ACQ Vol 11 no 2 2009

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 • 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” of that era (Alexander & Fox, 2004): • conditioned learning (1950–65) • natural learning (1966–75)

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

69

ACQ Volume 11, Number 2 2009

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au