In their 1985 report, Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading, Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, and Wilkinson defined reading and proposed five principles that guide its successful enactment: (1) reading is a constructive process, (2) reading must be fluent, (3) reading must be strategic, (4) reading requires motivation, and (5) reading is a continuously developing skill. In this article we revise the definition from reading to literacy and rethink the principles in response to theoretical and empirical developments in the intervening years with regard to the processes of, and contexts for, reading. Our updated principles include: (1) literacy is a constructive, integrative, and critical process situated in social practices; (2) fluent reading is shaped by language processes and contexts; (3) literacy is strategic and disciplinary; (4) literacy entails motivation and engagement; and (5) literacy is a continuously developing set of practices. We redefine each principle and offer new explanations in light of what we now know.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderP.A. (2005). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading.Journal of Literacy Research,37(4), 413–436.
2.
AllingtonR., & Woodside-JironH. (1999). The politics of literacy research: How “research” shaped educational policy.Educational Researcher,28(8), 4–13.
3.
AndersonR. C., HiebertE. H., ScottJ. A., & WilkinsonI. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading.Washington, DC: National Academy of Education, National Institute of Education, & Center for the Study of Reading.
4.
BakhtinM. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Trans. M. Holquist & C. Emerson). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
5.
BloomfieldL., & BarhnartC. I. (1961). Let's read: A linguistic approach.Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
6.
BurchinalM., & ForestieriN. (2011). Development of early literacy: Evidence from major U.S. longitudinal studies. In NeumanS., & DickinsonD. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3, pp. 85–96). New York, NY: Guilford.
7.
CervettiG. N., BarberJ., DorphR., PearsonP. D., & GoldschmidtP. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,49(5), 631–658.
8.
CervettiG. N., & HiebertE. H. (2015). Knowledge, literacy, and the Common Core.Language Arts,92(4), 256–269.
9.
CervettiG. N., PearsonP. D., BravoM. A., & BarberJ. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In DouglasR., KlentschyM., & WorthK. (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K–8 classroom (pp. 221–244). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
10.
ChapmanM. L. (2003). Phonemic awareness: Clarifying what we know.Literacy Teaching and Learning, 7(1/2), 91–114.
11.
ClarkeL. K. (1988). Invented versus traditional spelling in first graders’ writings: Effects on learning to spell and read.Research in the Teaching of English,22(3), 281–309.
12.
ClayM. M. (2001). Change over time in children's literacy development.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
13.
ColeM. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
DaaneM. C., CampbellJ. R., GriggW. S., GoodmanM. J., & OranjeA. (2005). Fourth grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
15.
DukeN. K., PearsonP. D., StrachanS. L., & BillmanA. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In SamuelsS. J., & FarstrupA. E. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
16.
Educational Testing Service. (2012). The CBAL English Language Arts (ELA) competency model and provisional learning progressions: Deliberation. Retrieved from http://elalp.cbalwiki.ets.org/Deliberation
17.
ElsonW. H., & GrayW. S. (1936). Elson–Gray basic readers: Curriculum foundation series.Chicago, IL: Scott, Foresman.
18.
FernaldA., MarchmanV. A., & WeislederA. (2013). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary evident at 18 months.Developmental Science,16(2), 234–248.
19.
FernaldA., & WeislederA. (2013). Twenty years after “Meaningful Differences,” it's time to reframe the “deficit” debate about the importance of children's early language experiences.Human Development,58(1), 1–4.
20.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures.Remedial and Special Education,9(2), 20–28.
21.
GardnerH. (1985). The mind's new science: A history of the cognitive revolution.NewYork, NY: Basic Books.
22.
GeeJ. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
23.
GeeJ. P. (1999). Reading and the New Literacy Studies: Reframing the National Academy of Sciences Report on Reading.Journal of Literacy Research,31(3), 355–374.
24.
GeeJ. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective.Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,44(8), 714–725.
25.
GoldmanS. R., BrittM. A., BrownW., CribbG., GeorgeM., GreenleafC. … Project READI (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy.Educational Psychologist,51(2), 219–246.
26.
GoldschmidtP. (2010). Evaluation of Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading: Effective tools for development f literacy through science in early grades.Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
27.
GoodmanK. (1965). Cues and miscues in reading: A linguistic study.Elementary English,42(6), 635–642.
28.
GreenleafC., HansonT., HermanJ., LitmanC., MaddenS., RosenR.… SilverD. (2009, December). Integrating literacy and science instruction in high school biology: Impact on teacher practice, student engagement, and student achievement (Final report to the National Science Foundation). Retrieved from http://readingapprenticeship.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/IES-history-biology-final-report1.pdf
29.
GreenleafC., HansonT., HermanJ., LitmanC., RosenR., SchneiderS., & SilverD. (2011, June). A study of the efficacy of Reading Apprenticeship professional development for high school history and science teaching and learning (Final report to the Institute for Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Research, Teacher Quality/Reading and Writing). Retrieved from http://readingapprenticeship.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NSF-biology-final-report.pdf
30.
GuthrieJ. T. (2015). Growth of motivations for cognitive processes of reading. In PearsonP. D., & HiebertE. H. (Eds.), Research-based practices for teaching Common Core literacy (pp. 107–122). NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
GuthrieJ. T., & DavisM. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice.Reading & Writing Quarterly,19(1), 59–85.
32.
GuthrieJ. T., & KlaudaS. L. (2014). Effects of classroom practices on reading comprehension, engagement, and motivations for adolescents.Reading Research Quarterly,49(4), 387–416.
33.
GuthrieJ. T., KlaudaS. L., & HoA. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents.Reading Research Quarterly,48(1), 9–26.
34.
GuthrieJ. T., McRaeA., CoddingtonC. S., KlaudaS. L., WigfieldA., & BarbosaP. (2009). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction on diverse outcomes of low-achieving and high-achieving readers.Journal of Learning Disabilities,42(3), 195–214.
35.
GuthrieJ. T., WigfieldA., BarbosaP., PerencevichK. C., TaboadaA., DavisM. H.… TonksS. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology,96(3), 403–423.
36.
GutierrezK. D., MoralesP. Z., & MartinezD. C. (2009). Remediating literacy: Culture, difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities.Review of Research in Education,33(1), 212–245.
HallL. A. (2010). The negative consequences of becoming a good reader: Identity theory as a lens for understanding struggling readers, teachers, and reading instruction.Teachers College Record,112(7), 1792–1829.
39.
HallL. A. (2012). The role of reading identities and reading abilities in students’ discussions about texts and comprehension strategies.Journal of Literacy Research,44(3), 239–272.
40.
HallL. A. (2016). The role of identity in reading comprehension development.Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties,32(1), 56–80.
41.
HalvorsenA., DukeN. K., BrugarK. A., BlockM. K., StrachanS. L., BerkaM. B., & BrownJ. M. (2012). Narrowing the achievement gap in second-grade social studies and content area literacy: The promise of a project-based approach.Theory and Research in Social Education,40(3), 198–229.
42.
HartB., & RisleyT. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children.Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
43.
HeathS. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
HuttenlocherJ., WaterfallH., VasilyevaM., VeveaJ., & HedgesL. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children's language growth.Cognitive Psychology,61(4), 343–365.
45.
IveyG., & JohnstonP. H. (2013). Engagement with young adult literature: Outcomes and processes.Reading Research Quarterly,48(3), 255–275.
46.
IveyG., & JohnstonP. H. (2015). Engaged reading as a collaborative transformative practice.Journal of Literacy Research,47(3), 297–327.
47.
KamiiC., & ManningM. (2002). Phonemic awareness and beginning reading and writing.Journal of Research in Early Childhood,17(1), 38–46.
48.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.NewYork. NY: Cambridge University Press.
49.
KressG. (2003). Literacy and multimodality: A theoretical framework.Literacy in the new media age (pp. 35–59). NewYork, NY: Routledge.
50.
LeuD. J., KinzerC. K., CoiroJ., CastekJ., & HenryL. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In AlvermannD. E., UnrauN. J., & RuddellR. B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
51.
MagnussonS. J., & PalincsarA. S. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In CarverS., & KlahrD. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress (pp. 151–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52.
McCrackenG., & WalcuttC. C. (1963). Basic reading.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
53.
MojeE. B., OverbyM., TysvaerN., & MorrisK. (2008). The complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries.Harvard Educational Review,78(1), 107–154.
54.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel.Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
55.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
56.
NeumanS. B., KaeferT., & PinkhamA.M. (2016). Improving low-income preschoolers’ word and world knowledge: The effects of content-rich instruction.The Elementary School Journal,116(4), 652–674.
57.
NeumanS. B., & RoskosK. (2012). Helping children become more knowledgeable through text.The Reading Teacher,66(3), 207–210.
58.
PaigeD. D., RasinskiT. V., & Magpuri-LavellT. (2012). Is fluent, expressive reading important for high school readers?Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,56(1), 67–76.
59.
PearsonP. D. (2011). Toward the next generation of comprehension instruction: A coda. In DanielsH. (Ed.), Comprehension going forward: Where we are/what's next (pp. 243–254). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
60.
PearsonP. D., & BillmanA. (2016). Reading to learn science: A right that extends to every reader. In Babaci-WilhiteZ. (Ed.), Human rights in STEM education (pp. 17–34). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.
61.
PearsonP. D., & CervettiG. N. (2013). The psychology and pedagogy of reading processes. In ReynoldsW., & MillerG. (Eds.), Educational psychology, Vol. 7: Handbook of psychology (2nd ed., pp. 507–554). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
62.
PearsonP. D., & CervettiG. N. (2015). Fifty years of reading comprehension theory and practice. In PearsonP. D., & HiebertE. H. (Eds.), Research-based practices for teaching Common Core literacy (pp. 1–39). NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.
63.
PearsonP. D., & FieldingL. G. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In BarrR., KamilM. L., MosenthalP. B., & PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 815–860). NewYork, NY: Longman.
64.
PearsonP. D., & JohnsonD. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension.NewYork, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
65.
PearsonP. D., MojeE., & GreenleafC. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in service of the other.Science,328(5977), 459–463.
66.
PearsonP. D., & TierneyR. J. (1984). On becoming a thoughtful reader: Learning to read like a writer. In PurvesA., & NilesO. (Eds.), Becoming readers in a complex society (National Society for Studies in Education 83rd Yearbook) (pp. 144–173). Chicago, IL: National Society for Studies in Education.
67.
PikulskiJ. J. (2006). Fluency: A developmental and language perspective. In SamuelsS. J., & FarstrupA. E. (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 70–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
68.
PikulskiJ. J., & ChardD. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension.The Reading Teacher,58(6), 510–519.
69.
PinnellG. S., PikulskiJ. J., WixsonK. K., CampbellJ. R., GoughP. B., & BeattyA. S. (1995). Listening to children readaloud. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education.
70.
Purcell-GatesV., DukeN. K., & StoufferJ. (2016). Teaching literacy: Reading. In GitomerD. H., & BellC. A. (Eds.), The AERA handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 1217–1267). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
71.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension.Washington, DC: Office of Education Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
72.
RasinskiT. V. (2006). A brief history of reading fluency. In SamuelsS. J., & FarstrupA. E. (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 4–23). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
73.
RasinskiT. V., PaigeD., & NageldingerJ. (2015). Reading fluency: Neglected, misunderstood, but still critical for proficient reading. In PearsonP. D., & HiebertE. H. (Eds.), Research-based practices for teaching Common Core literacy (pp. 143–160). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
74.
RasinskiT., RikliA., & JohnstonS. (2009). Reading fluency: More than automaticity? More than a concern for the primary grades?Literacy Research and Instruction,48(4), 350–361.
75.
ReismanA. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools.Cognition and Instruction,30(1), 86–112.
76.
RomanceN. R., & VitaleM. R. (2012). Science IDEAS: A research-based K–5 interdisciplinary instructional model linking science and literacy.Science Educator,21(1), 1–11.
77.
RosenblattL. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
78.
SamuelsS. J. (2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In SamuelsS. J., & FarstrupA. E. (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 24–46). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
79.
SchallertD. L. (1982). The significance of knowledge: A synthesis of research related to schema theory. In OttoW., & WhiteS. (Eds.), Reading expository material (pp. 13–48). NewYork, NY: Academic Press.
80.
SchoenbachR., GreenleafC., & MurphyL. (2012). Reading for understanding: How reading apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
81.
SchreiberP. A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency.Journal of Literacy Research,12(3), 177–186.
82.
ShanahanC., & ShanahanT. (2014). Does disciplinary literacy have a place in elementary school?The Reading Teacher,67(8), 636–639.
ShanahanT., & ShanahanC. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?Topics in Language Disorders,32(1), 7–18.
85.
SmagorinskyP. (2001). If meaning is constructed, what's it made from? Toward a cultural theory of reading.Review of Educational Research,71(1), 133–169.
86.
SnowC. E., BurnsM., & GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
87.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly,21(4), 360–406.
88.
StreetB. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
89.
StreetB. (2005). Recent applications of New Literacy Studies in educational contexts.Research in the Teaching of English,39(4), 417–423.
90.
VernonS. A., & FerreiroE. (1999). Writing development: A neglected variable in the consideration of phonological awareness.Harvard Educational Review,69(4), 38–46.
91.
VitaleM. R., & RomanceN. R. (2012). Using in-depth science instruction to accelerate student achievement in science and reading comprehension in grades 1–2.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,10(2), 457–472.
92.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
93.
WinsorP., & PearsonP. D. (1992). Children at-risk: Their phonemic awareness development in holistic instruction (Tech. Rep. No. 556). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
94.
WissingerD., & De La PazS. (2016). Effects of critical discussions on middle school students’ written historical arguments.Journal of Educational Psychology,108(1), 43–59.
