This article was downloaded by: [University of Louisville]On: 19 December 2014, At: 17:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Peabody Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20
Literacy in the 21st Century:Emergent ThemesJohn W. MillerPublished online: 22 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: John W. Miller (1998) Literacy in the 21st Century:Emergent Themes, Peabody Journal of Education, 73:3-4, 1-14, DOI:10.1080/0161956X.1998.9681883
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.1998.9681883
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 73(3&4), 1-14 Copyright 0 1998, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Literacy in the 21st Century: Emergent Themes
John W. Miller
Literacy education and the preparation of literacy educators has long been marked by variant and extreme philosophies. The phonics versus sight vocabulary controversies of the past have evolved to the phonics ver- sus whole language debate of more recent origin. The call for balance be- tween the extremes represents still another position. Denton (1998) described the middle ground as follows:
The most difficult task facing policymakers is to understand that the strong feelings on both sides of the reading debate may not be truly re- flective of the choices before them. It is not a choice between teaching reading through phonics or whole language. A good whole-language program must include phonics. And good direct-phonics instruction, while essential, is only one part of an effective program.
Policymakers should seek to walk the fine line between the more sin- gle-minded positions on either side of the reading debate to promote an approach that really is based on strong evidence of effectiveness. The practice of teaching reading, like the practice of scientific medicine, never should cease to be, in the most positive sense of the term, a work in progress. (p. 6)
JOHN W . MLLER is Dean of the College $Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Requests for reprints should be sent to John W. Miller, Dean, College of Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-3010. E-mail: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
J. W. Miller
Some view balance as a compromise between two differing points of view, one that accommodates neither and seeks a middle ground that does not exist. Others view balanced instruction as an approach to literacy in and of itself, one that recognizes differential student needs as requiring a variety on instructional modes and resources. As the new millennium rapidly ap- proaches, it is appropriate to consider these debates, and others, incontext.
The overriding purpose of this special double issue of the Peabody Journal of Education is to examine literacy from a variety of conceptual, societal, psy- chological, and historical viewpoints. The turn of the century is not neces- sarily a critical historical marker in education in general, or literacy education specifically, but it is a milestone. As it may seem that at this point in time the future of education hangs critically in the balance, an alternative is perhaps that the postmodern era has taken itself too seriously. It seems that every point in history is the most crucial, at least to those at that point. Historical analysis and predictions for the future may wellbe a relevant and tempering process. I hope that the analyses provided demonstrate that there are many recurring theories and that the debates are not all new.
If there is a single theme that emerges from the following articles, it is the strong sense that current literacy instruction is controlled by, the result of, and inextricably interwoven with the sociopolitical context in which it exists and perhaps even creates. Virtually every article in this double issue, regardless of its purported focal point, relates to the theme of social issues and politicization. This is true, whether or not the organizing construct is school reform, teacher preparation, atypical learners, methodological vari- ations, or technological innovation. No summarization of these works could ignore, or even minimize, the strong sense of literacy as a sociopolitical process.
Even the provided definitions of literacy clearly focus on the relations of the social issues. Edmondson and Shannon, in their article in this issue, note:
We must reinvent literacy education for public democracy because pri- vate democracy and its social institutions can no longer shield many Americans from the harsh realities of the economy. . . . The problems we face are all human artifacts, and therefore can be changed. At their core these problems are about power.
In their article on technology and literacy education, Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna point out that
for over 10 generations in America a traditional concept of literacy as the ability to read and write on a page has dominated schooling . . . in this not-so-distant past during industrial and print-based economic years,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Emergent Themes
students learned functional uses of literacy and a body of knowledge that directly applied to workplace positions. . . . However, in the emerg- ing digital economic era, spurred by recent proliferation of technology tools and resources in the form of affordable desktop computers . . . tra- ditional concepts of what it means to be and to become literate are be- ing challenged.
Stahl, in his article on understanding shifts in reading and its instruc- tion, cites Degan, who seems to view literacy instruction as a means of achieving larger societal goals and achievement in reading and writing to be secondary to those larger goals. From an international perspective, Verhoeven notes the changes that technology has brought to our concepts of literacy. He quotes Levine regarding the enormous range of the poten- tial application for computers, which has inevitably led to a redefinition of what is understood to compose basic literacy.
The socioeconomic prospects of redefining literacy are noted by Mikulecky and Kirkley in their article on literacy instruction for the 2lst-century workplace. They state:
Demands and skills differ workplace by workplace but [it] seems appar- ent that technology and the reorganization of work have transformed and increased the literacy demands in many occupations, especially in bu.sinesses intent on paying developed nation wages while competing in the global economy. . . . The implication of these changed skill and remu- neration patterns have increasingly polarized society.
In essence, the multiplicity of social contexts and the changing global en- vironment have forced an entire reexamination of what it means to be liter- ate. This is perhaps put best by Radencich in her article on multicultural issues of literacy education, when she notes that, because of the impact on lit- eracy acquisition of forces within and outside the school, the topic of literacy in a multicultural society is hard to disentangle from the broader societal context. These and other interesting patterns in the definition of literacy emerge and intertwine with sociopolitical issues throughout this issue.
The Assembled Work
Each of the authors approaches literacy from his or her own unique ref- erence point, but even these reference points provide only blurred distinc- tions. Some authors inspect literacy from a largely historical context, others from a policy and reform context; others examine the impact of tech-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
J. W. Miller
nology, others the plight of struggling learners; and still others write from a methodological context.
Robinson, Baker, and Clegg identify analogous patterns in the history of education generally and the history of literacy education specifically. They emphasize the wide swings of fadism across not only decades but centu- ries. In their article, they speak to the politicization of literacy education and note that the seemingly constant bickering and arguing in the literacy community over almost every development does little to advance the field. Lynch-Brown and Tomlinson also use historical analysis to identify emer- gent trends in the area of literature for children. Their retrospective por- tends an uneasy future of literature for children Influenced by technological developments. Globalism and its impact on literacy are also prevalent in their analysis.
The emphasis on technology will be the centerpiece of several of the ar- ticles in this double issue, and it is a related issue in numerous others. Labbo et al. describe its impact on schooling. In technology-transformed schools, they maintain that teachers will appreciate the distinctive forms and functions of digital literacy. The teachers will participate in a dynamic social environment as they collaborate in flexible teams to accomplish communicative and professional goals. They will critically assemble, ana- lyze, and synthesize digital information by strategically navigating through data sources and using supportive features of software to foster their own lifelong learning.
Labbo et al.'s work-centered approach still includes heavy emphasis on the concept that digital literacy occurs in the pursuit of other goals, occurs in societal contexts, and requires the ability to be a lifelong learner. Labbo et al. stress the relation between technology and literacy through a utilitarian, work-centered view of changing literacy needs with an emphasis on four components of digital literacy. In a related way, Mikulecky and Kirkley relate literacy instruction to workplace needs in the 21st century. Their economic perspective on the nature of jobs available and the type of literacy skills required to hold them clearly defines literacy in a pragmatic way. They view needed changes in liter- acy and literacy instruction as created by global economic change and re- sultant differences in the workplace skills required for meaningful employment. Bloome and Kinzer examine the issues of technology re- lated to literacy instruction from quite a different perspective. They raise questions about the social and cultural dynamics that define knowledge, literacy learning, and pedagogy in particular in light of recent claims about the role of technology and literacy. Their tendency is to downplay some of the predicted effects and recognize the economic and political ramifications of technology-centered literacy instruction.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Emergenf Themes
The authors of three articles focus specifically on the relative needs of dif- ferent groups of learners. Quick looks at the education of younger children and their emerging literacy from a range of perspectives, but the emphasis on sociocultural context is clear. Methodological debate is also raised, but again with an emphasis on the societal impact. She emphasizes Head Start and ather social projects from the educational reforms of the 1960s that are still in existence. Radencich addresses multicultural issues surrounding lit- eracy in the context of societal forces that positively and negatively impact multicultural education. Mathes and Torgesen examine the literacy needs of special education students and find that these students require carefully planned instruction, which would benefit all learners as well.
Some of the articles deal with debate on the relative effectiveness of varying methods and approaches. In essence, these debates generally re- duce to whole language versus something else. The something else typi- cally, but not always, is phonics. Proponents of whole language, critics of whole language, and those arguing from a middle ground all eventually return to a cultural debate over literacy and empowerment-first of the reader, and then of society. Even those arguing for moderation and for finding a middle ground end up making largely political assessments of literacy. Stahl notes this when he points out that
the politicization of recent years interferes with effective instruction be- cause it hardens viewpoints and forces educators to adopt unreasonable tenets concerning instruction. One result of the movement is that teach- ers have a great many beliefs about reading instruction, some of which are tenable and some of which are not.
Again, what appears on the surface to be a methodological debate is de- scribed from a sociopolitical perspective.
Although many of the articles become enmeshed in the relations between literacy, politics, policymaking, and educational reform in an ancillary way, others move directly to it. Verhoeven approaches literacy in Europe from a demographic and sociological perspective, formulating policy issues to be considered for the future of European literacy, on specifically those bases. Edmondson and Shannon, in their article, emphasize social policy and the context for literacy acquisition under current and past U.S. governmental administrations, providing perspective for a broadly based definition of lit- eracy as a method of empowerment and social transformation. Johnston, Allington, Guice, and Brooks examine four high-poverty school systems to draw conclusions about literacy instruction in the context of school reform and the professionalism of teachers. The issue of control of administrators over teachers and teachers over students was one of the emergent themes
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
J. W. Miller
that they found. They note that teachers tend to behave in controlling ways in classroom literacy instruction, in line with their own schooling histories and in line with the ways in which their own efforts were managed by ad- ministrators and the state, particularly through testing practices that em- phasize a controlling form of literacy.
Slavin puts forth a specific set of recommendations for the accomplish- ment of national goals and formulates a plan with components to be ac- complished to achieve the goals. He notes that although reading by age 9 may be an admirable goal for all, there may be more political rhetoric than reality to it. He notes that President Clinton's promise is audacious, but he also notes that President Kennedy's commitment to placing a person on the moon was equally audacious in terms of the enormous amounts of money and time that it would take to accomplish.
Even Mosenthal and Cavallo, in providing operational definitions of four types of conceptual knowledge and a perspective on literacy that pro- files students' processing of information as they create initial knowledge and update it, succumb slightly to a political referent. Although their arti- cle contributes largely to information systems and processing of informa- tion by the reader, they note that we have created an imbalance between information and knowledge. On all accounts, the proliferation of informa- tion far outpaces the consumption of knowledge. Wixson and Pearson identify a change in educational policy in general, and literacy education policy specifically, that moved from teacher-centered professional judg- ments to legislative curricular mandates in the 1980s. Nowhere in the anal- ysis of literacy and literacy instruction is the relation between literacy and politicization more direct than in their analysis.
Other Themes
In addition to this overriding theme of politicization, three other plots emerge and are touched on by many of the authors. The first theme con- cerns varying approaches and underlying philosophies toward fostering of literate behaviors and attitudes. Clearly there has been much debate over varying approaches, and at times this debate has been acrimonious. History is considered, and what it portends for the future is examined. Sec- ond, the issue of how these approaches to literacy instruction shape, and are shaped by, overall reform in our schools is considered. Literacy is one of the most important components of schooling-arguably the most im- portant-and as such it relates directly to reform of schools. Third, the readiness of teachers to deal with the tasks at hand in reformed schools is a theme. Are people being adequately prepared at the preservice level to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Emergent Themes
meet emerging needs, and are they advancing their education as lifelong learners in the classroom to deal with changing needs?
Approaches
There have been a variety of approaches to literacy instruction repre- senting different philosophical positions. Resultant practices also differ in terms of teaching techniques, materials, and assessment. This variety of methodologies has led to strong and sometimes intractable differences among educators. Although the differences are undoubtedly heartfelt and the positions well-intended, it is questionable as to whether substantive improvement has resulted.
For the last 20 years, the major debate relative to instructional approaches has emanated from those identified with whole language and those identi- fied with a code-based approach. Although this current debate is intense, in some ways it is simply a rekindled form of earlier methodological debate. As Quick points out in her analysis of Chall's (1967) Learning to Read: The Great Debate, the code-emphasis and meaning-emphasis programs were de- bated in terms of their effect on literacy development. This was a slightly dif- ferent manifestation of the same controversy, and Robinson et al. document its disturbingly protracted history, from origins in the 17th century through its familiar forms during the 20th.
Perhaps the greatest concern is the level and acrimony of this debate. Robinson et al. put it well when they noted that
th.e near-incessant bickering within the literacy community over what constitutes best practice not only does nothing to advance the field but has led to "closed-circuit" discussion among proponents of a particular perspective, individuals who are typically content to talk among them- selves. When communication does occur across perspectives, it is fre- quently unseemly and conveys a negative message to the popular press, to the effect that the profession is hopelessly confused and inter- nally incoherent.
Contrasting points of view in the approaches debate have been and will probably continue to be around for a long time. As with most debates, they have given rise to a centrist position. Although the argument for balance may seem to trivialize the debate to some, it may resonate with the eclectic approach that has long been advocated, and perhaps with good reason. Quick observes:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
J. W. Miller
Perhaps it is time to redefine the terms of the debate in light of continuing research and new collaborative efforts. Rather than questioning, "Whole language or phonics?," or "Child-initiated or Teacher-directed?," perhaps we should rephrase the question and ask, "What is the most effective way to use all knowledge available regarding beginning readers and develop- mentally appropriate practice to create optimal literacy learning environ- ments and opportunities for all children?"
Similarly, Stahl observes that
for rather than approaching reading through a consistent philosophical stance, be it whole language or some other stance, an effective teacher of reading has to understand how reading develops, in all of its manifesta- tions. This involves a deeper understanding of the development of auto- matic word recognition, comprehension, and motivation and apprecia- tion, and a skill in weaving these various goals into a coherent program.
Verhoeven quotes Seymour and Bunce (1992) in noting that "evaluations of intervention with poor readers show the combined training in reading and phonological awareness has the best effect." Remediation of dyslexic chil- dren points in the same direction. Bloome and Kinzer provide a logical ra- tionale for such eclectic approaches when they note:
No two classrooms are alike and learning procedures that are appropri- ate for one situation in a given moment in time require modification and situated teacher decision making. We take such diversity in classroom education and teacher education as fundamental to the generation of questions about literacy instruction.
Certainly this call for eclectic approaches is nothing new. Although the terms of debate between whole language and phonics are a more recent it- eration of ongoing debate over approaches, the eclectic approach has al- ways been espoused. The McGuffey Eclectic Primer, published in 1881, claimed that the plan of the book enabled the teacher to pursue the phonic method, the word method, the alphabet method, or any combination of these methods.
The problem with the ongoing debate over whole language versus phonics, or with previous iterations, is not that differences exist. Differ- ence of opinion is healthy and often spawns advances in research not likely to occur without some sense of competitiveness. Rather, the prob- lem is that the philosophical debate takes over and displaces real prog- ress. Valuable research evidence is eschewed merely because it supports
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Emergent Themes
one position or another. While these debates continue, substantial num- bers of students learn to read under a variety of approaches, and a sub- stantial number of students fail to learn to read under those same approaches. The interactions of aptitude and treatment that create these anomalies need to be examined in depth and without the bias associated with acrimonious and self-serving debate. Undoubtedly, some form of balance using the best information to fit the appropriate context, as called for by Bloome and Kinzer, has merit.
Reform of Schools
As, the debate over approaches rages within the literacy community, those concerned with the broader spectrum of educational issues have been, and continue to be, actively engaged in the examination of the needs for reformed schools and the nature of the reforms required. Literacy edu- cation has been a component of the discussion on reform and is addressed by a number of authors in this issue. Clearly one of the major goals of re- formed schools is to create literate learners who are able to use informa- tion to make sound decisions and appropriate judgments-"thoughtful literates," as Johnston et al. put it. Interestingly, an apparent paradox is be- ing created in the desire for more open, problem-solving, creative learners who are able to read and use information in important new ways. Teaching and assessment, which does not encourage creative thinking from students and more judgment from teachers, is inadvertently discour- aged. Instead, emphasis on accountability to a very restricted range of goals through chosen assessment methods is forwarded by implication. In fact, the goals implied by the assessment chosen are ohen counter to the broader instructional needs that schools hope to meet. This problem is of- ten created by top-down reform that is not fully informed. In their article, Mikulecky and Kirkley help to define the broader goals and note that there is a new type of literacy required in the workplace, and thus a new role for reformed schools:
Even students who have mastered traditional school literacy face chal- lenges. Learning to appreciate narrative fiction or follow logically pre- sented discussions in textbooks is important, but only marginally re- lated to the literacy skills required to gather information from multiple print and technological sources and then use such information to solve problems. The complexity of literacy processing in many low- and middle-level jobs has increased to include making critical judgments about the accuracy, current relevance, and unexpressed messages im- plicit in information.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
J. W. Miller
Labbo et al. quote Venezky, Papert, Gilster, Tapscott, and others as they draw the conclusion that "traditional concepts of what it means to be and become literate are being challenged." Indeed, as our information-based society changes, the amount of information, the nature of information, and the uses of the information change. These changed needs have a real impact on the way we reform schools. Labbo et al. refer to these as technologically transformed schools and note that
teachers will [need to] appreciate the distinctive forms and functions of digital literacy. They will participate in a dynamic social environment as they collaborate on flexible teams to accomplish communicative and professional goals. They will critically assemble, analyze, and synthe- size digital information by strategically navigating through data sources and utilizing supportive features of software to foster their own lifelong learning and their educational objectives in the classroom.
Unfortunately, these new needs have created reforms that all too often have missed the mark. The reforms have gone astray largely because of their top-down nature. The effect of such top-down reform has not been substantive change but subterfuge. As Bloome and Kinzer point out:
Often in response to mandate and orders from school administration, teachers use the strategy of closing their classroom doors and doing what they believe in their professional judgment is the best thing for stu- dents, giving only lip service to an administration's mandate.
A truly unfortunate aspect of this short-lived, politicized top-down reform of schools is that the reform does not create real change where it is needed: at the level of the teachers and the students.
The lack of professionalism and failure to seek consensus in building re- form is clear. It is even more unfortunate that those teachers who are trying to follow reform mandates, whether or not they had a hand in their devel- opment, are being led astray. Johnston et al. note that
indeed the greater the accountability pressure felt by teachers the more controlling their teaching was likely to be and the less engaging their re- lationship with students. . . . One of the themes that ran through our data from top to bottom as it were was the issue of control. Teachers were be- ing asked to move toward inquiry as a basis for instruction with litera- ture .. . however, to engage children in inquiry entails arranging for them to take control over their learning. This, in turn, implies that teach- ers must relinquish to children some of the control of the learning pro-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Emergent Themes
cess . . . most teachers found this difficult to do, but it was more difficult in more controlling school environments.
Similarly, Wixson and Pearson note the problem as it relates to poli- cies concerning assessment. They observe the problems with alignment of assessment and curricular goals in a constraining way and argue per- suasively that
future efforts need to abandon the quest for a single perfect measure of literacy learning and refocus energies on trying to build a system of as- sessment. By an assessment system we mean a deliberately organized set of assessment tools that provides all of the groups of clients of that as- sessment system with the best information possible to make the sort of judgments and decisions each must make.
In essence, if schools are to be reformed in ways that develop the new literacy, teachers need to be empowered to make on-the-spot judgments, adapt a variety of approaches and strategies, and assess learning as it truly relates to the desired goals. This has not been accomplished yet. If this is accomplished in the future and schools are reformed based on a new con- cept of literacy, then clearly the effectiveness of inservice and preservice education for our teachers will require substantive reexamination.
Preservice and lnservice Education
One of the common approaches to dealing with perceived failures of educa.tion is to blame the teachers. Sometimes the critics claim the teach- ers are not smart enough, they do not work hard enough, they are not principled enough, or they are not prepared well enough. Generally these criticisms prove to be untrue; even if true, they are inadequate to explain the problems encountered in education. What does deserve care- ful examination is the constantly changing and more difficult to meet needs of students. Teachers are more academically well prepared than they have ever been in the past. The problem is that the job is also far more difficult than it has been in the past. Just keeping pace with the in- creased complexity and diversity of the learning place, let alone gaining ground, is an exhausting task.
The historical significance of this blame-the-teacher attitude is seen in several of the articles in these two themed issues. For example, Mosenthal and C:avallo, in their examination of designs for developing a universal knowledge interface system, quote Strauss (1993):
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
J. W. Miller
Although teachers had this notion of the knowledge process they were unable to articulate any notion of how conceptual knowledge is struc- tured and what constitutes conceptual knowledge complexity . . . how to assess conceptual knowledge growth, and how to accommodate instruc- tion for students who possessed different levels of conceptual knowl- edge . . . were teachers to be trained in the knowledge models above they would potentially be able to systematically address these problems as they apply to students' acquisitions of pictorial, diagrammatic, process, and procedural knowledge.
In addition to these epistemological needs and the need to be more sophis- ticated about what knowledge is, technology is changing the needs for teachers, too. Labbo et al. note:
We believe that teachers often feel fortunate when they find themselves presented with classroom computers; however, many feel less fortunate when they soon discover that they are offered little training, on-site sup- port, or a cultural context that embraces the use of technology for educa- tional, professional, and personal communicative purposes.
Similarly, Mikulecky and Kirkley observe that
literacy instructors also face new workplace demands. They are experi- encing many of the same new job and literacy demands as other employ- ees . . . to prepare learners they are expected to know how to use many of the computer technologies that workers use and must understand many of the new demands that workers face.
These articles and many others in this double issue spell out the need for more sophisticated preservice and inservice education. This is not to blame teachers for their shortcomings but to recognize the changing needs faced by all in an information society. Perhaps Verhoeven puts it best when he notes that
the key to understanding literacy in context is to start not with literacy but with context. Given the different cultural backgrounds, distinct learning styles and varying affective responses to literacy instruction, a crucial focus in teacher training should be the creation of a classroom at- mosphere in which there are equal opportunities for all learners.
Indeed, the teacher today is confronted with a great variety of students from differing cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Changing world needs
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Emergent Themes
in terms of literacy and available information further complicates the task. Teachers need to be better prepared as they enter classrooms, and they need to continue as lifelong learners-not because of inadequacies, but be- cause of growing demands.
Conclusions
The assembled articles provide a good perspective for the future of liter- acy instruction on the rise of a new millennium. Certainly the sociopolitical flavor of these articles is a centralizing theme that describes the content of this special double issue. Also, the emerging trends of debate over ap- proaches to literacy instruction, how the debate fits in to school reform, and how teachers relate to both the debate and the reform are central to the future. On reading this issue, some questions surely arise-the answers to which shed light on the amount of progress to be made in world literacy.
First, is education better for the methodological debate? Although many in the world are illiterate, political debate rages. Will literacy profes- sionals emerge from their self-absorbed debates over points of little inter- est to anyone but themselves? Will the constant methodological bickering stop, or will the occasional media exposure, passing for mainstream public awareness, be sufficient to continue such sophistry?
Second, is there a realistic midpoint between the seemingly out- come-focused, but otherwise vacuous and unrealistic, educational goals forwarded by politicians and the total avoidance (and dismissal as trivial) of measurable goals by educators? Where is the reality between those who insist that it is just as easy to measure the production of literacy as it is to measure the production of hammers and those who insist that their work is so sophisticated and complicated that it resists any form of comparison and evaluation of accomplishment?
Third, are educators in the classroom adequately prepared to begin their role as literacy instructors, guides, mentors, or teachers? Are teachers se- lected from a pool of individuals with adequate skills and positive attitudes, and ,are they being provided with the appropriate preservice training to qualify them as beginners in the classroom? Further, are they adequately motivated to, and rewarded for, enhancing their own skills on the job?
Fourth, how much will technology really change literacy and workplace requirements for literacy? Clearly, change has occurred and will continue, but how much will literacy skills and appreciation of reading remain the same? Perhaps the best way to end this summation of examinations of lit- eracy for the 21st century is with a quote from Lynch-Brown and Tomlinson, as they consider the future of literature. As they point out:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
J. W. Miller
Ultimately, the future of literature will be determined by the importance of story in the lives of humans. Will we continue to be interested in the past and present and curious about the future? Will we continue to ask questions about ourselves, our world, and unknown worlds beyond, and will our answers and conjectures continue to be in the form of stories as they have been since humans first walked the earth? Regardless of the way we receive information, will narrative continue to compel us? The concept of story is intrinsically human. It seems safe to argue that litera- ture, in whatever form, will remain with us.
References
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: Thegreat debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. Denton, D. R. (1998). North Carolina strives for balanced reading instruction. Atlanta: Southern Re-
gional Education Board. McGuffy's Readers. (1881). Cincinnati, OH: Van Antwert, Brogg. Seymour, P. H., & Bunce, F. (1992). Applicationof cognitive models to remediation in cases of
developmental dyslexia. In M. J. Riddoch & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Cognitive neuropsychology and cognitiverehabilitation (pp. 349-377). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates, Inc.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ouis
ville
] at
17:
30 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Recommended
