ACQ Vol 11 no 2 2009

7 / 68

ACQ Volume 11, Number 2 2009 69
such a wide range of definitions, the term is of limited value
in scientific investigation which requires precision in technical
terms (Wilson, 2005). The types of definitions currently
favoured in research and policy (which focus on “use”
of literacy) are abandoned when the research considers
children who are struggling to learn literacy (Education
Queensland, 2008). Speech pathologists should heed
Wilson’s (2005) caution not to assume shared definitions
even for the commonly used terms of language and literacy.
The main implication of varying definitions is that the range
of contributors to literacy teaching may be working at cross
purposes (Education Queensland, 2008).
Perspectives on literacy in
recent history
The wide range of definitions of literacy has grown from the
varying “perspectives” which have dominated literacy
research and practice over successive periods in recent
history. Each perspective on literacy has focused on one
particular feature as the most important characteristic,
leading to different definitions. Alexander and Fox (2004)
pointed out that these various perspectives on literacy have
been influenced by changing beliefs about learning in
general, but also by broader political trends, government
funding for specific types of research, technology, workplace
demands for literacy, and the growing accountability
movement. They proposed that the perspectives on literacy
over the past 50 years can be summarised under the
following headings which refer to the dominant perspective
of that era (Alexander & Fox, 2004):
• conditioned learning (1950–65)
• natural learning (1966–75)
• information processing (1976–85)
• sociocultural learning (1986–95)
• engaged learning (1996–2004) and reconditioned learning
(1996–2004).
Alexander and Fox (2004) identified a number of recurring
trends in the successive perspectives over the past 50 years.
These include a shifting emphasis on whole event (top down)
versus skill instruction (bottom up) over time, on individual’s
skills versus literacy as a social tool, and on controlled
vocabulary versus authentic literature. Familiarisation with
the recent history of perspectives on literacy learning should
be a part of the preparation of all literacy professionals.
As Alexander and Fox (2004, p. 57) stated, knowledge of
history: “might serve to temper some of the unabashed
support for particular new reform efforts that are, in actuality,
iterations or reincarnations of past reading approaches with
qualified or questionable records of success”.
Each perspective is characterised by an emphasis on
one aspect of literacy over the others. However, literacy is
necessarily physiological, linguistic, behavioural, material
and sociological. Alexander and Fox (2004) called for urgent
attention to the integration of the perspectives on literacy
into a unifying model. Such a model would provide a basis
to articulate clearly which aspect of literacy is the focus
for research. A unifying model would also be a useful tool
for discussing the role of the various professionals who
contribute to literacy teaching and remediation, including
SPs.
The different perspectives on learning since 1950 have
also influenced research in communication. SPs’ research
is still heavily influenced by the legacy of the conditioned
learning, reconditioned learning and the information
processing approaches which represent “bottom-up”
approaches to learning (for one example see Hogan, Catts
and Little, 2005). SPs need to be aware that the educational
field has embraced other perspectives, and that many of
their teacher colleagues trained when the sociocultural
learning or the engaged learner perspective was dominant.
Individuals tend to adopt the prevailing perspective (and
practices) during their pre-service training and apply it with
little subsequent analysis (Kjaer, 2005). SPs working in
schools may find that some teachers have a firm belief in a
holistic (top-down) approach to literacy teaching and believe
it is unacceptable to teach literacy skills (De Lemos, 2002).
Unless SPs understand the range of perspectives on literacy,
they are likely to experience difficulty in communicating with
their educational colleagues. In this writer’s opinion, the lack
of a unifying model of the various perspectives on literacy is
a considerable impediment to SPs making statements about
their role that are easily understood by others.
The influence of opinion
and ideology
Periodically, statements are made about the poor state of
young people’s literacy and about the need to change how
children are taught (e.g., “Schools fail the 3Rs test,” 2005).
Debate then follows about whether absolute literacy
standards are falling, or whether this perception is an artefact
of the demand for higher literacy competencies for
contemporary society (Snow, Scarborough & Burns, 1999).
More than any other educational issue, literacy seems to
generate heated disagreement, regular government
investigations and deeply divided opinions. Opinions and
ideology are as likely to be based on anecdotes, experience,
and the perspective in vogue during professional training, as
on scientific evidence (Kjaer, 2005).
Hornsby (1999) warned that literacy policies and
mandates in Australia that may not have a foundation in
rigorous or valid research findings had become widely
accepted as being research-based through appeals to
ideologically driven literature. Taylor (1998) detailed cases
whereby “spin doctors”, rather than scientific evidence,
had influenced literacy initiatives in the US. Widespread
poor-quality educational and psychological research serves
to compound the problem (Education Queensland, 2008;
US Department of Education, 2002). Issues in research
include lack of clarity about definitions (Wilson, 2005),
methodological flaws (NICHD, 2000; Troia, 1999), confusion
between correlation and causation (Hornsby, 1999), and
political bias evident in interpretations of the literature
(Hornsby, 1999; Taylor, 1998). Poor methodology is a
significant issue. For example, of the 1962 studies published
on phonemic awareness between 1996 and 2000, only 52
met the research methodology criteria required by the US
Reading Panel’s enquiry (NICHD, 2000. For an extended
discussion see Education Queensland, 2008.)
Even good quality research may be ignored in the name
of ideology; those with a particular view cite those findings
that support their belief, and those who do not believe
dispute the findings and criticise the research (Torgerson,
2006; Wyse, 2000). To play an effective role in literacy, SPs
need to appreciate the complexities and issues in literacy
research and to be aware that opinions and ideology have
considerable influence in literacy policy and practice.
Conclusion
Several potential barriers exist for SPs aiming to promote
their role in literacy, including the differences in pre-service