Literacy at the Millennium

Jack Cassidy
William G. Brozo
Drew Cassidy

With the new millennium looming, newspapers and other periodicals began increasingly to publish annual lists of people and issues that had received special attention in the recent past. In the mid-1990s, we noticed that in the field of literacy or reading education, such lists were noticeably absent. Therefore, we thought it would be useful -- for both historical and critical reasons -- to produce one. We felt that such a list would offer a portrait of literacy education at the turn of the millennium, one that future educators could look on to contextualize their work. We agreed with the many in our profession who have observed that the reading field must learn from its past to refine existing understandings and address issues that have become marginalized or ignored.

We began in 1996 by surveying newspapers that published “What's Hot and What's Not” sorts of lists, as well as people who read them, to come up with a working definition for our own survey. We found that “what's hot” usually meant that the subject was receiving increased and more positive attention; “what's not” usually meant that the subject was receiving less or negative attention.

We decided that our list would be a composite of the opinions of literacy leaders from around the United States as well as other parts of the English-speaking world. We looked to the leaders of professional associations and to those who had made significant contributions to the field over a long period. We wanted school principals and central office personnel, classroom teachers, and college professors. All, however, had to have a national or international perspective on the field of literacy education. We interviewed our selected authorities in person or by telephone using a standard protocol. For the first list, “What's Hot, What's Not for 1997” (Cassidy & Wenrich, 1997), we assembled 22 leaders, and for each subsequent year it was 25.

For the first year of the survey, we identified topics from professional literacy journals, more general and widely circulated education journals and periodicals (e.g., Phi Delta Kappan, Educational Leadership, and Education Week), popular magazines, newspapers, and recent convention programs. After the first year, we simply asked the previous year's respondents to suggest additions to and deletions from this list. Beginning in 1999, in addition to asking whether each topic was “hot” or “not hot,” we asked, “Should this topic be hot?” or “Shouldn't it be hot?”

Beginning in 1997, our survey results have been published as a “What's Hot, What's Not” list in the International Reading Association's membership newspaper, Reading Today (see Cassidy & Cassidy, 1998-99, 1999-2000; Cassidy & Wenrich, 1997, 1998). We have found that our annual lists have received far more attention than we imagined they would. Teachers and administrators have written or called asking for elaboration on particular topics; newspapers have summarized the lists; journal articles have opened with allusions to the lists; and critics have bombarded us with letters and e-mails, expressing their opposition to items on the lists, to our choices for survey respondents, and to the survey results (see, e.g., Dewitz, 1999).

For this commentary, with its theme of literacy at the millennium, we decided to focus on those topics and issues that were overwhelmingly perceived as hot or not hot in the survey published in the December 1999/January 2000 issue of Reading Today -- that is, each topic's rating had to have received more than 75 percent agreement from the educators surveyed. We felt that this near-consensus list would provide a vivid picture of literacy education at the end of the millennium. Table 1 summarizes the results of the survey, which was completed in mid-1999.

As the surveyed authorities were rating a given topic as hot or not hot, they were cautioned that their own feelings should not interfere: a rating of “hot” did not necessarily mean that they felt the topic was important, just as a rating of “not hot” did not necessarily mean they felt the topic was unimportant. They had a chance to express their own opinions when they were asked, “Should this topic be hot?” Table 2 summarizes the survey respondents' answers to this question, giving their opinions on which topics should and should not be hot.

Let's look at each of the categories one by one. What exactly are the hot topics as we enter the new millennium? Why are they receiving increased and positive attention, even though in many instances the authorities believe that this attention is unwarranted?

Philosophy/Approach

Balanced reading instruction has been receiving a good deal of attention for the past 3 years (Pressley, 1998; Reutzel, 1999).Unfortunately, there is some disagreement as to the exact definition of the term. Generally, though, most authorities would describe a balanced reading program as one that includes reading, writing, spelling, phonics, and other skills-based instruction. Basal readers, direct instruction, and workbooks can all be part of a balanced reading program as long as such a program also includes authentic literature, self-selected reading, and writing.

Research-based practice has become a hot topic because the perception developed that practices inspired by whole language were not based on firm research foundations (McKenna, Stahl, & Reinking, 1994; Texas Education Agency, 1997). The emphasis on research has forced both publishers and educators to produce evidence of improved student achievement as a result of using particular materials or strategies. All of those surveyed agreed that research-based practice, as well as on balanced reading programs, should continue to receive more and positive attention.

The popularity of balanced reading and research-based practice results in part from the unpopularity of the term “whole language.” Whole language received much positive attention at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the '90s. Stressing authentic literature, process writing, invented spelling, and student self-selected texts, whole language advocates generally decried or de-emphasized phonics and any other direct skill instruction. Basal readers and other commercially prepared reading texts were eschewed. In the mid-1980s, the California curriculum framework initiated during the term of then state superintendent Bill Honig legitimized the whole language approach. Unfortunately, dismal student results on standardized tests in reading caused California officials, parents, and Bill Honig himself to renounce whole language (Honig, 1996; Lyon, 1998). Nationally, many have questioned the research basis for the whole language approach. Consistent with the popular disaffection with whole language, all but one of the literacy leaders surveyed agreed that the topic should no longer be hot.

Guided reading is an offshoot of the popular Reading Recovery program (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). It stresses work with small groups of children who use very simple trade books that are carefully graded so that children can achieve success. While the teacher is working with one group of children, the other groups work at learning stations or on writing activities. Since real books are used, the procedure has a lot in common with the practices evident in whole language classrooms. However, with guided reading, there is a great emphasis on placing children at their appropriate reading levels.

Level

Early intervention, the intensive teaching of reading for very young at-risk children, became a prominent topic over a decade ago. Its proponents assert that it removes the need for remedial programs. One of the most popular early intervention programs of the 1980s and '90s was Reading Recovery, based on the work of Marie Clay. The program is characterized by one-on-one tutoring for beginning first-grade students who show signs of possible reading difficulties. The tutors are certified teachers, in some cases reading specialists, who receive highly structured and intensive training. Initial research from New Zealand indicated that students in Reading Recovery not only showed dramatic gains in the primary grades but sustained those gains throughout the intermediate grades (Clay, 1993).When the program first came to the United States, similar results were reported. Recently, however, several studies have questioned the initial positive results and have highlighted the costliness of this program, and it has declined in popularity (Shanahan & Barr, 1995). The topic of early intervention is, however, as vital as ever (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, online document), and all those surveyed agreed that it should continue to be viewed as hot. Researchers are now investigating more cost-effective early intervention programs.

Since early intervention is hot, it seems logical that middle school reading and literacy would be rated as “not hot.” Indeed, the whole topic of adolescent literacy was until very recently receiving scant attention. Former International Reading Association president Richard Vacca (1997) has decried what he calls “the benign neglect of adolescent literacy” and warns that “if this trend continues, we may be on the verge of producing a generation of middle and high school teachers who have only a superficial knowledge of the literacy instructional needs of adolescents.” He also decried the fact that the “research funding for adolescent literacy is minuscule in relation to the big bucks federal and state agencies spend on early literacy and early intervention.” In the late 1990s, the International Reading Association formed a Commission on Adolescent Literacy to deal with some of these problems. Not surprisingly, all of the literacy leaders surveyed concurred that middle school reading and literacy should be receiving more and positive attention.

Content

Phonemic awareness and phonics are the topics in reading that were receiving the most attention as we approached the millennium. Many educators, however, are unaware of the difference between the two terms. “Phonemic awareness” refers to children's ability to hear the sounds (phonemes) in words; it is closely related to, and often interchanged with, the term “phonological awareness.” Research has shown that training in phonemic awareness could be a useful precursor to beginning reading instruction. Phonemic awareness does not involve the ability to match sounds with letters. “Phonics,” however, refers to a way of teaching reading that stresses the relationship between sounds and letters (Harris & Hodges, 1995). In the second half of the 1990s, many politicians, journalists, and critics of education have demanded that phonemic awareness and phonics be stressed in beginning reading instruction (“Bush sketches...,” 1998). The authorities surveyed agreed that phonics should continue to be a hot topic, but that enough had already been said about phonemic awareness. In fact, recent critical analyses of research in phonemic awareness seems to vindicate this expert judgment in that virtually all of the investigations were found to be flawed in terms of internal and external validity (Troia, 1999, online abstract).

If phonics and phonemic awareness are receiving increased positive attention, comprehension and vocabulary are definitely receiving less, at least in the United States. One explanation for this trend may be the shift that has occurred over the past 10 years in federal support for reading research initiatives. Between 1976 and 1991, the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois received federal funding for its research focus on comprehension. More recently, federal dollars have been targeted to groups such as CIERA, the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, for research on early intervention programs. Text comprehension, vocabulary, and word meaning are topics often associated with the upper grades and not with beginning reading instruction. Certainly, there has been a noticeable decline in recent years in the number of journal articles dealing with these very important topics. For example, Rupley, Logan, and Nichols (1999) found that in one issue of The Reading Teacher (the most widely circulated U.S. journal on elementary reading instruction), there were no articles dealing with vocabulary. Upon contacting the editors, they found that only 2 percent of submissions had any connection at all with vocabulary. Despite the fact that those surveyed thought that comprehension and vocabulary were “not hot,” the overwhelming majority also believed that vocabulary and comprehension should be getting more attention.

Materials

Decodable text refers to the kind of reading material to which children are generally exposed in kindergarten and at the beginning of first grade. Currently, many believe that most of the words in those beginning reading materials should be ones that children can decipher using the phonics skills they have been taught (Foorman, Fletcher, Francis, Schatshneider, & Mehta, 1998; Hiebert, 1999). Thus, a beginning text that contains the sentence “Nan and Ann ran” presumes that the children reading it have first been introduced to the rime an and the onsets r and n. Critics of these types of materials argue that they are dull and often nonsensical; proponents argue that they are important because they demonstrate the alphabetic principle of the English language. In spite of its growing popularity, the authorities surveyed felt that decodable text was receiving too much attention. Indeed, they favored literature-based instruction, characterized by the meaningful reading of authentic text. Thus, although literature-based instruction was not perceived as a hot topic, the respondents felt that it should be.

Assessment

At specific grade levels, virtually every American state now uses some kind of standardized assessment of reading based on state standards (Bond, Roeber, & Connealy, 1998; Murray, 1998; Sarroub & Pearson, 1998). President Bill Clinton has also championed a nationwide voluntary test. Thus, state/national assessment has become a very hot topic.

Conversely, portfolio assessment has fallen from its former position of prominence. In the 1980s and early '90s, many teachers were encouraged to collect multiple samples of student work in portfolios to be used in assessing achievement. Standardized assessment was shunned; portfolios were considered more authentic examples of student performance. Unfortunately, educators could not agree on any reliable means of using these work samples to judge achievement. Even a statewide portfolio assessment project in which trained evaluators were used failed to produce reliable results (Berger, 1998, online document; Supovitz & Brennan, 1997, online abstract). Thus, there was a great deal of concern over whether portfolios could be used for high-stakes decisions such as grade retention or graduation. In many classrooms, portfolio assessment consisted mainly of numerous manila folders stuffed with student worksheets. It is therefore not surprising that portfolio assessment is no longer a hot topic. The authorities interviewed, however, seemed to believe that portfolio assessment, if conducted properly, offered a more valid measure of students' reading abilities.

Lessons Learned

Trends in literacy have probably existed since the dawn of recorded language. We know that silent reading became more widespread at the end of the first millennium A.D. when scribes started separating words from one another in order to facilitate the silent perusal of text. Therefore, it might be said that circa 1000 A.D., silent reading was “hot” (Manguel, 1996). One hundred years ago, with the advent of measurement instruments, scientific investigation in reading began, making it possible for researchers to determine the effectiveness of reading methods. Therefore, one might conclude that, circa 1900, research-based practice was “hot” (Smith, 1961).

This commentary's picture of what's hot in literacy research and practice at the end of the second millennium A.D. provides a reference for future debates, discussions, and controversies. Historical perspective is often ignored or fails to promote an understanding of current practice, but the picture painted by the recognized literacy leaders surveyed grants what some educational historians have characterized as a “distanced view, a measured grasp of the big picture, that is difficult to attain during contemporary calls for action” (Moore, Monaghan, & Hartman, 1997).

Of particular importance to the historical value of this survey are the discrepancies between what literacy leaders agree is hot and what they believe should be hot. With the exception of whole language, the items on the “what's not hot” list were thought by most of those surveyed to be deserving of much greater positive attention. Why is it that so many influential literacy professionals feel their informed views about what should be important are being overshadowed? These disparities between what is and what should be suggest that literacy practices today have less to do with the informed understanding of experts than they do with what Dressman (1999; online abstract) describes as the misuse of “research evidence to produce...predetermined political, not educational, ends,” leading him to assert that literacy knowledge and curricula “are as much the product(s)...of cultural politics...as they are the product(s) of dispassionate use of the scientific method.”

As pendulums swing and political winds shift, we hope this portrait of the literacy zeitgeist at the millennium will be useful to future generations of scholars and practitioners who wish to avoid detaching literacy study and popular opinion from a historical context.

References

Berger, P.N. (1998, January 14). Portfolio folly: Lost in a haze of pseudo-objective scoring, we've forgotten to keep students' work. Education Week, 17, 76. Available: http://www.edweek.org/ew/1998/18berger.h17
Back

Bond, L., Roeber, E., & Connealy, S. (1998). Trends in state assessment programs: Fall 1997 data on statewide student assessment programs. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Back

Bush sketches his vision for second term. (1998, September 20). Austin American-Statesman, J1, J6. Available (fee-based archives service): http://archives.statesman.com/
Back

Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (1998-99). What's hot, what's not for 1999. Reading Today, 16(3), 1, 28.
Back

Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (1999-2000). What's hot, what's not for 2000. Reading Today, 17(3), 1, 28.
Back

Cassidy, J., & Wenrich, J.K. (1997). What's hot, what's not for 1997: A look at key topics in reading research and practice. Reading Today, 14(4), 34.
Back

Cassidy, J., & Wenrich, J.K. (1998) What's hot, what's not for 1998. Reading Today , 15(4), 1, 28.
Back

Clay, M.M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Back

Dewitz, P. (1999). Letters to the editor: Questions about the hot list. Reading Today, 16(5), 18.
Back

Dressman, M. (1999). On the use and misuse of research evidence: Decoding two states' reading initiatives. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 258-285. Abstract available: http://www.reading.org/publications/journals/RRQ/abstracts/RRQ399_Dressman.pdf
Back

Foorman, B., Fletcher, J., Francis, D., Schatshneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
Back

Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Back

Harris, T., & Hodges, R. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Back

Hiebert, E. (1999). Text matters in learning to read. Reading Teacher, 52(7), 552-569.
Back

Honig, W. (1996). Teaching our children to read: The role of skills in a comprehensive reading program. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Back

Lyon, G.R. (1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership, 55, 14-18.
Back

Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading. New York: Viking.
Back

McKenna, M., Stahl, S., & Reinking, D. (1994). A critical commentary on research, politics, and whole language. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 211-233.
Back

Moore, D., Monaghan, E.J., & Hartman, D.K. (1997). Conversations: Values of literacy history. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 90-102.
Back

Murray, D. (1998). The war against testing. Commentary, 106, 34-37.
Back

Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. Washington, DC: Guilford.
Back

Reutzel, D.R. (1999). On balanced reading. Reading Teacher, 52(5), 322-324.
Back

Rupley, W., Logan, J., & Nichols, W. (1999). Vocabulary instruction in a balanced reading program. Reading Teacher, 52(5), 338-347.
Back

Sarroub, L., & Pearson, P.D. (1998). Two steps forward, three back: The stormy history of reading comprehension assessment. Clearing House, 72, 97-105.
Back

Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1996). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 958-997.
Back

Smith, N.B. (1961). What have we accomplished in reading? Elementary English, 35, 141-150.
Back

Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/6023.html
Back

Supovitz, J., & Brennan, R. (1997, Fall). Mirror, mirror on the wall, which is the fairest test of all? An examination of the equitability of portfolio assessment relative to standardized tests. Harvard Educational Review, 67(?), 472-506. Abtract available: http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~hepg/fall97.html#supo
Back

Texas Education Agency. (1997). Beginning reading instruction: Components and features of a research-based reading program. Austin, TX: Author.
Back

Troia, G. (1999). Phonological awareness intervention research: A critical review of the experimental methodology. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1), 28-53. Abstract available: http://www.reading.org/publications/journals/RRQ/abstracts/RRQ199_Troia.pdf
Back

Vacca, R.T. (1997). The benign neglect of adolescent literacy. Reading Today, 14(3), 3.
Back

Author Information

Jack Cassidy is a professor of education at Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi, Texas, USA (e-mail jcassidy@falcon.tamucc.edu), where he coordinates the reading program and teaches courses in assessment and intervention. He is a past president of the International Reading Association and is the current president of the College Reading Association. He is most interested in research and programs for students at either end of the achievement spectrum-- the gifted reader or the struggling reader.

William G. Brozo is a professor at the University of Tennessee. His research interests focus on adolescent literacy and the reading needs of boys.

Drew Cassidy is an adjunct instructor of courses in developmental college reading at Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi. She is a former public information officer for the International Reading Association.

Back to top

Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted June 2000
© 2000 International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232