Peday I

Cummins Chapter 2 7/7/06 2:22 PM Page 36
Education is not the

filling of a pail, but
the lighting of a fire.
CHAPTER
2
William Butler Yeats
Pedagogy
Stimulating the
imagination is not
an alternative
educational activity
to be argued for in
competition with
other claims; it is
a prerequisite to
making any activity
educational.
Kieran Egan & Dan Nadaner
Imagination and Education
(1988, p. ix)
37
I
n this chapter, we review research on both learning and teaching
in order to provide a foundation for planning educational change.
For decades, educational debates have been characterized by a set Chapter Two
of “either-or” dichotomies (e.g., child centered versus teacher centered, Pedagogy
phonics versus whole language, etc.) that have frequently degenerated
into ideologically loaded slogans. This is not surprising, as education is
fundamentally ideological. Whether one examines inequities in the way
schools are funded or analyzes disparities in the kinds of instruction
received by different social groups, it is clear that education is never
neutral with respect to societal power structures.
Schools are intended to shape the next generation, and images of
students, teachers, and society are inevitably embedded in this process.
In planning curriculum and instruction, we ask ourselves what kinds of
skills, knowledge, values, and literate competencies students will need
when they graduate from school to participate as adults in their societies.
What kinds of contributions do we want these students to be able to
make to their societies? What kind of society do we want these students
to form? How do teachers define their role as educators who shape stu-
dent identities in the context of societal needs and expectations? What
pedagogical choices do teachers make and how do these pedagogical
choices reflect their own identities?
We acknowledge that transmission of information and skills is an
important component of education. However, if students are to participate
effectively in a democratic society and an Information Age economy, they
must also be enabled to generate knowledge and to think critically about
social issues. Thus, pedagogy entails not only the promotion of learning in
a narrow sense but it also entails a process of negotiating identities between
teachers and students. An image of the society that students will gradu-
ate into and the kind of contributions they can make to that society is
embedded implicitly in the interactions between educators and students.
Pedagogy opens up (or closes down) identity options for students.
Starting from the perspective that a global society needs all the
intelligence, creativity, and multilingual talent it can get, we argue that
pedagogy will certainly involve “filling pails,” but it must also ignite
curiosity, imagination, and social commitment.
Introduction
Educational debates on the topic of pedagogy have tended to revolve
around dueling dichotomies—alternative approaches that are constructed
38 as antagonistic and mutually irreconcilable. Urszula Clark (2001), for

example, points to the polarized debate in many countries between
Part One “traditionalists” and “progressivists,” the former portrayed as “represent-
Changing Times, ing order in the classroom with a defined sense of what was right and
Changing Schools wrong, whilst ‘progressivists’ were represented as child-centered, relativist
and presiding over chaotic classrooms” (p. 149). Traditionalists have
tended to argue for greater instructional rigor and the need for elevated
standards; they emphasize the importance of direct instruction and
deride what they see as the absence of rigor and accountability in child-
centered approaches to teaching and learning. In reading, phonics is
prioritized over pursuit of meaning. By contrast, those who espouse more
progressive principles have been influenced by American philosopher
John Dewey’s (1916) emphasis on the importance of relating instruc-
tional content to students’ experience and, more recently, by Soviet-era
psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) theories on the construction of
knowledge through social interaction. Student inquiry and the social
construction of knowledge are seen as more pertinent to effective
learning than simply the transmission of information and skills.
These orientations to pedagogy do not have to be framed in opposition
to each other. We argue that they are more usefully seen as nested within
each other. A transmission or traditional pedagogical orientation incorpo-
rates a considerably narrower, but still legitimate, focus with respect to
means and goals than does a social constructivist orientation. Typically,
the goal of transmitting information and skills is pursued by requiring
students to engage primarily in memorization and practice. By contrast,
the social constructivist goal of enabling students to build knowledge and
develop deeper levels of understanding frequently requires dialogue
and collaborative inquiry rather than just memorization and practice.
The research on literacy development reviewed in this chapter sug-
gests that although it may be feasible to develop students’ knowledge of
the rule-based aspects of language (e.g., phonics, spelling, grammar, etc.)
by means of a transmission approach, this orientation is ineffective in
promoting reading comprehension beyond the early grades of school-
ing. The nature of reading comprehension, and of academic language
proficiency more generally, demands higher-order cognitive processes
than simply memorization and practice. These higher-order processes
include analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of alternatives.
However, neither transmission nor social constructivist orientations
provide an adequate blueprint for pedagogy insofar as they fail to address
explicitly the content of the curriculum and the social goals of education.
Both orientations are silent on the ways in which power intersects with
knowledge. They plead innocence with respect to the sanitization of the

curriculum and the erasure of voices other than those of the dominant 39
group. Virtually no country encourages its textbook developers to disturb Chapter Two
the glorious myths upon which national identity is founded. The heroic Pedagogy
tales of How the West Was Won are rarely presented from the perspective of
Native Americans who might regard the process as one of ethnic cleans-
ing. Few schools in the United States encourage their students to read
Howard Zinn’s (1995) A People’s History of the United States as a fundamen-
tal reference work. Canadian history textbooks are silent about the wide-
spread sexual abuse of First Nation’s children in residential schools funded
by the federal government and operated by religious orders. Similarly,
Japanese textbook writers gloss over the atrocities committed by Japanese
troops in China in the 1930s and 1940s, just as Chinese textbooks present
a very one-sided perspective on the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950
and the subsequent repression of Tibetan culture and aspirations.
We argue that education for participation within a democratic society
requires that schools explicitly aim to develop critical literacy—the ability
to read between the lines rather than just skim over the surface structure
of texts. Democracy requires the exercise of informed
choice with the goal of promoting the common good. Education within a democratic soci-
Clearly, the ability to critically analyze social issues is a ety requires that schools explicitly
prerequisite for making informed choices. Pedagogy ori- aim to develop critical literacy.
ented toward the development of critical literacy can be
termed a transformative orientation because its goal is to enable students
both to understand how power is exercised within society and to use
their democratic rights to change aspects of their society that they con-
sider unjust or discriminatory.
Before examining these orientations in more detail and relating
them to the research on learning and literacy development, we
describe the rapidly changing societal contexts within which schools
are operating. If, as we have suggested, an implicit image of society
and its future needs is embedded in all teacher–student interactions,
then it is important to articulate how our societies are changing and
what social realities students who enter kindergarten in 2007 will be
expected to face when they graduate in 2020.
The Changing Context of Education

Two trends are particularly relevant in considering the demands being
placed on education systems around the world: globalization and techno-
logical change.
40 Globalization and Diversity

Cultural and linguistic diversity has become the norm in major urban
Part One
school systems across both North America and Europe. In California,
Changing Times,
for example, 25 percent of the school population is considered “limited
Changing Schools
English proficient” and approximately 85 percent of teachers have children
in their classes who are in the process of learning English. In Amsterdam,
40 percent of the school population was born outside the Netherlands.
More than 50 percent of the school population in the Canadian cities of
Toronto and Vancouver come from non–English-speaking backgrounds.
The new global economy is similarly characterized by a plethora of
languages and cultures despite the current dominance of English in
many cultural, scientific, and economic spheres. Thus, any pedagogical
framework that aspires to promote literacy and prepare students for a
globalized Information Age economy must address issues of linguistic
and cultural diversity.
The increase of cultural and linguistic diversity in schools has created
pedagogical challenges and opportunities. Specifically, is it feasible or
reasonable to expect a one-size-fits-all homogenized curriculum to meet
the needs of an increasingly diverse student body? What might a more
differentiated curriculum look like and how should it be evaluated? To
what extent should the education system acknowledge and promote the
linguistic and cultural resources that students bring to school? If educa-
tors see it as educationally desirable to promote students’ multilingual
and multicultural potential in schools, then what kinds of curricula
and pedagogy are likely to achieve this goal?
Technological change
Recent educational reform initiatives in countries around the world have
been inspired by the transformation of the global economy during the late
twentieth century from an Industrial Age economy to an Information Age
economy, or what is increasingly called the Knowledge Society. Schools are
now expected to develop twenty-first-century literacy skills, which are
what the economy supposedly requires to thrive in an increasingly com-
petitive global marketplace. These twenty-first-century literacy skills are
heavily dependent on mastery of new technologies. The European Com-
mission (2004), for example, in a report on its e-learning initiative, notes:
Information and communication technologies (ICT) are opening up access

to education, training and learning resources, while also establishing
avenues of self learning. This is why the European Union believes the
proper use of such technologies may contribute to Europe’s shift to a

knowledge-based society. (p. 6) 41
Chapter Two
This report makes explicit the belief that technology is fundamental Pedagogy
to economic competitiveness in a knowledge-based society, arguing that
“Europe should become, by 2010, the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic
growth, with more and better jobs.” The new mandate for schools, in
Europe and elsewhere, therefore, includes producing increasing numbers
of graduates who are capable of working collaboratively with others to
analyze and critically interpret information, thereby participating in the
generation of knowledge that fuels the new economy.1
This rhetoric, which is replicated in many countries around the
world, appears at first sight to represent a radical departure from the
ways in which schools have traditionally defined their roles. Unlike
education for societal elites, education for the masses has never aspired
to develop deep understanding or promote knowledge generation and
critical literacy. Instead, more modest goals have been pursued. Histori-
cally, schools have aspired to develop sufficient literacy among students
to enable them (1) to read and analyze sacred texts such as the Qur’an
or the Bible as a means of saving their eternal souls and (2) to partici-
pate productively in the economic life of the society. Not surprisingly,
major expansions of and investments in schooling have occurred at
times of significant economic change and upheaval (e.g., from agrarian
to industrial means of production in the 1800s). As noted earlier, the
current preoccupation with educational reform has been a response to
the shift from an Industrial Age to an Information Age economy. As
John Guthrie (2004) notes, “Literacy has evolved . . . from a tool for
religious education, to a skill for economic productivity, to a symbolic
indicator of information management” (p. 7).
Despite the fact that the societal commitment to knowledge-based
educational reform may be superficial and selectively applied to upper-
income rather than to lower-income students, the current discourse pro-
vides a unique opportunity for educators to explore forms of critical
pedagogy that potentially can exert a transformative impact on students
and society. At this historical juncture, the rhetoric of the knowledge-
based society urges educators to apprentice all students to the cause of
higher-order thinking and deep understanding. Educators whose role
definitions include promoting critical literacy among their students can
use this rhetoric to implement transformative approaches to pedagogy
in their classrooms.
42 In responding to societal expectations that they simultaneously trans-

mit standards-based information and skills and prepare students for
Part One participation in a knowledge-based economy, educators not only make
Changing Times, pedagogical choices but they also make identity choices with respect to
Changing Schools where they position themselves in relation to the power structure of the
society. These intersecting pedagogical and identity choices can be dis-
cussed in the context of four frameworks that attempt to articulate the
relationships between learning and pedagogy. The first of these frame-
works derives from cognitive psychology and synthesizes the empirical
research on how people learn. The second outlines three broad orientations
to pedagogy labeled transmission, social constructivist, and transformative. The
third framework focuses on the construct of multiliteracies as a means of
highlighting how schools might respond to rapidly changing global social
realities. Finally, John Guthrie’s literacy engagement framework emphasizes
that engagement is a crucial component of all learning and highlights its
specific relevance for sustaining literacy development throughout school-
ing. Each of these four frameworks contributes important insights to
understanding the nature of effective literacy instruction in a globalized
Information Age society. We briefly sketch these frameworks and then
analyze their relevance to the pedagogical and identity choices faced by
educators who aspire to develop strong literacy skills among all their
students.
How People Learn

The volume written by Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) entitled
How People Learn and published by the National Research Council syn-
thesized the research evidence regarding how learning occurs and the
optimal conditions to foster learning. A follow-up volume edited by
Donovan and Bransford (2005) examined the application of these learn-
ing principles to the teaching of history, mathematics, and science. The
relevance in the present context is that instructional interventions should
reflect these basic principles of learning if they are to be scientifically
credible. Bransford and colleagues emphasize three conditions for effec-
tive learning: engaging prior understandings, integrating factual knowledge
with conceptual frameworks, and taking active control over the learning process.
Engaging Prior Understandings

Donovan and Bransford (2005) point out that “new understandings are
constructed on a foundation of existing understandings and experiences” (p. 4,
emphasis in original). Prior knowledge, skills, beliefs, and concepts sig-

nificantly influence what learners notice about their environment and 43
how they organize and interpret it. Prior knowledge refers not just to Chapter Two
information or skills previously acquired in a transmission-oriented Pedagogy
learning sequence but also to the totality of the experiences that have
shaped the learner’s identity and cognitive functioning. This principle
implies that in classrooms with students from linguistically and cultur-
ally diverse backgrounds, instruction must explicitly activate students’
prior knowledge and build relevant background knowledge as necessary.
Integrating Factual Knowledge

with Conceptual Frameworks
Bransford and colleagues (2000) point out that to develop competence in
an area of inquiry, “knowledge of a large set of disconnected facts is not
sufficient.” Students must be provided with opportunities to learn with
understanding because “deep understanding of subject matter transforms
factual information into usable knowledge” (p. 16). Thus, knowledge is
more than just the ability to remember; deeper levels of understanding
are required to transfer knowledge from one context to another. This
implies that instruction for deep understanding involves the development
of critical literacy rather than simply literal comprehension of text. Literal
comprehension involves understanding the content of the text (broadly
defined) with respect to what the author is trying to communicate.
Critical literacy, on the other hand, involves a deeper inquiry into the text
with respect to the perspectives represented, the purposes of the text, the
means by which these purposes are pursued (e.g., language, images, into-
nation, etc.), and the evidence supporting the views expressed.
Taking Active Control

over the Learning Process
Learners should be supported in taking control of and self-regulating
their own learning. Donovan and Bransford (2005) point out that “a
‘metacognitive’ or self-monitoring approach can help students develop
the ability to take control of their own learning, consciously define
learning goals, and monitor their progress in achieving them” (p. 10).
When students take ownership of the learning process and invest their
identities in the outcomes of learning, the resulting understanding will
be deeper than when learning is passive.
44 Bransford and colleagues (2000) also emphasize the importance of

support within the community of learners. Learning takes place in a
Part One social context, and a supportive learning community encourages dia-
Changing Times, logue, apprenticeship, and mentoring. Learning is not simply a cogni-
Changing Schools tive process that takes place inside the heads of individual students; it
also involves socialization into particular communities of practice.
Within these learning communities, or what Gee (2001) terms affinity
groups, novices are enabled to participate in the practices of the com-
munity from the very beginning of their involvement. Lave and
Wenger (1991) describe this process as legitimate peripheral participation.
The learning community can include the classroom, the school, the
family, the broader community, and virtual communities enabled
through electronic communication.
This account specifies some minimal requirements for effective learn-
ing. It also brings into immediate focus the lack of scientific credibility of
approaches that rely primarily on simple transmission of knowledge and
skills from teachers to learners. Exclusive reliance on transmission peda-
gogy is likely to entail memorization rather than
Transmission of information and skills learning for deep understanding, minimal activa-
becomes problematic only when it consti- tion of students’ prior knowledge, and passive
tutes the predominant instructional focus. rather than active self-regulated learning. A nar-
row transmission approach would also view
active and creative use of language by students as “off task” and thus,
within this approach, there is minimal opportunity to establish a gen-
uine community of learners. It is important to reiterate that transmis-
sion of information and skills is an important component of effective
pedagogy. Transmission of information and skills becomes problematic
only when it constitutes the predominant instructional focus.
Pedagogical Orientations
As illustrated in Figure 2.1, transmission, social constructivist, and transfor-
mative orientations to pedagogy are nested within each other rather than
being distinct and isolated from each other. Transmission-oriented ped-
agogy is represented in the inner circle with the narrowest focus. The
goal is to transmit information and skills articulated in the curriculum
directly to students. Social constructivist pedagogy, occupying the mid-
dle pedagogical space, incorporates the curriculum focus of transmitting
information and skills but broadens it to include the development among
students of higher-order thinking abilities based on teachers and students
co-constructing knowledge and understanding. Finally, transformative
FIGURE 2.1
45
Chapter Two
Nested Pedagogical Orientations Pedagogy
Transmission
Transformative
Social
Constructivist
approaches to pedagogy broaden the focus still further by emphasizing

the relevance not only of transmitting the curriculum and constructing
knowledge but also of enabling students to gain insight into how knowl-
edge intersects with power. The goal is to promote critical literacy
among students.2
Obviously, these three broad orientations incorporate considerable
variation in emphasis and implementation. For example, it is possible to
acknowledge the importance of clearly and explicitly transmitting infor-
mation and skills (as we do) without endorsing one-size-fits-all scripted
instructional approaches that reduce students to passive roles within the
teaching–learning process. Similarly, social constructivist approaches may
vary in the emphasis they place on the constructivist aspects (Piaget, 1929)
as compared to the social aspects (Vygotsky, 1978). Au (1998) points
out that “the social is seen to encompass a wide range of phenomena,
from historical, political and cultural trends to face-to-face interactions,
reflecting group processes both explicit and implicit with intended and
unintended consequences” (p. 299). The common thread, according to
46 Au, is that “social constructivists are interested in the collective genera-

tion of meaning among people” (p. 299).
Part One The development of critical literacy is particularly relevant in an
Changing Times, era of global propaganda where skillfully crafted multimedia messages
Changing Schools broadcast by media conglomerates dramatically influence public per-
ceptions and attitudes. Witness the fact that throughout the 2004 U.S.
presidential campaign, more than 40 percent of the U.S. population
continued to believe that Saddam Hussein was
Critical literacy is particularly relevant instrumental in the 9/11 attacks despite the universal
in an era of global propaganda. acknowledgment (including the Bush administration)
that this was not the case. Thus, there is an urgent
necessity to teach for deep understanding and critical literacy, not so
much because the economy demands it, but because the survival of
democratic institutions in our societies may depend on it.
These pedagogical orientations intersect with the themes articulated
in the New London Group’s (1996) multiliteracies framework, which is
discussed next.
Multiliteracies
The concept of multiliteracies was advanced by a group of international
scholars who labeled themselves “The New London Group” as a means of
conceptualizing the implications of recent societal changes for how literacy
is taught in schools. Literacy is no longer simply reading and writing.
Outside the school, students are engaged in literacy practices that may
involve languages other than the school languages and technologies that
have moved far beyond paper and pencil. The essence of a multiliteracies
pedagogical approach is that schools in the twenty-first-century need
to focus on a broader range of literacies than simply traditional reading
and writing skills in the dominant language (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000;
Pahl & Rowsell, 2005).
The New London Group (1996) highlighted the relevance of new
forms of literacy associated with information, communication, multi-
media technologies, and, equally important, the wide variety of cultur-
ally specific forms of literacy evident in complex pluralistic societies.
From the perspective of multiliteracies, the exclusive focus within
schools on linear text-based literacy in the dominant language of the
society represents a very limited conception that fails to address the
realities of a globalized, technologically sophisticated, knowledge-based
society. In urban contexts across North America and Europe, the stu-
dent population is multilingual and students are exposed to, and

engage in, many different literacy practices outside the school. Within 47
schools, however, the teaching of literacy remains narrowly focused on Chapter Two
literacy in the dominant language and typically fails to acknowledge or Pedagogy
build on the multilingual literacies or the technologically mediated lit-
eracies that form a significant part of students’ cultural and linguistic
capital.
The New London Group proposed a pedagogical framework that
identified situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed
practice as central components. The essence of this framework is that
students should be given opportunities to engage in meaningful experi-
ences and practice within a learning community, and the development
of concepts and understanding should be supported by explicit instruc-
tion as required. Students should also have opportunities to step back
from what they have learned and examine concepts and ideas critically
in relation to their social relevance. Finally, they should be given
opportunities to take the knowledge they have gained—to put it into
play in the world of ideas—and come to understand how their insights
can exert an impact on people and issues in the real world.
Thus, as in the nested pedagogical orientations framework (Figure
2.1), a legitimate role is assigned to overt instruction (transmission
pedagogy) but only as one component of a more inclusive and com-
prehensive framework for learning. In a similar way, the cognitive psy-
chology research on learning synthesized by Bransford and colleagues
highlights the limitations of an exclusive reliance on teacher–student
transmission of information and skills. This research suggests that cogni-
tive engagement and deep understanding are more likely to be gener-
ated in contexts where instruction builds on students’ prior knowledge
and learning is supported by active collaboration within a community
of learners.
The fourth framework is focused specifically on literacy and high-
lights perhaps the major immediate goal of effective pedagogy: literacy
engagement.
Literacy Engagement
Guthrie (2004) draws attention to the centrality of literacy engagement
for reading achievement. Drawing on both the 1998 NAEP data from
the United States and the results of the PISA study of reading achieve-
ment in international contexts, he notes that students
48 whose family background was characterized by low income and low

education, but who were highly engaged readers, substantially outscored
Part One students who came from backgrounds with higher education and higher
income, but who themselves were less engaged readers. Based on a
Changing Times,
massive sample, this finding suggests the stunning conclusion that
Changing Schools
engaged reading can overcome traditional barriers to reading achieve-
ment, including gender, parental education, and income. (p. 5)
Guthrie notes that the term engagement incorporates notions of time

on task (reading extensively), affect (enthusiasm and enjoyment of liter-
acy), depth of cognitive processing (strategies to deepen comprehension),
and active pursuit of literacy activities (amount and diversity of literacy
practices in and out of school). He believes that engaged readers are
active and energized in reading and use their minds with an emphasis
on either cognitive strategies or conceptual knowledge. Furthermore,
he asserts that engaged reading is often socially interactive insofar as
engaged students are capable of discussion or sharing with friends
despite the fact that much of their reading may be solitary.
Guthrie’s (2004) classroom-based research has shown a direct rela-
tionship between increasing literacy engagement and higher achieve-
ment. He notes that the relationship is reciprocal:
Locked in a spiral, they grow together. . . . Young students who gain a

modicum of skill in reading are enabled to read more stories and books,
assuming they are available. With increased amounts of reading, stu-
dents’ fluency and knowledge expand, increasing basic word recogni-
tion. Contributing to this spiral is a sense of identity and selfhood;
improving readers see themselves as capable, which is gratifying. Beyond
self-confidence, however, students on the upward spiral see themselves
as readers who are learners and thinkers; these students internalize
literacy as a part of who they are. (p. 6)
Also, Guthrie notes that the relationships between engagement,

identity, and achievement are equally potent in the opposite direction.
Disengaged readers read less, experience fewer opportunities to learn
from text, and gradually define themselves as disinterested readers.
Although numerous researchers have articulated the importance of
cognitive strategy training, Guthrie (2004) expands and qualifies this
focus in noting that “good strategy instruction cannot be provided with
impoverished content” (p. 9). He also highlights the importance of texts
that are well structured with respect to how knowledge is organized
within the text (e.g., headings, bolding, italics, etc.). Students must also
be given an opportunity to be self-directed in at least a portion of their
learning from text, and discourse among students must be encouraged.

He states that “if no social interchange is allowed, students’ cognitive 49
efforts to read and understand evaporate quickly” (p. 10). Finally, pro- Chapter Two
vision of ample time for engaged reading is crucial. Pedagogy
It is worth noting that the narrow research lens employed by the
National Reading Panel (2000) did not enable the panel to address the
relevance for reading achievement of self-direction, social interaction, or
time for engaged reading. However, Guthrie’s account of engaged read-
ing is clearly congruent with Bransford and colleagues’ synthesis of the
research on how people learn. Unlike the National Reading Panel or the
NCLB policy that it legitimated, Guthrie’s analysis of the
research includes the constructs of affect, identity, and exten- Competent readers
sive reading as significant components of engaged reading internalize literacy as a
and reading achievement. The themes emphasized by part of who they are.
Guthrie also converge with an earlier synthesis of research
on reading comprehension carried out by Fielding and Pearson (1994).
These authors highlighted four instructional components that research
suggests are strongly related to reading comprehension outcomes:
1. Large amounts of time for actual text reading;

2. Teacher-directed instruction in comprehension strategies;
3. Opportunities for peer and collaborative learning; and
4. Occasions for students to talk to a teacher and one another about
their responses to reading.
At this point, it is appropriate to revisit the construct of reading to

understand better the nature of reading comprehension and the relevance
of the four frameworks to the promotion of sustained reading develop-
ment beyond the initial grades. We focus this analysis on low-income and
English language learning (ELL) students, since these are groups that
tend to experience the most disproportionate levels of academic failure.
Literacy and Academic Language Development

among Low-Income ELL Students
In order to understand patterns of academic development among low-
income and ELL students, one must distinguish between three very dif-
ferent aspects of proficiency in a language: (1) conversational fluency,
(2) discrete language skills, and (3) academic language proficiency. The
50 rationale for making these distinctions is that each dimension of profi-

ciency follows very different developmental paths among both ELL and
Part One non-ELL students and each responds differently to particular kinds of
Changing Times, instructional practices in school.
Changing Schools
Conversational Fluency
Conversational fluency is the ability to carry on a conversation in
familiar face-to-face situations. The vast majority of native speakers of
English have developed conversational fluency by the time they enter
school at age 5. This fluency involves use of high-frequency words and
simple grammatical constructions. Certainly, conversational fluency
evolves in complexity according to sociolinguistic context and the lan-
guage registers required in particular situations (e.g., a job interview).
However, for present purposes, it is sufficient to note that ELL students
generally develop peer-appropriate fluency in conversational aspects of
English within a year or two of intensive exposure to the language
either in school or in the environment.
Discrete Language Skills

Discrete language skills involve the learning of rule-governed aspects
of language (including phonology, grammar, and spelling) where
acquisition of the general case permits generalization to other instances
governed by that particular rule. Becker (1977) describes this process
with respect to decoding as follows: “One can teach a set of sounds,
blending skills, and rapid pronunciation skills, so that the student can
read any regular-sound word composed from the sounds taught” (p. 533).
Discrete language skills can be developed in two independent ways:
(1) by direct instruction (e.g., systematic explicit phonics instruction)
and (2) through immersion in a literacy-rich home or school environ-
ment where meanings are elaborated through language and attention is
drawn to literate forms of language (e.g., letters on the pages of books).
A combination of these two conditions appears to yield the most posi-
tive outcomes (e.g., Cunningham, 1990; Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994).
Students exposed to a literacy-rich environment in the home generally
acquire initial literacy-related skills, such as phonological awareness
and letter–sound correspondences, with minimal difficulty in the early
grades of schooling (e.g., Neuman, 1999).
Some of these discrete language skills are acquired early in schooling
and some continue to be acquired throughout schooling (e.g., spelling).
The discrete language skills acquired early include knowledge of the

letters of the alphabet, the sounds represented by individual letters and 51
combinations of letters, and the ability to decode written words into Chapter Two
appropriate sounds. Some of these skills, such as phonological aware- Pedagogy
ness and knowledge of the letters of the alphabet, show consistently
moderate relationships with the acquisition of word decoding skills
(National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
English language learners can learn these specific language skills con-
currently with their development of basic vocabulary and conversational
fluency. However, little direct transference is observed to other aspects of
oral language proficiency, such as linguistic concepts, vocabulary, sen-
tence memory, and word memory (Geva, 2000; Kwan & Willows, 1998).
Similar findings are reported by Verhoeven (2000) for minority language
students in the Dutch context and by Lambert and Tucker (1972) in
Canada for English-speaking students in French immersion programs.
Academic Language Proficiency

Academic language proficiency includes knowledge of the less frequent
vocabulary of English as well as the ability to interpret and produce
increasingly complex written language. As students progress through the
grades, they encounter far more low-frequency words (primarily from
Greek and Latin sources), complex syntax (e.g., passives), and abstract
expressions that are virtually never heard in everyday conversation.
Students are required to understand linguistically and conceptually
demanding texts in the content areas (e.g., literature, social studies,
science, mathematics) and to use this language in an accurate and
coherent way in their own writing. Figure 2.2 illustrates the complexity
of the language that students are expected to acquire in content areas
such as social studies.
Acquiring academic language is challenging for all students. For exam-
ple, schools spend at least 12 years trying to extend the conversational
language that native-speaking children bring to school into these more
complex academic language spheres. It is hardly sur-
prising, therefore, that research has repeatedly shown ELL students typically require at least
that ELL students, on average, require at least 5 years five years to bridge the gap with
of exposure to academic English to catch up to native- native speakers, partly because they
speaker norms (Cummins, 1981; Hakuta, Butler, & are catching up to a moving target.
Witt, 2000; Klesmer, 1994; Thomas & Collier, 2002;
Worswick, 2001). In Israel, research has shown that Russian and
Ethiopian immigrant students require at least 9 years to catch up to
52
Part One
Changing Times,
Changing Schools
their peers in academic Hebrew (Shohamy, Levine, Spolsky, Kere-Levy,

Inbar, & Shemesh, 2002).
In addition to the complexity of the academic language they are
attempting to acquire, ELL students must catch up to a moving target.
Every year, native speakers are making large gains in their reading and
writing abilities and in their knowledge of vocabulary. In order to catch
up to grade norms within six years, ELL students must make 15 months
gain in every 10-month school year. By contrast, the typical native-
speaking student is expected to make 10 months gain in a 10-month
school year (Collier & Thomas, 1999).
All three aspects of language proficiency—conversational fluency, dis-
crete language skills, and academic language proficiency—are important.
However, policymakers and the media frequently confuse them. Many
ELL students who have acquired conversational fluency and decoding
skills in English are still a long way from grade-level performance in aca-
demic language proficiency. Students who can “read” English fluently
may have only a very limited understanding of the words they can
decode. This is illustrated in the phenomenon of the fourth-grade slump.
The fourth-grade slump

Low-income and ELL students seem to be particularly susceptible to what
has been called “the fourth-grade slump” (see Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin,
1990; Chall & Snow, 1988; Rand Reading Study Group, 2002). Chall and
Snow (1988) report that “experienced teachers of low-income children

have long reported a fourth-grade ‘slump,’ when their students’ reading 53
achievement slows down and reading problems increase” (p. 1). These Chapter Two
students demonstrate grade-level reading performance in the primary Pedagogy
grades (1 through 3) but begin to fall significantly behind grade norms
starting at grade 4, with the discrepancy growing larger with each suc-
ceeding grade. Chall and colleagues (1990) report that low-income stu-
dents in grades 2 and 3 are on grade level on tests of word recognition,
oral reading, spelling, and word meaning. However, between grades 4
and 11, the extent of deceleration in reading performance is “over-
whelming” (p. 43). These authors attribute these trends to low-income
students’ weakness in academic vocabularies. They point out that at
grade 4 and beyond, “the reading materials become more complex,
technical and abstract and are beyond the everyday experiences of
most children” (p. 45). In the primary grades, where students were
on grade level in word meaning, most of the words students were
asked to define were common, familiar, and concrete words. Chall and
colleagues note, “Whereas the major hurdles prior to grade 4 are
learning to recognize in print the thousands of words whose meanings
are already known and reading these fluently in connected texts with
comprehension, the hurdle of grade 4 and beyond is coping with
increasingly complex language and thought” (p. 45).
Numerous other studies have documented either significant gaps
between decoding and comprehension performance or actual declines in
reading comprehension among low-income students in the later grades
of elementary school (Becker, 1977; Becker & Gersten, 1982; Venezsky,
1998). For example, Becker and Gersten (1982), in discussing students’
performance on the DISTAR direct instruction program used between
kindergarten and grade 3 in three school districts, document significant
declines between grade 3 and grade 6 in Total Reading percentiles of the
Metropolitan Achievement Test. In these districts, students’ performance
fell from the 31st to the 16th percentile, the 52nd to the 26th percentile,
and the 28th to the 17th percentile, respectively. In a fourth district,
there was a decline between grade 3 and grade 5 from the 40th to the
20th percentile.
A similar gap between word-level decoding and reading comprehen-
sion skills has been noted by Venezky (1998) in reviewing data from the
Success for All (SFA) program, which follows a highly controlled scripted
approach in grade 1. A major gap was observed in students’ performance
on measures of word-level skills (word recognition, letter–sound decod-
ing), which were close to grade expectations, in comparison to their
54 performance on reading comprehension measures. Although there was

a significant difference in reading comprehension at the grade 5 level
Part One between the SFA schools and controls, this difference was minimal (four
Changing Times, months) and students were still about two years below grade expectations.
Changing Schools In short, the fourth-grade slump reflects the fact that neither lan-
guage proficiency nor reading ability are unitary constructs. Reading
comprehension does not develop automatically on the basis of decoding
skills; similarly, academic language proficiency is distinct from students’
conversational fluency in English or their knowledge of discrete language
skills. A core component of academic language proficiency is vocabulary
knowledge, and the vocabulary load in the curriculum increases dramat-
ically after the primary grades. The development of academic language
proficiency, for both ELL and non-ELL students, requires that students
gain access to academic language by means of extensive reading and also
that they are supported in harvesting the language they encounter in
literature and content area texts.
The importance of vocabulary knowledge for reading has been fre-
quently articulated (e.g., Corson, 1997). Nation and Coady (1988), for
example, in reviewing research on the relationship between vocabulary
and reading, point out that “vocabulary difficulty has consistently been
found to be the most significant predictor of overall readability.” Once
the effect of vocabulary difficulty (usually estimated by word frequency
and/or familiarity and word length) is taken into account, other linguistic
variables, such as sentence structure, account for little incremental vari-
ance in the readability of a text. They summarize their review as follows:
“In general the research leaves us in little doubt about the importance of
vocabulary knowledge for reading, and the value of reading as a means
of increasing vocabulary” (p. 108).
Although direct instruction of vocabulary has a place in supporting
its development, this instruction is likely to be most effective when inte-
grated with extensive reading and writing activities in which students
are engaged. If low-frequency (nonconversational) vocabulary is found
predominantly in written text, then extensive reading of text must be
promoted as a crucial component of both vocabulary acquisition and
reading comprehension development. There is overwhelming evidence
for the importance of extensive reading in building up academic lan-
guage proficiency in both first and second languages (L1 and L2) (e.g.,
Elley, 1991; Guthrie, 2004; Krashen, 2004b; Postlethwaite & Ross, 1992).
At this point, we have a basis for addressing the specific pedagogical
issues that are in dispute regarding what constitutes effective literacy
instruction.
Pedagogical Conflicts and Choices 55

Current disputes about literacy pedagogy revolve around one seemingly
Chapter Two
straightforward question: What forms of pedagogy will most effectively
Pedagogy
promote reading comprehension? There is actually a considerable degree
of consensus around this issue. We suggest that the intensity of the cur-
rent debate about literacy instruction derives primarily from underlying
ideological orientations regarding the nature of learning and teaching—
specifically, the extent to which proponents of alternative positions
endorse behaviorist or social constructivist approaches to pedagogy. The
misinterpretation and misleading communication of the NRP findings
that we and many other commentators have noted (see Chapter 1) can
be understood as an attempt to legitimate a programmed learning
(behaviorist) approach to reading instruction.
Although its roots lie in the 1940s and 1950s behaviorist psychology
of B. F. Skinner, recent incarnations of programmed learning derive
from the work of Siegfried Englemann (1969), the developer of the
DISTAR program. The instructional focus of programmed learning is on
the design of appropriate skill hierarchies for efficient transmission of
knowledge and content and is seen most clearly in scripted programs.
The instructional science is in the script rather than in the actions of the
teacher. Because the script is sacrosanct, there is minimal opportunity or
encouragement to deviate from the script to address the learning needs
of individual students (e.g., ELL students who may not understand the
tasks dictated by the script).
By contrast, a social constructivist approach focuses on the collabora-
tive construction of knowledge by teachers and learners. Pedagogical inter-
actions build on learners’ prior experience, helping them integrate new
understandings or knowledge into their cognitive schemata. Since stu-
dents come to school with very different cultural, linguistic, and personal
experiences, teachers must orchestrate interactions in a flexible way that
takes into account the diversity of experiences, needs, and talents within
their classroom. In other words, by definition, within a social construc-
tivist approach teacher–student interactions cannot be preprogrammed.
The Pedagogical Divide: Programmed Learning

versus Social Constructivist Learning
Behaviorism for the masses?
As noted in Chapter 1, the architects of the Reading First component
of No Child Left Behind continue to insist that “systematic phonics
56 instruction produced significant benefits for K–6 students” (Lyon &

Chhabra, 2004), omitting to note that systematic phonics instruction
Part One produced no benefits beyond grade 1 in reading comprehension among
Changing Times, normally achieving and low-achieving students (i.e., a large majority of
Changing Schools the elementary school population). This questionable interpretation of
the NRP findings entails major consequences for schools. For example,
in 2003, Reading First grants were withheld from the New York City
school system until it agreed to adopt an additional intensive phonics-
oriented program for the primary grades (K through grade 3).3
In addition, some school systems have implemented scripted phonics-
oriented programs in highly prescriptive ways, perhaps even going
beyond the intent of the authors of these programs. In many school
districts, this has led to intense teacher frustration and anger (see, for
example, Meyer, 2002). In discussions with teachers, we have heard
on numerous occasions views such as those expressed by California
elementary school teachers André Gensburger (2005) and Elizabeth
Jaeger (2006). Gensburger highlights the widespread demoralization of
teachers caused by scripted reading programs that leave no room for
creativity and professional judgment in the classroom. He points out
that all reading materials that were not included in the reading adop-
tion were removed from his classroom despite the fact that these books
were totally appropriate for “reading-starved children” and had been
paid for by parents, the parent–teacher association, the school, and
teachers themselves over the years.
Jaeger (2006), a teacher in the West Contra Costa Unified School
District northeast of San Francisco, recounts the dramatic changes that
occurred in her school reading program with the introduction of the
Open Court reading series, “a scripted reading program that tells teach-
ers what to say and do at every moment” (p. 39). Open Court instruc-
tion occupied between two and three hours each day and replaced the
literacy curriculum that teachers had previously developed which,
according to Jaeger, “more fully addressed the range of levels and the
varied strengths and weaknesses of our students” (pp. 39–40). Noting
that “teachers got laryngitis while children remained silent” (p. 40),
Jaeger describes how the interaction between teacher and student was
reduced to “a mechanical and impersonal back-and-forth” (p. 40):
In kindergarten and 1st grade, teachers now taught the least meaning-
ful aspects of literacy—letters and sounds—and postponed emphasis on
meaning for nearly two years. These children faced a steady diet of so-
called decodable texts (“The cat sat on the mat. The cat is fat. Where is
the cat?”). Teachers presented the lessons to all students at the same
time, limiting the opportunity to differentiate instruction. (p. 40) 57
Chapter Two
Jaeger goes on to discuss how trainers and consultants could enter
Pedagogy
classrooms at will, interrupting lessons, chastising teachers in front of
their students, and going through personal files without permission.
Furthermore, any teacher who veered from the mandated script by
altering or expanding less effective lessons was threatened with disci-
plinary action by the principal. This “heavy-handed implementation”
of the scripted reading program did not extend to the same degree to
other schools that were located in middle-class neighborhoods with a
greater percentage of white students:
The district shackled teachers of poor children with generally lower

achievement to a curriculum that did not let them modify their teach-
ing. Teachers in more affluent schools could enrich the curriculum to
emphasize higher-level thinking and aesthetics. These children had the
opportunity to obtain an education that prepared them to assume
demanding leadership roles. Poor kids received an education that
prepared them for McDonald’s, McMilitary, and McPrison. (p. 40)
Jaeger’s active opposition to this type of program resulted in her being

transferred to another school, giving a clear message to other teachers
who might contemplate resisting top-down mandates: “Speak up and
you will be punished; advocate for your students and you will be
silenced” (p. 41).4
These accounts articulate some of the most problematic aspects of
the literacy instructional approach being implemented in many low-
income districts. Instruction is scripted and uniformly paced; all teach-
ers are expected to cover the same material at the same rate regardless
of whether students understand it or not. Many ELL students have no
way of connecting cognitively with the one-size-fits-all instructional
content but teachers are routinely told, “Trust me, this program is good
for every child in your class” (Meyer, 2002, p. 53). Typically, ELL and
special needs students are not permitted to be withdrawn for remediation
during the phonics component of the program, clearly communicating
that all other aspects of literacy instruction are secondary to systematic
phonics instruction.
The instructional approach described by commentators such as
Gensburger (2005) and Meyer (2002) goes far beyond simply the
transmission of skills and information as one component of a broader
instructional philosophy. It represents a programmed learning approach
58 that is explicitly based on behaviorist psychology and ideology. Becker

(1977) outlines the essential elements of Englemann’s direct instruction
Part One approach:
Changing Times,
Changing Schools In common with other theories of programmed instruction, Englemann
specifies teaching one thing at a time, providing adequate practice, and
designing lessons for a low error rate. (p. 531)
Becker (1977) also articulates the role of instructional scripts within a

programmed learning approach:
The use of explicitly detailed lessons—scripts—has been criticized as

restricting teachers’ initiative. This may be a valid criticism, but one
should consider the potential advantages of scripts in providing quality
control in a delivery system. The scripts permit the selection and testing
of sequences of examples that produce efficient learning if followed.
Most teachers simply do not have time to find appropriate words and
examples or to sequence skill hierarchies in the most efficient possible
manner. When teachers phrase their own questions, they may choose
terms unknown to lower-performing children or may include unnec-
essary verbiage. In choosing examples, moreover, they may teach
incorrect rules because the positive examples have some irrelevant
feature in common. (p. 523)
With respect to reading comprehension, Carnine, Silbert, and

Kameenui (1997) note that in “each aspect of the comprehension
model . . . instruction begins with the least complex form and moves to
the most complex in hierarchical fashion” (p. 28).
The focus of programmed instruction The focus is on the skills hierarchies built into the
is on the skills hierarchies built into script rather than on what students may be bringing
the script rather than on what students to the learning environment. This approach relies on
bring to the learning environment. what Iran-Nejad, McKeachie, and Berliner (1990)
call simplification by isolation, where complex skills
are broken down into their components and taught in isolation from
other skills with which they are normally integrated.
Social constructivist alternatives

By contrast, social constructivist approaches draw their inspiration from
the work of cognitive theorists such as Vygotsky (1978) and Piaget (1929)
and emphasize both the importance of students’ prior knowledge as a
foundation for constructing new understandings and the role of the
social context in facilitating this process. Particularly influential has
been Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD),
which he defined as the distance between children’s developmental

levels as determined by individual problem solving without adult guid- 59
ance and the level of potential development as determined by children’s Chapter Two
problem solving under the influence of, or in collaboration with, more Pedagogy
capable adults and peers. Expressed simply, the ZPD is the interpersonal
space where minds meet and new understandings can arise through
collaborative interaction and inquiry. Newman, Griffin, and Cole (1989)
label this interpersonal space the construction zone.
We have argued that not only is knowledge collaboratively generated
within this interpersonal space or construction zone but, equally signif-
icant for learning, identities are negotiated between teachers and students
(Cummins, 2001). The reciprocal negotiation
of identities and the collaborative generation The construction zone, can also be a constric-
of knowledge are intimately related to each tion zone where student identities and learn-
other. Teacher–student collaboration in the ing are constricted rather than extended.
construction of knowledge will operate effec-
tively only in contexts where students’ identities are being affirmed.
Essentially, this conception extends the ZPD beyond the cognitive
sphere into the realms of affective development and power relationships.
It also makes clear that the construction zone can also be a constriction
zone, where student identities and learning are constricted rather than
extended.
Common ground and areas of dispute

Behaviorist and social constructivist pedagogical orientations entail
very different implications for reading instruction and define the major
issues of contention in current debates. This can be appreciated by con-
sidering the common ground that a large majority of researchers, edu-
cators, and policymakers are likely to endorse (see review in Cummins,
2001). There is considerable consensus, supported by the research, on
the following:
■ Immersion in a literate environment either in home or school (and

preferably both) is a strong predictor of success in both decoding
and reading comprehension.
■ Development of phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and
concepts about print is an important component in acquiring initial
decoding skills.
■ An explicit instructional focus on developing phonological awareness,
letter knowledge, and concepts about print, together with a significant
60 instructional focus on actual reading and writing, contributes to the devel-

opment of decoding skills and early reading comprehension skills.
Part One ■ The extent to which students have access to print and the amount
Changing Times, of actual reading that they carry out are major determinants of
Changing Schools reading comprehension development.
The most significant points of contention appear to be (1) the extent

to which reading instruction should be rigidly scripted and (2) the
extent to which tight control should be exercised over students’ access
to authentic text (i.e., text that would not be classified as “decodable”).
Advocates of scripted instruction see scripts as essential to ensure qual-
ity control in the delivery of reading instruction. They also tend to
emphasize that decodable text should predominate in initial reading
materials with only limited access to “nondecodable” text (e.g., chil-
dren’s literature). Mathes and Torgesen (2000), for example, express
this perspective as follows:
Likewise, to ask children to read text that they cannot decode using
the alphabetic elements and skills that they have been taught is to
communicate to them that the alphabetic knowledge and skill they have
spent effort learning is not really relevant to reading, and that they must
rely heavily on guessing the identity of words from context. (p. 12)
In other words, it is seen as problematic for children to encounter

words in reading materials for which the letter–sound correspondences
have not been previously taught in an explicit and systematic way.
Becker (1977) makes essentially the same argument with respect to
the teaching of vocabulary, arguing for a graded progression of reading
materials in which “words in a proposed text that are not suitable for a
given grade level would be replaced, emphasized in the text, or listed
so that the teacher could teach them before beginning a lesson”
(p. 539). Thus, a behaviorist approach assumes that students can reli-
ably learn only what has been explicitly taught. Therefore, both
letter–sound correspondences and also vocabulary-concept knowledge
should be pretaught prior to students encountering new vocabulary in
texts. One implication of this approach is that students will not be
encouraged to engage in extensive independent reading because errors
cannot be minimized when students encounter the uncontrolled
vocabulary of trade books or other reading materials that have not
been specifically programmed to fit into the skill hierarchy. This
assumption underlies the removal of nonprescribed books from class-
rooms in contexts such as that described by Gensburger (2005).
Illustrative research studies

What does research say about the underlying theoretical assumptions of
61
behaviorist and social constructivist orientations to pedagogy? Two illus- Chapter Two
trative studies point to the limitations of one-size-fits-all scripted pro- Pedagogy
grams. For example, in a study involving detailed observations in four
classrooms, Juel and Minden-Cupp (2000) found that “children who
entered first grade with some reading ability did exceptionally well in a
classroom that included a less structured phonics curriculum and more
reading of trade books and writing of text, . . . whereas children who
entered with fewer literacy skills benefited from a curriculum with an
early word-level focus” (pp. 484–485). They further point out that after
a “strong dose of effective phonics and a rapid rise in word-level skill,
these low-group children then benefited from the same type of increased
vocabulary and text discussions, and reading from a variety of types of
materials, as did their peers” (p. 485). The authors interpret the finding
that phonics is critical for some children but may not be helpful for
others (p. 484) as support for the self-teaching hypothesis (Share &
Stanovich, 1995), which proposes that when children have developed
phonological awareness and letter–sound knowledge, and are provided
with rich exposure to print, they can ultimately teach themselves to read.
The interaction between students’ entering ability and the initial focus of
teaching shows clearly the limitations of direct instruction approaches
that ignore student diversity of language, culture, and prior experience
in favor of a uniform script that attempts to transmit hierarchical skills
to all children in the same sequence.
The second illustrative study also supports the basic principles of a
social constructivist approach by showing that when students’ identities
are invested in the learning task, and learning is
supported by a culturally responsive instructional In bilingual programs around the
context, students can acquire extensive literacy skills world, children spontaneously transfer
that have not been explicitly taught. This research literacy skills across languages without
consisted of a longitudinal case study carried out by systematic and explicit instruction in
María de la Luz Reyes (2001) of the “spontaneous the dominant language.
biliteracy” of four low-income working-class
Mexicano/Latino children in a bilingual program, two of whom were
taught to read initially only in Spanish and two only in English, accord-
ing to their language dominance on entry to the program. The children
received structured phonics instruction (in English or Spanish) in
kindergarten, but in first and second grades only minimal phonics
were taught. All four children spontaneously transferred their literacy
skills from the initial language of instruction to their second language
62 without formal instruction. Their “natural, spontaneous, and uncompli-

cated approach to bilingualism and biliteracy” was supported by their
Part One interest in writing in both languages and also by their social play where
Changing Times, they challenged each other to read in the language in which they had
Changing Schools received no formal reading instruction.5
In interpreting the spontaneous biliteracy development of the four
children, Reyes (2001) emphasized the centrality of affective dimen-
sions related to students’ identity. She notes that the learning environ-
ment legitimated children’s bicultural identity:
There is no doubt that these students felt their languages and their cul-
ture affirmed. . . . Although each of the girls received [reading] instruc-
tion in only one language, all their learning from kindergarten to second
grade took place in classrooms where the teachers supported and nur-
tured their cultural and linguistic resources. Each day they heard their
teachers and peers use Spanish and English. Their teachers also made
great efforts to treat English and Spanish as equally as possible, valuing
both languages for personal, social, and academic purposes. (p. 116)
Reyes’s (2001) documentation of the biliteracy development of these

students clearly refutes predictions derived from the learning theory
underlying scripted reading instruction. As a result of the supportive
sociocultural environment, these four low-income students learned
extensive literacy skills that had not been “systematically and explicitly”
taught. This research is just as “scientific” as the quasi-experimental
studies considered by the NRP and just as capable of contributing to
scientific advancement and knowledge generation (Cummins, 1999). In
most scientific disciplines, knowledge is generated by constantly testing
and refining theory-based predictions and thus systematic observations
such as those reported by Reyes contribute directly to the testing of
hypotheses. In this case, they refute central hypotheses underlying
programmed learning and scripted curricula.
In short, there is extensive research evidence from a variety of qual-
itative and quantitative research studies on reading development that is
inconsistent with the pedagogical assumptions of
Only transformative approaches to scripted curricula and programmed learning. In
instruction focus on issues of student addition, the principles of social constructivist
and teacher identities as they intersect approaches to reading instruction are not only con-
with societal power structures. sistent with the research evidence but also with the
broader research-based principles of learning articu-
lated by Bransford and colleagues (2000). Those who endorse a social
constructivist approach to learning point to the extensive scientific
research showing that children are capable of developing complex

phonological and decoding skills that have not been explicitly taught 63
when they are provided with a culturally responsive learning environ- Chapter Two
ment at home or at school and when their learning is guided or scaf- Pedagogy
folded by supportive adults. They argue that because children come to
school with widely different degrees of preliteracy knowledge, such as
phonological awareness and other concepts about print, as well as differ-
ent degrees of knowledge of the English language, one-size-fits-all
scripted instruction constricts the learning environment and limits stu-
dents’ potential for sustained growth in reading comprehension. The
empirical research suggests that children’s time would be much better
spent applying their phonological awareness, knowledge of phonics,
and knowledge of the world to reading engaging texts and exploring
possibilities for expressing their identities through personal writing
(Chow & Cummins, 2003).
However, although social constructivist approaches accurately cap-
ture important aspects of learning, they typically do not address broader
social issues related to the nature of literacy and the goals of literacy
instruction within a globalized Information Age society. There is general
agreement among proponents of all pedagogical orientations that strong
literacy skills are important for economic participation and national
competitiveness. However, only transformative approaches raise issues
of teacher and student identities as they intersect with societal power
structures. The rationale for addressing these issues is that the role defi-
nitions or identities of teachers in relation to the overall goals of educa-
tion will determine the kinds of pedagogy they orchestrate and the
literacy abilities they aspire to promote among their students.
Pedagogical Images: Preparing

Students for Civic Participation
As educators, our interactions with students are constantly sketching a
triangular set of images:
■ An image of our own identities as educators;

■ An image of the identity options we highlight for our students; and
■ An image of the society we hope our students will help form.
The intersection of these three “images” and the ways in which

instruction opens up or shuts off identity options can be illustrated in
64 the findings of large-scale studies of classroom interaction in the

United States (e.g., Goodlad, 1984; Ramírez, 1992). In discussing the
Part One implications of Goodlad’s finding that teacher-centered transmission
Changing Times, instruction predominated in U.S. classrooms, Sirotnik (1983) pointed
Changing Schools to the fact that the typical American classroom contained
a lot of teacher talk and a lot of student listening . . . almost invariably

closed and factual questions . . . and predominantly total class instruc-
tional configurations around traditional activities—all in a virtually
affectless environment. It is but a short inferential leap to suggest that
we are implicitly teaching dependence upon authority, linear thinking,
social apathy, passive involvement, and hands-off learning. (p. 29)
In other words, an image of the society that students will graduate into
and the kind of contributions they are being prepared to make within
that society is embedded implicitly in the interactions between educa-
tors and students.
The ways in which these images are transacted in classroom interac-
tions reflect the ways in which educators locate themselves in relation to
the power structure of the society. When one chooses to frame the uni-
verse of discourse about underachievement primarily in terms of chil-
dren’s deficits in some area of psychological or linguistic functioning
(such as phonological awareness), one expels culture, language, identity,
intellect, and imagination from one’s image of the child. Similarly, these
constructs are nowhere to be found in one’s image of the effective
teacher of these children, nor in policies that might guide instruction.
The erasure of imagination from the images of children and teachers
is particularly unfortunate in view of the major environmental, social,
and economic problems that today’s global society faces. It is also clearly
at variance with the emphasis on knowledge generation and collabora-
tive inquiry that both the corporate sector and many government reports
have emphasized in recent years. Imagination can be defined as “the act
or power of creating mental images of what has never been actually
experienced” (Egan, 1986, p. 7). Egan (1986, 1999) makes an extremely
persuasive case that school curricula have excluded the “most powerful
and energetic intellectual tools children bring to school” (1986, p. 18).
He suggests that educators need to reconstruct their curricula and teach-
ing methods in light of a richer image of the child as an imaginative as
well as a logico-mathematical thinker. Children’s imaginations are
revealed in their capacity for highly abstract and sophisticated thinking
in relation to engaging stories (e.g., Star Wars, Harry Potter), yet children’s
opportunities to exercise these imaginative intellectual powers are sys- 65
tematically restricted throughout their schooling. Society views children, Chapter Two
and particularly children of poverty, as relative intellectual incompetents Pedagogy
ignoring the everyday experience of their creative intellectual energy and
imaginative powers (1986, p. 22). One might add that the new regime
of truth also constructs teachers as relative intellectual incompetents who
must be policed to ensure that they do not deviate from the official
script.
At issue are radically different conceptions of learning and education
and their roles in society. Should education automatically reinforce the
societal status quo or should it challenge societal structures and discourses
that are at variance with the articulated (although perhaps only sporad-
ically pursued) core values of the society, such as equality, social justice,
and freedom? Do we truly want historically subordinated groups to
develop active intelligence and imagination whose outcomes, by defini-
tion, can’t be predicted? Shouldn’t we rather prescribe exactly what is
to be taught as a means of controlling what can be thought? Are we
comfortable promoting the multilingual talents of our students in light of
the different perspectives on reality that this multilingual access might
provide? Do we really believe that inner-city children should be encour-
aged to take pride in their linguistic creativity and further explore the
range of English varieties they command (Delpit, 1995) despite the fact
that such varieties are stigmatized in the wider society?
The answers to these questions will depend on the extent to which
society sees constructs such as power and identity as in any way relevant
to children’s education. The conceptions of literacy and pedagogy that
underlie the analyses and instructional practices described in this book
explicitly incorporate an image of society as needing all the intelligence,
imagination, and multilingual talent it can get. Effective citizenship
requires active intelligence and a willingness to challenge power struc-
tures that constrict human possibility. If instruction doesn’t promote
active intelligence from children’s first day in school, or promotes it only
in middle-class suburban schools, then it is failing both students and
society. The case studies that we document in Chapters 5 through 9
and in the appendix illustrate clearly how various forms of technology
can be harnessed to mobilize students’ imaginations and active intelli-
gence in ways that powerfully challenge the anemic pedagogical vision
that currently holds sway in far too many inner-city and rural schools.
b
B ook Clu Discussion Questions for Study Groups
■
1 Think about an instructional situation with
which you are familiar (e.g., your own class-
preexisting knowledge when their English
language skills are still quite limited?
■
room if you are teaching). Approximately
what proportion of instruction is spent in 3 In addition to the rapid increase in
each of the three pedagogical orientations low-frequency vocabulary that students
discussed in this chapter (transmission, encounter after the early grades of elemen-
social constructivist, transformative)? What tary school, what other aspects of academic
are some of the reasons for the patterns you language might contribute to the fourth-
have identified? In your ideal teaching situ- grade slump phenomenon?
ation, how would you organize instruction
with respect to the three orientations? ■
4 Why do you think that the bilingual stu-
dents that María de la Luz Reyes (2001)
■
2 In their book How People Learn, Bransford
and colleagues (2000) highlight the impor-
documented were spontaneously able to
develop reading and writing skills in their
tance of activating and building on students’ second language without any systematic
preexisting knowledge. What implications and explicit literacy instruction in that lan-
does this have within a culturally and lin- guage? What are the implications of this
guistically diverse classroom? What strate- phenomenon for monolingual “main-
gies might you use to activate students’ stream” classrooms?
Endnotes
1. Some skepticism in relation to the Knowledge 2. The metaphor of “nesting” these three pedagogi-
Society rhetoric is warranted in view of the fact that cal orientations within each other was developed in
the vast majority of new jobs that are being created discussions between Eleni Skourtou, Vasilia Kourtis
in Western societies are in the service sector. Thus, Kazoullis, and Jim Cummins. The visual depiction
only a relatively small segment of students graduat- of these nested relationships was initially created by
ing from high schools will work in jobs that require Vasilia Kourtis Kazoullis (see Skourtou, Kourtis-
critical interpretation of data and generation of new Kazoullis, & Cummins, 2006).
knowledge. Most service jobs will involve greater use
of new technologies (e.g., scanners at supermarket 3. Abby Goodnough (2003) in the New York Times
checkouts) but few will require significantly greater described the change in New York City schools as
use of higher-order thinking or critical literacy skills follows:
than is currently the case. However, all students In addition to Month by Month Phonics, the pro-
will require critical literacy if they are to participate gram that Deputy Chancellor Diana Lam chose in
effectively in the democratic process. January as part of a new system wide reading and
66
math curriculum, kindergarten through third grade pate in the test-preparation stampede (Winerip 2003).
classrooms will use the New York City Passport pro- Ms. MacLeish had been named Orange County
gram, developed by Voyager Expanded Learning of Teacher of the Year in 1998 and is described in the
Dallas. . . . Reid Lyon, Mr. Bush’s top reading advisor, article as possibly “the best kindergarten teacher in
complained in January that Month by Month did
Florida.” She decided to move to a resource teaching
not have enough research backing it; he and other
position, helping children who were experiencing
reading experts have warned New York City that it
academic difficulties, rather than compromise her
could lose millions of dollars in federal funds. (p. D1)
vision of what education should be. The letter she
Part of the concern in regard to Month by Month wrote home to parents announcing that she would
Phonics appears to have been that it did not focus not be teaching kindergarten next year explained:
almost exclusively on systematic intensive phonics
A single high-stakes test score is now measuring
instruction. According to Goodnough:
Florida’s children, leaving little time to devote to their
The curriculum will also require students to read character or potential or talents or depth of knowl-
books from classroom libraries and practice writing edge. . . . Kindergarten teachers throughout the state
for several hours every day. But while [New York have replaced valued learning centers (home center,
City Schools Chancellor] Mr. Klein and Ms. Lam art center, blocks, dramatic play) with paper and
have expressed more excitement about the daily pencil tasks, dittos, coloring sheets, scripted lessons,
reading and writing, critics have warned that the workbook pages.
city’s many struggling students should spend more
time drilling in phonics. (p. D3) Winerip (2003) notes that “the breaking point for
Ms. MacLeish was an article in the paper praising a
A footnote to the confrontation over New York kindergarten teacher who had eliminated her play
City’s Reading Program is that when Reid Lyon centers and was doing reading drills, all part of a push
resigned from the National Institute of Child Health to help her school get a higher grade on the annual
and Human Development in May 2005, he took a state report card.” By contrast, Ms. MacLeish’s class-
high-level position with Best Associates, the founder room is described as “crammed with books” and her
of Voyager Learning. Education Week described the focus on linking reading and writing to students’
switch from public to private sector as follows: lives was far removed from the pedagogy of reading
Best Associates is a merchant-banking firm that drills and scripted lessons.
underwrites start-up companies, including education
5. This process of spontaneous transfer of literacy
ventures. Randy Best, a founding partner, was the
creator of Voyager Learning, a company that pub- across languages parallels what is typically observed
lishes commercial reading programs that have been in Canadian French immersion programs (e.g.,
approved for use in schools receiving federal funds Geva & Clifton, 1993; Lambert & Tucker, 1972)
under Reading First. The Voyager program, for exam- and in U.S. dual language programs (Cloud,
ple, was adopted for use in New York City schools Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000; Freeman, Freeman,
that receive Reading First money after the district’s & Mercuri, 2005; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary,
existing reading initiative was criticized by Mr. Lyon Saunders, & Christian, 2006; Lindholm-Leary,
as not being explicit or systematic in its approach to 2001). English L1 students are typically introduced
teaching the subject. (Manzo, May 24, 2005,
to reading through their second language (French
www.edweek.org)
in Canada and usually Spanish in U.S. dual lan-
4. The frustrations of experienced and talented guage programs) but quickly transfer their reading
teachers were also documented in a New York Times skills to English and acquire fluent English reading
article in May 2003 that profiled the experience of a skills with no systematic or explicit instruction in
Florida kindergarten teacher who refused to partici- English phonics.
67

Peday I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peday I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peday I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cummins Chapter 2 7/7/06 2:22 PM Page 36

Education is not the

38 as antagonistic and mutually irreconcilable. Urszula Clark (2001), for

knowledge. They plead innocence with respect to the sanitization of the

The Changing Context of Education

40 Globalization and Diversity

Information and communication technologies (ICT) are opening up access

proper use of such technologies may contribute to Europe’s shift to a

42 In responding to societal expectations that they simultaneously trans-

How People Learn

Engaging Prior Understandings

emphasis in original). Prior knowledge, skills, beliefs, and concepts sig-

Integrating Factual Knowledge

Taking Active Control

44 Bransford and colleagues (2000) also emphasize the importance of

approaches to pedagogy broaden the focus still further by emphasizing

46 Au, is that “social constructivists are interested in the collective genera-

dent population is multilingual and students are exposed to, and

48 whose family background was characterized by low income and low

Guthrie notes that the term engagement incorporates notions of time

Locked in a spiral, they grow together. . . . Young students who gain a

Also, Guthrie notes that the relationships between engagement,

learning from text, and discourse among students must be encouraged.

1. Large amounts of time for actual text reading;

At this point, it is appropriate to revisit the construct of reading to

Literacy and Academic Language Development

50 rationale for making these distinctions is that each dimension of profi-

Discrete Language Skills

The discrete language skills acquired early include knowledge of the

Academic Language Proficiency

their peers in academic Hebrew (Shohamy, Levine, Spolsky, Kere-Levy,

The fourth-grade slump

Snow (1988) report that “experienced teachers of low-income children

54 performance on reading comprehension measures. Although there was

Pedagogical Conflicts and Choices 55

The Pedagogical Divide: Programmed Learning

56 instruction produced significant benefits for K–6 students” (Lyon &

The district shackled teachers of poor children with generally lower

Jaeger’s active opposition to this type of program resulted in her being

58 that is explicitly based on behaviorist psychology and ideology. Becker

Becker (1977) also articulates the role of instructional scripts within a

The use of explicitly detailed lessons—scripts—has been criticized as

With respect to reading comprehension, Carnine, Silbert, and

Social constructivist alternatives

which he defined as the distance between children’s developmental

Common ground and areas of dispute

■ Immersion in a literate environment either in home or school (and

60 instructional focus on actual reading and writing, contributes to the devel-

The most significant points of contention appear to be (1) the extent

In other words, it is seen as problematic for children to encounter

Illustrative research studies

62 without formal instruction. Their “natural, spontaneous, and uncompli-

Reyes’s (2001) documentation of the biliteracy development of these

research showing that children are capable of developing complex

Pedagogical Images: Preparing

■ An image of our own identities as educators;

The intersection of these three “images” and the ways in which

64 the findings of large-scale studies of classroom interaction in the