Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2017). Lenses on Reading (3rd ed.). Guilford Publications, Inc..
Chapt 4
Constructivist Lenses (1920s–Present)Questions to Consider before reading • What is Constructivism?• What is Inquiry Learning, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Schema Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Transactional/Reader Response Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What are Psycholinguistic Theory and Whole Language Theory, and how are they reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Metacognitive Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?CONSTRUCTIVISM: THE GENERAL CONCEPTIn approximately the same time period that Behaviorism was develop-ing and impacting the American educational system, Constructivism was also influencing American educators. Constructivism is a theory of learning that emphasizes the active construction of knowledge by individuals (Gunning, 2010). From a constructivist viewpoint, learn-ing occurs when individuals integrate new knowledge with existing
knowledge. In this theoretical perspective, the integration of new knowl-edge with existing knowledge can only occur when the learner is actively engaged in the learning process. In addition to presenting learning as a by-product of active mentalengagement, Constructivism views learning as a natural and ongoing state of mind. Christie, Enz, and Vukelich (1997) shared the words of Frank Smith (1971), a famous proponent of the Constructivism Model, to explain this aspect of Constructivism: “Learning is not an occasional event, to be stimulated, provoked, or reinforced. Learning is what the brain does naturally, continually” (p. 7). In addition to this description of the learner as an active, naturalbuilder of knowledge, Constructivism has three other major compo-nents. First, in contrast to the behaviorist view that learning is observ-able, Constructivism holds that learning takes place through internal mechanisms that are often unobservable to the external viewer. Thus, in Constructivism, learning can often take place without any external, noticeable indicators. Second, in the constructivist perspective, learning often results from a hypothesis-testing experience by the individual. For example, a child might not know what a word is when she is reading. According to the constructivist view, she may make a guess (a hypoth-esis) as to what the word is. She will try the word. If the sentence makes sense with that word—that is, if her hypothesis proves to be correct—she will keep reading. If the sentence does not make sense—that is, if her hypothesis is incorrect—she will revise her hypothesis and try another word. Thus, hypothesis testing is a central component of Con-structivist Theory. Third, according to Constructivism, learning results from a process known as “inferencing.” Inferencing is the process of filling in gaps when a person is trying to comprehend written and/or oral language. It is also known as “reading between the lines.” Any-time a reader figures out something that is not explicitly stated in the text, he or she is making an inference. Constructivism has been applied directly to the study of reading as an explanation of the way in which readers construct messages, or comprehend, during the reading process (Temple, Ogle, Crawford, & Freppon, 2011). Renzulli (2006) described the types of learning activities typically recommended by those who take a constructivist stance:The type of learning advocated by these theorists can be summarized as knowledge and skill acquisition gained from investigative and creative activities that are characterized by three requirements. First, there is a personalization of the topic or problem—the students are doing the work
because they want to. Second, students are using methods of investigation or creative production that approximate the modus operandi of the prac-ticing professional, even if the methodology is at a more junior level than that used by adult researchers, filmmakers, or business entrepreneurs. Third, the work is always geared toward the production of a product or service that is intended to have an impact on a particular audience. The information (content) and the skills (process) that are the substance of inductive learning situations are based on need-to-know and need-to-do requirements. (p. 230)Constructivism, and its application to the field of reading, hasdeveloped as a result of the efforts of a wide variety of educators and psychologists. In this chapter, we note the contributions of several of the most historically prominent, including Dewey (1916), Bartlett (1932), Goodman (1967), Smith (1971), Flavell (1976), Brown (1978), Rosen-blatt (1978), Pressley (2000), Anderson and Pearson (1984), and Guth-rie (2004). However, before proceeding, it is important to note that there is a branch of Constructivism known as Social Constructivism (see Chapter 8) that emphasizes the social aspects of learning. Due to the large scope of both of these topics, and because each of these per-spectives emerged at different points in history, the two are treated in separate chapters in this text.INQUIRY LEARNINGJohn Dewey (1859–1952) was one of the first American constructivists. His work has had a profound influence on American education since the early 1900s, and especially from the 1920s to the 1950s (Morrow, 2012). When Behaviorism was at its peak during the 1950s, Dewey’s influence was less apparent. However, beginning in the 1960s, Dewey’s work was reevaluated and had a growing impact. The key elements of his writings are still affecting education in the 21st century (Morrow, 2012). Dewey’s notion of learning was based on the Unfoldment Theory asdeveloped by Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel, previously described in Chapter 2. Incorporating the work of these classic philosophers and edu-cators, Dewey emphasized the growth of the individual, the importance of the environment, and the role of the teacher in students’ learning. Dewey’s philosophy of education became known as Inquiry Learning. Inquiry Learning was designed, first and foremost, to produce involved
John Dewey (1859–1952). John Dewey Photograph Collection, Special Collections Research Center, Morris Library, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.citizens capable of successfully participating in and contributing to a democratic society. With that goal in mind, the curriculum emphasizes the development of students’ cognitive abilities, such as reasoning and decision making (Cobb & Kallus, 2011). Consistent with a constructivist perspective, Inquiry Learningalso emphasizes a problem-based learning approach to education, cen-tral to which was motivating learner’s interest (Cobb & Kallus, 2011). Inquiry Learning suggests that to optimize learning, students need to formulate hypotheses, collect data to test hypotheses, draw conclusions, and reflect on the original problem and the thinking processes needed to solve it. Dewey criticized competition in education and instead pro-moted collaboration, cooperation, and use of a democratic style in edu-cation. Dewey opened an experimental school based on inquiry learn-ing at the University of Chicago. There he created the “Activity Cur-riculum” grounded in his beliefs. According to seminal historian Nila Banton Smith (1986), the curriculum was designed to provide students with interesting experiences that were likely to promote their curios-ity. Once their curiosities were stimulated, students were encouraged to identify, investigate, and solve problems. The problem-based learn-ing experiences were conducted in small, social groups. The curriculum encouraged the ongoing process of problem-based learning; after the students solved one problem, they were encouraged to identify another one. Dewey believed that this process of education would best prepare
students for the real-world, adult activities needed to support a demo-cratic society. Many components of high-quality education have been drawn fromDewey’s work. These include emphases on the role of the environment in education, problem-based learning, and social collaboration. The centrality of motivation in learning was also emphasized in Dewey’s teachings. Dewey was a constructivist because he saw that, although it is the educator’s job to create an enticing curriculum and a supportive, motivating environment in the classroom, in the end it is the student who must actively create his or her own learning. Furthermore, Inquiry Learning views learning as an internal, not necessarily observable, phe-nomenon. Dewey’s Activity Curriculum emphasized hypothesis test-ing and inferencing, two additional characteristics of a constructivist approach to learning.Teacher’s Anecdote: Inquiry LearningIn my experience, literature circles have been the most effective col-laboration and active learning tools in reading. In my classroom we are currently reading The War with Grandpa and The Chalkbox Kid in literature circles. All of my students, even the weakest readers, have been successful in the literature circles. By choosing their own vocabu-lary, asking their own thought-provoking questions, and highlighting the passages that are most meaningful to them, my students construct their own knowledge and play an active role in what they extrapolate from the texts. They have been motivated to read and to perform their jobs well so that their groups are successful. Dewey believed that solving problems that arise in groups helpsstudents to become more effective problem solvers in other areas. At the end of our literature circles each day, students evaluate their groups on their work habits and skills. They discuss the changes that they must make in order for their group to be more successful next time. Dewey’s theories of collaboration and problem-based learningalso relate to conflict resolution. In my classroom we have a social problem-solving meeting once a week. At these meetings we all sit in a circle for half an hour and collaborate to solve issues or problems that arise on the playground or in the classroom. These meetings evoke a sense of community and cooperation between classmates. Each child shares his or her feelings about a single problem, and we brainstorm the most effective way to solve it. —MiChelle hilKe, third-grade teacher
SCHEMA THEORYSchema Theory is another constructivist theory. In general, the the-ory strives to explain how knowledge is created and used by learners. According to Schema Theory, people organize everything they know into schemata, or knowledge structures (Gunning, 2010). People have schemata for everything in their lives including people, places, things, language, processes, and skills. For example, people have schemata for their grandmothers (everything they know about their grandmothers) and going to restaurants (everything they know about all the restau-rants they have ever visited and learned about) and dogs (everything they know about dogs). Their schemata for language include everything they know about their language(s), and their schemata for cooking include everything they know about cooking. An important characteristic of Schema Theory is that everyone’sschemata are individualized (Cobb & Kallus, 2011). A person who cooks a great deal will have a much more elaborated schema for cook-ing than someone who rarely cooks. A sailor will have a much differ-ent schema for boats than someone who has never sailed. According to Schema Theory, these differences in existing schemata greatly influence learning. Schema Theory suggests that the more elaborated an individ-ual’s schema for any topic (e.g., cooking, boating, or dogs), the more easily he or she will be able to learn new information in that topic area. The theory also suggests that without existing schemata it is very hard to learn new information on a topic. Another important characteristic of Schema Theory is that knowl-edge structures are pliant and expandable (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012). For example, even if a child has only eaten at “fast-food” restaurants, just one fine dining experience will quickly cause his or her schema for restaurants to be elaborated. So too for a child who has only been exposed to small dogs; if she or he meets a Great Dane, her or his dog schema will rapidly change to accommodate this new knowledge. Thus, Schema Theory suggests that existing knowledge structures are con-stantly changing. Schema Theory articulates three processes through which knowl-edge structures change: accretation, tuning, and restructuring (Wid-mayer, 2004). In accretation, learners take in new information but have no need to change existing schemata (e.g., a gardener who is familiar with many types of flowers learns of a new variety). In tuning, an exist-ing schema is modified to incorporate new information (e.g., a child
who has only seen small pleasure boats sees an oil tanker). In restructur-ing, learners must create a new schema because the old one is no longer sufficient (e.g., a person who has held a stereotype abandons it as a result of a new experience). Bartlett (1932) has been credited with the creation of the term“schema” as we use it today in education and with the initial, general application of that term to the field of reading. Anderson and Pearson (1984) wrote a seminal chapter about the application of Schema Theory to the reading process and its implications for reading instruction. In their writing, Anderson and Pearson asserted that, in addition to hav-ing schemata for content (e.g., people, places, and things), readers have schemata for reading processes (e.g., decoding, skimming, inferencing, and summarizing) and for different types of text structures (e.g., nar-rative texts, expository texts). They argued that differences in readers’ schemata in these realms are related to differences in comprehension. For example, a reader who has an elaborate schema for hiking will comprehend a text on that topic much differently than someone who has a very limited schema on hiking. Similarly, how well developed readers’ schemata are in the areas of skills and text structures will also influence their reading comprehension. Likewise, without adequate existing schemata regarding the topic of the text, the skills needed to read the text, and the structure of the text, reading comprehension will not occur. Schema Theory has most influenced reading instruction by high-lighting the central role of existing knowledge (schemata) in processing new knowledge (Cobb & Kallus, 2010). Now that educators understand how important existing knowledge is to the acquisition of new knowl-edge, many classroom teachers have become adept at building and acti-vating students’ background knowledge (schemata) prior to reading texts with students. Instructional practices such as webbing, vocabu-lary activities, anticipation guides, and previewing all build and activate students’ schemata prior to reading. Instruction related to the reading process and text structures are also valuable in developing students’ schemata. Schema Theory is consistent with a constructivist perspectivebecause of its emphasis on the central role of activity in the learning and reading processes. In Schema Theory, students use their existing schemata for language and content to assist with new reading and learn-ing experiences. Furthermore, they actively construct and revise their schemata as they read and learn.
A recent experience comes to mind when discussing Constructivism and Schema Theory. When introducing stories to my students, I always ask about any experiences that they may have that are related to the story. I feel this helps them relate to the story, and it also allows me to see what they know about the story topic. In this way, I can tell which concepts need to be further developed before we start reading. In this case we were going to read a story called “Let’s Go Fish-ing.” I started by telling my students that the story was about a little girl who lived on a farm and liked to go fishing in the creek there. My students are inner-city children, most of whom are from low socio-economic backgrounds. None of them knew exactly what a “creek” was, and they called out words such as pond, lake, ocean, and sea. Also, most of them had not had any personal experiences of going to a farm or going fishing. Some of them thought that putting a stick in the water was equivalent to fishing. On the other hand, the few students who had actually fished before could tell the class about the experience and even used words such as bait, hook, and reeling in a fish. As we progressed in the lesson and I tried to build the students’ schemata in these areas, I found that those students who had really been to farms and those who had really been fishing seemed more interested in the story and were better able to engage in the conversations about it. They seemed to better understand it. The only exception to this was that in some cases the children seemed to confuse their real experiences with the story experience. I see now that they were trying to integrate the new information from the story with their already existing schemata on the topics.—Johannah RogeRs, first-grade teacherI based my introduction of the book Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl on Schema Theory. My students had learned about World War II in history class. When I introduced the book, the class and I created a web depicting their background knowledge. One area of the web was World War II. We discussed what took place in Europe. We discussed what happened to the Jewish people living in countries that were overtaken by the Germans. Another area of the web was for friends and families. We discussed the importance of both, and the types of interactions we have with them. Allowance and budget were also discussed and added to the web. Each of these topics helped the students create an idea of whatAnne Frank was going to go through in the book. The students pre-dicted what they thought the book was going to be about based on
what they knew about the time period. The students would look back at the web whenever we read something in the book that was con-nected to a topic from the web. This lesson reflected the use of Schema Theory because the students activated their prior knowledge before reading. The students then connected what they learned from the book to what they had previously known. —JennifeR Witt, sixth-grade teacherTRANSACTIONAL/READER RESPONSE THEORYLouise Rosenblatt (1978) further extended the application of Schema Theory to the field of reading. Based on the idea that every individual is unique with regard to what constitutes his or her schema in any particu-lar area, Rosenblatt argued that every reading experience is therefore unique to each individual as well. The notion that all readers have indi-vidualized reading experiences because each reader has unique back-ground schemata forms the cornerstone of Rosenblatt’s Transactional/ Reader Response Theory. As an example of the main idea of this the-ory, imagine that two children are reading the same story about migrant farm workers. Juan has never known anyone who works on a farm, nor has he ever known any migrant workers. In contrast, Jose is quite familiar with the lives of migrant farm workers; both his parents are migrant workers. Rosenblatt’s Transactional/Reader Response Theory states that Jose and Juan will have different reading responses to the migrant farm worker story as a result of the differences in the amount and kinds of background schemata each possesses.Louise Rosenblatt (1904–2005).
Rosenblatt’s work also adds the distinction of two kinds of responsesthat all readers have to texts. These are known as “efferent responses” and “aesthetic responses.” Efferent responses are fact-oriented. Aes-thetic responses are personally and emotionally based. Hennings (2000) elaborated on the differences between the two:Efferent meaning-making requires readers to personally disengage when reading, to obtain facts. Important in efferent reading response is what remains after the reading—the understanding acquired, the inferences made, the conclusions developed, the opinions generated. In contrast, aes-thetic meaning-making is subjective and personal. . . . What readers are “living through”—what they see, hear, and feel—as they interact with the text is important. Rosenblatt calls this process of selecting ideas, sensa-tions, feelings, and images and making something unique and personal with them “the literary evocation.” Readers who assume an aesthetic stance connect emotionally with the story or poem they are reading to become as one with it. They are—in the words of Judith Langer (1995)—envisioning “text worlds in the mind.” (p. 131)With regard to the classroom implications of Transactional/ReaderResponse Theory, we must remember the different purposes of read-ing informational texts and literature when designing lessons for our students. When designing lessons around expository text, we focus on obtaining efferent responses from our students. In contrast, we empha-size our children’s aesthetic responses to the texts when designing lessons using literature. One method of evoking aesthetic responses in children is to elicit connections between texts and their own lives. Transactional/ Reading Response Theory is constructivist in nature because it empha-sizes the active role of the reader in meaning making.Teacher’s Anecdote: Transactional/Reader Response TheoryDuring my planning of literature-based lessons, I often focus on incor-porating questions that encourage aesthetic responses. I find that my students really connect to literature more when I ask them questions revolving around their opinion or questions that require them to step into a character’s shoes. Recently, I read a story to my class and fol-lowed up with an open-ended question that required my students to connect emotionally to the main character and the story’s conflict. The story was about a Korean girl from the 1800s who was forced to dis-guise herself as a boy in order to go to school and earn an education.
I followed up the reading with a question that asked my students whether they would give up their identity and live in secret in order to attend school. It was interesting to see the different responses, espe-cially the vast differences in responses between the girls and boys in my class. The girls were attached to the main character and idolized her for her strength and courage, whereas some boys thought it was wrong for the main character to lie and deceive in order to receive an education. The individual responses encouraged a connection to the literature, inevitably promoting a better understanding of the text. —JessiCa gonCalves, fourth-grade teacherPSYCHOLINGUISTIC THEORY AND WHOLE LANGUAGE THEORYPsycholinguistic Theory is another theory that can easily be classified as constructivist in nature. The New Oxford American Dictionary (Ste-venson & Lindberg, 2010) defines psycholinguistics as “the study of the relationships between linguistic behavior and psychological processes, including the process of language acquisition” (p. 1409). At the core of the psycholinguistic perspective on reading (Good-man, 1967; Smith, 1971) is the assumption that reading is primarily a language process. A central component of the Psycholinguistic Theory of reading is that readers rely on language cueing systems to help them rap-idly read text. Although readers use multiple cueing systems, those most often cited in conjunction with Psycholinguistic Theory are the systems of syntactic, semantic, and graphophonic information. Syntactic cues are those related to the grammatical structure or syntax of the language that enable readers to predict the next words in the text. Semantic cues are those related to the meaning of the words and sentences that allow readers to predict the next words in the text. Graphophonic cues are those that are derived from the visual patterns of letters and words and their corresponding sounds that, again, allow readers to predict the next words in the text. According to Psycholinguistic Theory, after young children successfully, albeit unconsciously, internalize these cueing sys-tems in their oral language, they are able to use these cueing systems to guide their reading (Morrow, 2012). In addition to its emphasis on using language cueing systems toguide reading, Psycholinguistic Theory argues that readers use their knowledge about language, and the world in general, to drive their thinking as they engage in the reading process. The theory suggests
that as they read, readers make predictions about what the text will say based on their knowledge in these areas. If the text is consistent with a reader’s expectations, then reading proceeds easily and fluidly. If, how-ever, the text is inconsistent with the reader’s expectations, then the reading process will become slower and more laborious and the reader will need to decode the text word by word, and sometimes letter by let-ter (Goodman, 1967). Psycholinguistic Theory regards prediction as a key part of the read-ing process in which the reader makes and tests hypotheses as he or she reads. In this context, a hypothesis is what the reader thinks/predicts that the text will say. Psycholinguistic Theory advocates that readers test their hypotheses by attending to the first letters in words as they read. If the text matches their hypotheses, then reading proceeds quickly. If the text differs from the readers’ hypotheses, then the readers slow down and read from more of a text-driven, or “bottom-up,” stance. According to the psycholinguistic perspective, the use of prediction and hypothesis testing during reading occurs rapidly and unconsciously. Furthermore, these processes allow readers to progress quickly through texts by sam-pling words and comparing them to their predictions or hypotheses, rather than reading every word printed on the page. Proponents of Psy-cholinguistic Theory argue that such sampling aids rapid reading and stands in contrast to reading every word printed on the page, which would be cumbersome and slow for readers. Based on the perception of reading as a process of confirming and rejecting hypotheses founded on linguistic knowledge, Goodman (1967), in a seminal publication, described reading as a “psycholinguistic guessing game” in which the child attempts to reconstruct, in light of his or her own knowledge of language and of the world, what the author has to say. Adherents of Psycholinguistic Theory gain insights into the cueingsystems that readers use by analyzing their miscues. Miscues, a term coined by Goodman (1967), are a reader’s response to the text that differs from what the text actually says. Miscues are not just another name for what have traditionally been called “reading errors.” Good-man deliberately used the term “miscue” in an attempt to put a more positive light on the deviations that readers make from the actual text during the act of reading. According to Goodman, reading miscues can be examined to illuminate the reader’s thinking process during reading. As such, he referred to the examination of miscues as “windows” into a reader’s mind. In addition, Psycholinguistic Theory (1) emphasizes the use of authentic reading materials, rather than practice worksheets, for reading instruction; (2) encourages the use of texts written in natural
language, not phonetically constrained language, for beginning reading instruction; (3) provides the understanding that readers’ errors could be understood as information about their reading skills and processes, thus providing “windows into their minds”; (4) underscores the experience of reading as a language process; and (5) presents the developing reader as a person who is a reader rather than someone who would become reader. In 1971, Smith applied concepts from Psycholinguistic Theory tothe teaching of reading in his highly influential book Understanding Reading. Goodman’s (1967) and Smith’s (1971) writings laid the foun-dation for Whole Language Theory, a theory of literacy learning and instruction that has had a powerful impact on literacy education since the 1980s. From a content analysis of 64 professional articles related to Whole Language Theory, Bergeron (1990) composed this definition of Whole Language:Whole language is a concept that embodies both a philosophy of language development as well as the instructional approaches embedded within, and supportive of, that philosophy. This concept includes the use of real literature and writing in the context of meaningful, functional, and coop-erative experiences in order to develop students’ motivation and interest in the process of learning. (p. 319)Whole Language Theory is a philosophy about how children learn from which educators derive strategies for teaching. The philosophy encom-passes and extends Psycholinguistic Theory. Whole Language Theory suggests that reading, like oral language, is a natural process that chil-dren will acquire if they are immersed in high-quality literacy environ-ments and exposed to meaningful, authentic literacy experiences and high-quality literature. The theory is also based on the beliefs that lis-tening, speaking, reading, and writing are all interconnected and that advances in any one area will promote advances in the other areas. Whole Language Theory is a child-centered philosophy that borrows from and builds on the motivational aspects of Unfoldment Theory. Whole Language Theory is consistent with a wide range of instruc-tional strategies. Importantly, Whole Language Theory literacy instruc-tion uses authentic pieces of high-quality children’s literature rather than commercially prepared basal reading series as the primary materi-als for the language arts program. The literature is also used as a spring-board for activities in other content areas. A wide variety of genres of reading materials are housed in a literacy center. The classroom itself
is designed as a rich literacy environment. Center-based activities com-prise a large part of the school day. There are large blocks of time for reading and writing workshops. Most activities are designed to promote active, social interactions. A major objective of classrooms based on Whole Language Theory is the development of a child’s desire to read and write. Assessment is varied, ongoing, and growth-oriented, often using portfolio assessment and conferencing as major components of the process. Instruction based on Whole Language Theory can be implementedin many different ways, depending on the needs and interests of those involved. There is no one right way to create a Whole Language Theory program because one program cannot satisfy everyone’s needs. Whole Language Theory is a theory of how children learn language arts that holds strong implications for classroom practices. Additional instruc-tional strategies associated with Whole Language Theory are presented in the “Classroom Applications” section of this chapter.Teacher’s Anecdote: Psycholinguistic Theory and Whole Language TheoryIn one of my guided reading books, we were reading about the Special Olympics. Based on the cover of the leveled book, we had already made predictions about what the Special Olympics might be. The students began to individually read their guided books. Part of my assessment in guided reading instruction is to go around the table and tap the stu-dents on the shoulder to hear them read to me. While they are reading, I conduct a brief running record. During the reading, I came upon a child who always has a great deal of difficulty reading. When it was his turn to read, he correctly read words such as handicapped, wheelchair, and exceptional but could not read the words jumped or hurdled. Now I know what happened. In my book talk before the students started reading, I used the terms “handicapped,” “wheelchair,” and “excep-tionally challenged,” and we discussed the meaning of these terms. It is now evident to me that the child used that information to read these words in the story. I am assuming he also made a connection between the word wheelchair and the picture of the child in a wheelchair. I now understand why the child read the difficult words correctly but had trouble with the easier ones. Goodman’s theory helped me realize that this child had a prior sense of what was meaningful in the text, based on what we had discussed earlier in the group discussion. —daWn spRinitis, reading specialist
METACOGNITIVE THEORYMetacognition is the process of thinking about one’s own thinking. The concept of metacognition, when applied to the field of reading, contributes to a constructivist understanding of how reading compre-hension occurs, as well as to a body of knowledge regarding instruc-tional strategies that can be used to facilitate reading comprehension. Allen and Hancock (2008) wrote that “successful text comprehension involves metacognition—the active management of meaning creation through a process of mediation between reader, text, and context fac-tors” (p. 125). Flavell (1976) and Brown (1978) studied the development of chil-dren’s ability to be aware of and control their own cognitive processes, and introduced the general concept of metacognition in the mid-1970s (Baker, 2002). Interest in developing students’ metacognitive abilities in reading arose in response to Durkin’s (1978–1979) research, in which she argued that the technique teachers used most often to develop read-ing comprehension, the directed reading lesson, was not effective in promoting students’ ability to independently comprehend texts (Duffy, 2002). In traditional directed reading lessons, teachers introduce a read-ing selection to students, guide their reading of the selection, and then discuss the reading with them. This approach to reading instruction, though still popular and advocated in many basal reading series, often leaves students in a teacher-dependent state, offering them little in the way of tools that they can independently apply to facilitate their own reading comprehension. In response to Durkin’s (1978–1979) findings that presenteddirected reading lessons as lacking, educational researchers began to search for alternatives that they hoped would offer greater opportuni-ties for building students’ independent comprehension abilities (Duffy, 2002). The study of metacognition as a way of understanding the read-ing comprehension process and as an approach to reading comprehen-sion instruction was one outcome of this search (Duffy, 2002). Studying the topic of metacognition, researchers determined that proficient read-ers employ a number of metacognitive strategies during reading that help them understand the text (VanKeer & Vanderlinde, 2010). Van-Keer and Vanderlinde articulated:Cognitive strategies can be defined as mental and behavioral activities used to increase the likelihood of comprehending, such as rereading, activating background knowledge, and adjusting reading speed. . . . Metacognitive
strategies are self-monitoring and self-regulating activities, focusing on the process and product of reading. They include readers’ awareness of whether or not they comprehend what they read, their ability to judge the cognitive demands of a task, and their knowledge of when and how to employ specific cognitive strategies as a function of text difficulty, situ-ational constraints, and one’s own cognitive abilities. (pp. 33–34)Not only has research demonstrated the effective use of metacogni-tive strategies by good readers, it has also consistently shown that poor readers have far less metacognitive awareness than their higher achiev-ing peers and that young readers have less such awareness than older readers (Allen & Hancock, 2008). These findings have encouraged scholars to investigate the effectiveness of teaching all readers to master the metacognitive strategies used by excellent readers. This approach to comprehension instruction has become known by a number of terms including “metacognitive instruction,” “strategy instruction,” “direct explanation of strategies,” and “transactional strategy instruction.” For the purposes of our discussion, we will refer to this body of knowledge as metacognitive instruction. The goal of metacognitive instruction is to help readers becomemore aware of their own thinking during the reading process, which, presumably, should lead to increased text comprehension (VanKeer & Vanderlinde, 2010). During metacognitive instruction, educators pro-vide explicit instruction on the use of metacognitive techniques that stu-dents can apply during reading. Explicit instruction means that teachers attempt to be especially clear, organized, and detailed regarding the nature of the metacognitive strategy they are explaining, and when and how readers should apply that strategy during the reading experience. In addition to the central notion that metacognitive instructionmust be explicit is the idea that metacognitive instruction must take place through a gradual transfer, or “release,” of responsibility from the teacher to the student for application of the metacognitive strategy (Baker, 2002). In gradual transfer of responsibility, the instructional approach begins with the teacher’s explicit description of the metacogni-tive strategy, and then the modeling of how, when, and why the strategy can be used. The modeling often takes place through think-aloud meth-ods used by the teacher. The modeling phase is followed by a guided-use phase in which the teacher helps the students apply the strategy with teacher direction. Over a period of time, students gradually become able to independently initiate and use the target strategy. At this point, it can be said that the responsibility for that specific metacognitive tool
has been successfully transferred from the teacher to the student. Then, the teacher can begin instruction of another metacognitive strategy. Research has demonstrated that explicit strategy instruction can be an effective instructional tool for increasing students’ reading comprehen-sion (VanKeer & Vanderlinde, 2010). Metacognitive instruction reflects a constructivist perspectivebecause of its depiction of the readers’ active, internal cognitive engage-ment as central to the reading process. While metacognition has a social component in its initial phases of instruction, it is not classified as a form of Social Learning Theory because a focal goal of Metacogni-tive Theory is to help readers to independently employ these strategies. One teacher explains how she has used metacognitive instruction in her classroom teaching:Teacher’s Anecdote: MetacognitionWilliam Butler Yeats once said, “Education is not the filling of a pail but the lighting of a fire.” I have always felt drawn to this quote as it inspires me to be the best teacher I can be. My goal is to motivate my students to take control of their learning and achievement. Initially, I decided to become a reading specialist because I felt helpless when it came to facilitating my students with their reading. Now that I have completed my thesis on metacognition and comprehension skills, I feel equipped with the strategies and statistics to achieve this goal and ade-quately guide my students toward success. Often, students expect reading to come naturally. When it doesn’t,they become less motivated to read, especially since they believe they can obtain all their information and entertainment needs through other, less challenging media. Struggling students need to “buy into” the fact that reading growth is ongoing and that immediate success may not be achievable. Through repetition, construction, development, and encouragement, slowly my students come around and begin to employ the strategies. With this concerted effort, they begin to achieve small successes and to develop ownership of their own learning. Since implementing metacognitive instruction and practices in myclassroom, my students appear more focused and self-aware. The stu-dents seem actively engaged beyond the literal level. The metacognitive comprehension skills noticeably build confidence and help dependent readers become more independent. Students make the switch from being disengaged to seeing themselves as learners who embrace the learning process.
After reviewing different metacognitive strategies, and providingmodeling and practice, I present the students a laminated bookmark with reminders of these strategies. Even my most challenged read-ers embrace the strategies and frequently can be seen referring to the bookmark. As the year goes on, the readers become cognizant of self-challenges and reading challenges and now know how to describe and discuss these challenges and how to ask for focused help. —niCole Mattivi, eighth-grade English teacherCLASSROOM APPLICATIONSConstructivism, based on Dewey’s foundational work, has had a powerful impact both on how the reading process is understood and how reading instruction is implemented in classrooms. As a result of Constructivism, educators can view the reading process as one in which the reader constructs his or her own messages while reading. The work of Bartlett (1932) and Anderson and Pearson (1984) helps us understand the ways in which already existing knowledge (organized as schemata) influences the construction of these messages (compre-hension). Similarly, the work of Rosenblatt (1978) helps us understand the ways in which everyone constructs individualized interpretations, based on the uniqueness of their personal schemata, during reading. Psycholinguistic Theory and Whole Language Theory strengthen our awareness of the role of language during the reading process. Meta-cognitive Theory further extends our understanding of the message construction process, or comprehension, by elaborating on the ways in which proficient readers mentally engage with a text. Each of these constructivist theories has generated a number of classroom practices consistent with its interpretation of the importance of Constructivism in the learning experience. Dewey’s original conceptualization of Constructivism has influ-enced reading practices in the classroom by laying the foundation for the understanding of learning as a constructivist experience. When teachers implement practices consistent with the belief that their students’ learn-ing is related to their ability to construct knowledge independently and internally, they are using instructional approaches grounded in Dew-ey’s work. Dewey was also famous for advocating the importance of problem solving in learning and for using small groups of students to stimulate social learning during problem-solving learning experiences. When classroom teachers immerse students in problems-based learning
situations and in problems-based learning small-group experiences, they are using instructional approaches based on Dewey’s work. The work of Anderson and Pearson (1984) on Schema Theory ismost famous for generating the classroom practices of brainstorming and webbing. In brainstorming, teachers guide students through activi-ties in which they aim to get students, first, to activate any background information (schemata) they have on a topic, and second, to extend their already existing background knowledge on the topic. Brainstorm-ing activities are based on the premise that reading comprehension will improve when students’ schemata are activated and strengthened prior to reading. When implementing these activities, teachers traditionally gather students into a group and then have them openly “brainstorm” on the topic, which means to suggest any related ideas to the topic. Teachers then write the students’ ideas on a blackboard, whiteboard, or easel for the group to see and discuss. Webbing is a more organized form of brainstorming. In contrast tobrainstorming, in which student-generated ideas are written down with-out categorization, in webbing, student-generated ideas are organized into categories, sometimes hierarchically, by the teacher as he or she records them. In a semantic web activity, for example, the teacher uses a large sheet of chart paper to draw a diagram with his or her students. In the center of the chart paper, the teacher draws a circle and prints the key concept to be discussed, for example, “beach.” The teacher thenasks the students to generate ideas they associate with the beach, such as “shells,” “waves,” “sun,” “suntan lotion,” “surfing,” and “umbrellas.” The teacher and students organize these ideas into categories as they are generated, such as “things that people bring to the beach,” “things that people do at the beach,” and “things that are part of nature at the beach.” One popular form of webbing is the KWL approach. In this activ-ity, prior to reading, teachers ask students to generate what they already know (K) about a topic and what they would like to know about it (W). Following reading, students complete the chart by discussing what they learned (L) as a result of their reading. As stated above, all of these pop-ular classroom activities are based on the belief that children’s knowl-edge construction processes can be facilitated by learning experiences that activate existing schemata and build new schemata prior to the reading of texts. Rosenblatt’s (1978) Transactional/Reader Response Theory alsohas significant implications for classroom practice. Rosenblatt’s the-ory draws attention to the different types of responses (efferent and
aesthetic) that readers can have during the reading experience and to the ways in which readers’ schemata ultimately provide each reader with an individualized interpretation of the text. Rosenblatt’s work has also helped educators appreciate the importance of designing learning activi-ties that elicit a variety of individual efferent and aesthetic responses to reading. As a result of Rosenblatt’s writings, it is now common for teachers tocreate follow-up activities to reading that encourage a wide range of cre-ative and individualized responses. For example, postreading activities that stimulate a broad spectrum of reading responses include writing in literature response journals, talking about books in literature response groups, readers’ theater, storytelling, puppetry, videotaping, dioramas, bookmaking, story boxes, story maps, story quilts, and digital storytell-ing. In each of these activities, children’s individual responses to read-ing, both efferent and aesthetic, are clarified and elaborated. One popular activity based on Rosenblatt’s Transactional/ReaderResponse Theory is often called “Making Connections.” As described by L’Allier and Elish-Piper (2007), this strategy draws students’ atten-tion to the use of three different types of connections during reading. The first type of connection is the “text-to-self” connection. Here read-ers are helped to attend to the ways in which the story or passage is related to the reader’s personal life. The second type of connection is the “text-to-text” connection. In this area, readers are helped to make connections between the text that they are currently reading and oth-ers that they have read in the past. The third type of connection is the “text-to-world” connection. In this activity, readers focus on the rela-tionships between what they are reading and the world at large. When first using this activity, teachers often present it as a teacher-directed lesson. After practice, however, students can be helped to independently make and record these connections during reading. Again, the founda-tional premise in this activity is that students’ comprehension of text will be enhanced as the links between what they are reading and what they already know are underscored. Like Schema Theory and Transactional/Reader Response Theory,Psycholinguistic Theory and Whole Language Theory have deeply influenced classroom practices regarding literacy learning. The applica-tion of Psycholinguistic Theory in the classroom is reflected in the use of running records during guided reading lessons. In guided reading lessons, teachers meet with small groups of students who have simi-lar levels of reading skill and provide them with reading texts that are matched to their level of reading achievement. As the guided reading
session progresses, and after all students have become familiar with the text and have read it both silently and aloud as a part of the group, stu-dents are asked to read aloud individually. At this point, the teacher may conduct a “running record” of the child’s oral reading during which the teacher records the types of errors, or “miscues,” that the student makes. As Psycholinguistics Theory suggests, these miscues are viewed as “windows into the student’s mind” that help the teacher determine what types of cuing systems the student is relying on during the reading experience. Running records are also used during Reading Recovery les-sons with at-risk students. Additionally, a Psycholinguistic Theory ori-entation is observable in the classroom when teachers use cues based on prompts such as “Does that make sense?” during students’ oral reading. As with Psycholinguistic Theory, aspects of Whole Language The-ory are visible in many classrooms. Whole Language Theory is associ-ated with all the following instructional strategies:• Use of real, high-quality literature for literacy learning. • Use of real, meaningful contexts for literacy activities. • Child-centered instruction based on children’s interests. • Heavy emphasis on student choice. • Use of thematic instruction. • Use of active, social learning experiences. • Use of “teachable moments.” • Use of a variety of grouping systems. • Use of large blocks of time for integrated literacy activities. • Use of alternative systems of assessment, such as portfolio assess-ment.• Use of centers in the classroom. As a result of the large number of instructional strategies withwhich Whole Language Theory is associated, it is impossible for this text to adequately cover the application of this topic to the classroom. Instead, one aspect of Whole Language Theory instruction, thematic instruction, has been chosen to provide some insight into how this theo-retical orientation influences literacy instruction. Thematic instruction is a form of instruction that is integratedthrough the use of a unifying concept or theme. Morrow (2012) wrote: “Each new unit of instruction offers specific language experiences thatexpand vocabulary and develop syntax, pronunciation, and the ability to understand others and be understood. These experiences should incor-porate all content areas and make use of the senses” (p. 118). Morrow
stated that thematic units vary but are unified by their goal of providing literacy instruction in interesting and authentic contexts. Morrow then presented three types of thematic units that are popular. The first type is organized around a literacy genre or a particular author. For example, the classroom teacher might prepare a thematic unit on fairy tales or on the author, Tomie dePaola. In this type of unit, the teacher shares many examples of literature from the chosen genre or author and prepares les-sons and activities that use reading and writing to further explore the genre or author. The second type of popular thematic unit identifies a theme that has a science or social studies thrust. Reading materials related to thattheme are then used as the basis of many lessons. Morrow (2012) wrote: “For example, if the theme was the farm and one of the stories used in the unit was The Little Red Hen, some related activities might be to bake some bread, role-play the story, or write another version of the story in which the animals are all helpful in making the bread” (p. 16). The third type of popular thematic unit uses a science or socialstudies topic and consciously integrates literacy into all content-area les-sons, including music, art, play, math, social studies, and science. Many selections of children’s literature are used as a major part of the unit; however, the literature itself does not drive the unit—the topic of the unit is the main focus. In this type of unit, the classroom centers are filled with materials that relate to the topic, including literacy materials to encourage reading and writing. Reading and writing are purpose-fully incorporated into all science and social studies lessons. Skills are taught when they seem appropriate—for example, in the unit on the farm, when the class hatches baby chicks in an incubator, journals may be kept on the progress of the chicks, and the digraph “ch” could be emphasized. Unit topics are incorporated into the entire school day in all content areas. Topics may be predetermined by the teacher, selected by the children and teacher together, or decided on spontaneously based on something of interest that occurs in the school, in someone’s home, or in the world. It is hoped that these brief descriptions illustrate the significantimpact that the use of thematic units can have in the classroom. Addi-tionally, it is important to remember that the use of thematic units is just one of many aspects of Whole Language Theory instruction that can be implemented in the classroom. Metacognition is another theory that can be used to influence liter-acy instruction in the classroom. Metacognitive instruction focuses on the readers’ processes while engaged in the task of reading. The goal of
metacognitive instruction is to help students become more aware of their own thinking during the reading experience. Metacognitive instruction is also designed to promote students’ independent use of metacognitive strategies during the reading experience. The keys to effective metacog-nitive instruction are that the teacher is very explicit about when and how any particular metacognitive strategy is implemented, and that the teacher uses a gradual release of responsibility to transition the student from being dependent on the teacher to being independent. An example of metacognitive instruction is teaching students tomonitor whether or not they are comprehending. The teacher can begin the lesson by explaining to students that good readers monitor whether or not they are understanding what they are reading, and if good read-ers realize that they are not comprehending the text, they employ “fix-up” strategies to correct the problem. The teacher can then explain why it is important to monitor whether they are understanding what they are reading and why they should employ fix-up strategies if they are not understanding what they are reading. Following this explanation, the teacher can explain that this strategy (i.e., comprehension monitoring) should be used whenever students read, no matter what they are read-ing. After the teacher has fully explained the target strategy and why and when it should be used, she or he can progress to modeling the use of the strategy. Modeling a strategy is based on the use of “think-alouds” in which the teacher reads each paragraph and then thinks aloud to illus-trate to the students the way she or he is processing the text and whether or not she or he understands it. At this point, the teacher can also model a comprehension breakdown and the use of a fix-up strategy. After the teacher has completed the modeling and explanationphases of strategy instruction, she or he can help students begin sup-ported practice with the strategy. Thus, students should be given an easy passage, or text, on which to practice and that practice should occur in a group setting with much teacher involvement. For example, students may be asked to read a single, easy paragraph and then discuss whether or not they comprehended it. Practice should continue onto progres-sively longer and more difficult texts, with progressively less teacher involvement as students’ success is demonstrated. Eventually, students should be able to independently use the metacognitive strategy that has been taught to them. Then, the teacher can begin the instruction cycle of a new strategy. Students should be held responsible for using previ-ously mastered strategies as new strategies are slowly taught. Use of an anchor chart in the classroom that lists reading strategies is helpful for this goal.
Instructional practices based on Constructivism are highly appro-priate to use with students for whom English is a second language. Small-group, problems-based activities consistent with Inquiry Learning allow ELLs to observe, listen, and when they feel ready, interact verbally with their peers. Consistent with Schema Theory, brainstorming and web-bing activities help ELLs develop new vocabulary, and deepen and orga-nize existing vocabulary knowledge. Activities associated with Whole Language, such as the use of high-quality literature, authentic learning activities, and center-based learning, all provide meaningful contexts that are ideal for ELLs’ literacy growth. Similarly, thematic instruction is ideal for helping ELLs because it provides meaningful learning con-texts that support language growth. Technology applications consistent with Constructivism include the use of webquests and Internet search-ing (Inquiry Learning) and the use of Kidspiration (Schema Theory).RESEARCH APPLICATIONSDewey (1916) supported the central role of the learner as the constructor of his or her own knowledge and focused on the areas of problem-based learning and social collaboration within a constructivist orientation to learning. Additionally, Dewey emphasized the role of the physical environment in learning. Researchers and graduate students initiating research projects within any of these domains may choose to situate their studies within Dewey’s Inquiry Learning Theory. Justice, Rice, and Warry (2009) examined the effects of a one-semester, inquiry-based seminar on college students’ academic research skills, oral presentation abilities, critical reasoning and teamwork abili-ties, and self-perceptions. Consistent with Dewey’s Inquiry Theory, intervention students participated in a semester-long three-credit course in which they chose a topic of interest, developed a research question, accessed, evaluated, and synthesized relevant information, and judged their own success. According to Justice et al. (2009), the purpose of the experience was to “develop intellectual and academic skills which we hypothesize leads to active self-directed learners, with life-long learn-ing skills who approach knowledge and understanding deeply, criti-cally and reflectively” (p. 2). Results of the questionnaire data demon-strated that the inquiry-based students self-perceived their abilities in the areas of social awareness, interpersonal skills, and understanding of diversity to be stronger than those of the noninquiry-based group. Results of the performance-based tests demonstrated that inquiry-based
students outperformed noninquiry-based students in the areas of aca-demic research skills and oral presentation abilities. By comparing the effects of the intervention on students who had completed two years of college versus four years of college, the authors noted that the effects of the intervention weakened over time. However, in their conclusion they reported:Important questions about the potency of an Inquiry seminar are addressed by this research. The study supports the idea that it is possible to mean-ingfully develop academic and intellectual skills with a single first-year inquiry seminar course. The findings suggest that a little intervention (a three unit course) can have relatively large effects. (p. 21)Researchers and graduate students working from a constructivistperspective may prefer to frame their research from a Schema Theory context if they are particularly interested in the ways in which students’ organization of knowledge is related to their reading abilities. Schema Theory is particularly useful for studies in the area of reading com-prehension. Research regarding the effectiveness of activities designed to activate and build background knowledge is often framed from this viewpoint. Yanmei (2015) looked at the importance of schema in comprehen-sion and retention of text. The two research questions were: “Do studentswith pertinent schema comprehend better than those without?” and “Do students with pertinent schema retain better than those without?” (Yanmei, 2015, p. 1350). The participants included 110 sophomores attending Shandong Trade Union College. These students were part of two English classes at the intermediate level consisting of 55 students in each class. Each of these classes was given a text on the history of Hal-loween. Prior to reading, the groups received a questionnaire to ensure that the students did not have significantly different prior knowledge about the holiday. The experimental group then received information about Halloween to build background schema prior to the reading. Both groups were asked to recall the text immediately after the reading and again a week later. Recalls were evaluated based on the number of idea units provided in each recall. The scoring included correct recalls, overt errors, elaborations (correct expansions), distortions (incorrect expan-sions), and omissions. Overall, the recalls from the experimental group were organized and well written. The responses of the control group, however, lacked organization and, at times, did not make sense. The experimental group was also able to elaborate better than the control
group. For example, the experimental group had recalls that included the concept of trick-or-treating and children dressing up in costumes to scare away the ghosts. The control group attempted to elaborate in this area but showed some confusion by writing that children dressed in beautiful clothing and those that had the most beautiful outfits won prizes. When looking at the immediate recalls, the experimental group outperformed the controls in the areas of elaborations and recalls of cor-rect idea units, while the control group had more overt errors, omissions, and distortions. This pattern of results was consistent for the delayed recall that took place a week later. Overall, the study showed that the students who were provided the schema prior to the reading compre-hended the passage significantly better than those without. The Transactional/Reader Response Theory is a helpful theoreticalframe for researchers and graduate students who are primarily inter-ested in students’ responses to literature. Pilonieta and Hancock (2012) used Reading Response Theory in a study of low-income, first graders’ responses to “socially sensitive” literature. The socially sensitive litera-ture addressed issues such as racism, parental incarceration, homeless-ness, and immigration. The research questions addressed how students responded to literature relevant to their personal backgrounds and how children’s connections were related to their listening comprehen-sion. Teachers of four first-grade classes each read aloud four pieces of socially sensitive literature to their students. Following each read-aloud, the students answered three comprehension questions and responded to two-meaning connection prompts. The results revealed that students who used an aesthetic stance in responding to the literature also scored more highly on comprehension measures. The research demonstrated that children as young as first grade can take an aesthetic stance. In addition, the authors wrote: “While the [book] topics centered on rac-ism, parental incarceration, homelessness, and immigration, the results showed that because the young readers possessed cultural schemata to support connections to the literature, they were able to take an aes-thetic stance that contributed to gains in comprehending elements of these stories” (p 7). Psycholinguistic and Whole Language theories are also still used in reading research. Ryder, Tunmer, and Greaney (2008) used a Whole Language theoretical frame to investigate the effects of a phonemic awareness and decoding intervention on 24 6-and 7-year-old struggling readers from New Zealand. All of the students came from classrooms in which their teachers closely adhered to implementation of Whole Language instruction, as required by the country’s Ministry of
Education. Twelve poor readers randomly assigned to the intervention group received 24 weeks of small-group lessons, each lasting 20 to 30 minutes, focusing on phonemic awareness and decoding. Twelve closely matched poor readers received the standard New Zealand intervention for poor readers, Pause, Prompt, Praise (Glynn, 1994). Pre-and post-tests revealed that the intervention group significantly outperformed the control group on all four measures: phonemic awareness, pseudo-word reading, context-free word recognition, and reading comprehension. Impressively, these gains were not only retained at a 2-year follow-up assessment but had also generalized to word recognition accuracy in the reading of connected text. Last, Metacognitive Theory is still of great interest to researchers.A large, international study by Artelt and Schneider (2015) supported the notion that higher levels of performance are associated with the use of learning strategies, which includes metacognitive knowledge. This study tested the relationships between metacognitive knowledge, strategy use, and reading competence. A total of 298,454 students 15 years of age from 34 countries participated in the research. The stu-dents’ OECD-PISA 2009 assessment data were examined. The results showed a moderate to high correlation between metacognitive knowl-edge and reading competence. Strategy use, reading competence, and metacognitive knowledge had a lower, but still significant, relationship. Across all countries, there was a consistently high effect of metacogni-tive knowledge on reading competence. As the researchers concluded, “Metacognitive knowledge captures the prerequisite of adaptive strate-gic processing of texts. Increasing students’ knowledge in this domain is a promising approach when it comes to fostering self-regulated reading” (p. 2).SUMMARYConstructivism is a perspective on learning that emphasizes the active construction of knowledge by individuals. The theory is characterized by the notions that learning can occur in the absence of observable indi-cators, that learning often results from a form of hypothesis testing, and that the process of making inferences is central to the learning process. Constructivism has been applied directly to the study of reading as an explanation for the way in which readers construct messages, or com-prehend, during the reading process.
This chapter presented six constructivist theories: Inquiry Learn-ing, Schema Theory, Transactional/Reader Response Theory, Psycho-linguistic Theory, Whole Language Theory, and Metacognitive Theory. Inquiry Learning, developed by Dewey (1916), emphasizes the impor-tance of problem solving, social collaboration, and motivation, based on interest and curiosity in learning. Schema Theory, first suggested by Bartlett (1932) and later expanded by Anderson and Pearson (1984), conceptualizes the way in which knowledge is organized in the brain and discusses the implications of that organization for learning and reading. Transactional/Reader Response Theory, put forth by Rosen-blatt (1978), further extends the application of Schema Theory by argu-ing that all readers have unique responses to reading texts owing to the unique nature of their background schemata. Psycholinguistic Theory emphasizes the role of language in the reading process, and Whole Lan-guage Theory uses that information as the cornerstone of a philosophy of literacy learning and instruction for students. Metacognitive Theory stresses the importance of specific types of mental engagement during the reading process to build accurate comprehension experiences. All of the theories presented in this chapter are built on the premise that individuals are active in the construction of their own knowledge, and all of the theories hold current value for both classroom instruction and research. Theories of Social Constructivism are treated separately in Chapter 8.IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION • What is Constructivism?• What is Inquiry Learning, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Schema Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Transactional/Reader Response Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What are Psycholinguistic Theory and Whole Language Theory, and how are they reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Metacognitive Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?
ACTIVITIESLiterature Circles. Based on the classic book Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in the Student-Centered Classroom (Daniels, 1994), readers can break into literature circles, consisting of four to six each, to deepen comprehension of this chapter. Literature circles are designed to stimulate meaningful conversation about texts. Each participant is assigned a “role” to complete prior to circle participation. This “role work” is often com-pleted for homework when the chapter is assigned for reading. Roles can include: Discussion Director (this participant creates three to five ques-tions based on the reading to discuss with the group members), Artist (this participant creates some kind of visual response to the reading to share with the group), Investigator (this participant locates and shares additional information related to the assigned text), Connector (this participant shares three personal connections to the assigned reading), Vocabulary Enricher (this participant identifies five important or unfamiliar words in the read-ing and shares their meaning with the group), and Summarizer (this partic-ipant summarizes the key ideas from the chapter for the group). Individuals then share their role-work responses in small groups during class.Class-to-Life Writing Assignment. Write a three-to-five-page paper sum-marizing the major Constructivist Perspectives: Inquiry Learning, Schema Theory, Transactional/Reader Response Theory, Psycholinguistic Theory, and Whole Language, and Metacognitive Theory. In the paper, provide one or more examples of the ways in which each theory is reflected in his or her current classroom setting.
C HA P T E R 5Developmental Lenses (1930s–Present)Questions to Consider before reading • What is the Theory of Cognitive Development, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Maturation Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is the Theory of Literacy Development, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What are the Stage Models of Reading, and how are they reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Emergent Literacy Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Family Literacy Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?During the early 1900s, at about the same time that constructivist theo-rists such as Dewey (1916) were trying to explain the ways in which individuals create internal understanding, and behaviorists such as Watson (1913) and Thorndike (1903, 1931) were trying to explain how learning could be understood in terms of observable behavior, devel-opmental theorists were trying to explain child development and lit-eracy growth from a longitudinal perspective. Theorists working from a developmental perspective attempt to articulate the growth of specific behaviors and abilities across time. Developmental theorists in reading aim to address such questions as
How does early reading ability develop? • In what ways can early reading development be facilitated? • What are some symptoms of developmental problems in early reading ability?This chapter examines several different theories of development, nota-bly Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969), Maturation Theory (Morphett & Washburne, 1931), Theory of Literacy Development (Holdaway, 1979), Stage Models of Reading (Frith, 1985; Chall, 1983), Emergent Literacy Theory (Morrow, 2012), and Family Literacy Theory (Taylor, 1983).THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENTBurman (2007) described Piaget as one of the best known psychologists in history. A Swiss, born in 1896, Piaget received his PhD in biology and wrote his dissertation on mollusks. His work with children started as a way of understanding issues related to epistemology (the study of the nature of knowledge) from a biological perspective (Gardner, 2005). Piaget’s study of his own children inspired many of his writings. In par-ticular, he sought to explain the different ways in which his children processed information throughout their development. Piaget can be classified as both a constructivist and a developmentaltheorist. Consistent with a constructivist viewpoint, Piaget stressed the importance of the child as an active organism as he or she progressed in cognitive development (Penn, 2008). However, in addition to being a constructivist, Piaget was also a developmental theorist. As a result of many years of studying children’s cognitive development, Piaget created the Theory of Cognitive Development, which describes how the qual-ity of children’s thinking changes over time (Penn, 2008). According to Woolfolk (1998), Piaget identified four factors that affect the quality of an individual’s thinking as she or he grows: biological (i.e., physical) maturation, activity, social experiences, and equilibration. Biological maturation refers to the individual’s genetic heredity that is present at birth and that will ultimately affect his or her growth. Activity refers to the child’s physical experiences through which he or she will con-struct much of his or her knowledge base. Social experiences refer to the child’s interactions with others as she or he grows, which will also affect her or his growth. Equilibration is the child’s search for cognitive balance when cognitive imbalance, or dissonance, occurs.
Jean Piaget (1896–1980). In addition to naming these four factors as central to children’s cog-nitive development, Piaget identified four stages of qualitatively differ-ent types of thinking through which children progress in their journey toward adult thinking. These have become known as Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development. The first stage is the sensorimotor period (birth–2 years) in which the child’s thinking is based on his or her sen-sory exploration of the world. In this stage, the child’s cognition is a function of what he or she sees, hears, feels, and tastes. During this period of development, the child does not yet have sufficient language to document his or her experiences with words. The second stage is the preoperational period (2–7 years) in which rapid language develop-ment occurs. Here the child begins to categorize and organize his or her world with words. The child’s thinking is very concrete at this point in development. The third stage is the concrete operational period (7–11 years). In this period, the child is able to use concrete objects as a vehicle for beginning to think about abstract concepts. In the fourth and final stage, the formal operational period (11–adult), the child moves beyond the concrete to use language in an abstract way (Penn, 2008). These cognitive stages have been widely studied in research, although the most recent work in developmental psychology emphasizes the flexibility of these periods. Piaget’s writings are foundational for explaining the cognitivedevelopment of children. Teachers need to understand the ways in which children think at different stages of development in order to cre-ate developmentally appropriate lessons and activities for them. Piaget-ian development has been examined in relation to the development of
reading skills, with research indicating that improvements in reading comprehension, word attack, and vocabulary are positively associated with children’s cognitive development (Cartwright, 2002). In summa-rizing the impact of Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development on class-room practices, Hennings (2000) concluded that it “provides teachers with a framework for understanding the way children at different age levels are likely to think about objects and events” (p. 88). Gardner (2005) summarized the scope of Piaget’s contributions, as follows:Spurning the once widespread notion that the child’s mind is simply a miniature version of the adult’s, Piaget’s major contribution was to describe the forms of knowledge characteristic at each stage of develop-ment. Over many years he carried out hundreds of clever experiments with youngsters in Geneva, Switzerland; he reported them in an imposing series of monographs, several featuring his own three children. Many of the studies probed specific forms of knowledge—the child’s conception of number, of space, of causality—but, taken together, they yield a general picture of the child’s mind at key points during childhood. . . . In charting the minds of children, Piaget invented the field of cognitive development. (p. 15)Gardner concluded that “Piaget’s portrait of the mind of the child isas likely to last as Freud’s insights into the human personality” (p. 18). Teacher’s Anecdote: Theory of Cognitive DevelopmentGiven my job as Director of Professional Development in a diverse, low-income school district, I have the opportunity to collaborate with teachers working with students from preschool to high school. I can see Piaget’s stages of development reflected in the students and in the activities that the teachers use with the students. Students who are in the preoperational stage (ages 2–7) are exposed to a lot of children’s literature, read-alouds, and hands-on activities to stimulate their lan-guage growth. Students who are in the concrete operational stage (ages 7–11) do well with activities such as semantic organizers and webbing. These graphic organizers help the students move from concrete images to written language, which is more abstract. Students who are in the formal operational period (ages 11–adult) do well with metacognitive instruction. This is because most students at this point in development are able to use language in abstract ways. —paige sinClaiR, Director of Professional Development
MATURATION THEORYBased on the professional literature of the early 1900s, little atten-tion was paid to a child’s literacy development before he or she entered school (Morrow, 2012). It was generally assumed that literacy began with formal instruction in first grade. A strong influence on reading instruction during this time came from developmental psychologists who advocated maturation as the most important factor in learning to read. Preschool and kindergarten teachers during the early 1900s gen-erally ignored or avoided reading instruction, but they did follow the Unfoldment Theory-based teachings of Pestalozzi and Froebel, as pre-sented in Chapter 2 (Morrow, 2012). Morphett and Washburne (1931), however, advocated for the post-ponement of reading instruction until a child was developmentally old enough to be successful with the tasks of early reading. Morphett and Washburne conducted research to determine the optimal age at which this would occur. Their research concluded that children with a mental age of 61⁄2 years did better on a test of reading achievement than did younger children. Their study became the cornerstone of what is now known as Maturation Theory. This theory stated that reading instruc-tion should not be implemented until students reached the age of 61⁄2 years. Recommendations related to this theory suggested that parents not attempt to teach reading to their children at home either. The pre-vailing belief associated with this theory was that parents, as well as educators, would cause damage to children’s reading ability if they attempted to teach reading to children who were too young. Maturation Theory was the dominant theory in reading educationfrom the 1930s until the 1950s, affecting the literacy instruction of mil-lions of American children. As a result of this theory, formal reading instruction was withheld from children both at home and at school until children reached the mental age of 61⁄2 years. In the 1950s, however, Maturation Theory was challenged by both Behaviorism (see Chapter 3) and Constructivism (see Chapter 4).Teacher’s Anecdote: Maturation TheoryWhile most educators no longer adhere to Maturation Theory, it seems to me that invented spelling is consistent with this belief system. In my school district, many educators support “invented spelling” as an acceptable spelling strategy for elementary school children. Invented
spelling is varied in its application in classrooms but, from my personal observations, many teachers use it to allow children to invent the spell-ing of new words according to what they hear in the word or what they believe looks right. The theory is based on the belief that interfering with young children’s spelling as they write will only frustrate them and is not developmentally appropriate. Instead, children are permit-ted, and even encouraged, to experiment with spelling. Moreover, stu-dents are not formally corrected or instructed until later grades. Edu-cators defend the process by insisting that children will learn to spell correctly “when they are ready.” Teachers who use invented spelling as the dominant spelling curriculum in their classrooms are basing their practices on the Maturation Theory because they do not believe in teaching children a system of spelling until they are developmentally ready. In fact, these teachers believe that it can be detrimental to stu-dents’ confidence and writing skills if taught too early. —elizabeth soRieRo, third-grade teacherTHEORY OF LITERACY DEVELOPMENTFollowing Maturation Theory, Holdaway’s (1979) Theory of Literacy Development was the next major developmental theory to arise. Close to 50 years elapsed between the emergence of the two. The Theory of Literacy Development can be described as having three dimensions: explanation of the developmental nature of literacy learning, explana-tion of the four processes Holdaway viewed as central to literacy learn-ing, and explanation of a method of teaching designed to promote devel-opmental literacy learning. In Holdaway’s theory, learning to read is viewed as a natural devel-opmental occurrence. Holdaway (1979) wrote that learning to read begins in the home when children have stories read to them and see their parents reading. In this theory, parents are the models for children, and children strive to emulate what their parents do. This emulation results in children’s first attempts, or approximations, at reading, which are usually quite inaccurate, or in Holdaway’s words, “gross approxi-mations.” Nonetheless, Holdaway believed that these first attempts at reading are, and should be, reinforced by parents. Gradually, according to his theory, as the child’s attempts at reading are reinforced and the child’s skill grows, the child begins to read more accurately. Thus, the development of reading is natural and closely mimics children’s natural development of oral language skills.
Morrow (2001) summarized the processes that, according to Hold-away (1979), are components of this natural process:The first is observation of literacy behaviors—being read to, for example, or seeing adults reading and writing themselves. The second is collabora-tion with an individual who interacts with the child, providing encourage-ment, motivation, and help when necessary. The third process is practice. The learner tries out alone what has been learned, such as reading and writing activities—and experiments without direction or adult observa-tion. Practice gives children opportunities to evaluate their performances, make corrections, and increase skills. In the fourth process, performance, the child shares what he or she has learned and seeks approval from adults who are supportive, interested, and encouraging. All of the processes that Holdaway views as central to early literacy learning are grounded in the notion of meaning-based instruction. (p. 134)Holdaway advocates certain characteristics of literacy instructionthat he believes facilitate the development of natural literacy. These characteristics are consistent with a rich home literacy environment and with the parent–child interactions of modeling and reinforcement described above. He recommends creating a rich literacy classroom envi-ronment, labeling key items around the room, using a classroom man-agement style that fosters children’s independence and self-regulation, and immersing children in meaningful language experiences with high-quality children’s literature (Gunning, 2010; Reutzel & Cooter, 2012; Temple et al., 2011). Holdaway is also a strong advocate of promot-ing peer interaction among students. Among his most famous recom-mended instructional strategies is the use of big books and shared read-ing techniques in classroom instruction. These instructional approaches are discussed in the, “Classroom Application” section of this chapter. Although Holdaway’s theory is primarily a Theory of Literacy Develop-ment, it is also consistent with Whole Language Theory (see Chapter 4).Teacher’s Anecdote: Theory of Literacy DevelopmentIn terms of my own literacy experiences, I would agree with Hold-away’s theory. For instance, as a child, my earliest memory of reading was with my mom. Although I did not have a lot of books, the ones I had were very special. My first book was Dr. Seuss’s One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish. I can remember my mom reading that book to me over and over. Eventually, however, I wanted to be able to read
the words by myself. I would make gross approximations of the words and my mom would help me practice until I finally learned several simple words. The first day I read a whole page by myself to my mother was the happiest day of my life because I really wanted to please her and show her that I could do it. —lisa haMilton, middle school special education teacherSTAGE MODELS OF READINGBeginning in the 1980s, educators interested in the development of reading ability began to propose different models regarding the stages through which readers pass as they move toward reading proficiency. Since reading development is ongoing, continuous, and gradual, it is somewhat artificial to separate its growth in terms of stages. However, as Gunning (2003) wrote:This is done . . . to provide greater understanding of the reading process. By having a sense of what readers have accomplished, what stage they are in now, and what stage they are headed for [educators] should be able to be better able to understand and plan for their needs. (p. 11)A central point unifying Stage Models is the common belief thatthe ways in which children approach the task of reading qualitatively change as they mature (Gunning, 2010). Stage Model theorists believe that as children’s reading skills develop, they increase both the number and types of strategies that they can use during reading experiences. Furthermore, Stage Model theorists believe that the strategies associ-ated with the earlier stages of development remain available to readers even as more refined reading skills associated with later stages of devel-opment are attained. Stages of reading development have been proposed by a number of reading theorists, including Ehri (1991), Chall (1983), Gough, Juel, and Griffith (1992), and Frith (1985). Although, histori-cally, these researchers used a variety of terms to label the stages, cur-rently, four stages of word identification development are widely agreed upon (Gunning, 2010). Gunning (2010) described each of these stages. The first is thePrealphabetic Stage. At this stage, which Ehri (1991) called the “logo-graphic stage,” children use visual cues as their primary method of word recognition and memorize words by their shape. Word identification at this stage of development is not yet related to letter–sound knowledge.
Contextual information, such as the familiar colors, fonts, and logos in the word McDonald’s are the types of cues that children use when they are in the visual-cue reading stage of development. According to Stage Models, reading logographically in a languagethat is alphabetic, such as English, is very inefficient. Therefore, as chil-dren mature, they gradually transition to the second stage of develop-ment, the Partial Alphabetic Stage of word identification ability. This stage has also been called “phonetic cue reading.” When children are in the partial alphabetic stage of word identification, they use some letter–sound cues to help them identify words. According to Gunning (2010), “In the partial alphabetic stage, they [the children] may use just a letter or two. They may use only the first letter of the word and combine the sound of that letter with context” (p. 187). As children continue to mature, they increasingly begin to rely ontheir letter–sound knowledge to aid them in accurate word identifica-tion. The third stage of word identification is called the Full Alphabetic Stage (Gunning, 2010), and it is here that readers strive to process all of the letters in words. However, as Gunning emphasized, a danger of this stage is that readers become too tied to letter-by-letter reading, thus slowing the reading process. Another concern that arises from overreli-ance on letter-by-letter reading is that readers fail to use alternate strate-gies for word identification (Gunning, 2010). Gunning (2010) identified the fourth stage of word identifica-tion development as the Consolidated Alphabetic Stage. At this point, readers use their automatic knowledge of sound–letter relationships to cluster letter patterns within words. These letter patterns, also known as “word families” or “phonograms,” help readers process text more quickly. Reading through the use of word patterns within words has been identified as a primary route by which mature readers process text (Adams, 1990).Teacher’s Anecdote: Stage Models of ReadingIn the beginning of the school year, I observe my students reading, and I notice that most of them read at the partial alphabetic stage. They are taught to sound out unknown words by identifying the letter sounds and looking for meaning within the sentence. I begin to model to the students how they should point to the words as they read them. By the middle of the year, I start to see some of my higher readers mov-ing through the full alphabetic and consolidated alphabetic stages. At
this point in time, they already have an understanding of the letters and sounds, and I begin to see them sound words out using chunking. I recently gave a reading test where I could give very little assistance. One of my little girls got stuck on the word sand. She asked me what the word was, and I told her I couldn’t tell her but we could sound it out together. First she gave me the sound that was represented by the letter s. As I covered up the letter s, she then told me the letters a–n–d and said, “and.” The little girl showed me that she was able to sound out the word by knowing and recognizing the chunk and. This is an example of the Stage Models of Reading because in the classroom you begin to see the different stages, or levels, at which your students mature.—RebeCCa yedloCK, first-grade teacher EMERGENT LITERACY THEORYThe Stage Models and their theorists have been invaluable in helping educators understand children’s early reading development. Their work, however, has primarily focused on the word recognition dimension of the reading experience. Other theorists and researchers, interested in studying early literacy development from a perspective broader than word recognition, began to investigate complementary aspects of lit-eracy development in approximately the same time period that the stage theorists worked. These theorists and researchers created what is now known as Emergent Literacy Theory. This theory both explains early literacy development and provides instructional guidance to promote early literacy growth. The term “emergent literacy” refers to a period in a child’s life between birth and his or her ability to read and write at a conventional (approximately third grade) level. Marie Clay (1966) was first to employ the term “emergent literacy.” It is important to remember that the term refers to a functional level of performance rather than to a chronological age. Precocious children may become conventional read-ers (i.e., able to read at the third-grade level) long before they are actu-ally in third grade. Similarly, individuals with serious disabilities may stay in the emergent phase of development long after their third-grade year of schooling has ended; some may even remain in that stage for the rest of their lives. Emergent Literacy Theory is built on a set of beliefs regardingchildren’s early literacy development. One of the central tenets of this theory is that children’s development in the areas of listening, speaking,
reading, and writing are all interrelated (Morrow, 2012). This means that children who are already proficient with listening and speaking tend to excel at early reading and writing tasks. Conversely, children who have difficulty or are delayed in the areas of listening and speaking tend to be more at risk for reading difficulty (Morrow & Gambrell, 2011). The interrelatedness of these skills also suggests that positive growth in one area of literacy development will have a beneficial effect on the other areas of development. According to Morrow (2009), all children go through a period of emergent literacy in which they become increas-ingly aware of the relationships between spoken and written language. Emergent literacy theorists believe that children’s gradually increasing awareness of these relationships is what aids their early attempts with reading and writing. Many of the beliefs on which Emergent Literacy Theory are based are consistent with Whole Language Theory. A second central tenet of Emergent Literacy Theory is that literacydevelopment starts at birth and is continuous and ongoing (Morrow, 2012). This belief is in sharp contrast to Maturation Theory, described above, which suggested that literacy learning should not be addressed until a child is 61⁄2 years old. This belief also contrasts with those Stage Theories that ignore literacy growth until the child is beginning to focus on word identification. Emergent Literacy Theory stresses the idea that children’s earliest experiences of being talked to and read to are all part of their early literacy development. Not surprisingly, since Emergent Literacy Theory argues that chil-dren’s listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills begin at birth, it also emphasizes the critical role that the child’s home environment has on the development of these abilities. Research has indicated that children who come from literacy-rich home environments tend to have stronger, more accelerated literacy skills than children who come from homes in which literacy is less emphasized. Literacy-rich home envi-ronments are those in which a large number of books are available for both children’s and adults’ reading; parents frequently read to children and are themselves avid readers; parents read a wide variety of mate-rial including books, newspapers, and magazines; reading is associated with pleasure; parents frequently take children to the library and to bookstores; children have access to writing materials; and the social, emotional, and intellectual climate of the homes is conducive to literacy growth (Morrow, 2005). Emergent Literacy Theory underscores the finding that although many home-related factors are important to chil-dren’s reading success, including parents’ education, occupation, and
socioeconomic level, the quality of the at-home literacy environment correlates most closely with children’s early literacy ability (Morrow, 2005). Gunning (2010, p. 123) listed the essential understandings thatchildren need to acquire in the emergent literacy phase of development. These concepts can be mastered in children’s homes, in their classrooms, or both, and include the following:• What we say and what others say can be written down and read. • Words, not pictures, are read. • Sentences are made up of words, and words are made up of let-ters.• In English, reading goes from left to right and from top to bot-tom.• A book is read from front to back. • What we say is divided into words (e.g., some students may believe that “How are you?” is a single word).• Space separates written words. Students must be able to match words being read orally with their written counterparts.• Sentences begin with capital letters. • Sentences end with periods, question marks, or exclamation marks.• A book has a title, an author, and sometimes an illustrator. These understandings are often referred to as “concepts aboutprint” and “concepts about books” that children must learn to be suc-cessful with reading. Coupled with the word recognition information articulated by proponents of Stage Theory, Emergent Literacy Theory outlines much of what children need to learn in their early years to be successful with later reading.Teacher’s Anecdote: Emergent Literacy TheoryEmergent Literacy Theory seeks to explain how literacy develops and what instruction is needed during the emergent literacy period. Unlike Maturation Theory or Stage Model Theories, Emergent Literacy The-ory suggests that literacy development begins at birth and that the home environment plays a major role in a child’s literacy development. In my own experiences as a child, I cannot recall a time without books. My mother is an avid reader and has worked in our township library
since I was 2 years old. My siblings and I received official library cards as soon as we were old enough to write our own names. Then we were allowed to check books out of the library on a weekly basis. My parents read to us often, and they regularly read themselves. We were always writing in notebooks, and I loved going to work with my mother so that I could type at her desk. According to my mother, dur-ing our elementary school years, reading, writing, and speaking came naturally for us. There is no doubt in my mind that those early expe-riences helped my brother, sister, and me become successful readers. Our experiences are examples of Emergent Literacy Theory because our home environment helped facilitate our literacy development. —deiRdRe M. tayloR, K–3 literacy support teacherFAMILY LITERACY THEORYAlthough research regarding the importance of family effects on liter-acy learning dates back at least 150 years (Phillips, Hayden, & Norris, 2006), the concept of “family literacy” was not initially proposed until 1983 when Taylor published her seminal work on the topic. Since then, family literacy has been defined as “the ways families, children, and extended family members use literacy at home and in their community” (Morrow, 2009, p. 378). The term “Family Literacy Theory,” rather than referring to a unified theory put forth by a single researcher, refers to a series of ideas proposed by many researchers who share viewpoints on (1) the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs to facili-tate the literacy development of family members; (2) the relationships between literacy use in families and students’ academic achievement; and (3) the ways in which literacy is naturally used within the context of the home (Phillips et al., 2006). Regarding the importance of family literacy, Paratore and Edwards(2011) stated:The importance of parent involvement in children’s academic success has been well documented and widely accepted. Based on a comprehensive research synthesis, Henderson and Mapp (2002) reported that academic effects are demonstrated across broad and varied measures: students of involved parents have higher rates of school attendance, better social skills and behavior, higher grades and test scores, lower rates of retention, and higher rates of high school graduation and postsecondary study. . . . More-over, when children have mothers with less education, parent involvement
exerts an even more powerful influence on children’s literacy performance, even eliminating the achievement gap that typically separates the perfor-mance of children of low-and-high-education mothers. (pp. 336–337)Jordan, Snow, and Porche (2000) reported that research has dem-onstrated that literacy-rich home environments contribute more power-fully to children’s early successful literacy development than do excel-lent preschool and kindergarten classrooms. They wrote that “although excellent formal reading instruction can ensure success in literacy even for high-risk readers, substantial efforts to recruit the partnership of families greatly increase the chances of success” (p. 524). Building on Edwards’s (2009) identification of the needs of parentswho find parent involvement difficult, Paratore and Edwards (2011) pre-sented three categories of “action” that administrators can implement to support family literacy. First, administrators need to facilitate posi-tive relationships between parents and teachers. Paratore and Edwards stressed that this objective needs to be based on the two-way sharing of information about the child and the child’s home life, between parents and teachers, rather than on the traditional one-way sharing of infor-mation in which the teacher provides information to the parents regard-ing the child’s progress in school. Second, administrators need to build parents’ background knowledge about the school culture and the actual school behaviors that are needed for academic success. Third, adminis-trators need to help parents understand the specific at-home behaviors that will be helpful to support school-based learning. Under the umbrella of family literacy studies, research on at-home,parent–child storybook reading has provided information on the kinds of interaction that encourage literacy development. Analyses of the recorded questions and comments of parents and children during shared book experiences demonstrate that the following variables are positively associated with children’s increased literacy abilities: the total number of words spoken by the child during the storybook reading; the number of questions asked by parents before and after reading; the number of high-level, critical thinking questions asked by parents; and the amount of positive feedback given to the child (Flood, 1977; Tracey & Morrow, 2002). Family Literacy Theory overlaps with Emergent Literacy Theoryregarding the ways in which at-home experiences contribute to chil-dren’s literacy success. Family Literacy Theory also extends previous conceptualizations of literacy learning by emphasizing the critical role
that parents and parent involvement have in children’s literacy develop-ment.Teacher’s Anecdote: Family Literacy TheoryI entered school with a strong literacy foundation and was already reading due to the fact that I grew up in a rich literacy environment. I still have the book, worn and torn, that my mother would read to me each night. The book had 365 stories, all dated, and the story of the day would be read as she tucked me into bed. Year after year it was read and, even though the stories didn’t change from year to year, I was still eager to have it read to me. Eventually, I started reading along. Just a few years ago my mother was cleaning out the basement and get-ting rid of “old junk.” That book was one of the few pieces I took out of the pile of garbage and insisted on saving. Growing up, I lived about eight blocks from the library. The kidsup the block and I would walk there weekly, almost daily in the sum-mertime. First, we’d stop at Angelo’s for a slice of pizza and soda with the $2.00 our parents gave us. Then, we’d go to the library and cool off in the air conditioning, look at books, and check out as many as we could carry home. Those trips, which I thought of as a treat and adventure each time we went, never lost their novelty, and are some of my fondest childhood memories. I remember doing this from the time I was about 7, when it was still okay for parents to let a group of 7-year-olds walk to the library on their own. All my reading experiences as a child were positive. I grew uploving to read. Even now, when I need a break, I curl up with a book. When I tell my students this, they think I’m just saying it because I’m a teacher and that’s what teachers say. —Renee ben-david, seventh-grade special education teacherCLASSROOM APPLICATIONSPiaget’s theory provides literacy educators with a framework for under-standing how students at different developmental points are likely to think (Slavin, 2003). Children’s literacy development in the preopera-tional period (ages 2–7), in which rapid language development occurs, is likely to be greatly affected by their experiences with at-home and in-class storybook reading. Children’s literacy development in the concrete operational period (ages 7–11), in which children use concrete objects
as vehicles for beginning to think about abstract concepts, will likely benefit from the use of semantic organizers such as charts and webs to help them organize their thoughts related to reading comprehension and writing. Students in the formal operational period (ages 11–adult), during which language can be used in abstract ways, will be able to take advantage of complex strategies related to reading instruction. It is likely that older students’ success with metacognitive instruction is related to their having reached this level of cognitive development. Morphett and Washburne’s (1931) Maturation Theory recom-mended that reading instruction be withheld from children until they were ideally suited to learn to read which, according to their research, was the age of 61⁄2. Although Holdaway’s Theory of Literacy Devel-opment and Emergent Literacy Theory refute the idea of withholding literacy instruction until children are 61⁄2, the general concept of matu-ration, and the use of “developmentally appropriate” instruction, activi-ties, and assessments are still present in schools today. The other theo-ries discussed in this chapter (Theory of Literacy Development, Stage Models of Reading, Emergent Literacy Theory, and Family Literacy Theory) all incorporate the concept of maturation but in a more con-temporary fashion. Holdaway’s (1979) Theory of Literacy Development presents lit-eracy growth as a natural process that begins in a young child’s home. He recommends practices that teachers can use in classrooms based on processes that foster literacy growth in children’s homes. Among Hold-away’s most famous techniques is the use of big books as a teaching tool and the procedure of shared reading. Holdaway (1979) recommends the use of big books as a techniqueto foster natural literacy development. A big book is a high-quality children’s book that is printed by the publisher in a greatly enlarged size. Big books are typically sized to be 2–3 feet high and 2–3 feet wide. The teacher reads a big book to a group of young children, who usually sit at the teacher’s feet on an area rug. The purpose of using big books is to create a feeling in every child that he or she is sitting on his or her parent’s lap for a story. In Holdaway’s view, big books can create in the classroom the same kinds of positive feelings about story time that children have when they sit in their parents’ laps and are read to at home. Furthermore, Holdaway argued that these natu-ral storytelling situations are ideal for fostering literacy skills such as strengthening children’s oral language, helping children track print from left to right, and building children’s concepts of letters, words,
Holdaway (1979) famously advocated a particular technique usedfor storybook reading known as “shared reading.” This technique can be implemented with big books as well as with regular-sized books. The shared reading technique begins with the teacher’s selection of high-quality books appropriate for the listening audience (Reutzel & Cooter, 1996). Reutzel and Cooter described several criteria that should be con-sidered when selecting books for a shared reading activity:Books and stories chosen for sharing need to be those that have been proven to be loved by children. Any book or story (including those selec-tions in basal readers) to be shared should have literary merit and engag-ing content. The pictures should match the text and tell or support the telling of the story in proper sequence. The text should be characterized by repetition, cumulative sequence, rhyme, and rhythm to entice the children and “hook” them on the language patterns. . . . Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the books chosen for shared book experiences need to have a visual impact on 30 children similar to the impact that a standard-sized book would have on the knee of a child or in the lap of a parent. (p. 365)The shared reading lesson is divided into three segments: beforereading, during reading, and after reading (Reutzel & Cooter, 1996). In the prereading phase the teacher introduces the reading selection. He or she reads the book title to the students, shows them the book’s cover, predicts what the story may be about from a “picture walk,” and activates and builds the students’ background knowledge related to the story’s content. After the book is introduced, the teacher begins the reading phase. His or her reading should be done with enthusiasm and expression. If the text contains predictable sections, such as the use of repeated phases, the teacher should encourage the students to join in the reading. Another way of involving students during the reading is to ask them questions and have them make predictions regarding the story. When the teacher finishes reading the story, he or she starts the postreading phase of discussion and follow-up activities. During this phase, the teacher can ask questions on a variety of levels, ranging from those designed to enhance simple factual recall to those designed to encourage high-level, open-ended, critical thinking. Ideally, follow-up activities will provide students with choices regarding the ways they can respond to the story’s content. Popular choices include writing, drawing, story retelling, and dramatization. Activities that integrate art, music, movement, and social collaboration are especially motivating to stu-dents. The shared reading activity almost always includes the rereading
of stories on subsequent days. Rereading can build reading fluency and story comprehension. Note that stories should not be reread to the point of boredom. The technique of shared reading has been shown to be effective in promoting students’ literacy development in the areas of word recognition, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency (Reutzel, Hollingsworth, & Eldredge, 1994). Stage Models of Reading also generate much direction for chil-dren’s literacy activities in the classroom. A wonderful activity for chil-dren in the prealphabetic/logographic stage of development (the stage in which words are memorized by shape and context) is to collect familiar environmental print samples and place them in a photograph album. Items such as paper bags, napkins, and labels bearing the logos and names of brands such as McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, Cheerios, and Gatorade can be cut up and placed in a photo album in the literacy center. Similarly, coupons for easily recognizable products such as cat food, dog food, groceries, and cleaning products can be placed either in a photograph album or in a coupon box. Because children see these logos frequently in their environments, they will be among the easiest print for young children to “read.” Successful experi-ences “reading” these logographs will help young readers develop the confidence and motivation they need to move into the next stage of literacy development. Children in the partial alphabetic and alphabetic stages of develop-ment (when they are developing proficiency to use letter–sound cues to read words) will benefit from activities that help them master automatic letter recognition and activities such as puzzles, word card games, and sorting games that help them focus on the initial, ending, and medial sounds within words. Morrow (2001) described many of these activi-ties. She noted that children learn letters that are meaningful to them most easily (e.g., their initials, the letters in their first name) and that this approach is more successful than teaching one letter per week. In order for children to become proficient with letter–sound relationships, they must first master the alphabet. Children should be encouraged to explore a wide variety of manipulative letter exercises such as letter puzzles, felt letters, magnetic letters, wooden letters, and letter stamps. They should also have access to alphabet letter books and tapes, as well as to software that teaches letters through animation. Key letters can be taught to accompany thematic instruction, suchas b for boat, t for train, and c for car to accompany a unit on trans-portation. Children can search through magazines to locate the letters
they are learning, and they can also search for target letters in the logo-graphic materials described above. Games such as finding objects in the classroom that begin with a target letter, identifying objects by touch in a bag that begin with a certain letter, and old-fashioned letter bingo are also popular activities for building early letter–sound familiarity. Students who have a collection of “Very Own Words” may have specific letters that they will want to learn. If asked, children are almost always interested in learning the letters of their names and those necessary to write key words in their life such as mom, dad, and love. Students can work independently on learning an initial letter suchas p and can sort picture cards of items that do, and do not, begin with the letter. The teacher can design these materials to be self-correcting by preparing the cards in a puzzle-like formation (e.g., only the picture cards of those items that begin with the letter p will fit together). The teacher may also create an alphabet journal for each child, with one page of the journal devoted to each letter of the alphabet. Children can then print words that they learn and paste words that they cut from magazines on these pages. Many additional ideas for building letter–sound knowledge are available in professional resources. Finally, children in the consolidated alphabetic stage (character-ized by automatic letter recognition and the use of letter patterns when reading) will benefit from activities that strengthen their awareness of word families in single and multisyllable words. The Reading Teacher’s Book of Lists (Fry, Kress, & Fountoukidis, 2000) is a valuable resource that lists most of the word family patterns in the English language and words associated with each family. An ideal way to help children learn letter patterns within words is to provide them with one card of a word family, such as an, and many cards with individual letters on them, such as b, c, d, and so forth. The students’ job is to write a list of all the an words that they can make. Activities such as this can be done in small mixed-ability groups that will allow the more able students to help their less able peers. Variations on this activity can be made using word wheels and slide rule designs. Games that focus on rhyming, the use of literature that emphasizes rhyme, and poetry are also activities that can often be modified to help students master letter patterns within words. After students have mastered letter patterns within one-syllable words, they can be taught how to use letter patterns within words as an approach to reading multisyllable words. All of the activities described above, ranging from big books and shared reading to lessons that promote logographic, alphabetic, and
orthographic skill development, comprise instructional experiences that are used in the emergent literacy classroom. Teachers interested in build-ing a classroom that is additionally reflective of Emergent Literacy The-ory can begin by thinking about designing instruction that is consistent with its central tenets: (1) listening, speaking, reading, and writing are interrelated; (2) literacy development is continuous and ongoing; and (3) parents have a powerful influence on children’s literacy development. Teachers with an emergent literacy orientation often begin by creat-ing rich literacy environments in their classrooms. Educators striving to enhance the richness of their classrooms’ literacy environments create environments similar to those found in literacy-rich homes. These class-rooms are marked by the extensive presence of books, environmental print, writing materials, and numerous opportunities for children to interact with these items in meaningful ways. Emergent literacy class-rooms are also designed to be appealing and to encourage children’s curiosity to engage with books, audiotapes, and related storytelling props. Emergent literacy classrooms should all have well-supplied liter-acy centers. (Detailed information on the creation of classroom literacy centers is presented in Chapter 2.) A wide array of instructional practices is associated with EmergentLiteracy Theory. These include the use of (1) multiple assessment tools to track literacy growth; (2) thematic instruction in the classroom (also known as “learning across the curriculum”); (3) high-quality, authentic children’s literature as a teaching tool; (4) an instructional approach that promotes social interaction between students; and (5) a literacy center in the classroom as an essential component of literacy instruction (Morrow, 2005). Of course, daily storybook readings and related activi-ties are a cornerstone of literacy-rich classrooms that promote emergent literacy development. Many resources are available for educators inter-ested in infusing practices consistent with Emergent Literacy Theory into their classrooms (Morrow, 2005). Educators interested in classroom practices that incorporate FamilyLiteracy Theory will strive to create partnerships with parents that are built on mutual respect and two-way communication (Paratore, 2001). In such relationships, teachers devote equal attention to gathering infor-mation from parents about their family’s literacy practices at home and distributing information to parents about how to promote their chil-dren’s literacy growth. In egalitarian teacher–parent relationships, parents, grandparents, and guardians are encouraged to spend time in their children’s schools
and classrooms. In this capacity, visitors can be invited to share their special skills or hobbies (e.g., sewing, cooking, carpentry, weaving, and music) with students. These skills and hobbies can be shared with the whole class or as a center activity. Many parents can serve as guest readers, as reading and writing tutors, and/or as assistants at learning centers. Adult visitors can also be sources for information related to areas of classroom study. For example, one child’s grandfather visited his granddaughter’s third-grade classroom to share his recollections of the past as a German Jewish refugee during World War II. Teachers interested in integrating Family Literacy Theory in theclassroom will be committed to gathering information about each stu-dent’s home life. One approach to doing this is the development of fam-ily stories (Buchoff, 1995). Buchoff used a thematic unit on the topic of families as a springboard for having students create stories about their families. The students created stories through a variety of media, including: oral retellings, audio-and videotaped recordings, and writ-ten family accounts. Other options included creating family photograph albums, either in a traditional form or electronically, and keeping fam-ily journals. Students were encouraged to ask their family members for input when creating their stories. Teachers interested in replicating this project can provide family members with prompts to promote this input, such as “Tell your child about the neighborhood where you lived when you were young” or “Tell your child about your favorite rela-tive when you were young.” Through such assignments, teachers learn about children’s home lives while at the same time enhancing family literacy interaction for their students. Morrow (2012) noted that best practices for emergent literacydevelopment are appropriate for students for whom English is a second language. In addition, particular instructional practices are especially effective with this population. Morrow noted that every effort should be made to honor diverse cultural and language backgrounds through the use of students’ native language in the classroom. This can take the form of environmental print, book translations, and newspapers from foreign countries. Brisk and Harrington (2007) recommended that second-language students in the emergent literacy stage of developmentcan be given a small booklet with pictures and common phrases such as “Line up for lunch,” “Can you please help me?,” “Can I go to the bath-room?,” and “Can I go to the nurse?” Brisk and Harrington also recom-mended allowing English as a second language students to just listen to classroom conversations until they feel ready to participate. The use of
brainstorming, webbing, and Venn diagrams is also highly effective for ELLs with emerging literacy skills (Brisk & Harrington, 2007). Numerous websites are resources for emergent literacy development(see Morrow, 2012, for a fuller list). RIF Reading Planet (www.rif.org/ kids/reading planet.htm) contains online read-alouds, and word and reading games. Abracadabra (abralite.concordia.ca) and Starfall (www. starfall.com) consist of activities for strengthening a variety of early literacy skills. Reader’s Theatre Collection (www.readerstheatre.ecsd. net/collection.htm) posts short, easy scripts for readers in young grades. The presence and use of a computer center in emergent literacy class-rooms are consistent with exemplary practice. The computers should be equipped with high-quality educational software, access to educational websites such as those listed above, and electronic storybooks.RESEARCH APPLICATIONSResearchers and graduate students conducting research that focuses on the cognitive processes used by students during reading and learning may want to choose Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development as the theoretical framework for their work. Similarly, those interested in the qualitative changes in students’ thinking across developmental stages may also want to consider this theoretical context. Bryant (2002) used elements of Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development to explain his research findings from a number of studies regarding the ways chil-dren learn spelling (also called orthographic) rules. In his work, Bry-ant determined that children first learn to use a single spelling pattern. Then, when they find that the single pattern is inadequate for spelling all words, they learn an alternative spelling pattern but overgeneralize it. Finally, children learn the full range of orthographic rules. Bryant described the pattern of development through which children progress as reflective of Piaget and Inhelder’s (1969) conceptualization of the ways children construct knowledge of rules about the world. Morphett and Washburne (1931) developed a theory based on theidea that children should not be exposed to literacy instruction until the age of 61⁄2 years. This theory was widely believed and used in read-ing education during the mid-1900s until it was challenged by other theorists in the 1950s. Lee (2016) conducted a study with 15 toddlers between the ages of 2 and 3 in a preschool setting for 7 months. Lee collected data on how the students interacted with literature during
unstructured time. The findings of this study indicated that children who are far younger than 61⁄2 years of age enjoy reading independently and with peers. Lee (2016) stressed that young children make great gains from experiences with literature. These experiences stimulate lan-guage and literacy development in young children while also building motivation. Lee suggested that children of a very young age choose to engage in reading and create rich experiences through literacy activities just as older children do. This study added to the body of knowledge refuting maturation theory. Holdaway (1979) stressed the importance of parents fosteringliteracy-rich environments for their children that includes shared reading experiences. Sim, Berthelsen, Walker, Nicholson, and Fielding-Barnsley (2014) reported on a study conducted to explore two forms of shared reading that parents could utilize at home with their children. The first form was dialogic reading, and the second was dialogic reading paired with print references. A control group was also created to ensure the validity of the study. The parents of 72 Australian, preschool-aged chil-dren participated in the study for its entirety of 8 weeks and a 3-month follow-up observation. The children in the two reading intervention groups were supplied with books to take home to read with their par-ents along with other literacy instruction activities. The results indi-cated that children benefited greatly from shared reading experiences that involved dialogic reading and print references. Sim et al. (2014) reported that shared readings between parents and children enhance the development of print concepts and help maintain literacy concepts. Ouellette and Haley (2013) reported on a study that focused on theimpact of alphabetic knowledge and oral vocabulary on the develop-ment of phonemic awareness. The participants consisted of 57 Cana-dian, kindergarten students that were tracked for one year. It was con-cluded that age is a major factor in developing phonemic awareness and that the children matured academically over time. The results conveyed that oral vocabulary at the kindergarten level is essential to the stages of reading and that alphabetic knowledge plays a role in phonemic aware-ness as well. This study confirmed that reading occurs gradually and that children pass through a variety of reading stages as they continue to age and mature. Sims and Coley (2016) presented a longitudinal study to deter-mine the impact of maternal and paternal input on children’s early reading development. Sims and Coley used data from the Early Child-hood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), which reported on 10,700 children for 5 years. The current study examined 5,450 of those
participants, all of whom were from diverse backgrounds. Data were collected on how often parents read aloud, sang songs, and told sto-ries to their children during their early years of life. Once the children turned 5 years of age and entered kindergarten, they were evaluated with the use of a variety of literacy assessments. The results concluded that a rich home-literacy environment that exposes children to books and oral language is crucial to the development of early reading abil-ity. It was also found that both mothers and fathers from all cultural backgrounds play an essential role in the development of their children’s literacy capabilities. Jordan et al. (2000) conducted a research study on the effects of afamily literacy program on kindergarten children’s early literacy skills. In their research, parent education sessions, at-school parent–child activities, and at-home book-mediated activities were provided for 177 children and their families in the experimental intervention, Project EASE (Early Access to Success in Education). According to the authors, the primary goals of the project were to “increase the frequency and quality of language interactions through book-centered activities, and to give parents information about the opportunities for engagement in their children’s developing literacy abilities” (p. 525). The study dem-onstrated that the children whose families participated in the project demonstrated significantly greater early literacy achievement than did control children. Furthermore, the greatest observed gains were made by the children whose literacy skills were weakest at the beginning of the program, but whose parents demonstrated strong program involve-ment.SUMMARYThis chapter summarized key theories that have been used to explain children’s literacy development: Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Devel-opment (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969); Maturation Theory (Morphett & Washburne, 1931); Holdaway’s (1979) Theory of Literacy Development; Stage Models of Reading (Ehri, 1991; Frith, 1985; Chall, 1983); Emer-gent Literacy Theory (Morrow, 2001, 2005, 2012); and Family Literacy Theory (Taylor, 1983). Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development, one of the most famous theories used to explain children’s overall cogni-tive development, can be used to help literacy educators understand the learning stages through which students progress as they mature and theirrelationship to literacy achievement. Maturation Theory
(Morphett & Washburne, 1931) promoted the idea that literacy instruc-tion should be delayed until children are 61⁄2 years old, supposedly the age at which children would be most successful at learning to read. Countering Maturation Theory, Holdaway’s (1979) Theory of Literacy Development suggested that literacy development begins much earlier, in children’s homes, and is based on meaningful learning experiences. Holdaway created activities such as the use of big books and shared reading to help educators re-create the kinds of early literacy experi-ences found in the homes of precocious readers. Stage Models of Read-ing (Chall, 1983; Ehri, 1991; Frith, 1985) describe the stages through which children progress in the development of their word identification abilities. Emergent Literacy Theory (Morrow, 2005, 2012) describes a broader set of abilities than do the Stage Models, and explains how these abilities develop from birth onward. Finally, Family Literacy The-ory focuses on the unique role of the home and parents in children’s development of literacy.IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION• What is the Theory of Cognitive Development, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Maturation Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is the Theory of Literacy Development, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What are the Stage Models of Reading, and how are they reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Emergent Literacy Theory and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Family Literacy Theory and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?
ACTIVITIESDevelopmental Case Studies. Readers can choose a child whom they know and reflect on that child’s literacy development through each of the devel-opmental theoretical lenses described in this chapter. Case studies can then be presented, contrasting children of different ages.Class-to-Life Writing Assignment. Write a three-to five-page paper sum-marizing the major developmental perspectives: Theory of Cognitive Devel-opment, Maturation Theory, Theory of Literacy Development, Stage Mod-els of Reading, Emergent Literacy Theory, and Family Literacy Theory. In the paper, provide one or more examples of how each theory is reflected in a current classroom setting.
C HA P T E R 8
Social Learning Lenses (1950s–Present)Questions to Consider before reading • What is Sociolinguistic Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Socio-Cultural Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Social Constructivism, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Social Learning Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Critical Literacy Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Critical Race Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and research?• What is Multiliteracies Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?The social learning perspectives incorporate several different theo-ries, all of which emphasize the central role of social interaction in the development of knowledge and learning. When applied to the field of reading, the social learning perspectives emphasize the importance of social influences and social interaction for literacy learning. The social learning perspectives include Sociolinguistic Theory (Bernstein, 1972a,
972b), Socio-Cultural Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Moll, 1992, 1994), Social Constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986), Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986), Critical Literacy Theory (Freire, 1970), Criti-cal Race Theory (Ladson-Billings, 1998), and Multiliteracies Theory (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; New London Group, 1996). While many of these theories are similar and overlapping, this chapter aims to clarify their distinctions.SOCIOLINGUISTICSAs stated above, social learning perspectives incorporate several differ-ent theories, all of which emphasize the central role of social interaction in the development of knowledge and learning. According to Romaine (2000), “the term ‘sociolinguists’ was coined in the 1950’s to try to bring together the perspectives of linguists and sociologists to bear on issues concerning the place of language in society, and to address, in particu-lar, the social context of linguistic diversity” (p. ix). The first applica-tion of the sociolinguistic perspective to the field of reading emerged in the 1970s. According to Bloom and Green (1984): “As a social process, reading is used to establish, structure, and maintain social relationships between and among people. As a linguistic process, reading is used to communicate intentions and meanings, not only between an author and a reader, but also between people involved in a reading event” (p. 395). Sociolinguistics is rooted in the fields of anthropology, linguistics,and literary analysis (Bloom & Green, 1984). Anthropology provided the perspective that reading and writing could be viewed as cultural events and that cultures affect social practices such as reading and writ-ing. The field of linguistics contributed the notion that language differ-ences between social classes are related to differences in all language practices, including reading and writing (Bernstein, 1972a, 1972b). Lin-guistics also added the perspective that the ability to read is related to social functioning—that is, that individuals learn to read as a means to accomplish personal goals related to basic life functioning (Halli-day, 1975). The third root of Sociolinguistic Theory, literary analysis, added the understanding that during the reading process meaning is constructed by, and located in, the reader (Rosenblatt, 1978, 1994). Romaine (2000) also noted sociolinguistics’ close connections to sociol-ogy, anthropology, social psychology, and education, and stated that, embedded in sociolinguistics, are the study of “multilingualism, social
dialects, conversational interaction, attitudes to language, language change, and much more” (p. ix). Bernstein (1971) was one of the first to write about the connectionbetween language ability and social class (Reyes-Rodriguez, 2008). He recognized that one’s speech patterns reflect one’s cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. He also observed that social class gets passed down intergenerationally via language use. Romaine (2000) explained:Sociolinguistic patterns can also be seen as indices of inequality and dif-fering degrees of access to prestige languages . . . language is a form of social and cultural capital that can be converted into economic capital. In most of the western urban societies studied by sociolinguistics, the use of the standard language functions as the ‘leading currency’ in the linguistic marketplace. (p. 244)Regan (2010) wrote about the implications of sociolinguistic com-petence for second-language learners:Sociolinguistic competence is the ability to style-shift and use registers appropriately. This ability is an essential element of second language acquisition, as it is of L1 [first language] acquisition. It permits people to interact in a meaningful way with others, and includes the knowledge of how and when to speak, to whom, how to shift style, register, and so on. Above and beyond knowledge of linguistic structures alone, it enables humans to bond with others, identifying with others, accommodating to their speech, indicating empathy, and solidarity. Part of this competence is the acquisition and fine-tuning of the variation patterns that are used by all speakers of their language or languages. (p. 22)Seminal sociolinguistic studies include Hart and Risley’s (1995,1999) seminal study of children’s vocabulary acquisition in which it was estimated that, within a year’s time period, children from professional homes are exposed to 11.2 million words, children from working-class homes to 6.5 million words, and children from welfare homes to 3.2 million words. Additionally, Shirley Brice Heath’s (1982) research on the literacy practices of parents and children from three different kinds of communities in the southeastern United States in the early 1970s showed that parent–child language interactions varied greatly according to the family’s socioeconomic, educational, and cultural backgrounds. In short, Sociolinguistic Theory derives from the social learningperspectives that underscore the role of language in reading acquisition and reading ability. Sociolinguistics emphasizes that language is learned
as a result of people’s social interactions with each other and, therefore, varying language patterns are perpetuated with educational and social class differences. These varying patterns of social and language interac-tions subsequently lead to differences in literacy abilities.Teacher’s Anecdote: Sociolinguistic TheoryOne child that I teach comes from a low-socioeconomic status (SES) foster care background. He came to school with severe language delays and has made little progress throughout the year. Other children from the foster home pick him up after school and often take care of him until bedtime. He does not get help with homework, and he watches a lot of television. He doesn’t interact with children his own age outside of school. He also doesn’t interact with many people, in general, out-side of school. I find that he knows a lot fewer words than other chil-dren his age. In the classroom, when we have discussions, he has a hard time participating because he doesn’t have the background knowledge or language of the things that we discuss. For example, we recently looked at different types of vegetables because we discussed the letter v and the other children got into a discussion about the supermarket. He had a hard time participating because he has rarely been to the supermarket. He could not identify even the most common vegetables. He even has a hard time expressing what interests him. The only thing he talks about is television. Heath’s work really put these situations into perspective for me.It is so much easier to deal with these issues when you know what you are up against. The work these researchers have done really exempli-fies the crucial role that social interactions and language have in learn-ing. This knowledge definitely helps teachers to fully understand what shapes their students’ learning. —MaRianne panaRese, first-grade teacherSOCIO‐CULTURAL THEORYSocio-Cultural Theory emphasizes the roles of social, cultural, and his-torical factors in the human experience. Like Sociolinguistics it empha-sizes the social aspect of learning. The difference is that Sociolinguis-tics focuses more on the language aspects of these interactions, whereas Socio-Cultural Theory centers more on the broader concept of culture.
With regard to children’s literacy from the socio-cultural viewpoint, Davidson (2010) wrote:From the sociocultural perspective, therefore, children’s literacy develop-ment is understood by exploring the cultural, social, and historical con-texts in which the children have grown. One is obliged to consider how the thinking of a particular group of individuals has directed the children’s thinking, how the children understand who they are in relation to others, and how they interpret their world. (p. 249)Davidson (2010) continued:The sociocultural approach attempts to be nonjudgmental and to under-stand and employ the practices of culturally diverse groups to foster lit-eracy learning. The sociocultural belief is that cognitive reasoning works in conjunction with beliefs, values, and habits of mind that form an indi-vidual’s identity and that need to be considered when interventions are designed for maximum learning. (p. 251)The socio-cultural perspective has its roots in the work of Urie Bron-fenbrenner (1979), who posited that concentric levels of influence affect children’s development. Bronfenbrenner suggested that these layers of influence can be imagined as “a set of nested structures, each inside the next, like a set of Russian dolls” (p. 3). According to his early writ-ings, four spheres of influence affect human development: the micro-system, the mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem (Fetsco & McClure, 2005). The microsystem, the first and innermost level of influence, is the child’s immediate environments, such as his home and classroom. These include the “activities, roles, and interpersonal rela-tionships of the social settings with which the student has direct con-tact” (Fetsco & McClure, 2005, p. 395). The mesosystem, the second level of influence, is the layer of interaction that exists between two microsystems (two spheres of influence with which the child has direct interactions, e.g., the home and school). One example is when the child’s home life affects his or her school experience (Fetsco & McLure, 2005). The exosystem is the third layer of influence. According to Fetsco and McClure (2005, p. 395), “An exosystem has an influence on a student even though the student does not interact directly with the exosystem. Local, national, and worldwide events are examples of exosystems. The macrosystem “is used to explain some of the consistencies observed at the microsystem and mesosystem levels such as families from a cultural
group showing similar interaction patterns” (Fetsco & McClure, 2005, p. 395). Bronfenbrenner called his perspective an “ecological view of development,” or an ecological model of human development, because it illustrates the power of “wide-ranging” developmental influences (p. 4). According to Ceci (2006):Urie’s [Bronfenbrenner] theoretical position held that interpersonal rela-tionships, including even microprocesses in the parent–child relationship, did not exist in a social vacuum but were embedded in the larger social structures of community, society, economics, and politics. Urie main-tained that a person’s development is the product of a constellation of forces—cultural, social, economic, political—and not merely psychologi-cal ones. (pp. 173–174)Au (1997) reflected on the relationship between Socio-CulturalTheory and literacy: “Socio-cultural research on school literacy learn-ing attempts to explore the links among historical conditions, current social and institutional contexts, inter-psychological functioning [that which takes place between people], and intra-psychological functioning [that which takes place within the individual]” (p. 182). She concluded:School literacy learning is seen as a social process, affected not only by present but historical circumstances. Learning to read cannot logically be separated from the particular milieu in which it takes place. When chil-dren learn to read, or fail to learn to read, they do so in a particular social, cultural, and historical environment. Their success or failure in reading cannot be understood apart from that environment. (p. 184)This statement illustrates both the social and cultural nature of learning emphasized by Socio-Cultural Theory. Moll (1992, 1994) wrote seminal studies regarding the applica-tion of Socio-Cultural Theory to students’ literacy learning, especially students from Hispanic backgrounds. He argued that typical white, middle-class classrooms are not usually designed in ways that allow nonwhite and/or non-middle-class children to showcase their “funds of knowledge”—that is, the sources of knowledge that are central to their homes and communities. As a result, all too often, nonwhite and/ or non-middle-class students are perceived as coming from homes with limited intellectual capital and possessing limited intellectual capability. Moll labeled this a “deficit perspective.” Instead, he argued that teach-ers must begin to value the funds of knowledge that students bring to school and use them as vehicles for literacy learning
Luis C. Moll. In illustrating the concept of “funds of knowledge,” one studentthat Moll (1994) studied was the child of a farmer whose family had a long history in farming. Although the farmer was not formally edu-cated, he possessed a tremendous amount of agricultural information: notably, knowledge of planting, watering, fertilizing, rotating crops, harvesting, marketing, and farm equipment. Moll reported that the stu-dent’s teacher invited the father into the classroom to talk about his work and lifestyle. After he left, the children wrote about what they had learned, and they completed other extension activities related to his visit. The experience was so successful in generating positive self-esteem and meaningful literacy learning for the students that the teacher sub-sequently invited six other parents representing a variety of occupations and avocations to the classroom. Moll’s work is socio-cultural because it emphasizes the central role of social and cultural influence on literacy learning.Teachers’ Anecdotes: Socio‐Cultural TheoryChristine is usually a quiet little girl. She infrequently participates in class discussions. She is a Vietnamese student who has good command of the English language. One of the story selections read this year was called “We Don’t Look Like Our Mom and Dad.” The story told of two adopted Korean children and how they were assimilated into a white, American family. It spoke of the Korean culture, foods, and customs that the children brought with them. Christine responded well
to this story. She offered to bring a traditional Vietnamese costume to school that she wears for special occasions. Through this story, she was able to relate her background knowledge to the school curriculum. As Moll would say, the story of the Korean children stimulated her to share one of her funds of knowledge with the other students in the classroom.—lu anne toye, fourth-grade teacherThe Socio-Cultural Theory was evident in the school district where I completed my student teaching. The majority of the school population there was made up of lower socioeconomic Indian and Middle Eastern families. Many of the weekly reading stories did not relate to students’ family cultures, as a result of which a vast majority of the students were left struggling with comprehension. For instance, one particular story that we read dealt with a newly growing family. This family was having another baby and needed to have their first child share a bed-room with the new arrival. Many of my Indian and Middle Eastern students didn’t understand why the first child was so upset about the new living arrangement. Most of my students did not have their own bedroom, and several slept on a shared mattress in their living rooms. Perhaps if the curriculum related more to Indian and Middle Eastern backgrounds, the students would have been more successful in com-prehending the material.—lisa KozaK, graduate student SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISMLev Semionovich Vygotsky, a Russian scholar and one of the earliest and most famous of the social learning theorists, created a theory of learning widely known as Social Constructivism. Dixon-Krauss (1996) noted that, although Vygotsky’s professional life spanned only 10 years, during that time he wrote more than 180 works. Dixon-Krauss also reported that Vygotsky died from tuberculosis in 1934 at the age of 38 and that, after his death, his work was banned in the Stalinist Soviet Union for 20 years. Even in the United States his work was not widely read until the 1970s (Good, 2011). Now, however, Vygotsky’s work is extremely prominent and influential in the fields of both education and psychology (Good, 2011). Vygotsky’s first major idea was that children learn as a result oftheir social interactions with others. “According to Vygotsky,” David-son (2010) notes, “development is the transformation of socially shared
Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934).activities into internalized processes” (p. 247). As Woolfolk (1998) explained:Whereas Piaget described the child as a little scientist, constructing an understanding of the world largely alone, Vygotsky (1978, 1986, 1987, 1993) suggested that cognitive development depends much more on inter-actions with the people in the child’s world and the tools that the culture provides to support thinking. Children’s knowledge, ideas, attitudes, and values develop through interactions with others. (p. 44)A second key idea in Vygotsky’s Social Constructivism is that achild’s development depends on his or her interactions with the sign sys-tems (Wilson, 2011). Sign systems include a culture’s oral and printed language. Vygotsky argued that children’s learning is most affected by their mastery of language, as evidenced by their mastery of sign systems such as the alphabet, words, listening, speaking, and writing. Vygotsky maintained that it is through the use and manipulation of these signs that children have the tools to think about and respond to the world. He called the process of using these signs systems “semiotic mediation.” He further argued that children learn the most about language and cor-responding sign systems from the people with whom they interact. Vygotsky’s most influential concept is the zone of proximal devel-opment, a term that refers to the ideal level of task difficulty needed to facilitate learning, This level, according to Vygotsky, is the one at which a child can be successful with appropriate support (Temple et al., 2011). Tasks that children can independently complete do not fall within the zone of proximal development, Vygotsky argued, because they are too
easy and, therefore, according to this theory, are not ideal for promoting children’s development. Yet another key idea in Vygotsky’s Social Constructivism is scaf-folding—the assistance that adults and more competent peers provide during learning episodes (Temple et al., 2011). This support can take the form of “clues, reminders, encouragement, breaking down the problem into steps, providing an example, or anything else that allows the stu-dent to grow in independence as a learner” (Slavin, 1997, p. 48). Chil-dren learn during experiences within the zone of proximal development as a result of others’ scaffolding. Vygotsky suggests guidelines to explain how cognitive develop-ment occurs. Before children can internalize such functioning and use it independently, they must experience the use of higher mental func-tioning in social situations. Similarly, prior to independently using the systems, children must learn about cultural communication systems in social situations. Au (1997) labeled these transitions as those that move from interpsychological (between people) to intrapsychological (within an individual). She suggests that the process of learning to read also fol-lows this pattern. Slavin (1997) compared and contrasted the ways in which Piagetand Vygotsky conceptualized development. Both theorists agreed that development occurred in a series of stages that is the same for all learn-ers. Piaget, however, proposed that development precedes learning. In Slavin’s words, Piaget suggested that “specific cognitive structures need to develop before certain types of learning can take place” (p. 46). Vygotsky, however, believed that learning results as a function of inter-acting with others. Good (2011) wrote that “Vygotsky believed that for a child to internalize a behavior (learning), the behavior must first occur socially and only then would become part of the internal knowledge of the child, the opposite of what Piaget’s theories dictated” (p. 168). Bakhtin (1981) was a contemporary of Vygotsky’s in Russia. LikeVygotsky, Bakhtin emphasized the social nature of learning. He was especially interested in the social nature of language learning and cre-ated Dialogism, a concept that recognizes that all thoughts and words are shaped by the thoughts and words of others who precede them.Teacher’s Anecdote: Social ConstructivismVygotsky’s idea of the zone of proximal development relates closely to a practice in my district called differentiated instruction. The idea of
the zone of proximal development is that children should be provided with the opportunity to learn at their own individual level. The same theory guides differentiated instruction. If children are presented with tasks that are not challenging enough or that are too challenging, they will not learn. At the K–5 level in my district, we do not use any type of group-ing or leveling in any subject. Knowing, however, that in a given math, reading, or language arts class there will be a minimum of three dif-ferent ability levels, the administration encourages teachers to employ differentiated instruction. I often practice differentiation, particularly in reading and math. It is quite advantageous to students because each of them is able to learn and succeed at his or her individual ability level.For example, when the class is initially introduced to a basal story,they read it in one of three ways. My more advanced students read the story independently. Children at the middle level read the story with a partner, a practice we call “buddy reading.” My three lowest readers listen to the story on tape and follow along in their texts. While each child experiences the story in his or her own way, I am free to walk around the room and interact with the students. I ask children indi-vidual questions and scaffold, or clarify parts of the story for them, if they do not understand. I incorporate the idea of the zone of proximal development, or dif-ferentiated instruction, in other areas of my reading program as well. When we use our basal readers, I pretest my students to determine if they are already familiar with certain skills to be presented in a given theme. Through pretesting, I have repeatedly discovered that the skills presented by the basal are often too easy for two-thirds of my class. If I were to continue to teach them basic skills from the basal, they would grow bored and little learning would occur. Therefore, I chal-lenge these students by teaching them higher-level thinking skills using supplemental literature. The children who do not understand certain concepts, as demonstrated by the pretest, are able to practice these skills on their level using the basal. Based on my experiences, Vygotsky’s zone of proximal develop-ment makes sense. In the classroom, children who are above a certain level do not waste their time relearning information that they already know. Similarly, children who require reinforcement in some areas have the advantage of receiving scaffolding from the teacher, of learn-ing with other children at their level of development, and of having tasks broken down into smaller steps for them. —MiChelle hilKe, third-grade teacher
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORYAlbert Bandura (1969, 1977, 1986, 1997), a Canadian psychologist, developed another theory within the social learning perspective. Origi-nally called “Social Learning Theory,” but recently renamed “Social Cognitive Theory,” this general theory of human behavior combines features of Behaviorism with those of social learning. Bandura’s pri-mary premise in creating Social Learning Theory was that a behavioral explanation of learning (see Chapter 3) did not take into account the phenomenon of vicarious learning—the notion that people learn from observing others. In fact, Bandura argued that people learn more from observing others than they do from the consequences of experiencing things themselves. Bandura suggested that it is fortunate that humans are capable of observational learning; without it, we would all have to experience everything ourselves in order to learn. Instead, we learn by observing others—their successes, failures, efforts, and styles. In Social Cognitive Theory, the people from whom we learn are called “models.” Similarly, “modeling” is the action performed by the model. According to Bandura, there are four stages of observational learn-ing (Artino, 2007): (1) the attentional phase, during which observers watch the model; (2) the retention phase, in which observers think about and process what they have observed; (3) the reproduction phase, in which observers repeat the behavior that has been modeled; and (4) the reinforcement phase, during which observers are often reinforced asAlbert Bandura.
they repeat modeled behaviors. For example, as children begin to learn to say “please” and “thank you,” adults often reinforce them for the acquisition of these manners. Social Learning Theory was developed largely as a result of Ban-dura’s research on the effects of media, such as television, on children’s learning. In these studies, children were exposed to cartoons in which the characters displayed varying amounts of aggression and were then either rewarded or punished for their hostile behaviors. After watch-ing the cartoons, the children were observed during play sessions, most famously playing with a large, plastic Bobo doll that could be knocked down repeatedly. Bandura’s research showed that the children who were exposed to the most aggression in the cartoons were the most likely to display aggression during their play sessions following the viewings. Furthermore, the research indicated that whether or not the characters in the cartoons were rewarded or punished for their hostile actions also predictably affected the likelihood that the children would repeat the aggressive behavior during play. As stated above, Bandura recently changed the name of the SocialLearning Theory to the Social Cognitive Theory. With this change, Ban-dura wanted to emphasize that much cognition is used during observa-tional learning. During learning, humans interpret the behaviors of oth-ers; they don’t just thoughtlessly imitate the behaviors of those around them. Bandura’s newest research and writings also emphasize the role of self-efficacy in learning. Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief that he or she possesses the abilities to attain specific goals. According to Bandura, people with highly perceived self-efficacy try more, accomplish more, and persist longer at a task than do people with low perceived self-efficacy. Furthermore, individuals can have perceived self-efficacy that is equivalent to, exceeds, or falls short of their actual abilities. Bandura’s writings have had a tremendous impact on the fields ofpsychology and education. Teachers frequently use the concept of obser-vational learning as a basis for classroom management. For example, many teachers will compliment (reinforce) the behavior of one student in the classroom with the expectation that other students in the class-room will imitate that desired behavior. Here, the teachers are count-ing on observational learning to be effective. Such use of observational learning is a widely recommended classroom management practice. The concepts of modeling and observational learning have beenparticularly prominent in the field of literacy learning. Modeling and observational learning are cornerstones of the fields of emergent
literacy and family literacy (see Chapter 5). These terms are often used to explain the ways in which young children learn about reading and books at home and in school. The techniques themselves are also cen-tral to practices that teachers use during literacy instruction. When teachers read aloud from big books, lead a morning message, or imple-ment a think-aloud strategy, they are hoping that their students will engage in observational learning. Similarly, the use of D.E.A.R. (Drop Everything and Read) time, during which everyone in the school stops what they are doing and reads for a set amount of time, is grounded in observational learning.Teacher’s Anecdote: Social Learning TheoryI really identify with the work of Bandura when I think about my own children. Ryan and Leanna will do whatever I model for them, whether it is positive or negative. They see my wife and I do a lot of reading and we have a loving and caring home and this transfers to them. They love to read, and be read to, and they are very affectionate toward other people. Also, when we eliminated television from their daily lives, the violent behaviors that would occasionally pop up seemed to disappear. They now really have nowhere to observe these types of behavior. I also observe my students’ behavior at school during recess. In talking to the students and observing their behavior, there is a definite connec-tion between their actions and what they watch on television. —Joseph tuCKeR, special education teacherCRITICAL LITERACY THEORYIn addition to spawning Sociolinguistic Theory, Socio-Cultural Theory, Social Constructivism, and Social Learning Theory, the social learning lenses have provided the foundation for Critical Literacy Theory (Freire, 1970). Critical Literacy Theory considers the relationships between indi-viduals, literacy, and social transformation. This theory is built on the early work of Michel Foucault (1926–1984), a French philosopher who wrote about the relationships between knowledge and power. Critical Literacy Theory seeks to explain the ways in which education and liter-acy shape people’s lives and the ways in which people can use education and literacy to reshape society. In Freire’s words, people live in social contexts which “mark them and which they also mark” (p. 90).
Working in Brazil in the 1960s, Freire sought to find ways to under-stand, and then educate, the poor and uneducated. In his writings, he argued that a “pedagogy of oppression” existed in Brazilian society. This pedagogy of oppression provided less than adequate educational services to the lowest classes of the Brazilian population, enabling soci-ety to continue to supply itself with a perpetual stream of poorly edu-cated workers. According to Freire, these workers were necessary for maintenance of Brazil’s status quo. Freire’s work presented illiteracy not as a personal failing, but “as a historically constructed product of a society structured to produce inequality” (Siegel & Fernandez, 2000, p. 146). Freire sought to create a “pedagogy of liberation” and was suc-cessful in educating many poor Brazilians until the government forced him into exile because of his political beliefs and practices. Critical Literacy Theory challenges the traditional belief that edu-cation is a politically neutral process designed to promote the individualdevelopment of all children. According to Siegel and Fernandez (2000), “The image of schooling as an opportunity for social mobility based on merit is replaced, in critical thought, by one that shows how schools reproduce the unequal distribution of wealth and power that is the hall-mark of capitalist societies, and in so doing contribute to the mainte-nance of the status quo” (p. 141). Of particular interest to those who adopt a critical literacy theoreti-cal lens is “raising awareness of and reflecting on systems of oppression in learners’ lives . . . , and moving from there to transformative action” (Handsfield, 2016, p. 80). Handsfield continued: “Within critical lit-eracy theory, there is an overarching emphasis on how broad structures of power, in particular, social institutions, contribute to inequity, and teachers and students are prompted to use literacy to address social ineq-uities in students’ immediate or local communities” (p. 83). In Freire’s (1970) words, a critical education is one that includes “reflection and action upon the world in order to change it” (p. 36). Literacy is at the heart of this reflection and action. As Handsfield noted, “Key to criti-cal literacy theory is embedding literacy skills instruction (whether it is composition, spelling, literary analysis, grammar, persuasive writing, etc.) within the larger project of social change” (p. 81). Two notable contributors to Critical Literacy Theory are Street(1995) and Gee (1996). Street used the terms “autonomous” and “ide-ological” to differentiate between two forms of literacy (Handsfield, 2016). An autonomous view of literacy refers to its functional and tech-nical aspects. It suggests that literacy skills can be learned regardless of one’s social context. In contrast, an ideological perspective on literacy
argues that all texts and readers have values representing a particular worldview. Furthermore, much like Freire, Street (2003) argued that value-laden texts contain a worldview designed to sway readers to the author’s position. Street also differentiated between literacy events, which are discrete occurrences, and literacy practices, which are deeply embedded patterns of literacy use within individuals, families, class-rooms, communities, and cultures. Gee (1990, 1996), built on the early sociolinguistic work of Bernstein (1972a, 1972b), confirming the lan-guage pattern differences of those from different educational, socioeco-nomic, and educational backgrounds. In contrast to Bernstein, however, Gee also emphasized the aspect of social power associated with differ-ent discourses.Teacher’s Anecdote: Critical Literacy TheoryI work in an inner city, urban high school, and critical literacy theory is really important to me. I try to help my students think critically about everything that they read and everything that happens in our class-room, our school, the local community, and the world. I think that helping my students learn to be critical readers and thinkers are two of the most important life skills that they can learn. When they read texts, I try to help them identify the author’s purpose and position. When conflicts arise in our classroom, school, or in the community, I try to help them understand the perspectives of all parties. I try to help my students understand that things can be examined from different angles and that different people have different agendas. I also want my students to find their own values and voices. We engage in proj-ects using written language for social change, like writing to the local newspaper about the time that our school starts. I want to empower my students to think critically about the world in which they live and be able to shape that world. —RogeR WilliaMs, high school English teacherCRITICAL RACE THEORYAccording to Edwards and Schmidt (2006), Critical Race Theory (CRT) has its roots in the fields of law, sociology, history, ethnic studies, and women’s studies, but it is Ladson-Billings (1998) who deserves credit for bringing the educational community’s attention to it. Edwards and Schmidt wrote that
CRT is characterized by four tenets. First, it names and discusses the daily realities of racism and exposes how racism continues to privilege whites and to disadvantage people of color. Second, it legitimates and promotes the voices of people of color by using storytelling to integrate experien-tial knowledge drawn from a shared history as “the other” into critiques of dominant social orders. Third, CRT insists on critiquing liberalism, particularly the notion that meaningful social change can occur without radical change to existing social structures. Fourth, CRT questions the efficacy of much of the civil rights legislation enacted in the United States, arguing that rather than reducing the effects of racism on people of color, the primary beneficiaries of this legislation have been whites. (p. 405)CRT shares its roots with Critical Literacy Theory, also focusing onthe relationships between individuals, literacy, power, and social trans-formation, but it highlights the dimension of race when considering these relationships. According to Handsfield (2016), CRT is especially questioning of white, male ways of knowing and power. For example, Handsfield noted that Urrieta (2010) renamed “mainstream” as “whit-estream.” Rector-Aranda (2016) used Critical Race Theory when she addressed the “Fairytale of Equitable Education” (p. 1). Citing the U.S.Gloria Ladson-Billings. Courtesy of Bryce Richter, University of Wisconsin—Madison.
federal government’s No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and Com-mon Core State Standards initiatives, she noted that “[e]quitable edu-cation has been professed as a top priority in these reforms, however, the problem instead appears to be worsening” (p. 1). She attributed the failing of these programs to the country’s deep history of legal, educa-tional, and cultural racism, as evidenced by “recent publicized killings and other atrocities by white police officers against unarmed suspects of color” (p. 4). She quoted Ayers’s comment (1007) as reproduced in Chandler and McKnight (2009): “A society founded on genocide, built on the labor of African slaves, developed by Latino serfs and Asian indentured servants, made fabulously wealthy through exploitation and masterful manipulation and mystification—a society like this is a soci-ety built on race” (p. 131). According to Rector-Aranda, CRT also recognizes that the dispro-portionate failings of nonwhite students in the American educational system are largely caused by “larger oppressive social and institutional systems” (p. 4).Placing blame on students for failure to meet the standards set for them excuses the larger system from any accountability for failing these stu-dents. This same focus on individual responsibility is repeated for explain-ing other racial disparities in the general population, rather than question-ing the outside and imposed forces that may have contributed. (pp. 4–5)Closely related to Critical Race Theory are theories specific to particu-lar cultures such as Feminist Theory, Latino Critical Theory, and Queer Theory (Handsfield, 2016).Teacher’s Anecdote: Critical Race TheoryI have taught in a low-SES, urban, largely minority school district, and I have taught in a predominantly white, upper-middle-class, suburban district. Although I taught second grade in both schools, it has been like teaching in two different worlds. Teen mothers and grandmothers raised most of my students in the urban district, in homes that were stressed by finances, addiction, and gang violence. Well-educated, financially stable, two-parent families are raising most of my students in the suburbs. The in-school experiences are different too. In the urban district, we had to fight to get paper, pencils, leveled books, tis-sues, and technology in the classrooms. In the suburban district, the parent–teacher organization runs big fund-raisers, and we have money
to buy the newest and best materials for the children, including a fan-tastic playground. Our students in the suburbs have every advantage. To conclude that my students in the urban community are behind in academic achievement because of their personal failings is crazy. It is the differences between the families, schools, and communities in which they are being raised that are creating the differences. This con-clusion is consistent with Critical Race Theory. —Mariana ruiz, second-grade teacherMULTILITERACIES THEORYAccording to Doerr and Temple (2016), at approximately the turn of the millennium, a group of researchers in Connecticut named the New Lon-don Group (1996) developed the concept of multiliteracies to describe the new kinds of skills readers needed to negotiate electronic environ-ments. Handsfield (2016) described multiliteracies as “the proliferation and shift in tools and practices associated with rapidly changing com-munication technologies and globalization” (p. 86). The New London group, she noted, argued that “what counts as literacy should be broad-ened to encompass multiple semiotic modes” (p. 87).The New London Group underscored how shifts in literacy technologies and the impact of the media in people’s everyday lives come together to characterize what scholars have referred to as “new times.” The principal argument here is that the rapidly shifting, or “deictic”, nature of literacy technologies is radically different in speed and scope from earlier techno-logical advances in literacy tools and practices, such as the development of the printing press or even the typewriter. . . . Proponents of this theoretical orientation argue that new times require corresponding shifts in how we think about teaching and learning. (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003, p. 87)Multiliteracies are also known as new literacies; a handbookaddresses this topic in depth (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2009). Teacher’s Anecdote: Multiliteracies TheoryI can understand how multiliteracies are different from traditional text literacy skills. This can work in both positive and negative ways. On the positive side, my students love to work in an electronic envi-ronment, and most of them are very adept at creating with electronic
tools, keyboarding, scrolling, and following links. It really is a whole new set of skills that they need to be successful in this environment. On the downside, my students need to take their state-mandated, end-of-the-year tests on the computer. In this case, I am concerned that my students’ new literacies skills interfere with a true assessment of their traditional reading and writing skills. In many ways, traditional literacy is different from new literacies, so, when an end-of the year assessment uses both, it is hard to tell what is bringing a student’s score up or down.—daRa Cohen, third-grade teacher CLASSROOM APPLICATIONSThe social learning perspectives are extremely popular among reading educators. Classroom practices consistent with this framework include, but are not limited to, the use of literacy centers in the classroom, shared readings, paired reading, cross-age reading/tutoring, guided reading, process writing, shared writing, guided writing, literature circles, morn-ing meetings, and e-mail pals. All of these practices emphasize the social nature of learning—that is, the notion that students learn a great deal from the other people in their world, both adults and children.Sociolinguistic Theory Teaching Idea: Language Experience Charts and Morning Messages (Grades K–3)The use of a language experience chart in the classroom reflects the social learning perspective, particularly Sociolinguistic Theory. A lan-guage experience chart is a story based on a shared experience that is written collaboratively by the teacher and young students on very large paper (chart paper). The processes of writing, reading, and rereading the story are used as teaching experiences. To begin a language experience chart, teachers call students to the rug in the classroom literacy center where a large pad of chart paper is propped on an easel. The teacher and/or students then decide on a topic for the language experience story. This story is often based on a previous, shared experience, such as a class trip or a recent special event. The teacher then asks students to think of a good sentence to start the story. When a student supplies the sentence, the teacher can either immediately accept what the student has said or ask the student or the class for additional ideas to strengthen
the sentence. It is important that the teacher only uses sentences that are grammatically correct in this exercise. After everyone is satisfied with the starting sentence, the teacher begins to write the sentence with the class’s assistance. The teacher may ask the students how to begin the sentence (with a capital) and how to spell many of the words. The teacher will also ask for punctuation marks as he or she is writing. After the first sentence is printed on the chart paper, the teacher asks the class to reread it and then prompts the class to supply a second sentence. Con-struction of the language experience chart proceeds in this manner until the story is completed. At the conclusion of the lesson, students reread the entire story they have helped to write. At this point in the lesson, the teacher may also use the story as a teaching text, asking students to come up to the chart and find target words (e.g., words that begin with capitals or words that have the -ing ending). Frequently, teachers laminate these stories and keep them on a stand or in the literacy center where students can reread them during literacy center time. Many edu-cators believe that having children reread stories that they have helped to create and that are based on experiences in which they have engaged strongly benefits young readers’ literacy development. The teaching technique of using a morning message is a variation ofthe language experience approach described above. In the morning mes-sage technique, students and the teacher collaborate to write a message about what the day’s activities will be. The teacher may prompt students with the content of the morning message (e.g., “Who can give me a sen-tence about going to music class?”), but the basic process of construct-ing and rereading the created text remains the same. The teacher can refer to the morning message throughout the day to remind students of that day’s schedule. This practice reinforces the authenticity of reading for meaning. The language experience approach and use of a morning messageare practices consistent with the social learning perspectives, particu-larly Sociolinguistic Theory, because they reflect the belief that learning is enhanced through social language interactions.Socio‐Cultural Teaching Idea: Literature Circles (Grades 3 and Up)The use of literature circles in the classroom is an instructional practice that is deeply grounded in the social learning perspective and that can be viewed as reflective of Socio-Cultural Theory. The concept of literature circles was developed by educators who believed that students benefit
from talking to each other about books, but who also believed that stu-dents’ conversations need to be structured in a way that help them stay on task. The use of literature circles is consistent with a Socio-Cultural Theory perspective because it is built on the premise that students will learn from each other during literature circles (the social component). Additionally, the concept of literature circles emphasizes the importance of students bringing knowledge and artifacts from their own lives (their cultures) into these discussions. Several different approaches can be used for designing and employ-ing literature circles in the classroom. Daniels (1994), one of the pio-neers in the area, has made recommendations for literature circles that are widespread and highly popular among teachers. Daniels suggests that students’ conversations in literature circles should be organized according to jobs, or roles, that students perform in response to their reading and then share during circle time.• Discussion Director. The Discussion Director lists three thought-provoking questions that the students’ group might want to discuss rela-tive to the reading assignment. The questions should help students talk over the main ideas in the reading and share reactions to the reading, and not focus on details. The best questions usually come from the stu-dents’ own thoughts, feelings, and concerns as they read. During the literature circle, the Discussion Director presents his or her questions and records the other students’ answers to them. • Passage Master. This student locates three special sections of theassigned reading to bring to the group’s attention during literature cir-cles. The idea is to help students in the group reexamine the sections of the text that are especially important or interesting. The Passage Mas-ter should identify the sections of the text that he or she found most important or interesting, and explain to the group the reasons for his or her choices. Then the Passage Master should record a summary of the group’s responses to the selected passages. • Vocabulary Enricher. The Vocabulary Enricher locates anddefines five words that are unfamiliar or especially important to under-standing the meaning of the assigned reading. During literature circles, the Vocabulary Enricher helps the group locate the words in the text and better understand them. • Artist. This student makes a creative, graphic response relatedto the assigned reading. The artistic response can be a sketch, cartoon, diagram, flowchart, collage, mobile, or the like. The idea or ideas
represented in the artwork should reflect one or more of the impor-tant concepts in the reading and should be accompanied by a short explanatory paragraph. During literature circles, the Artist presents and explains his or her creative response to the group. • Connector. The Connector identifies meaningful connectionsbetween the assigned reading and real-world experiences. The connec-tions may be related to the student’s personal life or to events in the classroom, school, community, or larger world. The main focus here is to apply the reading to the real world. The student presents his or her connections during literature circles. • Investigator. The Investigator’s job is to locate additional, newinformation related to the assigned reading. Examples include magazine and newspaper articles, books, or information from the Internet related to the text. Interviews or visits to related locations are also appropriate. The Investigator may locate information about one or more concepts from the assigned reading, or find information about the text’s author. The Investigator enhances the literature circle discussion with the extra information he or she has found. • Summarizer. This student prepares a summary of the assigned reading and shares it with the group during the literature circle.Implementing Literature Circles in the Classroom The implementation of literature circles in the classroom should be flex-ible and in keeping with the students’ maturity level and the classroom teacher’s organizational style. There is no single, correct way to imple-ment literature circles in the classroom. Practitioners are encouraged to try a variety of modifications when implementing this instructional approach and to select the approach that works best for them. Some helpful general guidelines are as follows:1. Literature circles are most easily implemented at the third-grade level and above. While some teachers have successfully used lit-erature circles at the second-grade level, many students are not yet ready for this degree of independence.2. Students can either complete their assigned reading and role work as class work or as homework. Each has its benefits and drawbacks. If students do not complete their assigned work, they should not be allowed the “privilege” of participating in a literature circle.
3. Students can be placed in either heterogeneously or homo-geneously based groups for literature circles. Each grouping arrangement has its benefits and drawbacks. Teachers should experiment to discover what works best for them and their stu-dents.4. Students in every literature circle can read the same text, or different circles can work on different texts. Some researchers believe that self-selection of the text/circle is an essential com-ponent of this instructional approach. Sometimes teachers will have access to many choices in this realm, and other times they will not. Literature circles can be used with any text, including basal readers.5. Teachers vary with regard to how often they use literature cir-cles. Some teachers use them daily, others only once or twice a week. Still others set aside several months during the academic year for their use.6. A combination of students’ role work and informal observations of the literature circles can be used as sources of information for assessing students’ performance. Traditional assessments such as tests and writing assignments can also be used as comple-ments to nontraditional evaluations.7. The highlights of literature circles have been presented here. Additionalinformation can be found in books, professional journal articles, and on the Internet.Social Constructivism Teaching Idea: Cross‐Age and Buddy Reading, Ideal for English Language LearnersLike the instructional technique of literature circles, the instructional techniques of partner, buddy, and cross-age reading are also deeply embedded in social learning theoretical perspectives. Partner and buddy reading are consistent with Social Constructivism’s theoretical perspec-tives because the practices are built on the premise that children will scaffold each other’s learning during the shared reading experiences. These activities are particularly well suited for English language learn-ers (ELLs), as they can listen and learn from their peers and will likely experience less stress speaking to a buddy or partner than in front of the whole class. Although the terms are often used interchangeably, most often “partner reading” refers to pairing students from within the same class to read together, whereas “buddy reading” refers to pairing
students from different grade classrooms to read together. The research on both forms of paired reading is positive. When Dixon-Krauss (1995) investigated the effects of partner reading on first and second graders, she found that the experience improved students’ word recognition abil-ities and their attitudes regarding reading aloud. Small improvements in oral reading fluency were also reported. Many variations exist regarding ways to implement partner read-ing. As a general guideline, teachers can assume that if their students are happily engaged in the paired reading process and are staying on task, then the experience will be educationally valuable for their students. When planning to begin partner reading, teachers need to consider when and how to structure this component of their literacy program. Some teachers allow their students to choose partner reading as an optional activity within the literacy center portion of their day. Other teachers prefer that all of their students engage in partner reading at the same time. The pairing of students can be decided on by the teacher or the students themselves. Some teachers deliberately pair students possessing stronger and weaker reading skills, based on the assumption that the better reader will be able to assist the struggling reader. Other teachers pair students of equal reading skill, based on the idea that students will be best able to read material on their correct instructional level in this situation. Still other teachers allow students to pick their partners. The rationale for this approach is that students’ motivation to read and atti-tudes toward reading will improve if they are given the opportunity to read with their friends. It is especially valuable to pair ELLs with other students from their same language and/or cultural background. With regard to reading materials during partner reading, manyteachers allow student pairs to choose their own materials from the literacy center, thus making partner reading a variation of self-selected reading. Other educators assign specific materials from the classroom library, the guided reading texts, or the basal reading program. Teach-ers also differ in deciding how much direction and structure they pro-vide to their students for this time. Some teachers give students specific rules stipulating how the students should organize their time during partner reading. Other teachers have students complete activity sheets or answer questions. Still other teachers allow students to read together. Classroom practitioners beginning to experiment with this instruc-tional technique are urged to try a variety of materials and methods. One approach may work better than others in specific classrooms; con-versely, teachers may decide that it is beneficial to use an array of activi-ties within the partner reading format.
Buddy reading is an alternative form of partner reading. In buddyreading, teachers from two different grade levels work together to pair their students for partner reading. A central component of buddy read-ing is that the students within each pair are on different reading levels from each other. Most often, stronger readers from the upper grade are paired with stronger readers from the lower grade, and weaker readers from the upper grade are paired with weaker readers from the lower grades. Students from the upper grades act as teachers or tutors during the paired reading experience. Sometimes classroom teachers instruct older students in techniques for helping the younger students with their reading (Morrow, 2002).Social Learning Perspectives Teaching Ideas: New LiteraciesErin Kramer, classroom teacher, presents the following thoughts on the overlap between social learning perspectives and technology: With the rise of social networking sites came a change in the waypeople interact with the Internet. Now a well-established virtual com-munity, users are able to connect with an almost limitless number of people all around the world. Using social learning perspectives, Internet applications that facilitate social interaction are the technology to inte-grate into today’s classroom. Fortunately, these applications are rapidly being developed and are already numerous.Teacher Websites and WikisSeveral free and fee-based applications are available that allow teach-ers to create websites. The most basic of these allows a teacher to post information about her or his classroom including FAQs, links, news, and more. Other applications have special features that allow for online volunteer sign-ups, subscriptions that e-mail or text updates to view-ers, blogs, podcasting, and video sharing. The Socio-Cultural Theory is being applied when teachers use a website to inform and involve parents, thus enhancing the home–school interaction within the mesosystem. Wikis offer the same basic features of teacher websites with anadded interactive component—that is, the wiki owner can allow its members to edit its pages, post discussions, create new pages, and upload files. Wikis allow students to connect with one another and their teacher, to collaborate, and to publish their work. Social Constructiv-ism is evident here since students are learning through social interaction
with others. Website applications include TeacherWeb, eBoard, Educa-torPages, Classtown, Wix, and Google Sites. Wiki Applications include Wikispaces, ZohoWiki, and PBWorks.Google DocsThis collaborative, online application allows its users to create docu-ments, presentations, spreadsheets, forms, and drawings on the web. These files can be made public to all, viewable with a link only, shared with selected users, or kept private. Editing permission can be granted to its users, which permits simultaneous editing. Using this tool, stu-dents can collaborate on documents and presentations, viewing each other’s edits in real time and participating in discussions in a separate panel. This dynamic application allows students to build on and refine their knowledge in a social setting, which is consistent with the Social Constructivism viewpoint.VoiceThreadVoiceThread facilitates online discussions. Its user can upload videos, pictures, or documents and organize them into slides. Viewers can leave video, audio, or text comments as well as digitally draw on the slides to emphasize and clarify their points. The classroom applications for such a tool are numerous and varied. Within language arts, VoiceThread projects can range from teacher-created mini-lessons to student-created book reviews, digital class books, and slideshows for vocabulary and concept development surrounding a theme. Socio-Cultural Theory, Social Constructivism, and Multiliteracies Theory are active in a Voice-Thread project. As a direct result of this relatively new environment, we see new literacies emerging that require a whole new set of sign systems. On VoiceThread, students construct new knowledge through their dis-cussions using these sign systems.ePalsePals Global Community is an online destination that connects students around the world. Partnered with National Geographic, this free appli-cation offers collaborative interdisciplinary projects where students con-nect using their student e-mail accounts (with safety features such as teacher monitoring) and create culminating presentations. Teachers can also choose to create their own projects and use the site to find partners
for collaboration and communication. Students receive scaffolding as they work through the stages of their project, constructing knowledge through e-mail collaboration. This site represents a seamless integration of the Social Constructivist and Multiliteracies perspectives. If the pro-jects are used to engage students in projects related to social activities, Critical Literacy Theory would also be in use.RESEARCH APPLICATIONSA large number of scholars in the field of literacy use social learning perspectives to present and interpret their research. Using a sociolinguistic lens, Davoudi, Zolfagharkhani, and Rezaei(2016) investigated three instructional approaches to teaching English to Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students. The 106 uni-versity students were randomly assigned to three groups: a language enrichment approach using authentic texts (texts as originally written); a language enrichment approach using simplified text (texts that were modified in difficulty); and a no language enrichment group. Students in both enrichment groups participated in discussions with the teacher before, during, and after the text readings. Students in the no language enrichment group independently read the texts. Following ten sessions in which a short story was read at each, results revealed that both groups of students in the language enrichment groups outperformed students in the control (no language enrichment) group. Significant differences between groups using the authentic and simplified texts were not found. Students in both of the language enrichment groups also reported their experiences as very helpful. The authors concluded that EFL students should receive language enrichment support when reading textbooks for their university courses. Kim, Im, and Kwon (2015) examined toddlers’ home literacy envi-ronments (HLEs) to predict their preschool vocabulary and decoding abilities. When the HLE is studied in this way, it can be considered a socio-cultural context. The researchers conducted an analysis of preex-isting data for 6,050 children included in the Early Childhood Longitu-dinal Study Birth Cohort. The children were monolingual English, typi-cally developing, and of diverse socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. Data included parent questionnaires regarding the home literacy envi-ronment (number of books in the home; number of storybook read-ings per week; number of storytellings per week; and number of songs sung per week) and measures of children’s vocabulary and decoding
abilities. Assessments were taken at age 2 and then again at age 41⁄2. Results indicated that family SES when the child was 2 years old signifi-cantly predicted children’s vocabulary and decoding ability at age 41⁄2. After controlling for family SES, it was found that the quality of the HLE accounted for 15% of the variance of the preschoolers’ vocabu-lary development and 18% of the variance of the preschoolers’ decoding ability. Stroet, Opdenakker, and Minnaert (2015) conducted a compara-tive analysis of two classrooms, one that was prototypical of using a traditional instructional approach and the other that was prototypical of using a social constructivist instructional approach. The traditional teacher primarily used a whole-class, transmission-based instructional style. The social constructivist teacher primarily used a small-group, problem-based instructional style. This study was part of a larger study involving 20 seventh-grade Dutch classrooms. For the current study, teacher–student interactions in two classrooms were videotaped for a year and then analyzed. Results revealed that much greater student autonomy support was provided in the social constructivist classroom than in the traditional classroom. The social constructivist instruction was also associated with a much higher level of student encouragement than was the traditional instruction. The teacher in the traditional class-room was viewed as displaying more disaffection than the teacher in the social-constructivist classroom. Unfortunately, comparisons of stu-dents’ academic growth in the two classrooms during the school year were not reported. Social Learning Theory was used to frame a study on the use ofTwitter in the classroom (Kinsky & Bruce, 2016). The research ques-tions were: (1) Can live tweeting be successfully integrated into a com-munication course? (2) What will students learn from live-tweeting assignments? and (3) What are the best practices for live tweeting in a course? Students watched the Super Bowl, the Academy Awards, MarchMadness, and the Winter Olympics and were required to tweet com-ments about the actions, advertisements, or performances while viewing these events. Most participants had no previous knowledge about Twit-ter, a powerful social communication platform. Over the course of the study, however, the students became proficient at tweeting and gained authentic writing mechanics experience. The study revealed that almost all the students were positivelyengaged with what they were required to do. They expressed sat-isfaction with the tweeting experience and reported that they felt an
increased closeness to the other students in their class. The teacher reported increased engagement and confidence among the students, increased evidence of critical thinking, and increased exposure to real-world experiences. Linking the study to Social Learning Theory, the authors wrote:One of the favorite aspects of the assignment reported by students was reading what others were tweeting. This observation of others’ posts ties into Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory—that people learn from what they see others doing, whether those models are present or in a medi-ated form, and that the viewer has the agency to decide whether or not to imitate the model. (p. 45)In a study reflecting both Critical Literacy Theory and Critical RaceTheory, Han, Madhuri, and Scull (2015) examined the responses of preservice teachers to texts on critical pedagogy, social justice, and mul-ticultural education. One group of preservice teachers (n = 14) attended a rural, primarily European American white university in Wyoming. The other group (n = 10) attended a diverse, multicultural university in California. All of the participants in the rural Wyoming group were white and of European-American descent; the participants in the Cali-fornia group were of European American white, African American black, and Mexican American heritages. Students in both groups were assigned readings related to critical literacy, social justice, and multicul-tural education for one semester. The students engaged in teacher-led class discussions about the readings, written responses to the readings, and sharing of written discussions. Data collected included students’ written responses to the texts and students’ written responses to specific questions about the texts, surveys, and course evaluations. The results revealed that students in the two universities had widely disparate reac-tions to the curriculum. Themes discovered in the rural, Wyoming university preservice teachers were that they had a lack of exposure to diversity, held a sense of white superiority, and were resistant to the con-structs of critical pedagogy, social justice texts, and multicultural edu-cation. Themes discovered in the urban, diverse, California university preservice teachers were that they were receptive to and embracing of the ideas associated with critical pedagogy, social justice, and multicul-tural education. In addition, the California teachers expressed gratitude for the experiences associated with the curriculum. The authors con-cluded that all preservice teachers, but especially those from primarily white, European American backgrounds, needed exposure to, and help
with, assimilating the concepts associated with critical pedagogy, social justice, and multicultural education. Kuby and Vaughn (2015) used Multiliteracies Theory to contributeto an understanding of the ways in which young children’s interactions with multimodal literacies shape their identities. The researchers used a cross-case qualitative research design to examine the children’s identity formation. One kindergarten student from a Pacific Northwest pub-lic charter school was studied, as was one second-grade student from a midwestern university community. The student body of the Pacific Northwest community was primarily white, European American of varied SES backgrounds, while the student body of the midwestern uni-versity community was of mixed racial, ethnic, and SES cultures. Both students were studied for a full academic year during periods of writ-ing workshops. Data sources included field notes, researcher reflections, classroom teacher reflections, videotapes, audiotapes, recorded inter-views, and artifacts. Mediated discourse analysis was used to examine the data. Four insights were observable in both students (1) a sense of identify shifts throughout the school year; (2) the importance of being a teacher to other children in the classroom; (3) a stage of becoming a multimodal visionary; and (4) a stage of being a designer and mentor in the classroom.SUMMARYThis chapter highlights multiple social learning lenses, all of which emphasize the central role of social interaction in the development of knowledge and learning. When applied to the field of reading, the social learning lenses emphasize the importance of social influences and social interaction on literacy learning. The social learning perspective of Sociolinguistics Theory (Bernstein, 1972a, 1972b; Hart & Risley; Heath, 1982) emphasizes the importance of oral language in literacy learning and the central role of social interaction in all literacy acquisi-tion. Socio-Cultural Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Moll, 1992, 1994) emphasizes the broader effects of communities and cultures on styles of interaction and subsequently on students’ learning. Social Construc-tivism (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986) describes the ways in which knowledge is constructed within individuals as a result of social interaction, and Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986) highlights the central role of modeling in human learning. Critical Literacy Theory (Freire, 1970) examines the ways in which literacy and literacy instruction can be
understood as vehicles of power to ameliorate social inequalities. Criti-cal Race Theory (Ladson-Billings, 1998) is similar to Critical Literacy Theory but underscores the dimension of race, whereas Multiliteracies Theory considers multimodal aspects of literacy learning (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; New London Group, 1996). These theories all share the common view that literacy learning is social in nature, but each empha-sizes a different facet of that belief. Although the various social learning theories are often used interchangeably, we have tried to clarify their distinctions and similarities, as well as to articulate their implications for instruction and research.IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION• What is Sociolinguistic Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Socio-Cultural Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Social Constructivism, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Social Learning Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Critical Literacy Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Critical Race Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?• What is Multiliteracies Theory, and how is it reflected in reading instruction and reading research?ACTIVITIESAnticipation Guides. Anticipation guides increase comprehension of texts by having readers engage with text content both before and after read-ing. To begin, create an anticipation guide by generating written questions about the chapter’s content. For the present chapter, you can use the “Ques-tions to Consider before Reading.” Answer the questions to the best of your ability prior to reading, and then read the chapter. After reading the chap-ter, go back and answer the same questions again, paying special attention
