Theories guide many aspects of literacy research. In this article we describe four theoretical approaches that we have used in qualitative research with students who are perceived to struggle with reading in school, including: New Literacy Studies, Disability Studies in Education, Bioecological Systems Theory, and Cultural Historical Activity Theory. We provide a brief overview of each of the theories and then explain how we have used them to gain insights about students with whom we have worked in the context of our research. Although grounded in distinct perspectives, we argue that each of the theories are lenses through which we were better able to understand the complexities of students’ struggles with reading. We further argue that the theories are united in their ability to broaden the perspectives of researchers and teachers to better account for the social, cultural, and institutional factors that shape literacy teaching and learning in schools. We conclude by questioning the use of the term “struggling reader” and highlighting the implications of our individual theoretical frames and analyses for both research and practice.
AllingtonR.WalmsleyX. (2007). No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America's elementary schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
2.
AlvermannD. E. (2006). Struggling adolescent readers: A cultural construction. In McKeoughA.PhillipsL. M.TimmonsV.LupartJ. L. (Eds.), Understanding literacy development: A global view (pp. 95–111). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
BartonD.HamiltonM. (2000). Literacy practices. In BartonD.HamiltonM.IvanicR. (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–15). London, England: Routledge.
4.
BizzellP. (1988). Arguing about literacy. College English, 50, 141–153.
5.
BomerR. (1999). Conferring with struggling readers. New Advocate, 12, 21–38.
6.
BronfenbrennerU.MorrisP. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In DamonW. (Series Ed.) & LernerR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1 Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). New York, NY: John Riley & Sons.
7.
BrooksM. D. (2015). “It's like a script”: Long-term English learners’ experiences with and ideas about academic reading. Research in the Teaching of English, 49, 383–406.
8.
ColeM. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
ColeM.GriffinP. (1983). A socio-historical approach to re-mediation. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 5, 69–74.
10.
CollinsK. (2013). Ability profiling and school failure: One child's struggle to be seen as competent (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
11.
ConnorD. J. (2014). Social justice in education for students with disabilities. In FlorianL. (Ed.), The handbook of special education, second edition (Vol. 1, pp. 111–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
DressmanM.McCartheyS. J. (2011). Toward a pragmatics of epistemology, methodology, and social theory. In DukeN. K.MalletteM. H. (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies, second edition (pp. 441–463). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
13.
Dudley-MarlingC. (2011). The trouble with “struggling readers.”Talking Points, 23, 2–7.
14.
EngeströmY. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, FI: Orienta-Konsultit.
15.
FrankelK. K.JaegerE.PearsonP. D. (2013). Embracing complexity: Integrating reading, writing, and learning in intervention settings. In OrtliebE.CheekE. H.Jr. (Eds.), School-based interventions for struggling readers, K-8 (pp. 3–20). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
16.
GabelS. (2005). Disability studies in education: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
17.
GallagherD. (2010). Hiding in plain sight: The nature and role of theory in learning disability labeling. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30. Retrieved fromhttp://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1231/1278
18.
GeeJ. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, England: Routledge.
19.
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, 1792–1829.
20.
HarryB.KlingnerJ. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education?:Understanding race and disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
21.
HeathS. B. (1988). Protean shapes in literacy events: Ever-shifting oral and literate traditions. In KintgenE. R.KrollB. M.RoseM. (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp. 348–370). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
22.
JohnstonP.AllingtonR. (1991). Remediation. In BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D. (Eds.), The handbook of reading research (pp. 984–1012). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
MenkenK.KleynT.ChaeN. (2012). Spotlight on “long-term English language learners”: Characteristics and prior schooling experiences of an invisible population. International Multilingual Research Journal, 6, 121–142.
24.
PearsonP. D.GallagherM. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
25.
RandelM. A. (2014). Labeled reading disabled and “doing reading”: One college student's reading history. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 10, 51–67.
26.
StreetB. (2012). New literacy studies. In GrenfellM.BloomeD.HardyC.PahlK.RoswellJ.StreetB. (Eds.), Language, ethnography, and education: Bridging New Literacy Studies and Bourdieu (pp. 27–49). New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
UnrauN. J.AlvermannD E. (2013). Literacies and their investigation through theories and models. In AlvermannD. E.UnrauN. J.RuddellR. B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 47–90). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
28.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
