Literacy Makeover: Educational Research and the Public Interest on Prime Time

Abstract

Background/Context

Literacy education has always been hotly contested, and in England the debate has recently intensified in controversies over synthetic phonics teaching and the National Literacy Strategy. This article brings together four theoretical and policy contexts in studying this debate: (1) the long-standing and on-going “reading wars”; (2) theories of deliberative democracy, and the particular problems of how the mass media facilitate and/or suppress public discourse and the participation of academic experts in the public sphere; (3) the affordances and constraints of television news reporting, and in particular, the emergence of the makeover reality television genre as a model for current affairs reporting; and (4) the “evidence-based policy” movement in educational research.

Purpose/Questions

This article examines a prominent media event—the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) television program Newsnight's reports on synthetic phonics teaching—to reflect on the relationship between educational research, the media, and the treatment of educational problems in the public sphere. I ask: How are educational problems represented in the mass media? How do and should academic researchers participate in public debates about these problems?

Research Design

This interpretive study is based primarily on critical analysis of three news reports and was informed by rhetorical criticism, genre analysis, ethnographic research of the educational program represented, and theoretical concerns about the interaction of research, the mass media, and the public sphere. Key participants in the media event were also interviewed.

Findings

The prestigious news program has poorly served public debate by narrowing the problem of educational improvement to a question of teaching method; by promoting a “makeover” approach to school reform; and by casting the issue in the inherited yet inadequate terms of the traditional “reading wars” frame.

The two educational researchers appearing on the program adopted different rhetorical strategies. One invoked his academic authority and acted as an epistemological gatekeeper. The second, who was deemed to be more successful, addressed viewers as consumers of educational goods and couched her academic concerns in everyday language.

Conclusions

The case study has implications for the way that educational researchers communicate their ideas to the general public. In particular, it raises questions about the desirability and likely effectiveness of the currently popular strategy to maximize research influence through the promotion of “evidence-based” policy.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adey

(2003, April 11). Are the strategies lowering achievement? Times Educational Supplement [London].

Agar

(1996). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. London: Academic Press.

Allington

R. L.

(2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Alterman

(2003). What liberal media? The truth about bias and the news. New York: Basic Books.

Apple

M. W.

(1981). Curricular form and the logic of technical control. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 2, 293—319.

Ashley

, Blake

, Fine

, Gavin

, Morpurgo

, and Powling

. (2005). Waiting for a Jamie Oliver: Beyond bog-standard literacy. Reading, England: National Centre for Language and Literacy.

Barron

(2005). The Newsnight mission. BBC News. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/newsnight25/4198849.stm

Berliner

D. C.

(2002). Educational research: the hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18—20.

Bitzer

(1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1—15.

10.

Bourdieu

, and Ferguson

P. P.

(1998). On television. New York: New Press.

11.

Bozell

L. B.

(2005). Weapons of mass distortion: The coming meltdown of the liberal media. New York: Three Rivers Press.

12.

Briggs

C. L.

, and Bauman

(1992). Genre, intertextuality, and social power. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 2, 131—172.

13.

Calhoun

C. J.

(1992). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

14.

Cox

C. B.

(1995). Cox on the battle for the English curriculum. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

15.

Cunningham

J. W.

(2001). The national reading panel report. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 326—335.

16.

Darling

(1994). Child-centred education and its critics. London: P. Chapman.

17.

Department of Education and Employment. (1998). NLS framework for teaching. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/literacy/nls_framework/

18.

Dombey

(1999). Towards a balanced approach to phonics teaching. Literacy, 33, 52—58.

19.

Dover

, and Hill

(2007). Mapping genres: Broadcaster and audience perceptions of makeover television. In and and Heller

(Ed.), Reading makeover television: Realities remodelled. (pp. 23–38) London: IB Tauris.

20.

Earl

L. M.

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. (2003). Watching and learning 3: Final report of the external evaluation of England's national literacy and numeracy strategies. Nottingham, England: Great Britain Department for Education and Skills.

21.

Ellis

(2005, September 23). Phonics is just the icing on the cake. Times Educational Supplement [London].

22.

Fraser

(1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In and and Calhoun

C.J.

(Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109—142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

23.

Garnham

(1992). The media and the public sphere. In and and Calhoun

C.J.

(Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 359—376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

24.

Gewirtz

(2004). Enlightening the research-policy relationship: Issues and dilemmas for educational researchers. In Moreno Herrera

, and Francia

(Eds.), Educational policies: Implications for equity, equality and equivalence (pp. 205—220). Örebro, Sweden: Örebro University Department of Education.

25.

Habermas

(1984). The theory of communicative action. Cambridge, England: Polity.

26.

Habermas

(1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, England: Polity.

27.

Hammersley

(1997). Educational research and teaching: A response to David Hargreaves’ TTA lecture. British Educational Research Journal, 23, 141—161.

28.

Hammersley

(2001). On “systematic” reviews of research literatures: A “narrative” response to Evans & Benefield. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 543—554.

29.

Hammersley

(2003). Media representation of research: The case of a review of ethnic minority education. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 327—343.

30.

Hargreaves

D. H.

(1996). Teaching as a research-based profession: Possibilities and prospects. London: Teacher Training Agency.

31.

Hargreaves

D. H.

(1997). In defense of research for evidence-based teaching: A rejoinder to Martyn Hammersley. British Educational Research Journal, 23,405—419.

32.

Johnston

R. S.

, and Watson

J. E.

(2005). A seven year study of the effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Executive, Education Department.

33.

Kuper

(2004). Democracy beyond borders: Justice and representation in global institutions. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

34.

Larson

(Ed.). (2001). Literacy as snake oil: Beyond the quick fix. New York: Peter Lang.

35.

Lather

(2004). Scientific research in education: a critical perspective. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 759—772.

36.

Lefstein

(2005). Thinking about the technical and the personal in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35, 333—356.

37.

Lowrey

T. M.

, Shrum

L. J.

, and McCarty

J. A.

(2005). The future of television advertising. In and and Kimmel

A.J.

(Ed.), Marketing communication: New approaches, technologies, and styles (pp. 113—132). London: Oxford University Press.

38.

Moseley

(2000). Makeover takeover on British television. Screen, 41, 299—314.

39.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

40.

Oakley

(2002). Social science and evidence-based everything: The case of education. Educational Review, 54, 277—286.

41.

Page

B. I.

(1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

42.

Pearson

P. D.

(2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18, 216—252.

43.

Philips

(2005). Transformation scenes: The television interior makeover. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 8, 213—229.

44.

Postman

(1982). The disappearance of childhood. New York: Delacorte Press.

45.

Postman

(1986). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. London: Heinemann.

46.

Richards

, and King

(2000). An alternative to the fighting frame in news reporting. Canadian Journal of Communication, 25(4). Retrieved June 9, 2006, from http://www.cjc-online.ca/viewarticle.php?id=599

47.

Rose

(2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading: Final report. London: Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from http://www.stan-dards.dfes.gov.uk/rosereview/finalreport/.

48.

Scheuer

(1999). The sound bite society: Television and the American mind. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.

49.

Schudson

(2002). The news media as political institutions. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 249—269.

50.

Schudson

(2003). The sociology of news. New York: Norton.

51.

Slavin

R. E.

(2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15—21.

52.

Snow

, Burns

S. M.

, and Griffin

(Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

53.

Street

B. V.

(1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

54.

Torgerson

C. J.

, Brooks

, and Hall

(2006). A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling (Research Report No. RR711). London: Department for Education and Skills.

55.

Turner

(1990). Sponsored reading failure: An object lesson. Warlingham, England: Independent Primary and Secondary Education Trust Education Unit.

56.

Tymms

(2004). Are standards rising in English primary schools? British Educational Research Journal, 30, 477—494.

57.

Wyse

(2000). Phonics: The whole story? A critical review of empirical evidence. Educational Studies, 26, 355—364.