Comments on Reviewing Adolescent Literacy Reports: Key Components and Critical Questions

Abstract

I will begin my comments on Reviewing Adolescent Literacy Reports: Key Components and Critical Questions by commending the authors for taking on this rather massive project. The project required not only locating and reading the many lengthy reports that exist on adolescent literacy but also sifting through the numerous claims, ideas, and suggestions in each report to offer an analysis of dominant themes. Faggella-Luby, Ware, and Capozzoli discerned a two-pronged focus on (a) improving teaching and assessment practices, and (b) changing infrastructures of secondary schooling to support those practices. I concur with their analysis. The reports I have read and the panels on which I have served tend to acknowledge the critical need to change not only practice inside the classroom but also the structures that support and constrain excellent teaching and assessment practice. That is a good thing; it is wise of policy makers, researchers, administrators, and teachers to think in terms of both practice and structure. I suggest, however, that two additional dimensions must be considered if educators are to make change in secondary school literacy teaching and adolescent literacy learning: 1) history, and 2) the role of social and cultural norms and practices in changing practice and structure.Let us start with the question of history. It is popular to claim that both the challenges of adolescent literacy and the research attempting to address those challenges concerns are new. Claims are made routinely about decreasing adolescent skill in the face of increasing sophistication of information systems Correspondence should be addressed to Elizabeth Birr Moje, University of Michigan, 610 E. University,

From Resistance to Advocacy for Math Literacy: One Teacher's Literacy Identity Transformation

“…Bob's obvious fervor illustrates what Moje () asserted when she said that content area literacy research will only be significant, and bring about change, if literacy researchers include the main actors (i.e., teachers and students) and their beliefs in that process.…”

“…Resistance is not a new concern in literacy teacher education programs (Draper, ; Moje, ; O'Brien & Stewart, ), but its persistence and the absence of content area literacy instruction in the majority of secondary classrooms are distressing realities. One could argue that a consequence of this resistance is seen in data that “indicate that more than two‐thirds of secondary students lack the reading skills necessary to succeed in school (and) almost one‐third of high school graduates are not prepared for college‐level reading” (Lee, Grigg, & Donahue, as cited in Faggella‐Luby, Ware, & Capozzoli, , p. 454).…”

“…One could argue that a consequence of this resistance is seen in data that "indicate that more than two-thirds of secondary students lack the reading skills necessary to succeed in school (and) almost one-third of high school graduates are not prepared for college-level reading" (Lee, Grigg, & Donahue, as cited in Faggella-Luby, Ware, & Capozzoli, 2009, p. 454). Moje (2010) argued, More research to provide a stronger evidence base for adolescent literacy teaching practices is certainly needed, but such research will only go so far if educators interested in advancing literacy do not also attend to the beliefs and values of the main actors in secondary schools (i.e., teachers and students) and if we do not work to understand, and perhaps change, the social and cultural contexts of the secondary school. (p. 112) I contend that in order for beliefs to shift regarding content area, or disciplinary literacy (Moje, 2008) From Resistance to Advocacy for Math Literacy: One Teacher's Literacy Identity Transformation the preservice teachers in their classrooms.…”

Understanding Resistance: Preservice Teachers’ Discourse Models of Struggling Readers and School Literacy Tasks

“…How reading and writing literacy narratives affect preservice teachers' understandings of literacy, pedagogy and multiculturalism. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (1) with the third, fourth, and fifth master models to help preservice teachers broaden their print-based views of literacy (Begoray, 2008), develop a deeper understanding of writing in multiple genres (The National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges, 2003;Romano, 2000), and make visible the functions of disciplinary literacy (Moje, 2010). As part of content area literacy pedagogy aimed to redress the five master models, preservice teachers should also examine Alvermann's (2001) typology of reasons why adolescents struggle with reading in school.…”

“…Similarly, Begoray (2008) noted the positive effects of adopting a multiple literacies perspective in content area literacy instruction for music education majors. As part of the accumulation of such studies, a great deal of analysis has resulted in theories that examine the relationship between content and literacy instruction (Conley, Kerner, & Reynolds, 2005;Draper, Smith, Hall, & Siebert, 2005;Fisher & Ivey, 2005;Moje, 1996Moje, , 2010.…”