Strategic Literacy Initiative

The work of the Strategic Literacy Initiative both draws on and contributes to the theories in the areas of: literacy and learning, adolescent literacy development, teacher learning and change to support effective literacy development in content area classes. These theories have been developed over several decades of empirical research, both quantitative and qualitative.

Literacy and learning

Literacy is a social, cultural, and cognitive activity shaped by particular communities, and by the particular situations and contexts in which reading and writing occur (Scribner & Cole, 1983; Street, 1995). Since specific practices are entailed in specific kinds of literacy, reading cannot be taught once and for all in the early grades but must also be taught in the context of its application and use, i.e., in the content areas.

Historically, literacy demands have increased as complexity of tasks and types of texts have grown in an information-transforming world (Myers, 1996). According to national assessments (NCES, 2001), very few American students reach the advanced levels of literacy necessary to sustain a prosperous and democratic society; we focus our work on accelerating middle and high school students’ development of advanced literacy proficiencies.

The learning of advanced mental processes such as reading and writing takes place when learners actively participate in literacy activities with the support and guidance of more proficient others (Vygotsky, 1978). Cognitive apprenticeship makes the thinking involved in reading and writing tasks visible and helps students develop needed tools (Rogoff, 1989).

Metacognition – thinking about thinking processes – facilitates the learning of a wide repertoire of cognitive and problem-solving strategies, unfamiliar concepts, and discipline-based thinking (Flavell, 1976). Metacognitive approaches to instruction help students take control of their own learning, set learning goals, and monitor progress (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

In our modern classrooms and societies, diversity is the norm; interpretive practices vary across communities and disciplines (Heath, 1983; Lee, 1995; Lemke, 1990). The strategies we use for thinking reflect cultural norms and activities (Hutchins, 1995). Therefore, explicitness about the purposes and thinking processes involved in school-based literacy practices is necessary to help the diverse students in the classroom participate successfully in these practices (Delpit, 1995).

Adolescents’ literacy learning

Adolescents bring aesthetic, cognitive, cultural, and linguistic knowledge and experiences to the work of literacy, providing a strong base for educators to help them become more capable, motivated, and strategic readers of challenging academic texts (Alvermann, 2002; Heath & McLaughlin, 1995; Jimenez, 2000; Lee, 1995; Moll, 1992).

Students develop theories about literacy practices and purposes based on their reading and writing experiences in and out of school (Hull & Rose, 1989). Often these experiences result in misconceptions that get in the way of students’ development and engagement as readers and writers.

A critical and often unacknowledged part of adolescents’ literacy development involves helping young people transform the identities of non-reader and non-learner they form in response to negative experiences in school into new identities as capable readers and learners (Gee, 1996); this shift in identity, nurtured through ongoing collaborative inquiry, explicit mentoring and support during literacy activities, enables adolescents to re-engage in complex literacy learning (Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1993).

To develop as readers, adolescents need abundant and supported opportunities to read, explicit instruction in reading comprehension strategies, access to high quality and engaging materials, and choice about their reading materials (Fielding & Pearson, 1994; Guthrie &, Wigfield 1997; Pressley, 1998; Rycik & Irvin, 2001; Snow, 2002). To successfully engage in the reading and writing tasks assigned in content areas, adolescents need explicit mentoring focused on how to approach reading materials in ways that are characteristic of specific, academic disciplines (Borasi & Seigel, 2000; Langer, 1995; Their & Davis, 2002; Wineburg, 2001).

Teacher change to more effectively support literacy in content area classes

While school reform can make important contributions to the improvement of educational outcomes for students, systemic changes in education cannot have their intended effects without changes in "the core of educational practice--how teachers understand the nature of knowledge and the student’s role in learning and how these ideas about knowledge and learning are manifested in teaching and classwork” (Elmore, 1996). Professional development for teachers must therefore aim to change the core of educational practice.

Teaching involves thinking, planning, decision-making, and assessment of students in the dynamic flow of classroom instruction (Schön, 1991; Shulman, 1986). Through instantaneous appraisals of student responses to lessons, teachers make decisions and carry out instructional actions that shape students’ opportunities to learn, evaluate students’ performance and capabilities, and orchestrate students’ interactions with one another and class materials, including texts (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999).

Because teachers orchestrate student learning opportunities dynamically and interactively in the classroom, to be effective with all students, especially those whose backgrounds, languages, and/or cultures differ from the teacher’s, teachers need to acquire the capacity to listen to and interpret student thinking and learning processes (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Cazden & Mehan, 1989).

To be effective in supporting the literacy development of all of their students, teachers must have a deep knowledge of the reading process and the demands that subject-area texts place on readers, as well as the ability to tap the language and literacy proficiencies that their students display outside the classroom (Alvermann, 2002).

Effective professional development engages teachers as learners, is sustained over time, and employs inquiry methods to build teachers’ understandings (Guskey & Huberman, 1996; Shulman, 1996; Sparks & Hirsch, 1997). Moreover, effective professional development offers teachers the resources necessary to gain skill and knowledge, creates opportunities for teachers to reflect on their teaching and their students’ learning, and recognizes as well as builds teachers’ expertise (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Wilson & Berne, 1999).

References Cited

Alvermann, D. (Ed.) (2002). Adolescents and Literacies in a Digital World. NY; Lang.

Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & D. Sykes, (Eds.) Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Borasi, R., & Seigel, M. (2000). Reading Counts. NY: Teachers College Columbia University.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R.R., (Eds.) (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Cazden, C., & Mehan, H. (1989). In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher (pp. 47 – 58). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, D. (Eds.) (1999). Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Davidson, J., & Koppenhaver, D. (1993). Adolescent Literacy: What Works and Why (2nd Ed.). New York: Garland.

Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: New Press.

Elmore, R.F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), pp. 1 - 26.

Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership, 51, 62-68.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive dimensions of problem-solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (pp. 231 - 236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gee, J. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses (2nd Ed.). London: Falmer Press.

Guskey, T. R., & Huberman, M. (1996). Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices. Columbia, NY: Teachers College Press.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.). (1997). Reading Engagement: Motivating Readers through Integrated Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways With Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B. & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1993). Identity and Inner-City Youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hull, G. A., & Rose, M. (1989). Rethinking remediation: Toward a social-cognitive understanding of problematic reading and writing. Written Communication, 8, 139-154.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jiménez, R. T. (2000). Literacy and the Identity Development of Latina/o Students . American Educational Research Journal, 37 (4), 971-1000.

Langer, J. (1995). Envisioning Literature. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lee, C. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 608-630.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Moll, L. C. (1992). Literacy research in community and classrooms: A sociocultural approach. In R. Beach, J.L. Green, M.L. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Literacy Research, pp. 211 – 244. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English and National Council of Teachers of English.

Myers, M. (1998). Changing Our Minds: Negotiating English and Literacy. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

National Center for Education Statistics (2001). NAEP 2000 Reading Report Card. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Pressley, M. (1998). Reading Instruction that Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching. New York: Guilford Press.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rycik, J., & Irvin, J. (Eds.). (2001). What Adolescents Deserve: A Commitment to Students’ Literacy Learning. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Schön, D.A. (Ed.). (1991). The Reflective Turn: Case Studies In and On Educational Practice. NY: Teachers College Press.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), pp. 4 - 14.

Snow, C. (Chair, RAND Reading Study Group), 2002. Reading for Understanding: Toward a R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Prepared for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development: Results-driven education, systems thinking, and constructivism. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Street, B. (1995). Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education. London: Longman.

Their, M. with Davis, B. (2002). The New Science Literacy: Using Language Skills to Help Students Learn Science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, S.M. & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge; An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 173 - 209). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Home | About | Services | Research | Resources
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | This site and its contents copyright WestEd 1995-2008. All rights reserved.