Critical Issues: What Counts When Context Counts?: The Uncommon “Common” Language of Literacy Research

Abstract

Research into literacy published in journals such as the Journal of Literacy Research spans a range of disciplines and areas of study (e.g., reading, English education, composition). Even individual studies frequently take up interdisciplinary perspectives (e.g., anthropological, sociological, linguistic, educational, textual). The results are journals far ranging in their reach and rich in the knowledge they bring to literacy issues. However, such diversity of theoretical perspectives, research methods, and analytical methodologies also contributes to a confounding effect. In this article, we explore one such effect that occurs when a common term is used with different meanings. Although this may appear on the surface to be a problem easily remedied or even a rather trivial issue, in this article, we show just how consequential this practice can be when the goal is building knowledge from research that can inform practice, policy, and theory. This critical issue can be posed as a set of interrelated questions: Are we all talking about the same thing when we use words like literacy, reading, and even seemingly less resonant ones like context, the one addressed in this commentary? If we are, how do we know? And if we are not, what price are we paying for not considering the issue?

References

Bazerman

(1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Birdwhistell

R. L.

(1977). Some discussion of ethnography, theory, and method. In Brockman

(Ed.), About Bateson (pp. 103–144). New York: Dutton.

Cushman

(1991). Ideology obscured: Political uses of the self in Daniel Stern's Infant. American Psychologist, 46, 206–219.

Denzin

N. K.

(1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dixon

Green

J. L.

(1993). Introduction to talking knowledge into being: Discursive and social practices in classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 5, 231–240.

Duranti

Goodwin

(1992). Rethinking context. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fairclough

(1989). Language and power. New York: Longman.

Fairclough

(1995). Critical discourse analysis. New York: Longman.

Green

J. L.

(1983) Research on teaching as a linguistic process: A state of the art. In Gordon

(Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 10, pp. 152–252). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

10.

Green

J. L.

Kelly

Castanheira

Esch

Frank

Hodel

Putney

Rodarte

(1996). Conceptualizing a basis for understanding: What differences do differences make? Educational Psychologist, 31, 227–234.

11.

Guzzetti

Snyder

Glass

Gamas

(1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116–162.

12.

Kelly

Carlsen

Cunningham

(1993). Science education in sociocultural context: Perspectives from the sociology of science. Science Education, 77, 207–220.

13.

Kelly

G. J.

Green

(1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In Guzzetti

Hynd

(Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 145–181). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

14.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

15.

Lemke

(1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

16.

Mishler

E. G.

(1979). “Meaning in context, is there any other kind?” Harvard Educational Review, 49, 1–19.

17.

Mishler

(1984). The discourse of medicine: Dialectics of medical interviews. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

18.

Pellegrini

A. D.

Galda

(1993). Ten years after: A reexamination of symbolic play and literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 163–175.

19.

Reinking

Hynd

Oldfather

(Eds.). (1996). Journal of Literacy Research, 28 (3).

20.

Ricoeur

(1981). Hermaneutics and the human sciences: Essays on language, action, and interpretation ( Thompson

, Ed., Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. (1992). Constructing Literacy in classrooms: Literate action as social accomplishment. In Marshall

H. H.

(Ed.), Redefining student learning (pp. 119–150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

22.

Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. (1995). Two languages, one community: An examination of educational opportunities. In Macias

Garcia

(Eds.), Changing schools for changing students: An anthology of research on language minorities (pp. 63–106). Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

23.

Spradley

J. P.

(1980). Participant observation. New York Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

24.

Strike

K. A.

(1974). On the expressive potential of behaviorist language. American Educational Research Journal, 11, 103–120.

25.

Strike

K. A.

Posner

G. J.

(1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In Duschl

Hamilton

(Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

26.

Toulmin

(1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

27.

Tuyay

Jennings

Dixon

(1995). Classroom discourse and opportunities to learn: An ethnographic study of knowledge construction in a bilingual third-grade classroom. Discourse Processes, 19, 75–110.

28.

Zaharlick

Green

(1991) Ethnographic research. In Flood

Jensen

J. M.

Lapp

Squire

J. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 205–225). New York: Macmillan.