the alphabetic principle, the understanding that there is a systematic relationship
between letters and sounds. Through instruction, children learn that the alphabet comprises a
limited set of letters and that these letters stand
for the sounds that make up spoken words. Children learn about the shapes of letters by distin-
Early Literacy
Early literacy is defined as the beginning forms
of early reading and writing that become increasingly conventionalized over the early years
between infancy and age eight with high-quality
instruction. Today, unlike in previous decades, it
is acknowledged that even in the first few
months of life, children begin to experiment
with language. In the midst of gaining facility
with oral language and through interactions
with others, children acquire the insight that
specific kinds of marks on pages—print—can
also represent meaning. At first, children use the
physical and visual cues surrounding print to determine what something says. But as they develop an understanding of the match between
speech and print, they begin to process letters,
translate them into sounds, and connect this information with a known meaning. These understandings represent the roots of early literacy development.
For many children, the beginnings of literacy
appear in activities such as pretend play, drawing, conversations about books with their closest
relatives, their family. Parents serve as models,
provide rich experiences, and offer help and encouragement to their young children. They engage them in day-to-day activities where they
see, use, and experience the purposes of print
and its use in daily living. Literacy development
is said to begin in these relationships, and it becomes extended and elaborated through quality
instruction in the preschool, kindergarten, and
primary years.
There is considerable variation in patterns of
early literacy development. Some children come
to the primary grades having encountered a wide
range of home-based literacy experiences,
whereas others do not. Some children have been
157
Early Literacy
guishing one character from another according
to spatial features. Teachers often help children
to differentiate letters visually and involve them
in comparing letter shapes. Alphabet books and
alphabet puzzles in which children can see and
compare letters may be a key to efficient and easy
learning. By kindergarten, children can discern
these letter shapes with increasing ease and fluency. Children’s proficiency in letter naming is a
well-established predictor of their end-of-year
achievement, because it mediates the ability to
remember sounds.
At the same time, children begin to learn
about the sounds of language through exposure
to games, nursery rhymes, and word games. Research by Morag MacLean and her colleagues
(1987) indicates that knowledge of nursery
rhymes specifically relates to the more abstract
phonological knowledge later on. According to
the National Reading Panel report (Neuman,
2000), children’s ability in phonemic awareness
has been shown to strongly relate to later reading
achievement. Phonemic awareness refers to a
child’s understanding and conscious awareness
that speech is composed of identifiable units,
such as spoken words, syllables, and sounds.
Children develop a great deal of knowledge of
the alphabetic system through their beginning
attempts at writing. A classic study by Charles
Read in 1971 found that even without formal
spelling instruction, preschoolers use their tacit
knowledge of phonological relations to spell
words. Phonic spelling refers to beginners’ use of
the symbols they associate with the sounds they
hear in the words that they wish to write. For example, a child may initially write b or bk for the
word book, to be followed by more conventionalized forms later on. Although children’s phonic
spelling may not comply with correct spellings of
words in the beginning, the process allows them
to think actively about letter-sound relations. As
children engage in writing, they are learning to
segment the words they wish to spell into constituent sounds.
During these early years, children’s vocabulary
develops at a rapid pace. Vocabulary increases
through listening to stories. Children, therefore,
need to be exposed to vocabulary from a large
variety of book genres, including informational
texts as well as narratives. In addition, it is widely
recognized that some explanation of vocabulary
prior to listening to a story is related significantly
to children’s learning of new words. For example,
David Dickinson and Miriam Smith (1994)
found that asking predictive and analytic questions before and after the readings produced
positive effects on vocabulary learning and comprehension.
Repeated readings appear to further reinforce
the language of the text and familiarize children
with the way different genres are structured. Understanding the forms of informational and narrative texts seems to distinguish those children
who have been read to well from those who have
not. In one study, for example, Christine Pappas
(1991) found that after multiple exposures to a
story (three readings), children’s retelling became increasingly rich, integrating their knowledge about the world, the language of the book,
and the message of the author. Thus, considering
the benefits for vocabulary development and
comprehension, the case is strong for interactive
storybook reading. Increasing the volume of
children’s playful, stimulating experiences with
good books is associated with accelerated growth
in reading competence.
Best Practices in Early Literacy
Quality programs in early literacy build on a set
of research-based principles about how young
children learn and develop (Neuman and
Roskos, 1998). They emphasize the importance
of integrated learning, motivation, teaching skills
in content-rich settings, and high levels of
teacher guidance. These principles form the
foundation for classroom organization and
management, instructional decisionmaking, and
the selection of learning experiences to promote
children’s capabilities.
Children’s Learning Benefits
through Integrated Instruction
Effective teachers use integrated learning to organize large amounts of content into meaningful
concepts. Since integration is more efficient than
teaching subjects in isolation, integrated learning
provides more time and opportunity for repeated practice with familiar concepts. Further,
children are likely to learn and apply skills, increasing the likelihood of their interest and motivation.
Skillful teachers recognize that thematic instruction must have coherence and depth. Cafeteria-style approaches that teach a little of this
158
Early Literacy
and a little of that give only spotty attention to
content and make only limited connections between subjects. Instead, effective teachers specify
what is to be learned in each subject area in order to ensure that young children gain sufficient
knowledge and mastery of skills.
dependent and make possible the “art and science” of effective teaching.
Play Supports Children’s Learning
Effective teachers recognize that the exploration
and manipulation of objects, make-believe play,
and games make important contributions to children’s development. In play, children express and
represent their ideas, learn to interact with others,
and practice newly acquired skills and knowledge. Teachers provide conditions to affect what
children will choose to play and which materials
will influence how they play. They construct
learning and playful environments that involve
children in literacy and other symbolic activities.
At times, teachers take on roles and actively engage children in language activities that are first
imitated, then expanded upon, and later integrated into children’s developing language repertoire. These teachers seek to enhance language
and play while leaving children in control of it.
Learning Requires That Children’s Minds
(Not Just Their Bodies) Be Active
From the very beginning, education in a democracy must allow children not only to acquire
knowledge but also to make reasoned decisions
and choices. Effective teaching actively engages
children in mastering both content and learning
processes, helping children connect new learning
to what they already know and can do. Effective
teachers strike a balance between structure and
choice in their instructional planning. Sometimes, teachers present a concept or a skill that is
planned and directed to ensure that knowledge is
thoroughly understood, not superficially absorbed. At other times, they recognize that children need to explore, manipulate, and use ideas,
working in centers of their choosing that have
been carefully prepared with teacher guidance.
Both are necessary for young children’s learning
and development.
Developing Competence
Enhances Motivation and Self-Esteem
Rather than directly teaching “self-esteem,” effective teachers recognize that learning experiences
and practices that help children to become skillful
at doing many things are far more effective than
those designed to be highly motivating or “cute.”
Children thrive in classrooms where they develop
real friendships and are in the company of teachers
who combine nurturance and support with high,
but realistic, standards and expectations. Self-esteem grows when children are challenged and begin to develop a history of achievement through
reasonable effort. These instructional principles
that engage children in learning skills in contentrich contexts, play, integrated across subject domains with high levels of teacher support and
guidance, provide opportunities for all children to
achieve while ensuring that individual children will
receive the extra support they need to progress.
As children’s capabilities develop in these early
years and they become more fluent readers, instruction will turn from a central focus on helping children learn to read and write to helping
children read and write to learn. Increasingly, the
emphasis will be on engaging children to become
independent and productive in their reading,
helping to extend their reasoning and comprehension abilities in learning about their world.
Susan Neuman
High Levels of Teacher Interaction
Optimize Children’s Learning
Teachers are greatly influential in helping children to reach their potential. They assist and
guide children’s learning, involving them in experiences that are slightly more difficult than
what they can master on their own. Scaffolding is
an especially descriptive term for understanding
how teachers enable children to move toward
higher levels of learning, with the level and
amount of assistance gradually decreasing as the
children become able to perform tasks independently. Teachers encourage children to express their ideas through language and raise
questions that enable them to develop more
complex ideas and concepts. Effective teachers
work on the edge of children’s current competence, providing learning experiences that are
challenging but achievable. These teachers use a
wide range of teaching strategies. Modeling and
demonstrating provide standards of practice; explicit instruction, questioning, and ongoing
feedback help to challenge and expand children’s
ideas and skills. All of these strategies are inter159
Early Literacy Assessment
settings. The effects of parenting and environmental events were largely ignored. The belief
was that children were not “ready” to read until
they were six years old or so. Assuming average
physical development, a child would then be
more capable of visual demands such as matching letters and determining directionality and of
auditory demands like hearing the small differences between sounds. Reading, some believed,
consisted of a bottom-up hierarchy in which a
child had to learn letters and sounds before being challenged by the printed word, only then
moving on to text and eventually to meaning.
Thus, assessments have reflected that ideal and
measured reading readiness, a hierarchy of skills
including visual and auditory discrimination,
letter recognition, color recognition, and the
ability to compare same and different shapes.
Significant research since the 1970s reflects a
paradigm shift. Literacy skills, both reading and
writing, are now seen to be intertwined, beginning with infants’ hearing and reproducing
phonemes, or sounds, that represent speech. The
speech/language match to print is an amazing
development that occurs as parents read to their
children on a regular basis and as children are
exposed to print in their environment. Toddlers
can recognize the written and pictorial symbols
that represent McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, and Target. In our society, rich with print and language,
children are exposed to a variety of literacy experiences before beginning formal schooling.
This exposure to the form and function of print,
it is currently believed, forms the basis for literacy learning. Emergent literacy, then, reflects the
paradigm on which the content of many current
assessments of early literacy are based. The International Reading Association cautions against
the use of high-stakes assessments for young
children. First of all, a formal testing situation
may put undue pressure on a child, resulting in
inadequate and invalid results. Literacy skills and
abilities develop at a differential rate. Many children find it very hard to sit still and focus on one
task for a long period of time. In short, one must
use the testing results with an eye toward the assessment situation; although the results may be
helpful, the information may lack some amount
of validity. It is also true that testing offers a picture of one student on one day in one situation.
Results may vary accordingly on a different day
and in a different setting.
See Also
Literacy in Play; Phonological and Phonemic
Awareness
References
Dickinson, David, and Miriam Smith. 1994. “LongTerm Effects of Preschool Teachers’ Book
Readings on Low-Income Children’s Vocabulary
and Story Comprehension.” Reading Research
Quarterly 29:104–122.
International Reading Association and National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
1998. “Learning to Read and Write:
Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young
Children.” Reading Teacher 52:193–216.
McLean, Morag, Peter Bryant, and Lynette Bradley.
1987. “Rhymes, Nursery Rhymes, and Reading in
Early Childhood.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
33(3):255–281.
Neuman, Susan B. 2000. Report of the National
Reading Panel. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
Neuman, Susan B., and Kathleen Roskos, eds. 1998.
Children Achieving: Best Practices in Early Literacy.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Pappas, Christine. 1991. “Young Children’s Strategies
in Learning the ‘Book Language’ of Information
Books.” Discourse Processes 14:203–225.
Read, Charles. 1971. “Pre-School Children’s
Knowledge of English Phonology.” Harvard
Educational Review 41:1–34.
Early Literacy Assessment
The purpose of educational assessments, including those that measure the progress of emergent
and beginning readers, is to gather data. Areas of
both strength and need can be determined in order to make effective instructional decisions based
on these data. Through both standardized and informal assessments, educators can determine a
child’s growth toward independent reading and
writing. The assessment of emergent literacy generally refers to preschool and kindergarten students who are exploring and experimenting with
reading and writing. Beginning readers are often
in late kindergarten through first or early second
grade. Therefore, the age measured by early assessments spans a continuum from approximately
age three through seven.
A paradigm shift in the 1970s and 1980s reflects the assessments that have widely been used
by educators. Prior to this time, learning to read
was viewed as a process fixed in formal school
160
Early Literacy Assessment
Using both standardized and informal assessments, educators can determine a variety of factors that represent a child’s growth toward independent reading and writing. When selecting
early literacy assessment, educators must be purposeful: What do I need to discern? Which instrument can satisfy that aim?
(five to eighteen hours of instruction), are taught
in small groups, and are combined with letter instruction. Exposure to and success with various
aspects of phonemic awareness is one predictor
of success in learning to read.
Recognizing the letters of the alphabet and the
sounds they represent is another predictor of
success in learning to read. The alphabetic principle also means that children recognize that patterns of letters make up words. The accuracy
with which children can name letters is important, but equally important is the automaticity
with which children can read letters. A child who
can recognize letters with speed and confidence
will have an easier time learning about letter
sounds and word spellings.
Another important and assessable developmental aspect of emergent literacy is the child’s
concepts about print. Marie Clay (1993) explains
that over a period of time, children gradually
learn a great deal about the printed word. Children observe how adults handle books as they
read. Environmental print is also a source of opportunity for incidental print learning. Teachers
need to understand what children already know
about print and what they have yet to sort out
about our printed language. Concepts about
print include understanding that print carries
meaning and knowing the difference between
the front, back, top, and bottom of a book, where
to begin reading, in which direction to read (left
to right, top to bottom), and that letters make up
a word and that words make up sentences. Children need to realize that pictures enrich and accompany text. More advanced concepts might
include knowing the difference between capital
and lower-case letters, realizing that sentences
end with different marks, knowing that capital
letters begin a sentence, and understanding what
quotation marks mean. In addition, some children might be able to recognize and write some
basic sight words as well as their given and family names.
Aspects of Early Literacy Development
Learning to read and to write begins when young
children hear and mimic language. They are curious and begin to experiment with sounds and
with communication. Parents, caregivers, and
family members are the child’s first teachers.
Children repeat the sounds they hear, gradually
approximating acceptable, understandable
speech. Literacy begins at birth and develops at
differing rates; it begins with communication
and language.
The early language play that children engage
in, such as rhyming and repetition, becomes an
important basis for the development of reading.
This is phonological awareness, the understanding that our language is made up of sounds.
Knowing that these sound segments, or
phonemes, are used to build words develops
along with language and sound play. This is
known as phonemic awareness.
Phonemic awareness is the notion that words
are made up of a specific sequence of sounds, or
phonemes. Some level of awareness of phonemes
is necessary for children to use as a basis for
learning to read print (Adams et al., 1990). Phonemic awareness does not develop spontaneously in all children; it eludes those from
about one-fourth of all middle-class homes and
substantially more from backgrounds that are
less literacy rich. Because of this, phonemic
awareness needs to be encouraged and, often, directly taught. Activities that encourage the development of phonemic awareness include:
rhyming, letter-sound matching, segmentation,
blending, deletion of sounds, and manipulation
of sounds. This list is not sequential, and success
at all tasks is not a prerequisite of reading. The
National Reading Panel (2000) examined fiftytwo articles on literacy and determined that
phonemic awareness instruction has a significant, positive effect on reading and spelling, and
is most effective when one or two different activities are followed, not more. Programs are most
effective when they are not too long or too short
Aspects of Beginning Reading
Children grow in reading and writing at their
own pace; the process is developmental in nature.
Some come to formal schooling with more experiences and more knowledge about print than
others. In general, most of this proficiency is attributed to experiences at home, preschool, and
kindergarten. In first and second grade, children
161
Early Literacy Assessment
expand and enrich their literacy concepts. Their
oral language has developed exponentially as
they acquire words for more complex topics and
ideas. Children also develop their sight word
recognition, usually with words that are familiar
and in their speaking vocabularies. In addition,
as they become more familiar with letters and
sounds, children further develop word-recognition strategies (using sounds, context, and so on).
Phonics, the relationship between sounds and
symbols, is a tool that students can use to enable
them to decode words. When basic rules and
principles of letter-sound relationships are understood and applied to unknown words, reading
and understanding are facilitated. Teachers need
to realize which of these orthographic rules are
known and, further, which need to be taught. An
understanding of phonics can supply students
with an additional, valuable tool with which they
can unlock words and enhance text meaning.
When they can recognize enough words to
read connected text, students move toward reading text with a narrative or expository thread.
Comprehending text is an important part of beginning reading. As students develop into proficient readers, getting meaning from text read
both orally and silently is the ultimate goal.
Comprehension is the essence of reading. Therefore, teachers need to assess whether a student
understands what is read.
and Representing Phonemes with Letters. Students use a booklet and pencil. Administration
of all sections takes about half an hour (Adams
et al., 1990).
Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
The following four tasks, each with several forms,
were designed to be a brief screening device to
determine which children might be slow to develop early literacy skills and which might benefit from early intervention. These timed, oneminute probes are individually administered and
can also be used repeatedly in different forms to
measure the effectiveness of specific interventions. Letter Naming Fluency (kindergarten
through early first grade) measures how many
randomly ordered upper- and lower-case letters a
child can name in one minute (forty to sixty is
considered proficient). Phonemic Segmentation
Fluency (kindergarten through first grade) measures a child’s ability to segment orally presented
words into phonemes. Accurately producing
thirty-five to forty-five phonemes per minute is
considered adequate.
Nonsense Word Fluency (first grade) consists
of a nonsense word–reading task to determine
whether a child applies letter-sound correspondence to decode words (thirty to forty letter
sounds is considered adequate). Onset Recognition (kindergarten) determines how many stimulus sounds a child can associate with a named
picture in one minute (Curriculum-Based Network, 1999).
Assessment Instruments
The following instruments can be used by educators who understand their use and can effectively apply and interpret the resultant data.
They represent a selection of published materials
available to educators. Additional instruments,
such as informal-reading inventories, attitude
and interest surveys, or state- and district-constructed assessments might also aid in gaining
information about the progress of emergent and
beginning readers.
Early Literacy Assessments
This collection offers a wide range of assessments for measuring early literacy abilities. Several short, appealing activities are designed to
gain a profile of an emergent reader. Educators
need to choose which assessments might help
them gain the most information about a child.
Included are: Interviews about Reading Attitude
and Interest, Retelling a Story, Literacy Knowledge (concepts about print), Wordless Picture
Reading, Auditory Discrimination, Rhyme Detection, Alphabet Knowledge, Phoneme Segmentation, Writing, Developmental Spelling, Consonant Phonic Elements (initial and final),
Decoding, Caption Reading, Basic Sight Word
Knowledge, and Passage Reading (Johns, Lenski,
and Elish-Piper, 1999).
The Assessment Test
The Assessment Test is a part of Phonemic
Awareness in Young Children, which is a complete, concise curriculum for the instruction of
phonemic awareness in kindergarten and firstgrade classrooms. Components of this group-administered test include Detecting Rhymes,
Counting Syllables, Matching Initial Sounds,
Counting Phonemes, Comparing Word Lengths,
162
Early Literacy Assessment
Early Reading Screening Instrument (ERSI)
The ERSI is a series of tasks that focus on beginning readers’ print-related ability. It was designed to work as a screening of late kindergarten and early first-grade students to predict
students who would benefit from early reading
intervention programs. The individually administered tasks include the following: Alphabet
Knowledge measures recognition of upper- and
lower-case letters in a variant sequence; production of letters is also assessed. Concept of Word
in Text measures a beginning reader’s ability to
match spoken words to written words; given
memory support and a short rehearsal, a student
must finger point to text and read a sentence.
Concept of Word in Text measures a student’s
ability to match spoken words to text; a student
must locate a key word in text that has just been
read. Phoneme Awareness is measured in this
battery by a twelve-word spelling task; students
are encouraged to use their letters and sounds to
produce a written stimulus word. Developmental spelling may produce a mixture of correct and
incorrect phonemes; scoring word by word, the
total number of correct phonemes and patterns
or errors provides predictive and diagnostic information (Morris, 1999).
Concepts about Print (CAP) are tested, including identifying the front of the book and understanding that print carries meaning, that clusters
of letters are called words, that there are both upper- and lower-case letters, that spaces have
meaning, and that ending punctuation gives
meaning. Two little books, which also act as
forms of CAP, are titled Follow Me, Moon and No
Shoes (Clay, 1993). Word Test is based on the idea
that beginning readers need a base of sight words
that are the most frequent. The Ready to Read series is used during the first year of schooling in
Auckland, New Zealand. Writing Sample rates
writing samples taken from beginning writers.
Clay has urged teachers to rate samples relative
to language level, message quality, and directional principles. Writing Vocabulary measures
how many words a child can write in ten minutes. Prompts are allowed. Scoring is based on
correct spelling, directionality, series of words,
and correct use of capitals. Hearing Sounds in
Words requires a child to write a sentence that is
dictated. The child writes the sounds that are
heard. Scoring is directed toward phonemic
awareness (Clay, 1993).
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III
The PPVT-III is an individually administered,
norm-referenced test designed to measure the
receptive vocabulary in students from age two
and a half through adult. Subjects are asked to
determine which of four pictures on an easel depicts the meaning of the stimulus word. There is
no writing required on the part of the subject,
and this test usually takes ten to fifteen minutes
to administer. The authors determine the PPVTIII as predictive of verbal ability and, thus, of language. Success with language is frequently linked
with success in reading. Scores are reported as a
variety of derived forms: standard scores, percentiles, stanines (ranks), normal curve equivalents (NCEs), and age equivalents (Dunn and
Dunn, 1998).
Metropolitan Reading Instructional Tests
This survey battery is designed for students in
kindergarten through ninth grade. It is suitable
for group use and is divided into six levels. The
paper-and-pencil items that measure early reading skills include visual discrimination, letter
recognition, auditory discrimination, sight vocabulary, consonants, and vowels (Farr, Prescott,
Balow, and Hogan, 1986).
An Observation Survey of
Early Literacy Achievement
This survey is a collection of standardized observational tasks for teachers to use to measure and
monitor literacy progress for students at beginning first-grade level. Clay has suggested that
these tasks be used in concert to gain a complete
picture of a developing reader rather than separating one or two tasks to use as screening instruments. The survey tasks include: Running
Record, which scores oral reading behavior to
determine any pattern of miscues and to observe
problem solving on the part of the child. Letter
Identification includes upper and lower case.
Screening Children for Related
Early Educational Needs (SCREEN)
SCREEN is an individually administered battery
of tests designed to assess academic ability in children from three to seven years of age. SCREEN
may be used to assess children who may exhibit
risk factors for learning. The parts of this battery
include: Test of Early Language Development
163
Early Literacy Assessment
(TELD), which contains eighteen items that measure syntax, semantics, and the ability to use language. Test of Early Written Language (TEWL)
assesses the mechanics of writing and also the expression of ideas. There are sixteen items. Test of
Early Reading Ability (TERA) consists of eighteen items that measure concepts about print and
retelling. Cloze items are also included. Test of
Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA) measures
rote counting, the use of a number line, basic
number facts, and place value. There are eighteen
items (Hresko et al., 1988).
Yopp-Singer Test of Phonemic Segmentation
This is an individually administered screening
survey to determine a child’s ability to break a
word into its separate phonemes. There are
twenty-two items that are administered to
kindergarten and first graders. There are no alternate forms or specific, rigorous norms. The
author suggests that students who score eleven
or better are likely to be phonemically aware.
Students who cannot orally segment sounds
from a given word may have difficulty learning
to read and spell (Yopp, 1995).
Peggy VanLeirsburg Marciniec
Specific Level Assessment
of Awareness of Print and Sound
This is an informal measure of fifteen tasks that
are related to letter-sound correspondence and
print awareness. It also measures a child’s
knowledge of letter sounds and the application
of this knowledge to decode nonsense words.
Specific Level Assessment of Awareness of Print
and Sound is designed to use with kindergarten
or first graders and also with students whose alphabet and print experiences may be lacking.
There are no established scoring conventions,
but the authors advise that students who are
successful early readers are generally accurate
with these basic skills (Howell, Fox, and Morehead, 1993).
See Also
Phonics Instruction; Phonological and Phonemic
Awareness
References
Adams, Marilyn J., Barbara R. Foorman, Ingvar
Lundberg, and Terri Beeler. 1990. Beginning to
Read: Thinking and Learning about Print.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Clay, Marie. 1993. An Observation Survey of Early
Literacy Achievement. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Curriculum-Based Network. 1999. “Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS).” Eugene: School Psychology Program,
University of Oregon.
Dunn, Lloyd M., and Leota M. Dunn. 1998. Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test-III. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance.
Farr, Roger C., George Prescott, Irving H. Balow, and
Thomas Hogan. 1986. Metropolitan Reading
Instructional Tests. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Howell, Kenneth W., Sheila L. Fox, and Mada K.
Morehead. 1993. Specific Level Assessment of
Awareness of Print and Sound. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Hresko, Wayne, Donald Reid, Donald
Hammill, Herbert Ginsburg, and Arthur J.
Baroody. 1988. Screening Children for
Related Early Educational Needs. Austin, TX:
PRO-ED.
Johns, Jerry, Susan Lenski, and Laurie Elish-Piper.
1999. Early Literacy Assessments. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall Hunt.
Morris, Darrell. 1999. “Early Reading Screening
Instrument (ERSI).” Best Practices in SpeechLanguage Pathology 2:43–51.
National Reading Panel. 2000. Report of the
National Reading Panel: Teaching Children
to Read. National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development. Pub. no.
00-4769.
Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA)
TOPA is a norm-referenced test of young children’s awareness of the phonological structure of
words. There are two versions, one for kindergarten and one for early elementary. Each contains two subtests of ten items. Initial sounds
must be matched in the first subtest. Children
listen for the initial sound that is different in the
second part (Torgesen and Bryant, 1994).
Word Reading Efficiency and Nonword Efficiency
This test is for students in kindergarten through
twelfth grade. It is individually administered and
diagnostic in nature. This screening provides a
measure of the ability of students to apply
phonic skills to increasing complex nonwords.
They are asked to apply their knowledge of letter-sound relationships in pronouncing unfamiliar, nonwords without the aid of context clues.
Analysis of errors can provide an indicator of
strengths and needs in decoding ability (Torgesen and Wagner, 1998).
164
Early Literacy Software
Child using a computer for learning (Laura Dwight)
Foundations of Literacy Software
Software that effectively supports young children’s acquisition of foundational literacy concepts, such as phonemic awareness, letter recognition, sound-symbol relationships, ABC order,
and concept of word (Teale and Sulzby, 1989)
are designed to go beyond the repetitive drilland-practice format of many of the lower-level
programs that have dominated the marketplace.
Effective software fosters children’s initial and
ongoing acquisition of skills through playful
engagement within gamelike scenarios that offer multiple occasions to explore literacy concepts in highly predictable and responsive
screen environments. For example, in programs
such as Blue’s Clues ABC Time Activities, children can playfully explore ABC order by following a letter maze in a sandbox, associate sound
and symbol relationships by matching soapbubble pictures to sounds of initial consonants,
and go on a vocabulary word safari while interacting with popular television characters.
Spelling games, like Spelling Blaster, and typing
games such as Read, Write, and Type may also
help young children associate keyboard letters
with sounds.
Torgesen, Joseph, and Brian Bryant. 1994.
Test of Phonological Awareness. Austin, TX:
PRO-ED.
Torgesen, Joseph, and Richard Wagner. 1998. Word
Reading Efficiency and Nonword Efficiency. Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.
Yopp, Hallie Kay. 1995. Yopp-Singer Test of Phonemic
Segmentation. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Early Literacy Software
Computers and literacy-related software have
become commonplace features in early childhood classrooms within the last decade (Becker,
1993). In 1999, hundreds of software programs
involving reading were available commercially.
Early childhood experts consider only a fraction
of the software programs targeted for young
children to be developmentally appropriate
(Haugland and Shade, 1994). Developmentally
appropriate early literacy software programs are
designed to effectively support young children as
they (1) acquire foundational literacy skills, (2)
develop reading abilities, and (3) develop writing
abilities.
165
Early Literacy Software
Reading Software
Software that effectively fosters young children’s
development of reading abilities offers various
levels of support for word recognition and comprehension of narrative stories, reference materials, and informational text. CD-ROM Talking
Books are interactive, digital versions of stories
that employ multimedia features such as animation, music, sound effects, highlighted text, and
modeled fluent reading. For example, Dr. Seuss’s
Green Eggs and Ham allows children to use the
mouse to access words that are pronounced, passages that are reread, illustrations that are reanimated, and special effects that produce visual or
auditory responses. The interactive features focus on word recognition, reading fluency, and
multimedia support for story comprehension
when animations are integrally related to the
story (Miller, Blackstock, and Miller, 1994). Digital encyclopedias, such as Microsoft Encarta
Multimedia Encyclopedia, and digital dictionaries, such as American Heritage Children’s Dictionary, provide convenient references with embedded links to auxiliary materials or additional
information. Reference software can often be updated via the Internet. Support for content literacy (see Content-Area Literacy) or thematic
studies may occur as children walk through virtual museums like The Louvre Museum for Kids,
encounter biological concepts such as 3-D Body
Adventure, or simulate excursions through space
and time as in Madeline: European Adventures
or Reading Galaxy.
development of abilities to create multimedia
documents that contain associated links. Highlighted text or portions of screens may open additional screen windows to video and audio
streams, geographical maps, or related textual
supplementary information.
Educators of young children who are interested in learning more about selecting developmentally appropriate software can locate various
reviews of early childhood literacy software online (see Tech Learning, available: http://www.
techlearning.com/review.html).
Linda D. Labbo and Jonathan Eakle
See Also
Content-Area Literacy; Hypertext; Software for Older
Readers
References
Becker, Howard. 1993. “Decision Making about
Computer Acquisition and Use in American
Schools.” Computers and Education 20:341–352.
Haugland, Susan, and Daniel Shade. 1994. “Software
Evaluation for Young Children.” In June Wright
and Daniel Shade, eds., Young Children: Active
Learners in a Technological Age. Washington, DC:
NAEYC Press.
Miller, Larry, James Blackstock, and R. Miller. 1994.
“An Exploratory Study into the Use of CD-ROM
Storybooks.” Computers in Education 22:187–204.
Teale, William, and Elizabeth Sulzby. 1989. “Emergent
Literacy: New Perspectives on Young Children’s
Reading and Writing Development.” In Dorothy
Strickland and Lesley Morro, eds., Emerging
Literacy: Young Children Learn to Read and Write,
pp. 1–15. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Selected Examples of Foundational Literacy Acquisition
Software:
Baily’s Book House, Edmark, Redmond, VA.
Blue’s Clues ABC Time Activities, Humongous
Entertainment, Bothell, WA.
Jump Start Kindergarten, Knowledge Adventure,
Torrance, CA.
Selected Examples of Reading Development
Software Titles:
Dr. Seuss’s ABC, Broderbund/The Learning
Company, Novato, CA.
Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham,
Broderbund/The Learning Company,
Novato, CA.
Just Grandma and Me, Broderbund/The
Learning Company, Novato, CA.
Stellaluna, Broderbund/The Learning Company,
Novato, CA.
Selected Examples of Writing Development Software
Titles:
Writing Software
Software that effectively fosters young children’s
development of writing abilities supports composing and shaping ideas on screen through
various symbol systems. When composing, children may wish to draw pictures for prewriting
or as an expression of early communicative
symbol making (Teale and Sulzby, 1989). KidPix
Studio Deluxe, a multimedia software graphics
and paint program, allows beginning readers/
writers to initially experiment with graphics,
digital photos, and special visual/audio effects.
With the help of an adult, word-processing programs such as Microsoft Word can support children’s writing processes through formatting
pages, editing invented spelling, and printing final drafts for publishing. Simple hypertext programs, such as Hypercard, support children’s
166
Ebonics
KidpixStudio Deluxe (Broderbund/Mattell), The
Learning Company, Novato, CA.
Read, Write, and Type, The Learning Company,
Novato, CA.
Storybook Weaver Deluxe (MECC), The Learning
Company, Novato, CA.
Ultimate Writing and Creativity Center, The Learning
Company, Novato, CA.
where the term Ebonics was coined have suggested that the term was meant to repudiate the
view that the language of enslaved Africans is
based in English or resulted from a European-invented pidgin English.
Notwithstanding these differences, adherents
of all three perspectives agree that Ebonics is
governed by a system of linguistic rules (grammatical, syntactical, morphological, pragmatic,
and semantic) and paralinguistic (nonverbal)
features. These unique features define the communicative competence of the descendants of
enslaved Africans in diaspora, including the
Caribbean and the United States, and incorporate the idiomatic expressions, social communication behaviors, and cultural mores of African
people compelled to adapt to the conditions of
enslavement throughout the world. African
American Ebonics borrows the bulk of its vocabulary from English but preserves some of the
grammar, phonology, and pragmatic structures
of West African (Niger-Congo) languages.
Ebonics
Ebonics, a term coined by a group of African
American scholars in 1973, combines two
words—ebony, meaning black, and phonics,
which refers to the science or study of sounds.
Thus, literally, Ebonics refers to the science or
study of black sounds. But how the term is defined operationally depends on the theoretical
perspective the person defining it holds about
the origin and historical development of this language. Is Ebonics an offshoot of English? Does
Ebonics derive from a simplified pidgin language
employed by participants in the Atlantic slave
trade? Or does Ebonics have its origin in the languages of West Africa?
Some scholars (English-origin theorists)
maintain that Ebonics, referred to as black dialect, is no different from the white dialects of
English and suggest that the underlying grammar of this black dialect is English. The differences between black dialects and white dialects
are said to have resulted from enslaved Africans’
exposure to poor English models or to their impaired attempts to approximate good English
models, or both.
Another group of scholars (Creolists) view
Ebonics as a system of communication used by
enslaved Africans in America, which evolved
from the simplified languages (pidgins) developed on the West Coast of Africa and in the
Caribbean. Most Creolists equate Ebonics with
such terms as Black English, Vernacular Black
English, and African American Vernacular English.
A third theoretical perspective holds that
Ebonics is not an English dialect and that, therefore, terms such as black dialect, Black English,
or African American Vernacular English are inappropriate. This African-origin theory posits
that Ebonics is a new language rooted in African
(especially Niger-Congo) languages. Indeed,
Africologists present at the 1973 conference
The Public View of Ebonics
The public debate around Ebonics focuses
mainly on whether this system of communication, which is used by nearly all African Americans at least some of the time (Smitherman,
1977), is a rule-based language or simply an
amalgamation of errors resulting from the feeble
attempts of African people to learn English. This
debate has paid little attention to the extensive
empirical linguistic research, yet American society has a very high level of tolerance for this misinformation.
Decades ago, linguists established that African
American Ebonics is systematic and rule governed like all natural languages and that speakers
of this language should be viewed the same as
speakers of any other language. Unfortunately,
this linguistic knowledge base has penetrated
neither public opinion nor the views of many
educators, whose attitudes about how black children speak are a critical determinant of how
black children fare in school.
Ebonics and Learning
Although the public debate centers on how
Ebonics is viewed, the more critical pedagogical
question concerns the impact it has on learning
in American educational institutions. Perennially, the academic achievement of African Amer167
Ecological Literacy
ican students has been disconcerting. The extensive use of Ebonics, which differs significantly
from the language of school (Academic English),
is widely recognized as a barrier to learning in
African American students. This barrier is
formed in part by the negative attitudes of educators toward Ebonics and in part by the structural differences between Ebonics and Standard
American or Academic English.
Teachers’ low opinions and misunderstandings about Ebonics contribute to the failure of
many African American students in America’s
public schools (Baugh, 1999). Because teacher
attitudes and beliefs are critical variables influencing achievement in students, one of the greatest challenges facing teacher development institutions is the need to change negative attitudes
toward Ebonics by building teachers’ knowledge
of the linguistic research on Ebonics. How teachers respond to language difference in African
American students has a significant impact on
classroom instructional practice and student
achievement.
Although changes in educator attitudes are
important, they represent only part of the puzzle. African American Ebonics is structurally different from Standard American English in significant ways. It differs phonologically in how
sounds are formed and used to construct words,
grammatically in how words and sentences are
formed to carry meaning, and pragmatically in
how language is used in social contexts. Therefore, speakers of Ebonics who possess limited access to interactive models of Standard American
English need structured, research-based interventions that promote acquisition of Standard
English. The shared vocabulary of Ebonics and
Standard American English veils the complex
linguistic differences (grammatical, phonological, and pragmatic) between the two language
systems, thus masking the difficulty speakers of
Ebonics have with Standard English acquisition.
Reading and oral language are highly correlated, and how the two connect has significant
implications for the process of becoming literate.
Many problems related to language and literacy
acquisition in speakers of Ebonics result from a
lack of familiarity with the linguistic constraints
of Standard American and Academic English.
Speakers of Ebonics have difficulty distinguishing Standard English phonemes, which results in
problems with sound-spelling relationships, loss
of confidence in the alphabet, and differentiation
of homophones, causing linguistically based
reading and writing problems (Berdan, 1978).
As the twenty-first century brings increased
demands for language use that exceeds basic proficiency, how the language acquisition needs of
students for whom Ebonics is native are addressed in primary- and secondary-learning institutions is critical to these students’ ability to
access post-secondary educational opportunities
and career options. We have an obligation to our
future generations to move beyond uninformed
public debates about Ebonics to acknowledgment of the three decades of linguistic research
on the topic and the application of that knowledge to efficacy in the education of those who
speak Ebonics.
Noma LeMoine
References
Baugh, John. 1999. “Considerations in Preparing
Teachers for Linguistic Diversity.” In Carolyn
Adger, Donna Christian, and Orlando Taylor, eds.,
Making the Connections: Language and Academic
Achievement among African American Students,
pp. 97–114. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Berdan, Robert. 1978. “Dialect Fair Reading
Instruction for Speakers of Black English.” Paper
prepared for the Sociolinguistics of Reading
Session, Sociolinguistics Research Program, Ninth
World Congress of Sociology, Uppsala, Sweden,
National Institute of Education, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare.
Smitherman, Geneva. 1977. Talkin’ and Testifyin’: The
Language of Black America. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Ecological Literacy
Ecological literacy refers to the embeddedness of
our human lives in cultural and physical contexts
and the ways in which we interpret those contexts. Ecological literacy has been thought of in
several different ways. The first of these, instead
of limiting literacy to the skills required to read
and write, uses ecology as a metaphor to demonstrate that literacy is a social endeavor (Barton,
1994). When we view literacy as deeply embedded in a social context, we are taking an ecological approach to literacy. We accept the understanding that the environment or culture in
which literacy is practiced shapes the many
forms of literacy and that literacy, in turn, shapes
168
Ecological Literacy
Third grade students putting on a skit about conservation (Elizabeth Crews)
pact of our way of life on the environment, we
must also recognize a third conceptualization of
ecological literacy—the development of our ability to read or interpret the world around us. One
ecologist, David Orr (1992), has argued that ecological literacy should be taught in schools, but
that this form of education should begin with developing students’ abilities to observe and interpret nature. He argued that without a sense of
wonder and delight in the world of nature that
surrounds us, no amount of learning about ecology will prevent us from destroying that world.
What is needed is a sense of kinship with the
world. Because we often do not recognize the embeddedness of our society in nature, we have done
much damage to our planet. This sense of kinship
is difficult to obtain, because education has been
a primarily indoor activity, with fewer and fewer
opportunities for direct experience with nature.
Along with this sense of kinship with nature, we
must learn, or perhaps relearn, how to understand and interpret our natural environment.
the environment or culture in which it is practiced.
A second conceptualization of ecological literacy frames it as the capacity to understand the
connections between humans and their environment. Ecologists, concerned that education
should include an understanding of the relationships between humans and the earth, have presented basic concepts that should be central to
ecological literacy. Students should understand,
for example, how humanity has changed the
earth’s ecosystems, that certain relationships exist between organisms and their environment,
and that the nature of ecosystems is changeable.
Ecologists also advocate activism, mainstreaming environmental courses throughout school
curricula and raising funds for environmental
activities on campus as ways to promote ecological literacy.
Along with the recognition that literacy is
deeply embedded in a social context and that it is
important for us as humans to recognize the im169
Economics of Literacy Development
To explore ecological literacy more fully, in
this sense of reading our natural environment,
we must see literacy occupying a broader space
than has traditionally been made for it, as an
ability to read nonprint texts, including nature
itself. This widening of the arena of literacy is
supported by work done by the New London
Group, a group of researchers and theorists that
originally met in New London, New Hampshire,
in September 1994. Drawn together from a variety of disciplines by their concern for transformations occurring in the personal, public, and
working lives of people today, this group developed a pedagogy of multiliteracies that is
broader than language alone and that allows for
variation in different cultures and contexts (New
London Group, 2000). Highlighting the increased diversity through globalization of English and the increasingly multimodal presence
of communications technologies, the multiliteracies argument provides a flexible and openended structure for both analysis and pedagogy.
The schools of Manitoba, Canada, have recognized the need to broaden the definition of literacy. In its 2000 Grade Three English-Language
Arts curriculum, this district has added “the
land” to possible sources that students may read
in learning to manage ideas and information. In
addition, students are encouraged to systematically observe and record information from their
environment. The International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of
English have also included reading nonprint text
in their 2000 Standards for the English-Language
Arts. A conceptualization of literacy that includes
both print text and the world around us has great
potential to deepen our understanding of literacy and to help us reestablish connections
among ourselves and our environment. In a reciprocal and ecological literacy, we choose as our
texts the world around us and open ourselves to
being aware of and reading our environment.
also interpretation of topographical maps, sign
systems designed for navigation along the trail,
weather, the gestures and movements of animals
and humans, geographical formations, and their
own bodies. These complex and multimodal literacies both fit into and expand upon the multiliteracies described by the New London Group
(2000). Continuing to explore these multiple
forms of literacy can help us develop a deeper,
more complex understanding of literacy, with
applications not only for our relationship with
the environment but also for our educational
practice of literacy in schools.
Leslie S. Rush
See Also
Literacy in Informal Settings
References
Barton, David. 1994. Literacy: An Introduction to the
Ecology of Written Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
New London Group. 2000. “A Pedagogy of
Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” In Bill
Cope and Mary Kalantzis, eds., Multiliteracies:
Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures,
pp. 9–37. New York: Routledge.
Orr, David. 1992. Ecological Literacy: Education and
the Transition to a Postmodern World. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Rush, Leslie. 2002. “Multiliteracies of Appalachian
Trail Thru-Hikers.” Ph.D. diss., University of
Georgia.
Economics of
Literacy Development
Economics of literacy development refers to three
distinct but connected concepts: (1) the relationship between literacy proficiency and personal
income, (2) the relationship between government support for literacy resources (schools, libraries) and community literacy levels, and (3)
the relationship between the “price” of literacy
resources and the amount that people read. Most
people are used to thinking of the first of these
relationships. Literacy development, it is commonly assumed, affects an individual’s economic
future, that is, the ability to secure a good job and
high wages. According to this line of reasoning,
the literacy development of a given population
will affect the economic health of its state or
country. Although this is no doubt true to a large
extent, it is the other two areas of intersection between economics and literacy—the promotion of
Research in Ecological Literacy
Unfortunately, little research has been done in
the area of ecological literacy. In an effort to begin rethinking literacy in its embeddedness in
culture and in nature, my dissertation (Rush,
2002) examines the ecological literacy practices
of the Appalachian Trail thru-hiker community.
For thru-hikers who backpack from Georgia to
Maine, literacy involves not only written text but
170
Economics of Literacy Development
literacy through economic policy and the analysis of reading behavior as an economic transaction—that are of greater interest to education
practitioners and researchers. One of these topics
has already generated a considerable amount of
research, but the other has seldom been formally
addressed in the scientific literature.
school libraries), and community (bookstores,
public libraries). Studies of home environment
and reading frequency have consistently found
that children who have plentiful access to books
and other reading materials at home read more
frequently. Such access is usually (but not always) associated with other parental behaviors
that encourage literacy development, such as
modeling reading, taking trips to the library and
bookstore, and reading aloud to the child. More
important, there is a small but growing body of
research to demonstrate that experimentally increasing access to reading materials in the home
can, in and of itself, lead to greater reading frequency. This type of intervention is, of course,
somewhat rare due to the expense involved in
physically supplying books to each child to take
home, but the positive results so far suggest a
causal relationship between the ready availability
of a physical resource (books) and the use of that
resource (reading) (McQuillan, 1998).
Although the home provides a child’s first exposure to literacy, various national and international surveys have found that most schoolchildren report the school and public library as
being the primary source of reading material
(Krashen, 1993). This is true particularly of children from low-income communities, where families lack the financial means to purchase a large
quantity of books. Not surprisingly, several studies have confirmed that as in the case of the
home, increasing how much access children have
to reading materials in their school and classroom libraries increases the amount of reading
students engage in, as well as increasing their
reading proficiency (McQuillan, 1998). This effect is also observed at the community level, with
public libraries. Children and adults who live
closer to the public library, for example, tend to
use the library more than those who live farther
away. This effect has remained strong even after
the widespread adoption of the automobile.
Similarly, other library-science researchers have
found that the higher the quality of the public library (all other things being equal), the more
people will use that library.
Since the quality of classroom, school, and
public libraries results directly from the resources provided to these institutions, the effect
of a government’s economic policy on literacy
development now takes a clearer form: Governments that spend more money on the “tools” of
How Economic Policy Promotes
(and Retards) Literacy Development
The connection between economic policy and
literacy development can be understood best by
first thinking about the possible variables that
affect growth in reading and writing proficiency.
It is accepted by most researchers from both a
“code” or skills-emphasis orientation, and by
those with more “meaning” or literature-based
approaches, that the more children read, the
better they read. Although the debates over literacy instruction tend to be heated and contentious, almost all parties agree that getting
students to read voluminously is the goal of
good literacy instruction. This general relationship—that in effect, “practice makes perfect”—
has been found to hold for a wide range of physical and cognitive skills. The best review of this
relationship between volume of reading (sometimes referred to as “print exposure”) and literacy development can be found in Stephen
Krashen’s appropriately titled book, The Power
of Reading (1993). Krashen discusses correlational and experimental studies that have found
that increased reading leads to higher levels of
both reading and writing proficiency among
children of all ages.
If the amount of reading one does explains a
good deal of the variation in how well one reads,
how can we explain the differences in the volume
of reading that children and adults do? There is
no single answer to this question, but there is
growing evidence that the way governments allocate funds to schools and public libraries affects
whether schools and communities have high or
low levels of literacy. The number of printed materials (books, magazines, comics, newspapers,
and so on) in a reader’s environment influences
reading frequency, which in turn influences
reading proficiency. Just as you can’t learn to be
a world-class cyclist without a bicycle, you cannot be a highly proficient reader without print.
Access to reading material can come from
three places: home, school (classroom and
171
Economics of Literacy Development
literacy via library collections have a substantive
impact on literacy development in a community.
This leads to another important issue: How are
such resources currently allocated?
from local sources, such as local property taxes.
As a result, low-income communities, with a
weaker tax base, have much poorer public-library services than high-income communities. It
is interesting to note that although many states
in the United States now have “finance equalization” to ensure that poorer school districts receive an adequate amount of per-pupil funding,
no such programs exist for public libraries. Further, some recent research suggests that it is precisely during the summer months—when the
public library is the only free source of reading
materials—that the gap between high- and lowlevel readers widens the most.
Two caveats are in order to put these results in
their proper context. First, income is not itself
the key variable in predicting literacy achievement in these print-access studies. Income tends
to serve as a rough proxy for print access, but the
two are not identical. The amount of print access
in the home, school, and community has a distinct and strong effect on literacy development
independent of income, and this can be separated
from general-funding levels, teacher-pupil ratios, and other educational resources. Unfortunately, children in low-income environments
generally have poorer access in all three domains
than their high-income peers. Second, it should
be noted that physical access to reading materials
alone is not thought in most cases to be sufficient
for literacy growth. It is, however, considered a
necessary condition without which no other
form of assistance or influence (modeling, adult
intervention) can succeed.
Disparities in Print Access
Due to Economic Policies
Several recent local, national, and cross-national
studies (McQuillan, 1998; Neuman and Celano,
2001) have documented that in all three domains
(home, school, community), there are grave, and
sometimes dramatic, disparities in literary resources between high- and low-income communities. Children from high-income families, for
example, have been found to have up to 100
times more reading materials than their low-income peers. Schools in high-income communities similarly have been documented to have
book-per-pupil ratios several times greater than
schools in low-income communities. These disparities are particularly acute for language-minority students in the United States. Researchers
have found that schools that serve a large number of speakers of languages other than English
have few print resources in non-English languages, even when these schools have bilingual
or dual-language programs. Such schools are, in
effect, doubly hit by print deprivation, since they
also tend to be located in poor communities,
which themselves have a limited number of
books and other reading materials in English.
Public libraries also vary widely in terms of
the number of books per capita available on their
shelves. In one study, high-income communities
were found to have three times more books than
low-income communities in the same state.
These differences were reflected by several indicators of library quality, among them the number of librarians available to provide services to
the public. Susan Neuman and Donna Celano
(2001) found that these disparities exist even
within a single community, with middle-income
areas of a city having better-quality library services than low-income neighborhoods.
Most of these disparities are rooted in economic policy decisions. Governments and policymakers decide how to allocate scarce public resources and in what form. In the United States,
some states have chosen to give generous support
to their public-school libraries with tax dollars,
whereas others have not. At the community level,
public libraries tend to get most of their funding
Literacy Development as Economic Activity
Literacy development can both affect and be affected by economic policy on a local, state, and
national level. There is a third sense in which we
can consider the relationship between economics
and literacy, one that to date has not been formally examined by reading and writing scholars
but is quite common in analogous fields of
leisure and recreation studies. That is to view the
act of reading (leisure reading, in particular) as
consumption of a product (reading materials),
which has an attendant “price” determined by
the forces of supply and demand. For more than
two decades, researchers in leisure studies have
studied the supply-and-demand functions of
public recreation centers, complete with formulas to relate the distance and quality of parks to
172
Effective Schools and Teachers
their amount of use by publics with different demographic characteristics. These studies have
discovered that these “free” public resources do
not, in fact, cost the same to all members of the
community and that their use responds to typical market forces. Concerning recreation centers,
for example, travel time is a price that people
must pay because they forgo alternative uses of
their time (including income-producing activity
in the case of adults) and purchase the actual
means of transportation (gas, bus fare) to the
park site. More readily available parks decrease
the cost of their use, so that those who live in a
community with lots of parks and recreation
centers pay a lower price. Similarly, the quality of
recreation areas determines the value gained
from accessing them. A high-quality recreation
area (e.g., one with more lakes, tennis courts, and
the like) has a lower cost to the user than a lowquality area does, since people gets “more for
their money” by spending the time and energy to
visit the high-quality park.
These same factors of travel time and facility
quality may be used to understand how public
services related to literacy, such as school and
public libraries, are or are not used. As noted
above, the less time it takes to travel to the library, the more people are likely to use it, regardless of their socioeconomic level. Quality
considerations similar to those found in public
recreation centers come into play as well. Libraries of higher quality (more books, more librarians), greater ease of access (open more
hours), and better services have higher circulations, again controlling for socioeconomic differences. Knowing these factors, then, it is possible to lower the effective price of library use to
readers. In this way, government policy could be
adjusted to increase the supply of print materials
in areas where reading frequency and literacy
levels are low, thus boosting the literacy proficiency of the community. This is precisely what
developing nations have done in recent years,
with the advent of “book flood” programs to
provide more reading resources to less-literate
populations in order to lower their “cost” of
reading.
All this would require considerably more sophisticated analysis than has been carried out
thus far. Nevertheless, given the demonstrated
importance of what we may call the “macroeconomic” forces discussed here on literacy develop-
ment, similar “microeconomic” analysis should
prove a useful area of study for both literacy researchers and practitioners.
Jeff McQuillan
See Also
The Political Nature of Literacy
References
Krashen, Stephen D. 1993. The Power of Reading:
Insights from the Research. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
McQuillan, Jeff. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False
Claims, Real Solutions. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Neuman, Susan, and Donna Celano. 2001. “Access to
Print in Low-Income and Middle-Income
Communities: An Ecological Study of Four
Neighborhoods.” Reading Research Quarterly 36
(1):8–26.
Effective Schools and Teachers
Summarizing research on effective schools as related to reading achievement from the 1970s and
1980s, James Hoffman (1991) discussed eight
characteristics: (1) a clear school mission, (2) effective instructional leadership and effective instructional practices, (3) high expectations for
pupil learning, (4) a positive school climate, (5)
continuous curriculum improvement, (6) maximizing of instructional time, (7) regular monitoring of pupil progress, and (8) positive homeschool relationships.
In recent years, a considerable number of
studies on effective schools are again appearing,
undoubtedly due to widespread national concerns about the reading achievement levels of
our students. Barbara Taylor, Michael Pressley,
and David Pearson (2002) summarized strikingly similar findings from five large-scale research studies published in 1997–2000 on highpoverty elementary schools with high reading
scores. Similar findings were also reported by
Anthony Bryk and his colleagues (1998).
Three studies pointed to the importance of
building strong leadership. Effective principals
redirected people’s time and energy, worked to
develop a collective sense of responsibility among
the staff for school improvement, fostered teacher
leadership, and provided opportunities for collaboration and professional development. The
importance of strong staff collaboration in the
delivery of reading instruction was stressed in
173
Effective Schools and Teachers
four of the studies. Teachers in effective schools
talked and worked together within and across
grades to best meet students’ needs.
Four of the studies reported ongoing professional development tied to research-based reading practices as an important factor in effective
schools, especially when teachers learned together within their building to improve instruction. In a related vein, research on effective
school reform and teacher professional development has also stressed the importance of
teachers’ learning and changing together over
an extended period of time as they reflect on
their practice and implement new teaching
strategies. Four of the studies on effective
schools reported that teachers in these schools
regularly shared assessment data on students’
reading performance to make instructional decisions. Teachers also worked across grade levels
to align benchmarks or standards with instruction and required assessments. All five studies
reported that effective schools made a concerted effort to involve parents as partners.
Schools first concentrated on securing the confidence of parents and then worked with parents on ways they could support their students’
literacy development.
A great deal is also known about effective
teachers of reading in the elementary grades.
From the research on teaching from the 1960s
and 1970s, we learned that the more effective
teachers concentrated on academics, had high
pupil engagement, and provided direct instruction. Effective direct instruction focused on clear
learning goals, questioning as a way of monitoring students’ understanding of content covered,
and regular feedback to students about their academic progress.
Beginning with the research of Gerry Duffy
and Laura Roehler and their colleagues (1987),
attention shifted to the role of cognitive
processes used by excellent teachers in the delivery of reading instruction. The more effective
teachers engaged in modeling and explanation of
reading strategies students could use to decode
and understand texts. Michael Knapp (1995)
also found that effective teachers engaged their
students in higher-level thinking more than
lower-level skills. Michael Pressley and his colleagues (2001) reported that effective primarygrade teachers exemplified balanced literacy instruction, in that they taught skills but also got
their students engaged in a great deal of actual
reading and writing. These teachers also taught
students to use strategies in reading and writing
and fostered their independence as learners. Taylor and her colleagues (2000) found that accomplished primary-grade teachers engaged in more
small-group than whole-group reading instruction, maintained high levels of pupil engagement, preferred coaching to telling in their interactions with students when they were teaching
reading, and engaged students in more higherlevel thinking during literacy instruction than
other teachers.
Barbara M. Taylor
See Also
Balanced Literacy Instruction
References
Bryk, Anthony S., Penny Bender Sebring, David
Kerbow, Sharon Rollow, and John Q. Easton.
1998. Charting Chicago School Reform:
Democratic Localism as a Lever for Change.
Boulder: Westview.
Duffy, Gerald G., Laura R. Roehler, Eva Sivan, Gary
Rackliffe, Cassandra Book, Michael Meloth, Linda
Vavrus, Roy Wesselman, Joyce Putnam, and Dina
Bassiri. 1987. “Effects of Explaining the Reasoning
Associated with Using Reading Strategies.”
Reading Research Quarterly 20:347–368.
Hoffman, James V. 1991. “Teacher and School Effects
in Learning to Read.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael L.
Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson,
eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp.
911–950. New York: Longman.
Knapp, Michael S. 1995. Teaching for Meaning in
High-Poverty Classrooms. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Pressley, Michael, Ruth Wharton-McDonald, Richard
Allington, Cathy C. Block, Leslie Morrow, Diane
Tracey, Kim Baker, Gregory Brooks, John Cronin,
Eileen Nelson, and Debra Woo. 2001. “A Study of
Effective First-Grade Literacy Instruction.”
Scientific Studies of Reading 5 (10):35–58.
Taylor, Barbara M., Michael Pressley, and P. David
Pearson. 2002. Research-Supported Characteristics
of Teachers and Schools That Promote Reading
Achievement. In Barbara M. Taylor and P. David
Pearson, eds., Teaching Reading: Effective Schools,
Accomplished Teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Taylor, Barbara M., P. David Pearson, Kathleen Clark,
and Sharon Walpole. 2000. “Effective Schools and
Accomplished Teachers: Lessons about Primary
Grade Reading Instruction in Low-Income
Schools.” Elementary School Journal 101
(2):121–166.
Wharton-MacDonald, Ruth, Michael Pressley, and
174
Elders and Literacy
A senior citizen reads her magazine (Elizabeth Crews)
Jennifer M. Hampston. 1998. “Literacy Instruction
in Nine First Grade Classrooms: Teacher
Characteristics and Student Achievement.”
Elementary School Journal 99:101–128.
into ages sixty-five to seventy-four, seventy-five
to eighty-four, and eighty-five and older. The recent profile from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (2001) stated that in 1999,
there were 34.5 million people over sixty-five
years old. That’s approximately 13 percent of the
total population.
These distinctions among particular cohorts
within the overarching category of elders are vital. The number of elders over sixty-five will increase to 70 million, or 20 percent of the total
population, by 2030, clearly reflecting the impact
of the baby boom generation. Between 1970 and
1999, the rate of high-school completion among
those over sixty-five rose from 28 percent to 68
percent; however, this increase also varied dramatically by race and ethnicity. Finally, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services profile noted that in 1999, 15 percent of those over
sixty-five had a college degree.
Thus, the levels of educational attainment
and, most likely, the corresponding varieties of
Elders and Literacy
The functions and uses of literacy among the
elderly in the United States are, at best, sketchily
known. This should be a cause for concern in
light of the fact that the number of elders is increasing rapidly. What we do know about elders
and their literacy practices comes from a limited
number of research studies and reports from
practitioners in the field.
Who Are the Elderly?
Defining “the elderly” is complex. The American
Association of Retired Persons (AARP) recruits
individuals at forty-nine years of age. Gerontologists often use such terms as “young old,” “very
old,” and “old old.” Cohorts are often divided
175
Elders and Literacy
literacy practices differ among those born immediately prior to World War II and those born
during the first decades of the twentieth century.
These differences will become even greater in the
future when those born after World War II reach
sixty-five. All of these differences are also compounded by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic class,
and elders’ native language.
who might be classified as limited in their literacy abilities according to some list of basic skills
or set of criteria (for example, the NALS) might
indeed read and write little but may still be successful in all other areas of their lives. Similarly,
elders who are considered highly literate might
see little need to read and write and thus seldom
do so.
Finally, the reading habits of the elderly are as
diverse as they are in any other group of adults.
Interest surveys show that the elderly like to read
newspapers, magazines, mysteries, and religious
and inspirational texts because they are brief and
informative (Smith, 1993).
What Do We Know about Elders’ Literacy?
The National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) conducted by the Educational Testing Service
(Kirsch et al., 1993) employed a literacy assessment and background interview with a sample of
26,000 adults who were sixteen and older. Subsequently, researchers have broken out the data on
those adults sixty and older and have found that
with a variety of texts, for example, newspapers,
books, and magazines, younger and middle-aged
adults typically demonstrated greater reading
proficiency than older adults.
Such national surveys are by their very nature
limited, since they attempt to measure literacy
according to some general set of criteria and ignore the particular social and cultural contexts in
which literacy is actually used by individuals.
Likewise, smaller studies of the elderly are often
severely limited by their narrow focus, for example, by semantic memory and its effects on
spelling, the impact of noise when identifying
lists of words, syntactic processing of texts, and
so forth. Typically, these data are gathered in experimental, “laboratory” situations and not
through in situ practices.
Case-study research typically involved small
groups of elders in specific contexts and profiles.
For example research by Gail Weinstein-Shr
(1995), allows us to make some tentative observations, if not generalizations, about elders and
literacy. Those elders who are active readers use
literacy as a social as well as a personal process;
that is, reading helps them connect to others
through sharing and discussion. Likewise, elders
often write to maintain connections through
correspondence, to explore and preserve their
pasts through memoirs, autobiographies, and
“life reviews,” and to counter the effects of illness
and loneliness.
Like younger adults, elders’ perceptions and
uses of literacy vary according to their socioeconomic status, racial/ethnic background, level of
education, and particular cultural context. Those
Future Directions
Although the information about elders’ literacy
perceptions, needs, and uses is limited, it still
provides clues to the necessary approach to literacy development for the elderly. It appears from
what we do know that such programs must be
based on the actual realities of the lives of the
elderly in specific situations, on the social and
connective power of reading and writing, and on
the fact that they tend to prefer informal learning
situations.
Continuing literacy development for the elderly must take into consideration all of the
complex differences described above. The AARP
web site, for example, which offers free on-line
classes on such topics as “Writing for Children”
and “Shakespearean Drama” cannot be used as a
single template. The sixty-five-year-old professional who is financially secure in 2010 will
need, and will want, different literacy experiences than the sixty-five-year-old high-school
dropout who, of necessity, is still in the workforce. The sixty-five-year-old who speaks English as a second language (ESL) or who speaks
little English at all will need and want another
type of literacy experience.
Regardless of elders’ socioeconomic, educational, or linguistic status in 2001, 2010, or 2030,
the graying of America demands that policy
planners and program developers pay serious attention to the continuous literacy development
of the elderly. Such development of literacy
range and power needs to be based on a broad
and comprehensive understanding of literacy. It
should center around a life-task(s) orientation
that views literacy as a tool for gaining self-understanding, self-expression, and empowerment
176
Electronic Jigsaw
and not upon a narrow-training (in the pejorative sense) perspective.
Francis E. Kazemek
subtopic in a unit that is being studied. Each cooperative learning group takes one piece or part
of the unit, researches it using electronic as well
as traditional resources, and prepares a multimedia presentation to teach the rest of the class.
Students use storyboards to organize their multimedia presentations as they write and record
their own scripts.
The multimedia, content-rich pieces are put
together by each group, which shares its information piece of the puzzle with the class. The total puzzle is viewed as complete when all of the
subtopic information is combined into a whole.
Popular electronic presentation programs, such
as Hyperstudio or Microsoft PowerPoint, may be
used by students to prepare the presentations.
Students use digital cameras, music selections,
photographs, imported graphics from disk files,
and the Internet to enhance the multimedia presentations.
Viewing the electronic presentations in their
entirety is an effective way to culminate a unit of
study. The Electronic Jigsaw learning strategy is
particularly useful in exploring various units of
study in social studies or science. This strategy
can be thought of as a reading-method framework that has certain procedural steps and options for completing the strategy. The procedural
steps and options include:
See Also
Adult Literacy; Literacy Autobiography
References
Kirsch, Irwin, Ann Jungeblut, L. Jenkins, and A.
Kolstad. 1993. Adult Literacy in America: A First
Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy
Survey. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Smith, M. Cecil. 1993. “The Reading Abilities and
Practices of Older Adults.” Educational
Gerontology 19:417–432.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2001. A Profile of Older Americans: 2000.
Washington, DC: Administration on Aging.
Weinstein-Shr, Gail. 1995. Literacy and Older Adults
in the United States. Philadelphia: National Center
on Adult Literacy.
Electronic Jigsaw
Electronic Jigsaw (eJigsaw) is a cooperative
learning strategy that integrates technology with
content-area literacy. The purpose of the Electronic Jigsaw is for students to learn from each
other through cooperative learning groups engaged in peer teaching while using various technology resources in their research and presentation of information. Using the eJigsaw strategy
requires that students apply previously learned
research skills (i.e., information retrieval, summarizing information), which gives their work
an authentic purpose. Additionally, the use of
technology makes the research and the final
presentation meaningful and motivating for students.
Using technology as a learning-enhancement
tool with the Jigsaw was first described by Robert
Slavin (1986) as Jigsaw II. In this variation, all
students read the entire assignment, but each
student becomes an expert about a specific topic
within the assignment. The Jigsaw, a cooperative
learning strategy, was originally developed as a
means of promoting positive race relations in
public-school classrooms, but it was also found
to have positive effects on students’ learning. The
purpose of the Jigsaw is for learners to learn
from each other.
The process of using the Electronic Jigsaw in
the classroom builds on the notion that students
will become experts about a particular part or
1. Identify the subtopics to be studied
2. Conduct research in cooperative groups
3. Organize information learned about the
subtopic
4. Prepare an electronic presentation
program
5. Share research presentations
The National Educational Technology Standards for Students (International Society for
Technology Education, 2000) state that the most
effective learning environments blend both traditional and new approaches to facilitate learning of content while addressing individual
needs. Teaching that way infuses technology into
the curriculum and demonstrates the nature of
using technology as a tool for learning. The
Electronic Jigsaw incorporates various technologies in such a way that students can access
information as well as present their findings for
others.
Cynthia B. Elliott and Susan P. Kornuta
177
English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation and Assessment
Eligibility Decisions
One of the first purposes for the English-literacy
evaluation of English-language learners is to determine which students are eligible for bilingual
education or ESL services. According to federal
law, all school districts must meet the educational needs of English-language learners (Crawford, 1995). It is not sufficient to provide them
with merely the same instruction as native-English-speaking students. When parents first enroll a child in a school district, they are almost always asked whether the child speaks a language
other than English. If the parents answer yes,
then the district usually requires an evaluation of
the child’s English-language proficiency. Although the construct of English-language proficiency includes speaking, listening, reading, and
writing, the focus of the evaluation tends to vary
according to the age of the student and the district or state policy. For example, the evaluation
of preschool children’s English proficiency often
emphasizes oral proficiency (listening and
speaking) and does not include emergent literacy, even though this is an important aspect of
their academic development. Older children’s eligibility tends to be based on an evaluation of
their English listening and speaking performance, with some attention, often minor, given
to their reading and writing performance.
The types of assessments used to estimate students’ English-language proficiency vary. At the
preschool level, districts often develop their own
assessments, such as a home language survey
along with an interview or observation protocol
that can be administered by bilingual or ESL personnel or the children’s classroom teachers. At
other grade levels, commercial measures tend to
be used. These measures range from rating sheets
that teachers complete based on interviews or
classroom observations to individual assessments
completed by the students. In the latter type of
assessment, students are usually asked to respond
to tape-recorded instructions by pointing out the
correct answer and by audio-recording their oral
responses. Generally, commercial language proficiency measures are designed for and normed on
English-language learners. Although these measures may include reading and writing, they tend
to emphasize students’ pronunciation, grammar,
oral vocabulary, and ability to communicate in
English in a variety of contexts. Because students
need more than oral English proficiency to par-
See Also
Cooperative Learning
References
Godoy, Al, producer, and Cynthia B. Elliott, director.
1999. Literacy and Learning in Content Area
Reading: Electronic Jigsaw, Literacy, and Social
Studies. Videotape. Available from Louisiana
Public Broadcasting.
International Society for Technology Education.
2000. National Educational Technology Standards
for Students—Connecting Curriculum and
Technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for
Technology in Education (ISTE) NETS Project.
Slavin, Robert E. 1986. “A Cooperative Learning
Approach to Content Areas: Jigsaw Teaching.” In
D. Lapp, J. Flood, and N. Farnan, eds., Content
Area Reading and Learning: Instructional
Strategies, pp. 330–345. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
English as a Second Language
(ESL) Literacy Evaluation
and Assessment
The English-literacy evaluation and assessment
of English-language learners—students who are
acquiring English as a second language (ESL)—
serve important educational purposes, even
though there are serious biases involved in the
process. The term evaluation refers to judgments
based on the interpretation of student performance data, whereas assessment refers to the design, collection, analysis, and report of student
data. The English literacy performance of English-language learners is evaluated for at least
four purposes: (1) to identify those students who
are eligible for bilingual education or ESL services, (2) to determine students’ placement in
educational programs, (3) to monitor student
progress and inform classroom instruction, and
(4) to meet accountability requirements. When
the students’ second-language status and bilingualism are not taken into account in the design,
administration, scoring, and reporting of the assessments, then the accuracy and usefulness of
the data, as well as the evaluation, are compromised. A serious problem with formal Englishliteracy assessments (standardized tests, standards-based assessments, and commercial
assessments) is that they do not differentiate between the student’s knowledge of English and
English-literacy performance.
178
English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation and Assessment
ticipate successfully in English-speaking classrooms, second-language experts warn that students’ eligibility for bilingual education or ESL
instruction should also be based on their English
reading and writing performance.
ing strategies acquired in one language to a second language. Therefore, it is important to know
how well English-language learners can read and
write in their native language. Lastly, it is difficult
to determine whether English-language learners
have a language or cognitive delay without first
estimating their language and cognitive development in their native language.
Most researchers and educators recommend
that multiple assessments be used to monitor
student performance in the programs and to decide when English-language learners should receive special education or Title I services or be
placed in an all-English classroom. Multiple assessments usually involve (1) an English-language proficiency measure normed on Englishlanguage learners, (2) a standardized academic
test (especially a reading and writing test) in English normed on native-English speakers, (3)
classroom or performance-based assessments
that reveal how individual students approach, interpret, and complete literacy tasks in English,
and, when possible, (4) assessments in the native
language, such as a standardized reading test and
classroom assessment. Many districts require
that English-language learners perform at a certain percentile on a standardized reading test in
English before they are reclassified and moved
into an all-English setting. Because the educational goal is for English-language learners to
perform at grade level in English, the ideal score
should be the fiftieth percentile. However, it is
not unusual for school districts to accept lower
percentile scores.
Program Placement
Another purpose for the English-literacy evaluation of English-language learners is to decide on
their placement in bilingual, ESL, or all-English
settings and to determine whether they are eligible for placement in special education or Title I
programs. The use of assessments to monitor
students’ performance in the programs and to
decide when students should be released from
one program and transferred to another also fits
within this purpose. Researchers and secondlanguage educators warn school personnel not to
place or release students solely based on their
oral English performance (Cummins, 1981).
Sometimes, English-language learners appear to
be fluent English speakers but do not have the
requisite English-literacy development to perform at grade level in an all-English classroom.
At other times, educators mistakenly interpret
the accented English of English-language learners as meaning that they are not literate in their
native language or English. They erroneously assume that the students have learning delays and
need special-education services.
In evaluating the English-literacy development of English-language learners for placement
purposes, it is important to take into account
what is known about their literacy development
and academic success (August and Hakuta, 1997;
García, 2000). For example, English-language
learners often develop their oral skills in English
at a much faster rate than their academic skills.
To place them in all-English settings solely based
on their oral English proficiency ignores the English-literacy development that they need to
tackle academic work in English. Similarly,
whenever possible, the English-literacy evaluation of English-language learners should be
complemented with a native-language literacy
evaluation. A number of researchers have reported that students’ reading performance in
their native language is a much stronger predictor of their English reading performance than
their oral English performance. Considerable evidence has also indicated that bilingual students
are capable of transferring knowledge and read-
Monitoring Student Progress
and Informing Classroom Instruction
A third purpose for the English evaluation of English-language learners’ literacy performance is
to monitor student progress and to inform classroom instruction. Classroom assessments or
performance-based assessments usually provide
this type of data. These assessments are similar in
that the classroom teacher is the observer and
recorder, many of the same types of tasks occur
in both types of assessments, and the tasks are
usually integrated into classroom instruction
and reflect the school curriculum (García and
Pearson, 1994). For example, it is not unusual for
both types of assessments to include running
records, story retellings, think-alouds, writing
portfolios, reading logs, ongoing teacher obser179
English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation and Assessment
vations, and student self-evaluation. However,
performance-based assessments are often developed outside of the individual classroom, involve
the completion of specific tasks, and have someone other than the classroom teacher evaluating
student performance. When classroom assessments and performance-based assessments are
conducted throughout the school year, not just
at the beginning or end of the school year, and
are tied to the school curriculum, then they not
only inform instruction but also provide useful
data for monitoring student progress.
An advantage that classroom assessments and
performance-based assessments have over formal
assessments is that they have the potential to reveal
what English-language learners can and cannot do
on authentic literacy tasks (García and Pearson,
1994). Standardized tests rarely indicate why students perform poorly, nor do they highlight what
needs to be done to help students improve their
literacy performance. Also, they are usually not
tied to the school curriculum or to district or state
standards (levels of expectation for student performance). Because standardized tests are only
written in one language, they do not reveal how
bilingual students are developing their literacy
skills in two languages. In contrast, through classroom assessment, a teacher can document when
individual students have difficulty with specific
vocabulary items, what type of instruction works
best for them, and when they are able to comprehend and use the vocabulary items appropriately.
If the teacher understands the native language or is
able to make use of native-language peers, aides,
or parents, then it can also be determined whether
the students already know the vocabulary concept
and just need to know the English label or whether
they need to learn the concept.
The appropriate use and interpretation of
classroom and performance-based assessments
with English-language learners require considerable expertise in second-language acquisition.
For example, both classroom teachers and the
developers and scorers of performance assessments need to understand that English-language
learners often reveal more comprehension of English text when they are allowed to respond
(orally or in writing) in their native language.
purposes. Assessments are used for accountability purposes when student performance data are
compared to determine student progress and
teacher, school, district, and state performance.
These assessments are characterized as high
stakes when they are used to determine how
much funding is provided to states, school districts, or schools; which districts, schools, or
teachers are sanctioned or rewarded; or when
students are to be promoted, retained, or allowed
to graduate. Advocates of the accountability reform movement claim that holding students,
teachers, schools, districts, and states accountable for high expectations will result in improved
instruction and student performance. It is for
these reasons that some educators want Englishlanguage learners to participate in English accountability assessments even when they are
aware of the assessment limitations.
Most of the national and state assessments developed for accountability purposes are based on
standards that are designed and normed for native-English-speaking students. As a result, critics warn that the measures are not accurate indicators of English-language learners’ literacy
development. At a minimum, they recommend
that the scores for English-language learners
should be disaggregated and reported separately.
Sometimes, English-language learners who are
still receiving ESL and bilingual-education services are required to participate in accountability
assessments. School districts concerned about
the potential low scores of English-language
learners often illegally exclude them from participating in the assessments. Bilingual-education
teachers, who are forced to participate in the assessments and who are worried about their students’ English performance, have been known to
decrease the amount of literacy instruction that
they provide in the native language and overemphasize English-literacy instruction, violating
the very purpose of bilingual education.
To offset district concerns about the potentially low performance of English-language learners on accountability measures, some of the state
and national assessments exclude students who
have not completed a specific number of years in
bilingual-education or ESL programs. In other
cases, they allow English-language learners to
participate with accommodations. For example,
English-language learners may be given more
time to complete the assessment, the test admin-
Accountability Requirements
English-language learners’ literacy development
in English is also evaluated for accountability
180
English Journal
istrator may read the instructions or questions
aloud, or students may be allowed to use dictionaries. A few states, such as Illinois, have developed and normed their own accountability measures in English for English-language learners.
knowledge and strategy use is typically not included in the English-literacy assessment of English-language learners.
Georgia Earnest García
See Also
Biliteracy
References
August, Diane, and Hakuta Kenji, eds. 1997.
Improving Schooling for Language-Minority
Children: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Crawford, James. 1995. Bilingual Education: History,
Politics, Theory, and Practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles:
Bilingual Education Services.
Cummins, Jim. 1981. “The Role of Primary Language
Development in Promoting Educational Success
for Language Minority Students.” In California
State Department of Education, ed., Schooling and
Language Minority Students: A Theoretical
Framework, pp. 3–49. Los Angeles: Evaluation,
Dissemination and Assessment Center, California
State University–Los Angeles.
García, Georgia E. 2000. “Bilingual Children’s
Reading.” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P.
David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook
of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 813–834. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
García, Georgia E., and P. David Pearson. 1994.
“Assessment and Diversity.” Review of Research in
Education 20:337–391.
Jiménez, Robert T., Georgia E. García, and P. David
Pearson. 1996. “The Reading Strategies of
Bilingual Latina/o Students Who Are Successful
English Readers: Opportunities and Obstacles.”
Reading Research Quarterly 31 (l):90–112.
Bias Issues
There are a number of factors that adversely affect
the literacy assessment of English-language learners and make it difficult to accurately estimate
their English-literacy development (García and
Pearson, 1994). For example, on formal reading
measures, as compared to native-English speakers, English-language learners face more unknown English vocabulary in the test instructions, passages, and test items. They are adversely
affected when key vocabulary items in the passages are paraphrased in the test questions. They
often have to read passages for which they do not
have the appropriate background knowledge and
are rarely given the opportunity to read passages
for which they do have the appropriate background knowledge. Bilingual readers, compared
to monolingual readers, often need more time to
process text in the second language. Because reading assessments in English are typically normed
on native-English speakers, it is not uncommon
for bilingual students to need more time to complete the assessment than the amount allowed.
The appropriateness of using literacy assessments in English that are developed for nativeEnglish-speaking students with English-language learners is questionable, given that the
assessments do not reflect what is known about
second-language reading or the experiences of
successful second-language readers. For example, it is not unusual for English-language learners to demonstrate much higher levels of reading
comprehension in English when they are given
the test questions in their native language or are
allowed to write their answers to semiconstructed or open-ended questions in the native
language. Researchers also report that bilingual
students who are successful English readers have
a unitary view of reading across their two languages, use similar high-level metacognitive and
cognitive reading strategies while reading in their
two languages, and transfer knowledge acquired
in one language to the other (Jiménez, García,
and Pearson, 1996). They judiciously employ
bilingual strategies, such as codeswitching, accessing cognates, and translating. This type of
English Journal
English Journal is a publication of the National
Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) geared
primarily toward secondary-school and middleschool teachers of English and language arts.
Teacher educators also subscribe to the journal.
Articles span a variety of topics of interest to this
audience, such as discussion of pertinent professional issues, arguments for a particular point of
view about the teaching of English and language
arts, or new ideas and descriptions of innovative
classroom practice. Because secondary- and
middle-school teachers are the primary audience, English Journal does not accept reports of
quantitative research or articles on literary criticism. Most issues of the journal are designed
around a theme related to the teaching of writ181
The Even Start Family Literacy Program
that time, the program was administered by the
U.S. Department of Education, which awarded
funding to seventy-six local school districts. Currently, there are more than 800 Even Start projects across the country, with an average of fifty
families per project. The majority are collaborative efforts between a local school district and a
community-based organization, administered by
state Even Start coordinators. Through state-run
grant competitions, local projects receive federal
Even Start funds, with increasing local match requirements over the first eight years of the project. There are also set-aside funds administered
by the federal government for migrant families,
Indian tribes, and tribal organizations, along
with statewide family literacy initiatives.
Even Start legislation specifies that projects
must build on existing community resources to
develop an integrated model of intensive early
childhood education, adult education, and parenting education. In addition, projects must
serve the families most in need of these services,
provide opportunities for parents and children
to be involved in activities together, offer some
home-based services, and make supports available, such as transportation, to enable families to
participate. However, the specific program design is determined by local project staff. For example, projects decide on the schedule of activities and whether services will be supported by
Even Start funds or through collaboration with
other local agencies.
The majority of projects offer a center-based
early childhood program. Programs for infants
and toddlers are generally staffed by Even Start,
with preschool programs more often provided
through collaboration with community agencies.
Services for school-age children include homework assistance, family events, and summer enrichment activities. Across projects, there is a
range of adult-education services offered, including preparation for the GED, instruction in basic
reading and math skills, and English as a second
language. Parenting education includes group
discussions as well as parent-child activities either
at home or in the early childhood classroom.
To date, there have been two national evaluations of Even Start (St. Pierre et al., 1995; Tao,
Gamse, and Tarr, 1998). Both reported significant gains in adults’ literacy skills and children’s
general cognitive skills. However, except for a
randomized study conducted in five projects,
ing, literature, and language, but articles on a variety of topics are considered.
With a subscription base of approximately
45,000, English Journal reaches teachers and
teacher educators internationally. The journal is
published bimonthly—September through July—
and each issue contains approximately ten to
twelve articles. In addition, there are six regular
columns: English in the News, Learning with
Technology, Poetry, Professional Links (reviews of
professional books and web sites), Talk about
Books (reviews of fiction and nonfiction), and
Young Adult Literature. English Journal also includes several features: Cross-Conversations, Insights for Interns, Speaking My Mind, and Teacher
to Teacher. Reviews of books and classroom materials are handled by the appropriate column editors and are not accepted from unsolicited manuscripts. Poetry is submitted directly to the poetry
column editor. Calls for thematic issues and for
ongoing features are announced in the front section of each issue, detailing topics, listing deadlines, and noting whether inquiries are welcome.
The journal web site carries this information as
well (available: http://www.cc.ysu. edu/tej).
Virginia R. Monseau
See Also
National Council of Teachers of English
The Even Start
Family Literacy Program
The Even Start Family Literacy Program uses an
integrated approach to early childhood education, parenting education, and adult education
for families with young children. The overarching
goal is to help break the cycle of intergenerational
poverty and low literacy among families with
limited educational experiences. Specific goals
are: to help parents improve their literacy or basic
educational skills, to help parents become full
partners in educating their children, and to help
children reach their full potential as learners. To
be eligible for the program, families must have a
child under eight years old and a parent who is either eligible for adult-education services under
the Adult Education Act or still within the state’s
compulsory school-attendance range.
The Even Start Family Literacy Program began
in 1989 as part of the revised Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). At
182
Eye Movements
a smaller and somewhat more portable camera—
and the Reading Eye and Reading Eye II cameras).
The seminal literature attributed to these researchers continues to be cited.
Prior to the 1920s, one of the overriding issues
was the study of fixations and saccades. This
stop-and-go process piqued researchers’ interest
because of the primary question: does it affect the
reader’s ability to understand text? Or from a fluency perspective, do fewer fixations along a line
of print indicate that a person is a good reader,
and do more fixations suggest reading difficulty?
Since the 1920s, eye-movement researchers
have attempted to explain the impact of ocular
pursuit (smooth and linear movement), fixations, saccades, and regressions (returning to
viewed elements) on the reading process. According to Eleanor Gibson and Harry Levin
(1975), basic findings in recent years have indicated that eye movement is stable by the fourth
grade (frequency and duration of fixations and
decreases in regressions). Eye movement involves
fixations 94 percent of the time and saccades 6
percent of the time—fixations of 240 to 250 milliseconds—which are satisfactory. Eye movement is responsive to the difficulty of the materials and comprehension and is different for oral
and silent reading (e.g., fewer fixations and
shorter regressions during silent reading). One
of the more interesting statements made by Gibson and Levin was that our general understanding of the relationship between eye movement
and reading was provided by early researchers
using primitive devices, and their discoveries
continue to remain “trustworthy.” It has also
been reported (Daneman, 1991) that a preponderance of published data suggest that irregular
eye movements are symptomatic of reading
problems rather than causal.
Earl H. Cheek Jr. and Jimmy D. Lindsey
there were no control groups to gauge whether
these gains can actually be attributed to participation in the program.
Janet P. Swartz
See Also
The Head Start Program
References
St. Pierre, Robert, Beth Gamse, Judith Alamprese,
Tracy Rimdzius, and Fumiyo Tao. 1998. The Even
Start Family Literacy Program: Evidence from the
Past and a Look to the Future. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Planning, and
Evaluation Service. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EvenStart.
St. Pierre, Robert, Janet P. Swartz, Beth Gamse,
Stephen Murray, Dennis Deck, and Phil Nickel.
1995. National Evaluation of the Even Start Family
Literacy Program: Final Report. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Planning, and
Evaluation Service.
Tao, Fumiyo, Beth Gamse, and Hope Tarr. 1998.
National Evaluation of the Even Start Family
Literacy Program: 1994–97 Final Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Planning, and Evaluation Service.
Eye Movements
Perhaps one of the more intriguing areas of reading inquiry during the past 100 years has been
that of eye movements. As research on the reading process began, there was an immediate interest in the way the eye moved across the printed
page. Investigators wanted to know whether perception occurred as the eyes were moving across
the printed page, and if not, why? Another issue
they sought to address was the regularity of eye
movements, specifically the occurrence of fixations and saccades—movement between fixations (Venezky, 1984).
Early eye-movement researchers included
Emile Javal (a pioneer who first reported this phenomenon in 1878), Raymond Dodge (who devised the corneal reflection method for determining eye movements), W. F. Dearborn (who was
interested in word structure and adult pronunciations), and Edmund Huey (who was known for
the synthesis of eye-movement findings in his
1908 textbook). They were followed by Guy
Buswell and Miles Tinker (who developed and
used cameras to examine eye movements) and
Earl Taylor and Tinker’s son Stanford Tinker
(who developed and used the Opthalmograph—
References
Daneman, Meredyth. 1991. “Individual Differences in
Reading Skills.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael L.
Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson,
eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, p. 517.
New York: Longman.
Gibson, Eleanor J., and Harry Levin. 1975. The
Psychology of Reading. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Venezky, Richard L. 1984. “The History of Reading
Research.” In P. David Pearson, Rebecca Barr,
Michael L. Kamil, and Peter B. Mosenthal, eds.,
Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 7–10. New
York: Longman.
183
F
tended to meet two goals—to provide parents
with instruction that will both advance their
own literacy skills and abilities and help them
support their children’s success in learning how
to read and write. Programs differ in the ways
they deliver these services. Some offer direct instruction to the parent only, with the intention of
affecting the child’s literacy learning through
parental actions. Others provide direct instruction in literacy to parent and child in separate
settings and also involve parents and children in
site-based, joint literacy events and activities.
Some programs also require that parents participate in a parenting component, apparently on
the basis of an as yet undocumented assumption
that parents who lack literacy proficiency also
lack understanding of effective parenting practices. The program model that may be most
widely practiced in the United States was put
forth by Sharon Darling and Andrew Hayes
(1988–1989) at the National Center for Family
Literacy and has become the basis for the largest
federally funded family literacy initiative, the
Even Start program. This model includes four
components: parent literacy education, child literacy education, parent and child activity time,
and parenting education.
In recent years, family literacy programs have
proliferated in schools and communities across
the United States and, at the same time, have become the focus of vigorous debate. Many view
them as the answer to a host of problems associated with society in general, and school failure in
particular. For example, Darling, founder and
president of the National Center for Family Literacy, described family literacy as one of the
most important initiatives in the effort to reform
welfare and suggested that family literacy programs have the potential to strengthen family
Family Literacy
The role that parents play in their children’s education has long been a focus of study by educators and policymakers, particularly in relation to
efforts to understand high rates of failure among
some groups of children. Evidence documenting
the relationship between children’s early reading
success and parents’ own reading behaviors has
led many educators to seek educational interventions that address the family unit rather than the
child alone. Thomas Sticht was among the earliest to refer to such programs as “intergenerational literacy programs,” and subsequently others have referred to them variously as
“two-generation programs” and, most recently,
as “family literacy” programs.
Of particular interest has been the relationship between children’s school success and two
parent-related factors: parental education and
home literacy practices. The importance of the
first factor, parental education, is underscored by
results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which, over several administrations, has repeatedly shown that children who
have higher rates of performance on reading
achievement tests also have parents with higher
levels of education. The importance of the second factor, home literacy practices, became a
particular focus in 1966 with the publication of
Dolores Durkin’s oft-cited study on children
who read early and in the years since has received
substantial support from numerous other investigations. Evidence consistently supports a relationship that links children’s early success in
reading with parents’ own reading and interest in
books, parent-child storybook reading, and parents’ general interactions with their children
around print.
Family literacy programs are generally in185
Family Literacy
Parents read the Bible to their children (Skjold Photographs)
comes of family literacy intervention programs.
They also disagree strongly in their perceptions
of the literate lives of families that are often targeted as participants in such programs. For example, Darling and Hayes (1988–1989) described the daily lives of such families as
essentially devoid of any literate activity and, as a
consequence, as unlikely to provide children
with sufficient opportunity to acquire basic
knowledge about literacy and language. Illiterate
parents, they said, lack the resources to support
their children’s school success, and as a result, an
intergenerational cycle of illiteracy ensues.
In contrast, researchers such as Shirley Brice
Heath (1983), Luis Moll and James Greenberg
(1990), Denny Taylor and Catherine DorseyGaines (1988), and William Teale (1986) assert
that nearly all families embed some forms of literacy and language events within their daily routines. Nevertheless, these events are often different from those that teachers expect or are
familiar with, and consequently, they go unnoticed. Proponents of this point of view support
their claim with evidence from studies across different cultural, linguistic, and economic groups.
values and functioning and advance families toward self-sufficiency. This point of view enjoys
substantial political and legislative support. As a
result, family literacy interventions are now singled out as priorities in many federally and statefunded reading programs for early childhood, elementary, and adult education.
Others, however, strongly disagree with the
claim that education will provide a shield against
poverty, low employment, and other societal
problems. Among the most vocal on this side of
the debate, Denny Taylor (1997) has relied on a
six-year ethnographic study of families living in
poverty, along with numerous anecdotal accounts
collected from parents, teachers, and researchers,
to argue that high unemployment and poverty are
the result of inequalities within society that prevent individuals from achieving economic advancement despite personal motivation or educational attainment. Those sharing this point of
view also point to census data that indicate that
race and gender correlate more highly with unemployment and poverty than does education.
Those on each side of the debate differ not
only in what they believe to be the likely out186
Feminist Post-Structuralism
They conclude that children fail not because they
are language and literacy deprived, but because
they are language and literacy different. As such,
they enter the schoolhouse doors without
knowledge of language patterns and literacy
events that are valued and privileged in most
classrooms.
Vivian Gadsden (1994) summarized the disagreement and dissension that characterizes the
work in family literacy as emerging from two seriously conflicting premises: one that perceives
the family’s lack of school-like literacy as a barrier to learning, the other that views the home
literacy practices that are already present—however different from school-based literacy—as a
bridge to new learnings. Rather than choosing
sides in the debate, however, Gadsden argued
that both premises may be useful—that educators might adopt a reciprocal approach predicated on an understanding that teachers need to
instruct parents in school-based literacy and also
seek to learn about and integrate parents’ existing knowledge and resources into the school curriculum.
Several programs that adhere to a reciprocal
approach to family literacy have been studied,
and results indicate some potential benefits.
Among their combined findings are improved
English proficiency for parents, improvements in
children’s knowledge of letter names and print
awareness, more frequent visits by parents to
school, greater numbers of literacy materials at
home, increased confidence on the part of parents in helping with their children’s homework,
increased interaction between parents and their
children’s teachers, and increased understanding
among parents of how they are able to support
their children’s literacy learning.
Family literacy interventions based on a practice of reciprocity in learning between parents
and teachers may hold promise for increasing the
access to educational opportunity for linguistically and culturally different children and adults.
Nevertheless, in recent critical reviews of related
research, researchers have cautioned that existing
studies are largely characterized by diverse populations, small sample sizes, and nonexperimental
designs and, as such, must be considered to be
exploratory rather than conclusive in understanding effective practice in family literacy.
Thus, as research and practice in family literacy
moves forward, it must heed and acknowledge
the diversity in the populations that are often
served by family literacy interventions and the
implications of such diversity for research and
teaching, while also recognizing the need for
methodological rigor that will enable educators
to learn which interventions are likely to serve
those populations most effectively.
Jeanne R. Paratore
See Also
Community Literacy; The Even Start Family Literacy
Program; National Assessment of Educational
Progress
References
Darling, Sharon, and Andrew Hayes. 1988–1989.
Family Literacy Project: Final Project Report.
Louisville, KY: National Center for Family
Literacy.
Durkin, Dolores. 1966. Children Who Read Early.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Gadsden, Vivian L. 1994. Understanding Family
Literacy: Conceptual Issues Facing the Field.
Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania National
Center for Adult Literacy.
Heath, Shirley B. 1983. Ways with Words. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moll, Luis, and James B. Greenberg. 1990. “Creating
Zones of Possibilities: Combining Social Contexts
for Instruction.” In L. C. Moll, ed., Vygotsky in
Education, pp. 319–349. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sticht, Thomas G., and Barbara McDonald. 1989.
“Making the Nation Smarter: The Intergenerational Transfer of Literacy.” San Diego:
Institute for Adult Literacy.
Taylor, Denny. 1997. Many Families, Many Literacies.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Taylor, Denny, and Catherine Dorsey-Gaines. 1988.
Growing Up Literate: Learning from Inner-City
Families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Teale, William H. 1986. “Home Background and
Young Children’s Literacy Development.” In W. H.
Teale and E. Sulzby, eds., Emergent Literacy:
Writing and Reading, pp. 173–206. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Feminist Post-Structuralism
Post-structuralism is commonly associated with
the work of French theorist Michel Foucault. It is
both a social theory and a methodology. Like all
theories, it has many interpretations and derivations, one of which is feminist post-structuralism. It has its intellectual roots partly in “French”
feminism (Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray, Hélène
187
Feminist Post-Structuralism
Cixous) and partly in North American and
British feminist interpretations of Foucault
(Michele Barrett, Lois McNay, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Jana Sawicki). Feminist post-structuralists focus on deconstruction of the patriarchal canon, and locate “the feminine” at its
theoretical and methodological center.
Post-structuralism is a critique of modernism,
and its historical marker, the term post, locates it
after and in response to structuralism. Poststructuralism arose as an intellectual movement
in the late 1960s, partly in response to disillusionment with Marxism, partly as an alternative
to then dominant structuralist paradigms in the
social sciences (e.g., Jean Piaget, Lawrence
Kohlberg, Noam Chomsky, Claude Lévi-Strauss,
de Saussure). Post-structuralism challenges Enlightenment rationality and scientific reason, the
autonomous transcendental individual, the veracity and transparency of language, the truth of
knowledge, and the telos of progressive accounts
of history. Feminist post-structuralism, in turn,
appropriated post-structuralism’s analytic tools
to critique structuralist accounts of gender differences and the masculinist epistemological
foundations of all social theory, including poststructuralism itself. Its task has been to deconstruct the masters’ narratives and the historical
entrenchment of patriarchy that has buried
women’s voices, subjectivity, and opportunities.
Foucault advocated that genealogy, as both a
methodology and a critique of history, be replaced by multiple and overlapping histories. Genealogy studies the material conditions of discourse, its location in fields of power, and its
tactics of producing “truths,” knowledge, and
subjectivities. A genealogical study of the discursive formation of the social subject can also reveal its “Other”: the silenced, marginalized, “abnormal Other” of the normative subject.
Feminist post-structuralists argue that modernist history of “great men” and events has silenced the local histories, voices, and memories
of women and people of color. This has resulted
in a rewriting of histories and a stunning exposé
of the politics of knowledge at work in two dominant modernist discourses—patriarchy and
colonialism—both renowned for their subjugating tactics of masquerading as truth, of silencing
and “othering” women and all groups of nonWestern racial, ethnic, or cultural origins.
Knowledge
Foucault argued that knowledge is a social construct with a history and context and is infused
with politics. Knowledge is closely related to his
concept of discourse, commonly understood as
socially legitimated knowledge and practices that
systematically construct and formalize objects in
the world. Thus, knowledge—or any discourse—
cannot be conceptualized independently of its
institutionalization in concrete material practices and power relations. Curricular knowledge,
for example, is unthinkable outside its schoolbased institutionalization. Knowledge and practice co-constitute and validate each other.
Knowledge-as-discourse is a formalized system
of theories, concepts, and statements about objects in the world that derive their “truth” value
from rules and procedures embodied in institutional practices. Hence, textbook knowledge, legitimated by a massive schooling, bureaucratic,
and legal apparatus, has achieved the status of a
formalized truth that students, teachers, and parents abide by.
Knowledge is the product of historically contingent organizing principles that name and
classify things, giving them value and meaning
in relation to other things located on various
knowledge grids (education, psychology, law,
history). The production of knowledge is not an
autonomous process without human agency
History
Post-structuralism rejects the modernist teleological concept of history that sees each epoch as the
dialectical outcome of previous eras and as the rational march of human history toward an ideal
state. Foucault, instead, argued for “the end of history” as we know it: a break with grand historical
narratives and totalizing conceptions of history.
Post-structuralists claim that history is messy and
uneven, without fixed points of origin, consisting
of unpredictable convergences, discontinuities,
and ruptures. Modern concepts of mass literacy,
for example, emerged in the early sixteenth century as the printing press coincided with the rise
of Protestantism and its injunction that every individual should have personal access to the word
of scripture. The mass production of the same
text enabled by the press, coupled with an emergent ideology of individual readership, produced
the need for universal literacy and, hence, for
early versions of universal and mass schooling.
188
Feminist Post-Structuralism
but is embedded in social and power relations
that are infused with contradictions and conflict over meaning and authority. The “culture
wars” among educators is a case in point,
whether in Japan, the United States, or Australia: Whose history, whose perspective? Was it
settlement or invasion? For post-structuralists,
there is nothing neutral, fixed, or essential
about either truth or knowledge. Instead, they
are historical sociocultural constructs, always
political and always regulatory of the objects
about which knowledge speaks and of which
truth claims are made.
state) power relations that shape teachers’ work,
social conduct, and workplace relations. Teachers
also become part of the educational knowledge
industry through their participation in, say, curriculum development, as progressive or regressive change agents in their schools, or as they
climb the state’s department hierarchy to more
senior positions. Their location within the larger
network of the educational enterprise means
that they gain access over time to different kinds
of power and knowledge, becoming subject
themselves to different levels and kinds of power.
Similarly, the production of knowledge from
the student “body”—student collectives in a
class, school, district, state, nation—derives from
student testing over which teachers (and the
state) preside. The massive archive produced
from the regime of the examination is organized
and interpreted through prevailing educational
discourses and becomes knowledge that can legitimate extant or create new concepts, theory,
policy, and subject categories (e.g., students atrisk, with special needs, gifted; attention deficit
disorder [ADD] or English as a second language
[ESL] students). Theory, or the “truth” about the
educable subject, generates new pedagogical
practices—some punitive, others beneficent—
that claim to cater to (and normalize) those categories of difference. These scenarios illustrate
not only how knowledge and power combine to
control, subject, and normalize the individual
but also how they can create productive spaces
and practices (inclusive, special, compensatory,
or accelerated education; gender equity policy;
antiracist pedagogy).
Power
Contrary to the “repressive hypothesis” of power
dominating modernist social theory, Foucault
conceptualized power as productive, fluid, multifaceted, and diffuse rather than as fixed in one
place, “owned” and exercised by one person or
group in only negative and punitive ways. Power
is intimately connected to knowledge; it is relational and historically contingent. All social relations are constituted by power dynamics (parent-child; judge-jury-accused), and relations of
power derive their legitimacy and force from the
discourses that regulate and govern individual
subjects. People exercise power as much as they
are subjected by it. For instance, a teacher has
power over students in the way questions are
posed and to whom they are directed; how curricular knowledge is interpreted and distributed;
how students are seated, tested, graded; how educational capital and credentials are distributed.
At the same time, a teacher is subject to the layers of institutional power and control of the
school and district administration, the discourse
of policy and curriculum, teacher testing, and legal responsibilities. Educational discourse—the
entire ensemble of theory, practices, rules, laws,
policies—is the knowledge regime that sustains
the many subjectivities and subject positions of
all people variously engaged in schooling in different relations of power (student, teacher, parent, learning support or administrative staff,
principal).
Power and knowledge operate in a co-constitutive circuit. To illustrate: teachers’ certified
knowledge (the teaching credential) legitimates
their authority to teach and exercise power over
large numbers of students, but it also subjects
them to local (school) and external (district,
Language
Knowledge “speaks” through language, although
ideas, meanings, and classificatory taxonomies
are also expressed in iconic imagery and spatial
organization—whether the textbook illustration,
graph, or chart, or the school or classroom configurations. Language, for all variants of poststructuralism, is the analytic key: a window to
the discursive construction of knowledge, truth,
power, social organization, and the social subject. Post-structuralism critiques the modernist/humanist conception of language that assumes that language is a transparent window to
the real, that meaning is fixed in the linguistic
signifier, and that the rational, self-conscious,
and self-knowing subject has autonomous con189
Feminist Post-Structuralism
trol and choice over “authentic” self-expression
through language. Feminist post-structuralists
argue that the gendered politics of language preclude authentic voice and self-expression. They
have shown how women, girls, and concepts of
the feminine have been subsumed by the generic
“he” or “man,” how what used to be called “malestream” thought is embedded in educational policy, curriculum, and theory—both “conservative” and “radical” (Luke and Gore, 1992). Others
have deconstructed the language of theoretical
discourses that produce gender differences
(Henriques et al., 1984); gender constructions in
school yard play (Walkerdine, 1990), curriculum
(Gilbert, 1996), and teacher talk (Baker and
Freebody, 1996); the role of gender discourses in
the language(s) of popular culture that are appropriated by young people in the process of
identity formation (Alverman, Moon, and Hagood, 1999; Christian-Smith, 1993).
Language gives meaning to social reality, including the way social subjects make themselves,
others, and the world intelligible. Post-structuralists thus argue that language—signs organized in discourse—provides discursive subject
positions and subjectivities through which we
live our lives and make sense of the world. Feminist post-structuralists have long argued that a
globally dominant, although culturally inflected,
masculinist epistemology historically has limited
women’s subject positions, muted their subjectivity, denied them an education, a voice, a
speaking/writing position. Women have thus
been unable to speak or write themselves into
history or any speakable narrative. Feminist
post-structuralists have sought to reclaim language and speaking positions for women, although their “speech” bears the residue of the
language and genres of the father.
hand, and one’s subjectivity or subjective sense
of “self,” on the other.
Everyday life consists of multiple and competing discourses and meanings alongside dominant discourses that, in turn, create multiple
subject positions—some marginalized, others
hegemonic. The subject negotiates, lives, and acts
through a range of subject positions at every moment: acquiescent to normative and dominant
subjectivities one moment, resisting or reshaping
other “given” positions at another moment, attempting to unify disparate positions at yet another. Although discourses normalize, regulate,
and position people into power/knowledge fields
that govern their subject positions and actions, it
is in the gaps and overlaps of discourses that
change and resistance are enacted. Discourses are
social products, themselves subject to the shifting historical winds of political interests embodied in social subjects and institutions. As such,
the very social and historical nature of power, of
socially constructed knowledge and socially embedded subjects, makes all discourses highly unstable and contingent, keeping them in continual
flux. Yet access to any number of historically
dominant or emergent discourses can form the
analytic lenses that we turn on dominant discourses to transform them. For post-structuralists, a composite of discourses shapes the practical templates for everyday life that, in turn,
constitute the multifaceted parameters by which
social agents act in the world.
Carmen Luke
See Also
Post-Structuralism and Structuralism; Subjectivity
References
Alverman, Donna, J. S. Moon, and Margaret Hagood.
1999. Popular Culture in the Classroom: Teaching
and Researching Critical Media Literacy. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Baker, Carolyn, and Peter Freebody. 1996. “Categories
and Sense-Making in the Talk and Texts of
Schooling.” In Geoff Bull and Michele Anstey,
eds., The Literacy Lexicon, pp. 145–162. Sydney:
Prentice-Hall.
Christian-Smith, Linda. 1993. Texts of Desire: Essays
on Fiction, Femininities, and Schooling. London:
Falmer Press.
Gilbert, Pam. 1996. “Gender Talk and Silence:
Speaking and Listening as Social Practice.” In
Geoff Bull and Michele Anstey, eds., The Literacy
Lexicon, pp. 163–176. Sydney: Prentice-Hall.
Henriques, Julian, Wendy Hollway, Cathy Urwin,
Subjects, Subjectivity, Subject Positions
The subject is a social construct that varies
across time, cultural and institutional locations,
and across and within discourses. Subjectivity
refers to the internal private sense of oneself (although largely derived from prevailing discourses one has access to) including private reflection, memories, the unsayable of dreams,
affect, emotion, and other extra-linguistic experiences and thoughts. Subject positions are taken
up, contested, or negotiated in between prescribed positions offered in discourse, on the one
190
Fluency
Couze Venn, and Valerie Walkerdine. 1984.
Changing the Subject. New York: Methuen.
Luke, Carmen, and Jennifer Gore. 1992. Feminisms
and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
Walkerdine, Valerie. 1990. Schoolgirl Fictions. London:
Verso.
needs (Allington, 2000), and there is a growing
body of research that addresses the benefits of
flexible instruction. For example, Janet Lerner
(2000) reported that teachers could manipulate
variables such as time, grouping, and methodology to accommodate differences among students
and to help students achieve success without watering down the content. The practice of “manipulating instructional variables” provides teachers
with the mechanism to meet literacy objectives
and support students’ learning. Researchers
(Allington, 2001) have reported that educators
have actually changed their beliefs regarding flexibility and how best to teach students. Additionally, flexibility in programming and developing
technologies provide “students” of all ages the
opportunity for lifelong learning that enhances
literacy and work abilities.
Jimmy D. Lindsey, Carolyn F. Woods,
and Nicki L. Anzelmo-Skelton
Flexibility
Flexibility refers to the decisions readers make
during the reading process to adjust their reading rate to promote fluency or comprehension.
(It can also refer to the judgments professionals
make during literacy instruction to meet students’ individual needs.) An important component of the reading process is flexibility, or the
rate at which reading takes place. Flexibility in
reading rate is the ability to read varying materials at different rates and for different purposes.
In general, reading rate is determined by the purpose for reading (e.g., leisure, guided), in conjunction with the nature of the materials being
read (e.g., organization, concept density), and
there is a correlation between reading rate and
level of comprehension (i.e., increased reading
rate can promote higher understanding). Conversely, as reported by Timothy Rasinski and
Nancy Padak (1998), problems in flexibility or
reading rate can also negatively affect fluency
and comprehension. For example, many students are unable to regulate their reading rate to
correspond to purpose or characteristics of
printed material without direct instruction. Nevertheless, there are several interventions that may
be helpful in teaching readers to vary and ultimately increase reading rates, including repeating readings (Lerner, 2000), teaching phrasing,
and using practice materials just below a reader’s
instructional level.
Flexibility in literacy instruction is a delivery
method intended to meet the individual needs of
all students (e.g., matching instructional attributes with learner characteristics). This system is
in sharp contrast to finding and implementing
one method to teach all children, particularly for
those students whose needs differ at different
times in their lives and respond to varying curricula and strategies (Lerner, 2000). In an effort
to afford all students the opportunity to access
the curriculum and become literate, teachers
must constantly organize and reorganize instruction to ensure flexible events to meet individual
See Also
Automaticity and Reading Fluency
References
Allington, Richard L. 2001. What Really Matters for
Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based
Programs. Reading, MA: Longman.
Lerner, Janet W. 2000. Learning Disabilities: Theories,
Diagnosis, and Teaching Strategies. 8th ed. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Rasinski, Timothy V., and Nancy D. Padak. 1998.
“How Elementary Students Referred for
Compensatory Reading Instruction Perform on
School-Based Measures of Word Recognition,
Fluency, and Comprehension.” Reading Psychology
19 (2):185–216.
Fluency
Fluency in reading refers to the ability to read in
a smooth, expressive, accurate, and meaningful
manner with appropriate phrasing, at an appropriate rate, and with good comprehension. Although reading fluency in most commonly
thought of in terms of oral reading, it is believed
that the manifestations and outcomes of fluency
are present in silent reading as well.
According to the National Reading Panel
(Rasinski, 2000), teachers need to understand
that word-recognition accuracy is not the end
point of reading instruction. Reading fluency is a
level of expertise beyond word-recognition accuracy. Moreover, reading comprehension is aided
191
Fluency
by fluency. Proficient readers read words accurately, rapidly, and efficiently, devoting their finite cognitive resources to the task of comprehending the text.
One factor commonly associated with reading
fluency is automaticity in word recognition or
decoding. Automatic or attention-free decoding
is a major contributor to fluency in reading. As
readers’ word recognition achieves a level of automaticity—the point where words can be decoded with minimal cognitive effort—readers
are more able to direct their cognitive resources
to the higher-level task of text comprehension. In
this sense, then, reading fluency can be defined as
efficiency in decoding.
Peter Schreiber (1980) offered an alternative
explanation for reading fluency. According to
Schreiber, reading fluency develops as the reader
achieves syntactic control of the text. That is, the
fluent reader is able to chunk the text into syntactically appropriate and meaningful phrases.
Developing the ability to phrase text can be a difficult task for many readers, as written text does
not have reliable intrasentential-phrase boundary markers. Commas and other forms of punctuation do not provide the same reliable cues to
intrasentential phrasing that are found in the
prosodic features that speakers use to embed
their speech and that mark phrase boundaries
for listeners. As readers’ fluency improves
through greater awareness and control of the
meaningful syntactic structures in written text,
comprehension also improves.
sured by reading rate, however, that effectively
distinguished the more-effective from the lesseffective readers. Readers who were most fluent
and read with the highest levels of comprehension read at nearly three times the reading rate of
the least-effective group of readers.
In its integrative review of research on reading
fluency, the National Reading Panel (Rasinski,
2000) reported that instruction in and development of reading fluency, particularly through repeated oral readings of text with feedback and
guidance, does lead to significant gains in overall
student achievement—for good readers as well
as for those who struggle in reading. Nevertheless, despite the growing recognition that fluency
plays an important role in reading, reading fluency is often a neglected part of reading instruction. An examination of current materials designed for reading instruction reveals that
reading fluency continues to be largely ignored
as an important instructional factor for teachers
and students.
Nurturing Fluent Reading
through Instruction
There are several principles of instruction that
should guide instruction in fluency. Learning
readers need to develop an understanding of the
nature of fluent reading and its importance in
the overall reading process. This can be fostered
through teachers’ modeling of fluent reading for
students and by their drawing students’ attention
to various aspects of fluent reading. Fluency is
developed by practice or repeated readings of
connected written discourse. S. Jay Samuels
(1979) and others have found that the repeated
readings of individual texts by a reader generally
resulted in improved comprehension and overall
performance on passages that not been previously encountered by the reader. Support provided by a fluent oral rendition of the text,
through choral, partner (paired or shared reading), or recorded reading, while being read simultaneously by the student, also led to improved reading fluency. Since disfluency in
reading is often marked by reading in a word-byword manner, fluent reading can also be fostered
through an instructional focus on the phrased
nature of text to be read and explicitly marking
the phrase boundaries within texts. Finally, during instruction, fluency can be promoted
through the use of written texts that are well
Importance of Fluency
Inasmuch as reading fluency has been associated
with efficiency in text processing and comprehension, it should play a significant role in proficient reading and should be a key element in effective reading instruction. In a large-scale study
of reading fluency among fourth-grade students,
Gay Sue Pinnell and her colleagues (1995) found
that oral reading fluency, as measured by a descriptive fluency rubric, was significantly associated with silent-reading comprehension and that
nearly 50 percent of all fourth graders had not
yet achieved even a minimally acceptable level of
reading fluency. The study also noted that fluent
and less-fluent readers, as well as effective and
less-effective comprehenders, demonstrated
fairly proficient levels of word-recognition accuracy. It was word-recognition efficiency, as mea192
Fluency
within the reader’s ability to read easily and expressively. Material that is too difficult or unfamiliar will, by its very nature, be a source of disfluency while reading. Thus, fluency can be
nurtured by providing students with texts that
are relatively easy to read. Brief, predictable texts,
with clear phrase boundaries, such as rhyming
and rhythmical poetry, are excellent choices for
developing reading fluency.
Although the above guidelines or principles of
fluency instruction will nurture fluent reading,
instructional routines that are based upon and
integrate more than one of the guidelines will result in even more effective fluency instruction for
students. In one study of an integrated fluency
instruction model, for example, a successful fluency development lesson combined the modeling of fluent reading of short easy texts, repeated
reading with formative feedback, and support
through repeated choral readings, with the program implemented regularly over the course of a
school year. This model had a significant effect
on the overall reading development of at-risk
second-grade readers.
Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that fluency is an important and valid component of
successful reading. Fluency is associated with
reading comprehension and overall reading proficiency, and it can be measured easily and reliably. Moreover, instruction to foster fluency is
possible, and such instruction can lead to generalized improvements in comprehension as well
as in word recognition, textual phrasing, and
overall fluency. It is essential for developing readers to acquire the automatic-word and phraseprocessing abilities that are key components of
fluent reading, because the development of these
processing abilities permit the reader to devote
his or her limited cognitive capacity to the primary task of reading—comprehension.
Timothy Rasinski
See Also
Automaticity and Reading Fluency; ReadingComprehension Processes; Word Recognition
References
Allington, Richard. 1983. “Fluency: The Neglected
Goal of the Reading Program.” Reading Teacher
36:556–561.
Hasbrouck, Jan E., and Gerald Tindal. 1992.
“Curriculum-Based Oral Reading Fluency Norms
for Students in Grades 2 through 5.” Teaching
Exceptional Children 24 (3):41–45.
Pinnell, Gay S., John J. Pikulski, Karen K. Wixson, Jay
R. Campbell, Phillip B. Gough, and Alexandra S.
Beatty. 1995. Listening to Children Read Aloud.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Rasinski, Timothy. 2000. Teaching Children to Read:
An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific
Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications
for Reading Instruction. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
Samuels, S. Jay. 1979. “The Method of Repeated
Readings.” Reading Teacher 32:403–408.
Schreiber, Peter. 1980. “On the Acquisition of
Reading Fluency.” Journal of Reading Behavior
12:177–186.
Zutell, Jerry, and Timothy Rasinski. 1991. “Training
Teachers to Attend to Their Students’ Oral
Reading Fluency.” Theory Into Practice
30:211–217.
Measuring Reading Fluency
Reading fluency is most easily measured through
reading rate. Rate data obtained from oneminute oral-reading probes (curriculum-based
measurement) and measured in words read correctly per minute (wcpm) provide a simple and
consistent way for teachers to assess reading fluency that combines rate and accuracy. Jan Hasbrouck and Gerald Tindal (1992) reported
midyear average reading rates of 78 wcpm for
second grade, 93 wcpm for third grade, 112
wcpm for fourth grade, and 118 wcpm for fifth
grade.
Jerry Zutell and Timothy Rasinski (1991) also
noted that fluency can be assessed more holistically through careful listening to students’ oral
reading and then rating the readings on a descriptive scale. In his dissertation, Rasinski found
that such a rating scale was a significant predictor of third- and fifth-grade students’ comprehension and overall reading achievement. A similar finding on fourth graders was reported by
Gay Sue Pinnell and her colleagues (1995).
193
G
boys would directly state their ideas and were
more likely to argue their position with comments such as, “That’s wrong because . . . .”
Moreover, the boys’ perception of the girls’ language style was that it indicated a lack of knowledge on the girls’ part and implied that girls did
not understand physics as well as boys.
The type of talk used in discussions may also
be influenced by gender. In her study of the different types of talk used by girls and boys in literature discussions, Meredith Cherland (1992)
found that girls tend to use a discourse of feeling,
but boys tend to use a discourse of action. According to Cherland, a discourse of feeling focuses on the emotion in the text, deals with human relationships, values caring, and looks at the
plot in terms of how it helps the reader understand character development. In contrast, a discourse of action is concerned with logic, values
reason and believability, and seeks meaning in
the plot and action. Cherland called these differences gendered talk and hypothesized that a discourse of action is more likely to be valued in a
male-dominated society.
Another way of addressing how gender influences discussion is to look at how girls and boys
use their talk to achieve different ends. In her
study of an eighth-grade language arts class,
Heather Blair (2000) found that boys talked in
order to establish status in their group. The boys
frequently discredited and belittled others and
made overt sexual references, including homophobic insults. Through such discourse patterns,
the boys obtained and reinforced their power
and privilege in the class. In contrast, the girls
used their discussions to build their relationships, to identify with those they saw as their
friends, and to separate themselves from those
not viewed as friends.
Gender and Discussion
According to research on students’ speech patterns in classrooms, gender plays a role in determining how students engage in discussion.
Much of this research focuses on the differences
between boys’ and girls’ discourse patterns.
More recent work, however, has begun to advocate moving beyond such dichotomous forms of
conceptualizing how gender influences classroom talk.
Differences between
Girls’ and Boys’ Discussion Patterns
Some common distinctions associated with gender are: girls have the discussion floor less than
boys, talk less when they do have the floor, often
have their ideas disregarded, and are interrupted
more than boys; girls are less likely to answer
questions and are more likely to belittle or doubt
their own ideas. For example, in her study of science discussions in a first-grade classroom,
Karen Gallas (1995) found a small group of powerful boys who dominated the discussions and
actively worked to prevent other students from
breaking into the conversation. In their study of
seventh- and eighth-grade language arts classes,
Donna Alvermann and her colleagues (1997)
found that girls often engaged in what they
termed “sorry talk. In such talk, girls qualified or
apologized for their contributions to classroom
discussions and consequently, diluted the power
of what they had to say.”
Another way girls dilute the authority of their
contributions is to pose their ideas as questions
rather than statements. In their study of discussions in high-school physics classes, Barbara
Guzzetti and Wayne Williams (1996) found that
girls tended to phrase their ideas in ways such as,
“Have you thought about this. . . .” In contrast,
195
Gender and Discussion
Girls and boys in a discussion group (Elizabeth Crews)
may choose to be silent during discussions—not
because they have nothing to contribute but
rather as a means of resistance to the male-dominated discourse patterns established. The girls in
Guzzetti and Williams’s study (1996) often declined to engage in discussions, particularly debates where ideas were being refuted. When
asked about their participation patterns, the girls
responded that they felt ineffectual in relaying
their ideas and perceived their opinions to be
dismissed by the boys. Moreover, in later discussions with the students, the boys’ statements indicated that they were proud of the ways in
which they dominated and silenced the girls in
their class.
Another example of girls choosing to be silent
due to male dominance occurred in Karen Evans
and her colleagues’ (1998) study of fifth-grade
literature discussion groups. In one discussion
group, the boys used their talk as a means of establishing power. They controlled who talked
and what could be talked about and frequently
made demeaning, hurtful remarks to the girls in
Similar results were found in Guzzetti and
Williams’s (1996) high-school study. In their
small-group discussions, girls appeared to engage in a collaborative discourse style characterized by more interaction, more willingness to
consider others’ opinions, and an emphasis on
consensus building. In contrast, the boys engaged in an independent discourse style in which
they were more aggressive and competitive in
their talk and less likely to negotiate shared
meanings. These same patterns have also been
found in adult discussions. In her study of gendered discourse practices in a graduate-level
course, Margaret Gritsavage (1997) found that
women were more likely than men to validate
others’ comments, whereas men were more likely
to interrupt women (not the other men), compete for the discussion floor, and evaluate others’
comments.
Interpreting Silence in Discussion
One possible consequence of such gendered discourse patterns is that students, particularly girls,
196
Gender and Discussion
the group. One girl member tried to initiate
book-related discussions; however, her attempts
were unilaterally defeated by the boys, who preferred to engage in insulting conversation directed toward the other female member. After
two days of discussion, this girl also began to be
a target of the boys’ insults. Rather than continue
her attempts to engage in book-related discussions and risk being insulted even further, she
became a virtual silent member of the group
while the boys continued to belittle the other female member. Consequently, this research reveals how gendered discourse can result in silencing students, particularly girls, and illustrates
how some students may have compelling reasons
for not speaking.
der discourse patterns by assuming the conversational floor and keeping it for a substantial
amount of time, dominating parts of the discussion, and forcefully voicing her opinions. However, Heather also exhibited gender-typical discourse through the use of comments that
revealed her need to maintain a relationship with
others in her group and a desire to have her
group members enjoy the story.
Bronwyn Davies (1993) also found girls and
boys engaging in ways that contested gendertypical forms of discourse. In her study, a group
of sixth-grade students were discussing a traditional fairy tale (i.e., one that reinforces gender
stereotypes) and a feminist fairy tale (i.e., a version of a traditional fairy tale that contradicts
gender stereotypes). In this discussion, a boy
named James engaged in numerous gender-typical discourse patterns such as interrupting, talking over people, and disrupting what others were
saying. However, James was also the group member most willing to interpret the feminist fairy
tale in feminist ways. For example, he connected
heroism with a female character, suggested that
the female protagonist could be ugly, and argued
that beauty does not necessarily equate with
goodness. In his group, however, James’s contributions were consistently ignored and unaccepted, particularly by the girls in his group. The
girls’ efforts to reject his contributions illustrate
how they engaged in dominating discourse practices that led to James’s withdrawing from the
conversation. Students such as Heather and
James help reveal the limits of conceptualizing
gender as discrete categories of boy and girl. Students seldom fit neatly into one of these categories, and their contributions to discussions
rarely reveal only one type of gender-typical discourse pattern.
Moving beyond
Dichotomous Gender Differences
Recently, researchers like Donna Alvermann and
David Moore have begun to argue that research
on gender and discussion needs to move away
from conceptualizing gender in dichotomous, essentialized ways. Such a notion of gender separates females and males into discrete categories
and emphasizes the differences between them.
Furthermore, these researchers suggest that this
notion of gender runs the risk of perpetuating
gender stereotypes and limits our ability to see
the complexity with which gender influences discussion. This research calls attention to the multiple subjectivities and cultural influences (i.e.,
age, gender, race, economic status) students bring
with them to discussions and the fluid nature
with which students move among the various
identities and discourses available to them. In
other words, all boys do not always engage in a
discourse of action, dominate the discussion, and
use their talk as a means of establishing power,
just as all girls do not always engage in a discourse of feeling, relinquish the speaking floor,
and use their talk as a means of establishing relationships. Rather, boys and girls move among the
possible discourse patterns available and display
behavior consistent across gender roles.
This was evident in David Moore’s (1997)
study of discussions in a twelfth-grade Advanced
English Placement class. In this class, students
exhibited behavior and used discourse patterns
that both accepted and contested traditional
gender expectations. For example, in one discussion, a girl named Heather contested typical gen-
Influence of Context on
Students’ Gendered Discussion Patterns
Recent research has also begun to explore how
the discussion context influences which multiple
subjectivities and gendered discourse patterns
are taken up by students. Subjectivities such as
gender, ethnicity, ability, and status, along with
classroom culture and norms, all have the potential to influence how gender interacts with students’ discussion patterns. Moreover, these various factors all interact with each other.
Consequently, it may be impractical to single out
197
Gender and Discussion
and separate the influence of gender from these
other factors.
Research has suggested that gender is a powerful factor operating in the discussion context. The
impact of being in a heterogeneous- or homogeneous-gender group was investigated by Karen
Evans (2002) in her study of fifth-grade literature
discussion groups. When in heterogeneous-gender groups, girls were likely to either exhibit male
discourse patterns (i.e., dominate discussion, control who could talk) or remain silent. Both options
created problems in many heterogeneous-gender
groups. When used by females, the male discourse
patterns were viewed by others as aggressive. The
girls’ silence was often a form of resistance to the
perceived male discourse patterns being used by
the boys in their group. The boys, however, interpreted the girls’ silence as noncompliance with the
assigned task. When in all-girl groups, girls were
much more likely to actively facilitate discussion
among their female group members, using their
talk to maintain relationships and identify with
friends. Furthermore, homogeneous groups (both
all-boy and all-girl) were more successful overall
than heterogeneous groups, and students consistently stated that they preferred to work in samegender discussion groups.
Guzzetti and Williams (1996) also found differences between homogeneous- and heterogeneous-gender groups at the high-school level.
When in heterogeneous lab groups, males were
the ones engaged in manipulating the equipment, giving directions, and making verbal inferences about their observations. Females were often limited to setting up the equipment and
recording data that the boys generated through
actually conducting the experiment. Even in
groups where there was only one male, that male
was still most likely to give orders, assume agreement by the females in the group, and talk to
demonstrate or show the girls how to proceed. In
contrast, when in a homogeneous-gender lab
group, the females became much more active in
their participation. They set up the equipment,
manipulated the experiment, identified errors
and resolved them, made observations, recorded
data, and negotiated meanings.
This research suggests that the discussion context influences, at least partially, which of the
various gendered discourses students choose to
use. Homogeneous-gender groups appear to
have a particular impact on how females choose
to participate. In same-gender groups, females
are more likely to become active participants and
engage in a wider range of verbal interactions.
These findings should not be interpreted to
mean that teachers should only use same-gender
groups, but rather, they reveal the importance of
broadening educators’ notions of acceptable
forms of discourse, valuing different types of discourse, and breaking down commonly held
stereotypes regarding gendered discourse that
traditionally tend to privilege discourse patterns
most frequently associated with males.
Interventions
Researchers have begun to explore ways of interrupting gendered discursive practices. One possible method is to place students in homogeneous-gender groups. Homogenous-gender
groups appear to influence particularly the ways
girls choose to participate in small-group settings (Evans, 2002; Guzzetti and Williams, 1996).
Gallas (1995) also tried various ways of interrupting the discourse patterns established by the
small group of dominating boys in her classroom. She established what she termed talk protocols, which included such procedures as limiting the number of comments the boys could
make, monitoring the amount of time they
talked, and having the speaker select the next
person to talk. She also tried giving the boys
other jobs to perform during the discussion (i.e.,
watching for people who are trying to get into
the discussion) and separated the talkers and
nontalkers into different groups.
Methods like these represent possible ways
teachers might begin to interrupt gendered discourse practices. As Alvermann and her colleagues (1997) caution, however, teachers are often unaware of how they themselves contribute
to gendered discourse practices, which makes it
difficult for them to change such patterns. Recognizing that gender does influence how students choose to participate in discussions is a
first and necessary step toward helping students
and teachers examine and interrupt the hidden
and often taken-for-granted manner in which
gender impacts discursive practices.
Karen S. Evans
See Also
Discussion; Gender and Post-Typographical Text;
Gender and Reading; Gender and Writing;
Subjectivity
198
Gender and Post-Typographical Text
Acknowledging that the fundamental changes
accompanying electronic text have social, political, and cultural implications, teachers and researchers seek to understand the implications of
these changes for all populations and at all levels
of schooling. Most researchers who study this
question view gender as a social construction,
that is, as learned through interactions with others. The studies of gender and post-typographical text have focused on a range of students from
elementary through college levels. Many of these
studies are identified in a large project in which a
group of researchers (Guzzetti et al., 2002) systematically reviewed the literature on gender and
literacies.
References
Alvermann, Donna E., Michelle Commeyras,
Josephine P. Young, Sally Randall, and David
Hinson. 1997. “Interrupting Gendered Discursive
Practices in Classroom Talk about Texts: Easy to
Think About, Difficult to Do.” Journal of Literacy
Research 29 (1):73–104.
Blaire, Heather A. 2000. “Genderlects: Girl Talk and
Boy Talk in a Middle-Years Classroom. Language
Arts 77 (4):315–323.
Cherland, Meredith R. 1992. “Gendered Readings:
Cultural Restraints upon Response to Literature.”
New Advocate 5 (3):187–198.
Davies, Bronwyn. 1993. “Beyond Dualism and
Towards Multiple Subjectivities.” In Linda K.
Christian-Smith, ed., Texts of Desire: Essays on
Fiction, Femininity, and Schooling, pp. 145–173.
London: Falmer Press.
Evans, Karen S. 2002. “Fifth-Grade Students’
Perceptions of How They Experience Literature
Discussion Groups.” Reading Research Quarterly
37(1):46–69.
Evans, Karen S., Donna Alvermann, and Patricia L.
Anders. 1998. “Literature Discussion Groups: An
Examination of Gender Roles.” Reading Research
and Instruction 37 (2):107–122.
Gallas, Karen. 1995. Talking Their Way into Science:
Hearing Children’s Questions and Theories,
Responding with Curricula. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Gritsavage, Margaret. December 1997. “Gendered
Discourse in Classroom Conversations about
Gender, Culture, and Literacy.” Paper presented at
the National Reading Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Guzzetti, Barbara J., and Wayne O. Williams. 1996.
“Changing the Pattern of Gendered Discussion:
Lessons from Science Classrooms.” Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy 40 (1):38–47.
Moore, David W. 1997. “Some Complexities of
Gendered Talk about Texts.” Journal of Literacy
Research 29 (4):507–530.
Gender and Post-Typographical
Text in the College Environment
Early studies focusing on gender and post-typographical text took place in college writing
classes in which students shared writing and responses to writing through on-line “conferences,” both synchronous and asynchronous. Authors of some of these studies (Selfe, 1992)
cautioned against gender bias but also observed
the promise of more democratic, equitable discussions through post-typographical text
(Cooper and Selfe, 1990). Basic to the positive
findings were certain qualities of communicating through post-typographical text: the time
provided for considering one’s thoughts, a focus
on the language of the communication rather
than on the participant’s appearance or nonverbal gestures, and the possibility of building an
on-line community as a result of these features.
Such unique literacy forums provided through
asynchronous e-mail, listservs, and computer
conferencing offered participants appealing freedom. For example, in several distance-learning
writing classes taught entirely through electronic
communication, adult female students were empowered to voice their ideas and thus affirm and
in several cases change some of their perspectives
(Fey, 1994). Initially, the students read feminist
and multicultural readings and then responded
to them through post-typographical text. They
then wrote essays that were peer edited through
the computer medium.
Although the positive claims of the benefits of
post-typographical text for communication at
the college level continue to emerge, questions
continue to be raised about whether on-line
Gender and
Post-Typographical Text
The topic of gender and post-typographical
(electronic) text has emerged in the field of literacy because electronic text is created and used by
both women and men alike. Since computer
technology has traditionally been considered a
male domain, it is important to ensure that interactions with this text are fair for all users.
Gender stereotypes associated with attitudes toward computer use and reports of male dominance have stimulated this concern.
199
Gender and Post-Typographical Text
classroom discussions are empowering for all
women students. As with face-to-face classroom
experiences, using post-typographical text for a
classroom medium is complex. At the college
level, gender considerations in the use of electronic communication in a mixed-gender class
appear to depend on an array of factors, for example, the curriculum, the unique characteristics of participants, and the teacher’s pedagogical
approach.
terms of how they used computers and the topics they chose to write about on-line. She also
discovered gender bias on the part of the teacher
as she assisted students in using the computers.
John Pryor (1995), an elementary teacher in
the United Kingdom, also aimed to discover ways
to promote gender equity in the use of computers. Concerned that even when teachers are sensitive to gender issues they are not always effective in bringing about gender equity, Pryor
engaged in a two-year study in which he worked
in a fourth-grade classroom once a week to understand gender issues as they applied to groups
of students working with computers. He observed that boys were more likely than girls to
engage in conflict because they were less able
than girls to distinguish between debating and
quarreling. When emphasis was placed on the
process of group work rather than the results, the
boys’ language became less harsh and competitive. Mixed-ability grouping also supported
Pryor’s goal of improving collaboration and promoting gender equity.
Cynthia Lewis and Bettina Fabos (2000)
turned to instant messaging to examine social
practices when post-typographical text is used in
an out-of-class environment. Instant messaging
enables participants to communicate to one another in real time, that is, simultaneously. The researchers focused on the extracurricular home
use of instant messaging so that teachers might
also understand students’ out-of-school literacy
practices. The two middle-school girls in their
study reported that instant messaging eased their
communication with classmates and at times enabled them to hide their own identities by transforming their language patterns and tone.
Through instant messaging, the girls were able to
negotiate social relationships and enhance their
social standing at school. Even though students
had an opportunity to speak up, however, masculine conventions determined their stance.
Consequently, Lewis and Fabos doubted that instant messaging provides a completely genderneutral environment.
Gender and Post-Typographical
Text in the School Environment
The role gender plays in the use of post-typographical text in the schools is also a concern.
Although research focused on this subject is
limited, researchers and teachers are beginning
to understand the interplay of gender and posttypographical text in the schools. In some instances, instead of promoting gender equity,
electronic communication appears to reproduce the hierarchy still present in contemporary culture.
To understand how and when gender attitudes toward computers are instilled, Julie
Nicholson and her colleagues (1998) observed
groups of first-grade students as they worked in
same-gender and mixed-gender groups to compose stories on the computer without the direction of a teacher. The young male students destroyed female partners’ confidence through
constant critical remarks, threats, and strong directives. Although girls supported and encouraged collaboration with one another, boys created competition by comparing stories and
pointing out differences in a competitive manner. Researchers concluded that young girls’
confidence in using computers waned when
they were antagonized and criticized by boys
during their computer sessions.
In a feminist teacher-research project describing third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade girls’ interactions with post-typographical text, Alice Christie
(1995) reported inconsistent results in her efforts
to support students in gender equitable uses of
the computer. She aimed to disrupt the stereotypical attitudes toward gender and technology.
Christie noted that girls more than boys most
commonly used post-typographical text to build
relationships and share feelings of concern, but
she also found that young girls used computer
texts to defy gender stereotypes (as did boys) in
Gender and Post-Typographical
Text in School-College Collaborations
With the ease of communicating through the Internet and the increasing availability of Internet
connections in schools and colleges, teachers are
taking advantage of the possibilities of extending
200
Gender and Reading
References
Christie, Alice. 1995. “No Chips on Their Shoulders:
Girls, Boys, and Telecommunications.” Ph.D. diss.,
Arizona State University West, Phoenix.
Cooper, Marilyn M., and Cynthia L. Selfe. 1990.
“Computer Conferences and Learning: Authority,
Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse.”
College English 52:847–869.
Fey, Marion H. 1994. “Finding Voice through
Computer Communication: A New Venue for
Collaboration.” Journal of Advanced Composition
14 (1):221–237.
———. 1997. “Literate Behavior in a Cross-Age
Computer-Mediated Discussion: A Question of
Empowerment.” In Charles K. Kinzer, Kathleen A.
Hinchman, and Donald J. Leu, eds., Inquiries in
Literacy Theory and Practice: Forty-Sixth Yearbook
of the National Reading Conference, pp. 507–518.
Chicago: National Reading Conference.
———. 1998. “Critical Literacy in School-College
Collaboration through Computer Networking: A
Feminist Research Project.” Journal of Literacy
Research 30:85–117.
Guzzetti, Barbara, Josephine Young, Margaret
Gritsavage, Laurie Fyfe, and Marie Hardenbrook.
2002. Reading, Writing and Talking Gender in
Literacy Learning. Newark, DE: The International
Reading Association/The National Reading
Conference Literacy Series.
Lewis, Cynthia, and Bettina Fabos. 2000. “But Will It
Work in the Heartland? A Response and
Illustration.” Journal of Adolescent Literacy 43
(5):462–469.
Nicholson, Julie, Adrienne Gelpi, Shannon Young,
and Elizabeth Sulzby. 1998. “Influences of Gender
and Open-Ended Software on First Graders’
Collaborative Composing Activities on
Computers.” Journal of Computing in Childhood
Education 9 (1):3–42.
Pryor, John. 1995. “Gender Issues in Group Work—A
Case Study Involving Computers.” British
Educational Research Journal 21 (30):277–288.
Selfe, Cynthia L. 1992. “Preparing English Teachers
for the Virtual Age: The Case for Technology
Critics.” In Gail E. Hawisher and Paul LeBlanc,
eds., Re-Imagining Computers and Composition:
Teaching and Research in the Virtual Age, pp.
24–42. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
classroom communication to populations beyond the school through electronic communication. This use of post-typographical text also
supports the increased focus in schools and colleges on authentic learning and service learning.
As preservice teachers link to school students in
many areas of the country, they benefit from
working with actual students and in many cases
are exposed to populations of students different
from those they would observe during field visits
to local schools. These connections also perform
a type of service learning since each population
helps the other to meet its learning goals. At this
point, most of these connections are through
asynchronous electronic communication, although links through real-time, synchronous
communication are beginning to be explored as
well. As with other uses of post-typographical
text, school-college collaborations are being
evaluated with respect to gender issues.
Two research studies on school-college electronic collaborations conducted by teachers (Fey,
1997, 1998) evaluated the communications with
respect to gender and, particularly, language use.
Both collaborations used the asynchronous communication of listservs to link college students in
a small town with high-school students in urban
and suburban schools. The topics for discussion
adopted a critical literacy stance that focused on
issues of power and assisted students in challenging existing structures of inequality and oppression. In the 1997 collaboration, discussions
about ethical issues led to agonistic, hierarchical
language by some males. Although a number of
students reported positive experiences, some
males inhibited the expression of voice for several female participants, whose participation in
the conversation was thereby limited. In the 1998
collaboration, females persisted in communicating despite differences or conflict in discussions.
The contexts for the two studies differed in a
number of respects, for example, the number of
participants, the students’ understanding of gender issues, and the time period of involvement of
the students. A closer look at features such as
these may lead to a better understanding of ways
to assure positive learning experiences with posttypographical text.
Marion Harris Fey
Gender and Reading
Until as late as the 1980s, discussions about reading and gender were limited for the most part to
calling attention to the gender of a protagonist of
any given story. With a deepening understanding
of societal influences, scholars have focused at-
See Also
Gender and Discussion; Gender and Writing; Instant
Messaging; Post-Typographic
201
Gender and Reading
dered. Girls tend to select romance and fiction;
boys tend to read adventure and nonfiction. Boys
read superhero comic books whereas girls read
series novels and teen magazines, marketed especially for girls. Magazine selection as well as production is gendered as well. Magazines that target girls are targeted for the teenage girl.
Magazines for boys are most often aimed at an
adult readership (Moss, 1995).
Texts, ranging from fairy tales to adult novels,
have been criticized because they seem to constrain the roles available to boys and girls and
serve to reinscribe them into patriarchy. Like the
fairy tales, popular book series are written in
such a way as to construct models of masculinity
and femininity that reinforce gender stereotypes,
with males in active, powerful roles and females
relegated to roles in which they find their place
in the society through romance and rescuers.
Cultural Constructions
of Gender and Reading
Before examining gender and reading in more
depth, let’s clarify each term. More than simply
the abilities to decode and comprehend, reading
is now understood as a set of social practices
constructed by families, schools, and other institutions. Understanding reading as a social and
cultural construction focuses attention to the
ways in which certain practices are privileged or
ignored in particular contexts. Reading carries
with it significant cultural capital that governs
social actions and social consequences. As concerns the term gender, scholars now argue for a
more cultural definition, situating it within
broader societal forces, as has been done with the
term reading. Beyond biology, scholars now accept a more constructed view of gender. This
shifts the focus from biological processes to the
social processes that enable and constrain beliefs,
practices, and even desires. Meredith Cherland
(1994), for example, explains that gender has to
do not so much with what people are (male or
female) but with what they do (gender-appropriate ways of acting in the world). Gender-appropriate actions involve a multifaceted set of culturally constructed actions. Reading is one of the
culturally constructed actions that makes up the
complex system of societal influences.
Because gender is culturally constructed and
reading is a social practice, gender is always present in reading (Cherland, 1994). Scholars such as
Teenage girls reading magazines (Laura Dwight)
tention on gender to examine the social, political, and developmental nature of reading. Likewise, attentiveness to reading makes gender distinctions apparent. Reading is one means
through which girls and boys learn to construct
and reconstruct their desires and gender roles, as
well as their awareness of social positions and
power dynamics (Christian-Smith, 1993). In
other words, reading is one means by which
young people come to know their place in the
world, and that place comes already equipped
with gender scripts that dictate what is appropriate to wear, to do, to say, and even to read as a
gendered being in a society. From a very early
age, children have clear ideas about demarcations along gender lines. They can tell you as
early as the primary grades that certain books are
“boys’ books” and that others are clearly “girls’
books.”
By the early elementary grades, children may
tease and chastise others for making gender-inappropriate reading choices. In school as well as
out of school, reading choices are distinctly gen202
Gender and Reading
Cherland, Linda Christian-Smith, Pam Gilbert,
and others describe the complex ways in which
entering a story world allows readers to come to
know what counts as being a woman or a man in
the world. Through stories, children learn the
range of ways to be masculine and feminine in a
culture. Inversely, readers enter a story world
with a repertoire of already gendered social practices that influence their interpretations. Scholars
have begun to ask about the contents of texts
and, equally important, about how texts are being read. Gender is never the sole variable that
determines how texts get read. Race, class, gender, and many other influences come into play in
establishing how reading is enacted. That said, it
is important to repeat that gender is always inescapably present in reading.
another lens to examine reading and gender. Talk
about texts provides a means to perform gender
roles. Children enter the classroom with a repertoire of already gendered language practices that
constitute their resources for interpreting and
participating in classroom discussions. Joseph
Tobin (2000), for example, has noted that he observed third- and fourth-grade boys and girls using a discussion of violence in a film to display
gender. The boys showcased their knowledge of
the physical world, something that tends to be
considered masculine; the girls made statements
about their empathy for the victims. A classroom
is always an arena to perform gender roles, and
girls and boys stand to gain or lose status based
on their gender competence. When a teacher asks
children to select texts, she must realize that she
is asking her students to perform gender roles.
Girls may read “boys’ books,” but boys rarely accept an invitation to read what they consider to
be a “girl book.” Why? Gemma Moss (1995) suggests that we are asking the powerless to take on
more powerful strategies, and inversely, we are
asking the more powerful to appropriate less
powerful strategies. Such invitations are not
equal. How boys and girls read and talk about
particular texts center on reading as it intertwines with a gendered sense of self.
How home, school, and societal influences
shape reading practices have also been the focus
of studies of how children learn to read. For example, Judith Solsken (1993) conducted a threeyear study of early literacy learning. Her study of
children as they made the transition from entering kindergarten through completion of second
grade documents that in even progressive
schools and supportive homes, the dimensions
of gender identity may perpetuate traditional
gender roles and actually account for important
links that influence reading. Such accounts of
learning to read showcase the complexities that
both boys and girls face due to gendered divisions of labor in their homes and in school.
Through examinations of the ways in which
larger home, school, and societal influences
shape reading practices, we see how gender and
reading impinge upon one another. Reading is
one means by which children come to understand the range of ways to be masculine and feminine in a culture. Equally important, gender as a
set of social practices shapes the ways in which
children engage with texts.
Reading Gender
Scholars have approached reading gender in a
variety of ways. In an attempt to understand how
gender and reading impinge upon each other,
scholars have focused on the larger home,
school, and societal influences that shape reading
practices, examining content analyses of texts,
readers reading texts, and how children learn to
read.
In a content analysis, researchers look at story
lines, descriptions, and pictures in an attempt to
understand the construction of the feminine and
the masculine in a textual world. Some scholars
challenge the notions that texts hold fixed meanings, and thus, it is not the content alone that
should be examined. Assumptions that texts are
potentially powerful in their effect on readers
rest upon a notion of vulnerable readers (Moss,
1995). What matters most about the texts is not
the content alone but the ways in which readers
use that content. Studies of how readers read text
focus not simply on the content of the reading
materials but on how readers interact with those
textual worlds. In a study of romance readers, for
example, Janice Radway (1984) argued that adult
women constructed reading as a “declaration of
their independence,” citing a private pleasure
and an escape from their daily responsibilities. In
a study of sixth-grade girls, Cherland (1994)
maintained that reading may serve as “combative” (as an escape from being good) and “compensatory” (as a tool to feel more powerful). In
addition to gaining understanding of how children read, how they talk about reading provides
203
Gender and Reading
Curriculum and School Performance
Curricular materials and discussion patterns
have been criticized for gender bias. A predominance of gender bias in textbooks and other curricular materials is well documented. The structures of classrooms and selections of texts
dictate how children construct and experience
gender (Cherland, 1994). Gender expectations
shape how children construct and experience
reading. Although studies show that boys may
receive more attention in some classes, the
teaching of reading is often absent in such studies. Since girls tend to outperform in reading,
there is little attention to the language arts,
which according to a cross-national study found
that the perception of literacy as feminine shapes
the ways schools teach reading (American Association of University Women, 1998), which may
further the gender gap in reading competencies.
Views that females are “naturally” more inclined
to be better readers and that expectations that
boys will lag behind seem to be just good common sense. Students themselves hold these gendered views of reading, with distinctions between male and female competencies in reading
becoming more intensified after the fourth
grade and becoming deeply entrenched by the
last years of high school (American Association
of University Women, 1998). Notions of good
reading performance may be based for the most
part on middle-class, white cultural views, and
according to Signithia Fordham (1993), the denial of diversity of gender constructions in
schools forces some social groups to silence.
Inattentiveness to diversity of gender roles in the
school context serves to marginalize some readers, especially those who do not share the racial,
ethnic, socioeconomic, or cultural expectations
of the school.
who have brought together scholars from content
areas as diverse as mathematics, science, physical
education, technology, and literacy, call for a pedagogy that examines privilege and power. They
suggested that across content disciplines, the curriculum at its core should pay attention to the
processes that produce patterns of participation
and achievement. Moss has suggested the need
for an “ethnography of reading” pedagogy that
stresses the ways in which diverse social and cultural practices shape how texts get read. In other
words, these scholars have championed the need
in schools for boys and girls to examine what is
taken as “natural” in any content and to investigate the politics and privileges embedded in their
reading, whatever it might be—fiction, nonfiction, textbooks, or the larger culture.
Margaret Finders
See Also
Gender and Discussion; Gender and PostTypographical Text; Gender and Writing
References
American Association of University Women. 1998.
Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our
Children. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational
Foundation.
Cherland, Meredith. 1994. Private Practices: Girls
Reading Fiction and Constructing Identity.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Christian-Smith, Linda. 1993. “Constituting and
Reconstituting Desire: Fiction, Fantasy and
Femininity.” In Linda Christian-Smith, ed., Texts
of Desire: Essays on Fiction, Femininity, and
Schooling, pp. 1–8. London: Falmer Press.
Fordham, Signithia. 1993. “Those Loud Black Girls:
(Black) Women, Silence, and Gender ‘Passing’ in
the Academy.” Anthropology and Education
Quarterly 24:3–32.
Gaskell, Jane, and John Willinsky. 1995. Gender
In/Forms Curriculum: From Enrichment to
Transformation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gilbert, Pam. 1994. “And They Lived Happily Ever
After: Cultural Storylines and the Construction of
Gender.” In A. H. Dyson and C. Genishi, eds., The
Need for Story. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Moss, Gemma. 1995. “Rewriting Reading.” In Janet
Holland and Maud Blair, eds., with Sue Sheldon.
Debates and Issues in Feminist Research and
Pedagogy, pp. 157–168. Buckingham, UK: Open
University.
Radway, Janice. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women,
Patriarchy, and Popular Fiction. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina.
Solsken, Judith. 1993. Literacy, Gender, and Work in
Families and in School. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Initiatives and Pedagogical Approaches
Recent initiatives have focused on pedagogical
approaches that call for examinations of biases in
texts, interaction patterns, and the larger culture.
Scholars are calling for a pedagogy that builds
from an awareness of the influence of both language and culture upon students’ lives. Cherland
(1994), for example, called for a critical pedagogy that explores vested interests in texts and
examines the ways in which individuals are positioned to read and respond in certain ways. Likewise, Jane Gaskell and John Willinsky (1995),
204
Gender and Writing
Tobin, Joseph. 2000. Good Guys Don’t Wear Hats:
Children Talk about the Media. New York:
Teachers College Press.
two terms interchangeably. Trying to make distinctions between biological difference and
processes of socialization suggests that one can
clearly distinguish between naturally determined
and culturally determined characteristics of men
and women. As Judith Butler, Michel Foucault,
and others have pointed out, however, conceptions of sex are as constructed as gender, making
any distinctions between the two difficult to determine. The complex understandings of genetics and hormones that are emerging, for example, point to the difficulty of distinguishing
innate or biological influences from those that
are culturally and socially constructed. Much of
the gender research and theory has been guided
and influenced by feminist movements and postcolonial and queer theory, all of which critique
power structures, question and distinguish differences, and shift thinking away from hierarchical models.
Gender and Writing
Gender is a variable in the historical, social, and
cultural contexts that influence and are influenced by the creation of texts and writing
processes. Gender differs from sex in that the former distinguishes the cultural categories of masculine and feminine, whereas the latter distinguishes biological difference. Because writing
gives humans the capability to reflect and analyze language and is closely connected to self-understanding, the role of gender in the development of subjectivity through writing is an
important consideration.
Four main perspectives on the relationship
between writing and gender are: (1) organic and
embodied, (2) socially constructed, (3) poststructural, and (4) complex. The organic and
embodied perspective derives from the development of a two-sex model and considers physical
and psychosocial differences between women
and men and how these differences influence
writing. The socially constructed perspective focuses on cultural, historical, and social influences
and how men and women are socialized differently, affecting the structure of their texts and
their writing processes. The post-structural perspective considers the discursive and shifting nature of gender and subjectivity and its relationship to writing as a discursive practice. The
complex perspective draws on recent ecological
theories of complexity to understand gender and
writing as coevolving within human and nonhuman systems.
Writing
Writing is a powerful technology for thinking
and learning that commits the word to space and
enlarges the potential of language, including its
heuristic power. Writing creates conceptions of
reality, influences individuals’ understanding of
themselves, and traces their relations to places
and other people. Writing also serves to integrate
and interpret experience, creating a subjunctive
or liminal space for real, imagined, and possible
lives of those who write and read. Writing makes
possible such understandings because it enables
human beings to reflect on ideas; that is, consciousness of words creates a distinction between
the words themselves and the ideas they express.
Such capabilities mean that humans can use
written language as an object of reflection and
analysis. Because the practice of writing is so
strongly connected to self-understanding and
the development of subjectivity, the influences of
gender are important when considering such a
process.
Gender
Gender, like genre, arises from the Latin root
genus, meaning birth or kind. Traditionally, gender was a grammatical classification in languages
for masculine, feminine, or neuter nouns,
whereas biological classifications used the term
“sex.” When anthropologists and sociologists began to use gender to distinguish cultural categories from biological ones, gender became one
of the descriptors for differences among humans
that helped develop understandings of people’s
identities. As its usage expanded, individuals
sometimes equated gender with sex and used the
Writing as Organic and Embodied
Before the two-sex model of understanding difference, people considered male and female bodies as fundamentally the same with only the visibility of their genitalia contrasting. Once society
used differing sexual characteristics to maintain
power structures, the male body became the
dominant and privileged form. Society consid205
Gender and Writing
ered women to be lacking the attributes of the
male; in other words, female identity was based
on who women were not in comparison to men,
rather than who they were. French philosopher
Luce Irigaray explained that women are defined
as complements of men and do not exist in their
own right in the symbolic order. She argued for
the creation of an ethics of sexual difference that
defines women in their own terms and not in relation to men.
The conception of the two differing sexes
evolved from a focus on physiology to encompass the differences in psychology, with women
again defined as lacking. The work of Nancy
Chodorow, among others, challenged that conception. Chodorow argued that gender differences were created relationally. Because women
are usually the primary caretakers of children,
she noted, males, in order to establish their gender identity, must differentiate themselves from
their mothers, whereas girls establish their gender identity through relating to and identifying
with the mother. The work of Carol Gilligan also
identified psychological distinctions between
males and females in their decisionmaking
processes, with males found to be hierarchical
and focused on authority and females attending
more to contextual factors. Mary Belenky and
her collaborators (1986) highlighted other gender differences in their analysis of the interview
transcripts of 135 women. From these data, they
identified five distinct ways of women’s knowing.
The five distinct ways of women’s knowing include silence—a place of not knowing where a
woman feels she has no voice or power—and received knowing, in which the woman trusts the
knowledge of others whom she sees as more
powerful and knowledgeable and from whom
she can learn. Subjective knowing describes personal and private knowledge based on intuition
and feeling. Procedural knowing includes
processes and techniques for acquiring, validating, and evaluating knowledge. Constructed
knowing understands truth as contextual and
knowledge as tentative rather than absolute,
where the knower constructs the known.
With the focus of gender differences being biological and psychological, a feminist aesthetic of
writing developed—that is, an erotics of writing
that comes from the self, that tends to be sensual
and connected to the world and the body and that
is seen to be potentially revolutionary in ques-
tioning the existing structures of literary canons
and the understanding of what it means to be female. Writers such as Adrienne Rich, Audre
Lorde, and Susan Griffin have developed this feminist aesthetic through their writing. In her theoretical explorations of writing, Hélène Cixous
(1991) explored connections among the female
body, sexual expression, and writing, called l’écriture féminine. Cixous draws on the semiotic associated with the female body such as its fluidity
and open boundaries, shaping her writing in response and creating a women’s language.
Establishing a feminist aesthetic of writing
based on specific characteristics of biology and
psychology is difficult because of the global nature of the categories. Viewing writing from this
perspective erases many of the differences within
genders, such as cultural, historical, and social
contexts, and suggests that writing strategies are
without context. Some research that focuses on
variables describing specific gender differences
in writing points to the relational metaphors in
women’s writing and the individuation choices
in men’s writing and suggests that such evidence
supports innate differences between males and
females in their writing abilities. The work of
many women writers, however, also highlights
the strengths of this perspective in acknowledging that writing is embodied, that who we are
shapes and is shaped by the texts we create and
read, and that traces of our histories reside in
language.
Writing as Socially Constructed
The role of cultural, historical, and social influences on gender and writing is an important
characteristic of this perspective. As Mikhail
Bakhtin noted, language is understood not as
transparent or apolitical but as a site where discursive struggles occur between those who desire
power through determining meaning and those
who would interrupt that power for a plurality of
meaning. In the 1970s, Robin Lakoff published
her work Language and Woman’s Place, which
pointed to the difficulty of representing women’s
experience in a language that bears the marks of
its male-defined history and that discriminates
against women. Elaine Showalter (1989) proposed a different approach to literary criticism,
which she called gynocriticism, examining how
texts reveal ideological inscriptions of gender.
These and other feminist theories, as well as the
206
Gender and Writing
work of gender theorists, furthered the understanding of gender as part of a network of cultural and social relations.
In understanding language as colored by its
contexts, this perspective sees writing as a
process that mediates cultural knowledge with
textuality. Writers draw from these ideological
and discursive systems while at the same time the
discourses define the choices available to them. If
women construct narratives about interactions
of connection and men write about separation
and achievement, they are reflecting the perceptual frameworks that have shaped them. When
writers are conscious of such choices, they can
use writing as a way to resist or subvert gender
definitions or other cultural expectations.
The work of Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar
(1979), considered one of the turning points in
the study of women’s writing, reveals how gender
operates textually. Many genres, such as poetry
and drama, erected barriers against women at a
time when authorship was considered a male
role. Men wrote social discourse; women expressed a self through confessional pieces or disguised their work with a masculine pseudonym.
As Gilbert and Gubar pointed out, however,
women writers were able to create submerged or
hidden meanings even when writing within the
constraints of the day.
Some genres of writing continue to be privileged over others, but all genres are affected by
gendered social regulation. For instance, some
research that examines the gender differences in
writing relates expository, objective, and linear
prose with male writing. As writers become more
skilled, researchers discover that it is more difficult to distinguish between “male” and “female”
writing. Some studies suggest that capable writers can recognize and use various genre styles;
others question whether women simply learn to
write in the privileged academic discourse, that
is, using expository and linear style. One must
also consider the context in which the writing is
read. Many readers assume they can identify
pieces written by males or females, revealing that
society continues to make assumptions about the
clearly delineated presence of gender in texts.
Susan Friedman described strategies that
women use in their writing to question and subvert genres and canons and to claim the public
space of texts. For example, they choose typical
plot structures to write their own ideologies,
such as rewriting fairy tales, or they reconfigure
narrative patterns to structure their writing in
ways meaningful to their experience. Alternatively, women weave together different genres
such as oral and written conventions or the lyrical and the narrative. New relational patterns are
created that can disrupt or unify seemingly contradictory or fragmented discourses.
In seeing writing as socially constructed, questions continue about what is female writing and
what is male. In the search for answers, research
about writing and gender can mire researchers in
syntactic and lexical levels of analysis rather than
asking broader questions of discourse structure
and use. Because of the complex nature of language, it is difficult to understand and trace the
relation between gender and writing, so the
temptation to single out one cause or one variable is common. At the same time, understanding the social construction of texts and gender
encourages writers to push the boundaries, to
rewrite the structures of genre, and to consider
the interplay among race, class, sexual orientation, and gender through writing.
Writing as Post-Structural Text
There is a close relationship between the recognition of the social construction of texts and
post-structuralism. Both theories recognize the
complexity of cultural, historical, and social variables that influence gender and writing; poststructuralism, however, focuses more closely on
how discourses create individuals’ subjectivity.
Chris Weedon (1987) has defined subjectivity as
a woman’s way of understanding herself and her
relation to the world, including her conscious
and unconscious thoughts and emotions. Because of its discursive character, subjectivity is
constantly open to change, always shifting away
from the modernist conception of a fixed and
stable self at the center. Gender, as a discourse related to subjectivity, is understood not as a masculine-feminine binary but as a broader continuum of possibilities.
From a post-structural perspective, writing is
the learned social discursive practice of a gendered subject, open to negotiation and change.
Going beyond familiar discursive patterns is difficult because they are recognizable, connecting
with cultural mores to seem almost natural and
invisible. At the same time, writing becomes a
mode of knowing that can continually interro207
Graffiti
gate its own methods and processes. For example, deconstruction, which questions the possibility of all-encompassing systems or discourses,
can challenge the construction of a text, revealing the elisions and gaps. Post-structuralism
points out the permeable nature of boundaries
and, as with gender, understands that all writing
contains elements of many genres and texts, creating an intertextual character.
Frigga Haug has argued that because gendered
patriarchal discourses have constructed women’s
subjectivity, the importance of writing for
women is crucial. Through such a process, they
can create a history by retrieving from the dominant culture a new image of themselves, enabling
them to construct alternative interpretations. To
disrupt such expectations and the patriarchal
structures of language and texts, some women
turn to avant-garde writing, with its fragmented
nature and subversion of pattern. Many are selfreflexive, deliberately drawing attention to the
process of writing and the structures of the text,
taking apart the inherited fabric of form, and
melting the boundaries between genres. Weedon
has suggested that is equally important for men
to use post-structural techniques to deconstruct
masculinity and its role in patriarchal power.
Although fragmentation and self-reflexivity
are strategies that critique existing literary
frameworks, they are also becoming features of
popular culture forms, such as music videos, and
can stimulate consumption and maintain the
status quo. Further, although such writing has
opened up possibilities for women to disrupt
some of the patriarchal structures that confined
their writing, for some women, the decentering
of the self discursively is of little value if their
sense of self is still uncertain. The interests of individual writers, too, may be lost in deconstructionist criticism that continues to support white,
middle-class patriarchy. Moreover, writers must
realize that discursive practices are embedded in
material power relations that also need transformation. Nevertheless, post-structural writing
opens up greater possibilities for creating subjectivities and offers a way for writers to be oppositional within the ideologies and conceptual
frameworks of patriarchy.
tionship not easily defined and part of a web of
relations that stretch beyond interpersonal interactions, cultural norms, and historical processes
to nonhuman and subhuman systems. Laurie
Finke (1992) sees complexity as a poetics that is
cultural and indeterminate, drawing on the creative energy of chaos theory to highlight how order marginalizes, excludes, and neutralizes. As a
literacy and complexity researcher, Finke, along
with Katherine Hayles and others, explores the
complex systems of which writing and gender
are a part, emphasizing the importance of examining competing discourses and engaging in debates without resorting to essentialism, binary
division, or uncritical assimilation. Understanding writing from such a perspective acknowledges that writing and gender together do not
create a totalizing system that renders differences
and contradictions invisible but rather are part
of an ever-emerging pattern of cultural productions that feeds back into society, maintaining
and refashioning it.
Rebecca Luce-Kapler
See Also
Post-Structuralism and Structuralism; Subjectivity
References
Belenky, Mary Field, Blythe McVicker, Nancy
Clinchy, Rule Goldberger, and Jill Mattuck Tarule.
1986. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development
of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books.
Cixous, Hélène. 1991. Coming to Writing and Other
Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Finke, Laurie A. 1992. Feminist Theory, Women’s
Writing. Ithaca and London: Cornell University
Press.
Gilbert, Sandra, and Susan Gubar. 1979. Madwoman
in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the
Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Showalter, Elaine. 1989. Speaking of Gender. New
York: Routledge.
Weedon, Chris. 1987. Feminist Practice and PostStructuralist Theory. Cambridge and Oxford:
Blackwell.
Graffiti
At a most basic level, graffiti can be defined simply as unsanctioned writing on public spaces. In a
more complex rendering, graffiti can be considered to be systemically encoded expressions of
identity, attempts to make meaning, or statements of resistance to dominant power struc-
Writing and Complexity
Complexity is a newly emerging focus that understands gender and writing as a complex rela208
Graffiti
Example of graffiti (Elizabeth Birr Moje)
graffiti writing quite similar to the kind found on
walls in a modern urban city to examples in ancient Rome and Pompeii, and he argues that prehistoric cave writing is considered by some to be
a form of graffiti. Although practiced worldwide
and throughout history, the codes associated
with graffiti are determined by both geographic
and social space and by the set or identity of the
graffiti writers. In addition, graffiti can be distinguished from more conventional writing practices by its fluidity. The codes and rules of graffiti
writing are standardized by particular groups,
but the standards are always changing. Because
much of graffiti writing is connected to acts of
resistance and underground practice, the codes
change of necessity, as a way of maintaining secrecy and of confusing authorities who might
seek to challenge the graffiti writers. The codes
also change, however, as new ideas and expressions are exchanged.
Sociologists and anthropologists have for
years studied graffiti writing as a social practice
embedded in gangs and tagging crews, but rarely
have these scholars studied graffiti as an act of
tures. In either definition, graffiti must be considered an act of literacy, one that integrates alphabetic and iconic representational forms in
systematic ways.
Ralph Cintron (1997) argued that graffiti
writers appropriate mainstream symbols and recontextualize them into new meanings that allow
the writers to enter an otherwise closed discourse. Elizabeth Moje (2000) has suggested that
for a group of young people in one community,
graffiti writing (and other gang-connected practices) provided a way for them “to be part of the
story” in a place where their ethnic, classed, and
religious stories were not heard or valued. Graffiti writing, from these perspectives, is usually a
practice of marginalized individuals. Moreover,
graffiti writing is not merely a resistant or deviant act, it is a literate practice used to claim a
space and a voice in dominant society and to express oneself or one’s group identity to others
who share that identity.
Often thought of as a contemporary problem,
graffiti is a historically significant, worldwide literacy practice. Matthew Hunt (1996) has traced
209
Graffiti
literacy. Literacy research and theory has tended
to focus on the reading and writing of conventional formulations of alphabetic print, mainly
the print that one finds in published texts. Some
exceptions include the work of Jill Aguilar, Ralph
Cintron, Dwight Conquergood, Matthew Hunt,
and Elizabeth Moje. In addition, Miriam
Camitta, Amy Shuman, and Debbie Smith have
studied the implications of graffiti writing and
other “vernacular” literacy practices for classroom teaching (Camitta, 1993).
by the number “187” written at the top of the list
of gangs. The symbol “187” is a play on the standard police code for homicide and indicates a
call to action that the members of the gangs
listed in the graffito should be executed. The use
of the Roman numeral XV indicates that the East
Side King Crips claim the 15th Street territory.
Second, the street names of the gangstas who
make up the King Crips are written around the
letters KC (e.g., Lil Blue, Budda, and so on). With
this writing, each of the members of the 15th
Street King Crips claims membership and affiliation with the gang. Budda, Lil Blue, Oreo, and
the others are homeboys—dedicated to loyalty to
each other and to the gang at all costs, even if
such loyalty requires them to harm a non-gangaffiliated friend, a rival gang member who may
be a friend in different circumstances, or another
homeboy who has been disloyal to the gang. The
“c” written under each street name or moniker
indicates the writer’s ownership or copyright of
that name and implies ownership of the larger
public space as well.
It is in relation to this claiming of the 15th
Street space that a second point can be made
about the meaning embedded in this particular
graffito. Although the members of the surrounding community may not be able to read the code
written by the 15th Street King Crips, they
nonetheless receive a message about the claiming
of space. To the people who live in this relatively
affluent neighborhood, this unsanctioned writing is an encroachment on their territory. Despite the fact that the community members
probably could not read a symbol like “187” to
know that it calls for the death of rival gangstas,
the discovery of such graffiti was met with shock
and alarm by community members, and the wall
was quickly buffed to erase the reminder of this
encroachment on their territory (and to prevent
would-be customers from avoiding the store).
In contrast to gang graffiti, graffiti written or
“thrown up” (Hunt, 1996) by taggers are considered artistic, although similarly unsanctioned,
writings in public spaces. Tags are not used to
claim territory but to advertise the individual
artist or, at times, an entire tagging crew (a group
of tagging artists). For nongangstas or nontaggers, tagger graffiti would probably be indistinguishable from gang graffiti. Taggers and
gangstas, however, can easily distinguish types of
graffiti and are respectful of the different types.
What Counts as Graffiti?
What, exactly, are graffiti? As in any language or
code, general graffiti codes cannot be described
for graffiti writers across the world but must be
analyzed in particular groups. In addition, graffiti writing is typically connected to a number of
other representational and communicative practices, including particular dress codes, body
proxemics, and conventional reading and writing
practices (Cintron, 1997; Conquergood, 1990;
Hunt, 1996; Moje, 2000); thus, any description of
the print alone provides only a partial description of the literate practice involved in graffiti
writing. In broad terms, however, graffiti are stylized, unsanctioned writings in publicly visible
spaces such as fences, billboards, sidewalks, or
buildings (Aguilar, 2000; Hunt, 1996).
This definition is not in itself fully explanatory, however. For example, “Car Wash—
$2.00/car” might be scrawled on a building in
chalk, but the scrawl would not necessarily be
considered graffiti. The reading of something as
graffiti, then, depends on what the reader counts
not only as sanctioned or unsanctioned but also
as worthwhile. For many people, graffiti are associated with street gangs. What makes something
gang graffiti, however, is whether it is used to
send messages about territory to other gangs. For
example, the graffito (singular of graffiti) shown
here represents gang writing:
The graffito shown in the photograph was
written on the wall of a “public” space, a store in
a city neighborhood shopping area. The graffito
serves dual purposes: First, it tells a number of
rival gangs that the East Side King Crips claim
this space or territory. In fact, the other gangs are
negated by being “crossed out” (note the Xs
drawn over the names of several gangs—QVO,
BMG, SAS, POG, 21st Street, and M1F—on the
left side of the wall) and are explicitly threatened
210
Graffiti
One of the adolescents studied by Elizabeth Moje
(2000) made the distinction between tagging and
graffiti best in an essay he wrote about distinctions between tagger and gang graffiti: “Taggers
write for a statement and for artwork and a sign
of respect. Graffiti is to mark where you come
from like gangs and what they claim as their turf.”
In general, taggers and gangstas assert that tagging is “art” and is not necessarily related to gang
activity, although taggers—who are usually
members of tagging “crews”—are at times hired
by gangs to produce gang-related graffiti. According to the youth interviewed in Moje’s (2000)
study, gangstas will usually not “cross out” a tag
unless it encroaches on their territory; taggers
will not cross out a gang graffito, because crossing
out by taggers is done as a form of evaluation of
the art and taggers recognize that gang graffiti are
not written as art. In addition, such cross-outs
might be read as challenges to the gang. Hunt
(1996) described graffiti created by the best taggers (known as piecers, from the abbreviation of
masterpiece) as colorful, appearing to be three-dimensional, and highly visible or “in the heavens.”
Elizabeth Moje (2000) observed several examples of young people practicing tags in notebooks that they carried in school. For example,
one tag observed was the name of a tagging crew,
“Midtown,” written in elaborate lettering, with a
clawed fist holding a bomb around the letter “o.”
As a tag, this graffito could be considered somewhat unusual in that the clawed hand holding a
lit bomb seems to threaten violence, and in that
the graffito seems to claim territory—aspects
that tend to be associated with gang graffiti
rather than with tagging crews. Although generally nonviolent in nature, tags quite commonly
communicate resistance or claims for identity. In
this case, the tagger seems to want to advertise
the Midtown crew as people with something to
say. However, it is possible that despite the bubble writing, which would seem to indicate a tag
rather than a gang graffito, the writer is actually
using tag writing to display a gang name. Given
the context of this tag—part of a school project
on tagging and gang graffiti—it is possible that
the writer (an identified gang member) mixed
linguistic conventions to mask his membership
in an actual gang. In part because of the school
setting for which it was written, then, the tag
sends complicated messages about identity,
membership, and voice.
Although it is risky to engage in tagging practices in school, it is by no means unusual for
gang-connected adolescents (and wannabes, that
is, people who, for reasons of safety or popularity,
want to be associated with gangs or tagging
crews) to use school time to draw tags on paper.
In addition to the tags that taggers might write on
highly visible spaces, many serious taggers keep
tagging notebooks or sketchbooks in which they
practice their tags in pencil or pen before throwing them up on a wall, sign, or fence (Hunt,
1996). It was common in one middle school
(Moje, 2000) to see students with oversized sheets
of bond paper, calligraphy pens, and charcoal
pencils used for practicing their tags. The Midtown tag, although prepared specifically for a
classroom writing project, is an example of a typical notebook tag. These notebooks—and the accompanying writing/drawing equipment—
served both as practice sites and as emblems of
tagger and gangsta identity. Because taggers tag as
a way of making themselves known, these notebooks announce the ability to tag, at least on paper. They serve, in this sense, as an advertisement.
Significance of Graffiti in Literacy
and Educational Research and Practice
A number of studies show that young people
may turn to graffiti writing, and other unsanctioned literacy and language practices, as a way
of writing themselves into the world (Aguilar,
2000; Cintron, 1997; Hunt, 1996; Moje, 2000).
Comments from a number of young graffiti
writers speak to the importance of understanding how these unsanctioned literacy practices, although typically thought to be negative and perhaps worthless, may serve as tools for
transforming thought and experience in the lives
of marginalized youth. Despite a recent emphasis in educational theory on conceptualizing literacy as a tool for changing thought and experience, however, when adults typically speak of the
graffiti writing, they rarely talk about such a literacy form as a tool. Instead, graffiti writing is often referred to in terms of deviance or resistance.
If literacy educators want to claim that literacy is
a tool for transforming thought and experience,
then literacy theorists and researchers need to
extend that theoretical claim to all literacy practices by asking what a literacy practice like graffiti writing does for adolescents. As educators, it
is important to acknowledge graffiti as a timeless
211
Graphic Aids
type), nor do they change how such text is displayed on some surface (e.g., including texts as
sidebars to the main text or varying the width of
margins or background color). Nonetheless,
many graphic aids include alphabetic texts in the
form of captions or labels. Further, graphic displays not explicitly aimed at providing information cannot be categorized as graphic aids. For
example, pictures or graphic designs aimed primarily at enhancing attention or interest (e.g., a
picture of someone driving on the first page of a
driving manual) or included mainly for aesthetic
reasons (e.g., a cover design that is engaging and
pleasing to the eye) are not considered to be
graphic aids. Nonetheless, the visual elements of
a graphic aid itself might be analyzed in terms of
their overall effect on attention or interest. Finally, graphic aids do not include icons frequently used in place of alphabetic texts.
The research pertaining to graphic aids has focused on determining their role in the comprehension of texts and on how they might be designed or manipulated to increase learning and
understanding. A variety of theoretical perspectives has been used to guide this research, ranging from principles of textual design associated
with the field of instructional technology to cognitive theories of textual processing associated
with the field of educational psychology. Beginning in the mid-1980s, interest increased in
graphic aids used in conjunction with computerbased texts. Computer-based texts have changed
the role and function of graphic aids, compared
to the conventional printed texts with which they
were previously associated. For example, in computer-based texts, graphic displays can be animated and displayed contingently, depending
upon a reader’s actions during reading. Further,
computer-based texts may naturally subordinate
alphabetic texts to graphic information (Bolter,
1991; Lanham, 1993), thus suggesting that
graphic “aids” is a misnomer.
Graphic aids have received relatively little attention within instructional programs. Most attention has been focused on acquiring literal information from graphic representations (e.g.,
“reading” a table), although there have long been
calls for a more interpretive stance on graphic
aids (Summers, 1965). One instructional strategy referred to as the graphics information lesson (GIL) has been proposed as a means for encouraging such an interpretive stance while
literacy practice and to ask why young people in
today’s society are using graffiti, how the use of
graffiti relates to the learning of academic literacies, and how graffiti writing might shape the
larger life possibilities of these young people.
Elizabeth Birr Moje
References
Aguilar, Jill A. April, 2000. “Chicano Street Signs:
Graffiti as Public Literacy Practice.” Paper
presented at the American Educational Research
Association Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Camitta, Miriam. 1993. “Vernacular Writing: Varieties
of Literacy among Philadelphia High School
Students.” In B. V. Street, ed., Cross-Cultural
Approaches to Literacy, pp. 228–246. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cintron, Ralph. 1997. Angels’ Town: Chero Ways,
Gang Life, and Rhetorics of the Everyday. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Conquergood, Dwight. 1990. The Heart Broken in
Half (video). Chicago: Siegel Productions.
Hunt, Matthew. 1996. “The Sociolinguistics of
Tagging and Chicano Gang Graffiti.” Ph.D. diss.,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Moje, Elizabeth B. 2000. “To Be Part of the Story: The
Literacy Practices of Gangsta Adolescents.”
Teachers College Record 102:652–690.
Graphic Aids
Graphic aids is a term that has been used in research and instructional practice to identify various nonalphabetic representations inserted purposefully in expository texts for the sake of
enhancing comprehension and learning. Specifically, the purpose of graphic aids is to supplement and extend information presented in a particular alphabetic text, thereby assisting the
reader to understand and learn while reading
that text independently. Graphic aids include
maps, charts, tables, figures, drawings, photographs, diagrams, pictures, illustrations, and
other primarily nonalphabetic representations,
typically displayed near the alphabetic texts to
which they are related. They are generally associated with conventional printed textbooks employed in a variety of instructional contexts, but
they may also be found in other informational
materials such as brochures, manuals, and directions for assembling items or for carrying out a
task requiring physical manipulation.
Graphic aids are not visual variations of an alphabetic text (e.g., the use of italics or boldface
212
Graphic Organizers
Advance Organizer
Structured Overview
Graphic Organizer
Pictures
Photos
Cartoons
Maps
Diagrams
Venn
Diagrams
Flow Charts
Matrices
Concept
Maps
Story Maps
Character
Maps
Figure 1
Graphic organizers visually represent relations
among elements of a concept and, as such, present
a large amount of information in few words. They
can be constructed by teachers or by students and
are useful before, during, and after reading. In addition, graphic organizers are useful tools for
planning instruction, teaching, learning, prewriting, and assessment. Theoretical underpinnings of
graphic organizers include David Ausubel’s concept of advance organizers (a short piece of text
written at a higher abstract level than the information it serves to introduce), Richard Anderson’s
conceptualization of schema theory (schema theory emphasizes the importance of prior knowledge in learning), and Lev Vygotsky’s notion of
semiotic mediation (the idea that culturally derived signs/words can mediate learning).
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, researchers
at Syracuse University conducted a number of
experiments on the use of vocabulary words as
advance organizers. Richard Earle (1969) termed
the resulting diagrams structured overviews. A
structured overview was essentially a diagram
composed of essential vocabulary terms
arranged to convey the relationships that existed
among the terms. As teachers adapted these
structured overviews, they began using other
enhancing content-area instruction (Reinking,
1986).
David Reinking
References
Bolter, Jay David. 1991. Writing Space: The Computer,
Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Lanham, Richard A. 1993. The Electronic Word:
Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Reinking, David. 1986. “Integrating Graphic Aids into
Content Area Instruction: The Graphic
Information Lesson.” Journal of Reading
30:146–151.
Summers, Edward G. 1965. “Utilizing Visual Aids in
Reading Materials for Effective Learning.” In H. L.
Herber, ed., Developing Study Skills in Secondary
Schools, pp. 97–155. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Graphic Organizers
Graphic organizers are visual representations of
concepts or information. The term applies to a variety of forms, including cartoons, pictures, diagrams, structured overviews, Venn diagrams, semantic maps, character maps, and story maps.
213
Graphic Organizers
EXPOSITORY
TEXT
Cause/
Effect
Fishbone
Map
Descriptive
Web
NARRATIVE
TEXT
Sequential
Story
Web
Comparison
Matrix
Timeline
Story
Map
Venn
Diagram
Network
Tree
Series of
Events
Chain
Cycle
Figure 2
visuals, including pictures, charts, Venn diagrams, flow charts, cartoons, and semantic maps
in their teaching. Many of these visual aids were
unlike the structured overviews that had been
developed by the Syracuse researchers and the
more general term graphic organizer began to be
applied to a family of visuals. Figure 1 is a
graphic organizer that represents the evolution
of the graphic organizer.
Constructed by teachers, graphic organizers
are useful in planning instruction, vocabulary
exercises, and assessments. Teacher-constructed
graphic organizers may be used to introduce
technical vocabulary for students whose insufficient prior knowledge needs elaboration. Use of
diagrams, charts, and other forms of graphic organizers can scaffold student learning by providing a skeletal structure of the information, facilitating students’ ability to organize information
meaningfully.
A teacher-created graphic organizer may be
used to guide reading when students are asked to
annotate the graphic organizer or to complete
one left partially blank. More-able students can
be asked to create their own graphic organizer as
they read. Less-able students may need more
scaffolding. When a graphic organizer provides
the structure of the information in advance, students can more easily differentiate important
from unimportant information and can see how
important elements of a concept are related. This
in turn improves students’ comprehension.
Having students construct graphic organizers
to represent their learning provides a vehicle for
reflection after reading. Although no two graphic
organizers will be identical, the learners should
be able to justify the relations and hierarchies depicted in them. An effective strategy is to have
pairs or small groups of students create graphic
organizers and explain them to the class. For assessment purposes, Cathleen Rafferty and Linda
Fleschner (1993) developed guidelines to evaluate student-constructed graphic organizers.
Teachers have a wide variety of visuals to
choose from when creating graphic organizers.
Effective graphic organizers are created with the
knowledge structure or text structure, or both, in
mind. Figure 2 summarizes the relationship between the type of graphic organizer and the text
structure.
Victoria Gentry Ridgeway and Kathy Cochran
See Also
Scaffolded Literacy Instruction; Semantic Mapping;
Thematic Organizers
References
Bromley, Karen, Linda Irwin-De Vitis, and Marcia
Modlo. 1995. Graphic Organizers: Visual Strategies
for Active Learning. New York: Scholastic.
Earle, Richard A. 1969. “Use of the Structured
Overview in Mathematics Classes.” In Harold L.
Herber and Peter L. Sanders, eds., Research in
Reading in the Content Areas: First Year Report, pp.
49–58. Syracuse, NY: Reading and Language Arts
Center, Syracuse University.
Rafferty, Cathleen D., and Linda K. Fleschner. 1993.
“Concept Mapping: A Viable Alternative to
Objective and Essay Exams.” Reading Research and
Instruction 32 (3):25–34.
214
Group Reading Inventories
Group Reading Inventories
presented in the passage. Following the question,
the targeted skill should be identified. For example, “What is the incubation period of the Emperor penguin’s egg?”
The second type of GRI consists of several
graded passages taken from a text with questions
for each passage. Students’ functional reading
levels, that is, independent, instructional, and
frustration levels, can be determined using this
type of GRI. Three assessment sessions are required to complete the graded-passages GRI. To
create this type of GRI, several graded reading
passages and questions are developed following
the same procedures used to create a single-passage GRI. Approximately ten questions reflecting
literal, inferential, and critical reading/thinking
should accompany each passage. At the first assessment session, all students receive the same
passage and are instructed to read it silently.
Questions are distributed to students once reading is completed. Students correctly answering
70 percent or more of the questions (high group)
receive a second passage that is two reading levels higher than the first passage. Students scoring
below 70 percent correct (low group) receive a
second passage that is two reading levels below
the first passage. Once again, students read the
passages silently and receive and respond to related questions. Within the higher scoring group
of students, the teacher determines those who
scored 70 percent or more correct and provides
them with a third passage that is one reading
level higher than the second passage. Students in
the group that scored below 70 percent correct
are given a third passage that is one reading level
lower than the second passage. Within the lower
scoring group, the teacher follows the same procedure using the same criteria: students scoring
above 70 percent correct receive a passage one
reading level higher than the second passage; students scoring below 70 percent correct receive a
passage one reading level lower. The final assessment session, then, requires the teacher to administer appropriate reading passages and questions at four different reading levels (Henk and
Helfeldt, 1985).
Students’ reading ability levels can be determined from either the single-passage or multiple-passage GRI. Although researchers’ criteria
for determining students’ independent, instructional, and frustration reading levels varies, students scoring 80 percent or more correct are gen-
The group reading inventory (GRI) is a two-part,
informal, teacher-made assessment patterned after the informal reading inventory. The GRI is
designed to assess fourth-grade through collegeage students’ ability to use and comprehend expository text (McWilliams and Rakes, 1980). Part
one of the assessment is designed to gather information about how well students can use illustrations, references, and other components of
content-area texts. Part two assesses students’
abilities to respond to literal and inferential comprehension questions following silent reading.
Unlike informal reading inventories that are administered to one student at a time, the GRI is
designed for group administration. This assessment is used to help teachers determine whether
students’ comprehension levels match the readability of the content-area text.
Group reading inventories can take one of two
forms—either a single passage with questions or
several graded passages with related questions
for each passage. The single-passage GRI format
is administered in a single assessment session
and provides general information about students’ reading levels and the readability of the
text. However, the single-passage GRI does not
provide a complete picture of students’ reading
abilities. A single-passage GRI is constructed by
selecting a text passage of approximately 500
words. The passage should be one that students
have not read before and it should cover a complete concept. The teacher then develops the
two-part GRI by writing a total of twelve to fifteen questions based on the passage and the text
from which the passage was taken. The first part
of the GRI requires students to use their textbook to answer the first six to eight questions.
These questions focus on students’ knowledge of
textbook aids like the table of contents, glossary,
index, and graphic aids. A question, for example,
may ask students the page number on which a
particular chapter begins. The second part of the
GRI targets students’ comprehension of information from the selected passage. For part two,
students silently read the passage in the text. The
remaining six to eight questions on the passage
are distributed once all students have read the
material. Responses are written without referring
to the text. Questions for this part of the GRI reflect literal and inferential thinking and target
main ideas, vocabulary, and important details
215
Group Reading Inventories
graded reading passages for the JIRI are derived
from high-interest adolescent literature. The
passages are read silently, and responses to comprehension questions are written without referring to the passage. Comprehension questions
are designed to measure vocabulary, details,
main ideas, cause and effect, and inference
(Cagney, 1983). Because the purpose of the JIRI
is to match students’ reading levels with high-interest adolescent literature, teachers cannot use
the assessment results to make decisions about
whether students will be able to read contentarea texts successfully.
Pamela J. Dunston and M. Christina Pennington
erally considered to be reading at the independent level (level at which readers can read comfortably with little or no assistance). Students
scoring 65–80 percent correct are reading within
their instructional level (level at which readers
can read with assistance from a teacher or
knowledgeable other), and students scoring below 65 percent correct are reading at the frustration level (level at which readers experience
stress and discomfort even when assisted). Students falling within the frustration level will
need extensive teacher support and supplemental instruction in order to be successful. Analysis
of students’ responses to comprehension questions associated with either type of GRI provides
the teacher with information concerning specific
comprehension weaknesses. Based on the types
of questions most frequently missed by students,
the teacher can plan instruction to address students’ needs.
A commercially produced GRI designed to
measure students’ reading levels with narrative
text is the Johnston Informal Reading Inventory
(JIRI). The JIRI is a three-part assessment that
provides information about students’ knowledge
of antonyms, synonyms, and reading levels. The
See Also
Informal Reading Inventory
References
Cagney, Margaret. 1983. “Johnston Informal Reading
Inventory.” Journal of Reading 26:530–532.
Henk, William A., and Joan P. Helfeldt. 1985. “The
Group Reading Inventory in the Social Studies
Classroom.” Social Education 49:224–227.
McWilliams, Lana, and Thomas A. Rakes. 1980.
“Assessing Reading Skills in Science.” Science and
Children 18:21–22.
216
H
The Handbook of
Reading Research
For example, work in neurobiology is included
in Volume III, despite the fact that a relatively
small volume of research on it has occurred. The
topics across all volumes reflect a broadening of
the scope of problems being studied by reading
researchers.
The reviews in The HRR are interpretive and
evidence-driven. Experts in the field are selected
to produce each review. The reviews combine
historical analyses of research, syntheses of current research, and conclusions about future directions for research. Authors put their reviews
in context, relating them to earlier reviews and
making them relevant for future—and past—
research.
Volume III includes two new types of reviews,
methodological and geographic. Ten reviews of research methodologies are included to highlight
the increasing importance of methodology in the
conduct and interpretation of reading research.
Because of the increasing emphasis on international issues in reading research, five reviews relating to specific geographic regions were also included. The ten essays on methodology have been
reprinted in a separate volume (Kamil et al., 2002).
All authors and editors of Volume III have
contributed their honoraria and royalties to a research fund administered by the National Reading Conference to promote research in international literacy issues. The HRR is a primary
source of information about the current state of
knowledge about reading research. It provides
background on almost all of the currently important topics in reading and serves as an entry
point for more detailed research.
Michael L. Kamil
The Handbook of Reading Research (HRR) is a
multivolume collection of reviews of reading research compiled by experts in each of the represented specialties. There have been three volumes
published, in 1984, 1991, and 2000, respectively. A
fourth volume is in production. The three published volumes contain a total of 107 articles authored or coauthored by 189 researchers, for
nearly 3,000 pages in all. Although each volume is
only slightly different in length, over the course of
their publication the number of articles almost
doubled from Volume 1 to Volume III. The number of authors and coauthors has more than doubled, from forty in Volume I to eighty-seven in
Volume III. These increases seem to be representative of the increasing complexity and collaborative style of reading research.
The amount of literature on reading research
is enormous, consisting of more than 100,000
published journal articles. To make sense of this
wealth of information, systematic reviews of this
literature are required. Each of the three handbook volumes represents an attempt to characterize the state of knowledge in reading research
at a given point in time, realizing that not all topics can be reviewed in each volume. Topics were
chosen for each volume because they were representative of published literature to date. For Volumes II and III, the topics were chosen to highlight those areas of reading research that had
accumulated substantial new material since the
prior review.
Topics range from early and emergent literacy
to adult and workplace literacy. They include research in historical issues, basic processes, applications, and policy. Volume IV will follow a similar plan. Emerging trends are also highlighted.
References
Barr, Rebecca, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal,
and P. David Pearson, eds. 1991. Handbook of
217
The Head Start Program
Reading Research, Volume II. New York: Longman.
Reprinted in 1996, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kamil, M., P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr,
eds. 2000. Handbook of Reading Research, Volume
III. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
———. 2002. Methods of Literacy Research: The
Methodology Chapters from the Handbook of
Reading Research Volume III. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Mosenthal, P., P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, and M. Kamil,
eds. 2002. Methods of Literacy Research: The
Methodology Chapters from the Handbook of
Reading Research Volume IV. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Pearson, P. D., R. Barr, M. Kamil, and P. Mosenthal,
eds. 1984. Handbook of Reading Research. New
York: Longman. Reprinted in 1984, Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
The Head Start Program
Head Start is a comprehensive services program
for low-income children from birth to age five
and their families. Its goal is to foster the healthy
development of the whole child, which includes
social-emotional, cognitive, language, and physical development. To achieve these goals, program
services are individualized and include education; medical, dental, and mental health; and nutrition. A basic element of program philosophy is
the idea that parents are the primary educators,
nurturers, and advocates of their children. Consequently, Head Start has a strong commitment
to partnering with parents to enhance the child’s
development.
Head Start was initiated in 1965 as a part of the
federal government’s War on Poverty. It started as
a summer program serving 561,000 children and
costing $96.4 million and grew slowly until the
1990s. In that decade, the program expanded in
cost from $1.5 billion to nearly $5 billion. In fiscal year 2000, it served 857,664 children and was
funded at $5,266,211,000. Since its inception,
Head Start has touched the lives of 19,397,000
children (Head Start Bureau, 2001).
To guide the implementation of Head Start
services, this nationally operated program has instituted the Head Start Program Performance
Standards. The objective of the education activities is to provide each child with a safe, nurturing,
stimulating, enjoyable, and secure environment
to help that child gain the skills and confidence
necessary to succeed in Head Start, in school, and
Children participating in a Head Start program
(Laura Dwight)
in life (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, 1996). The Head Start curriculum definition states that teachers must set goals for children’s development and learning, outline the experiences children need to accomplish these
goals, specify the behaviors of adults that will allow these goals to be met, and supply the materials and equipment that support the goals. In the
areas of cognitive and language development,
these standards require a program that shows a
balance between child-initiated and teacher-directed activities, uses a variety of strategies and
approaches, encourages children’s self-expression
and interaction with one another and with adults,
and supports literacy and numeracy activities.
Head Start staff must assess the child at the beginning of the year, at some time during the year,
and at the end of the year and must use these data
to plan the program, individualize the program
for the child, and judge the achieved outcomes.
Since 1965, when Head Start began, several
national studies have assessed its success. A
218
Heritage-Language Development
Start Program Quality and Outcomes. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Administration on Children, Youth and
Families.
meta-analysis of these studies (Hubbell, 1983)
reported that Head Start children showed shortterm gains on intelligence measures and performed better than non–Head Start children
from similar socioeconomic groups. Some studies showed that these gains were maintained into
elementary school, but some did not. In general,
Head Start graduates performed better on
teacher ratings, retention in grade, and assignment to special education.
The current results of an ongoing study, the
Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES)
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration on Children, Youth and Families,
2000) define more clearly the cognitive skills of
Head Start children as they make their transition
to kindergarten. For example, Head Start children could tell their name and age, identify ten
basic colors by name, count four objects, show
the front cover of a storybook and open it to start
reading, and answer simple factual questions
about a story read to them. Head Start children
showed significant growth in their vocabularies
over the Head Start year. In the year before starting kindergarten, about 24 percent scored close
to or above the national mean in the fall, whereas
34 percent did so in the spring, showing a 40percent increase in those scoring at or above the
mean. Nevertheless, a typical Head Start child, in
the spring before kindergarten, could not tell his
or her address, identify most letters of the alphabet, or understand that a reader goes from left to
right and top to bottom when reading English
text. Finally, Head Start graduates’ improvement
in kindergarten exceeded the growth of typical
kindergartners, suggesting that the program does
prepare children in many ways to succeed in
school.
Lorelei R. Brush
Heritage-Language Development
Heritage languages are the home or ancestral
languages of certain immigrant or indigenous
groups of people. A “heritage language” may also
be called a “first language,” “native language,” or
“mother tongue” when the language is indeed
the person’s first-learned language. A “heritage
language” may also be referred to as a “minority
language,” “ethnic language,” or “ancestral language” when the target language is associated
with a person’s heritage but is not necessarily the
individual’s first-learned language or the language used in the home. Thus, target language
groups in heritage-language development studies vary considerably in terms of their historical
and cultural backgrounds and their levels of heritage-language proficiency (Cummins, 1983).
Heritage-language development studies have
typically been conducted within the contexts of
minority education, bilingualism (see Bilingualism), and language maintenance, language shift,
or language revitalization.
Heritage-Language Development:
Academic and Personal Benefits
A growing number of minority-education studies have argued for the importance and merits of
active school involvement in the development of
heritage languages. These arguments are based
on empirical evidence that language-minority
students who preserve their own language and
culture as well as their distinct ethnic identity
have strong pride in their heritage, succeed in
mainstream school and society, and have satisfying communication with their family members.
For example, extensive empirical research on
heritage-language development conducted in
Canada suggests that the development of heritage-language children’s first language enhances
their learning of the dominant nonheritage language and their overall academic achievement
(Cummins, 1991). According to Cummins’s “interdependence hypothesis,” one’s academic literacy skills in L1 (first language) and L2 (second
language) are interrelated because they derive
from the same underlying cognitive proficiency,
See Also
The Even Start Family Literacy Program
References
Head Start Bureau. 2001. 2001 Head Start Fact Sheet.
Washington, DC: Head Start Bureau.
Hubbell, Ruth. 1983. A Review of Head Start Research
Since 1970. Washington, DC: CSR.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
1996. “Head Start Program Performance
Standards.” 45 CFR 1304, Federal Register 61, no.
215 (November 5):57186–57227.
———. 2000. FACES Findings: New Research on Head
219
Heritage-Language Development
Class of Vietnamese children learning to read Vietnamese (Elizabeth Crews)
guage policy: a subtractive policy of language assimilatio