Katherine K. Frankel

Embracing Complexity: Integrating Reading, Writing, and Learning in Intervention Settings

Purpose – Our purpose in this chapter is to argue for the importance of integrating reading and writing in classrooms and to provide examples of what integration of this nature looks like in classrooms across content areas and grade levels.Design/methodology/approach – In this chapter we provide an overview of the argument for reading–writing integration, highlight four common tools (skill decomposition, skill decontextualization, scaffolding, and authenticity) that teachers use to cope with complexity in literacy classrooms, and describe four classrooms in which teachers strive to integrate reading and writing in support of learning.Findings – We provide detailed examples and analyses of what the integration of reading and writing in the service of learning looks like in four different classroom contexts and focus particularly on how the four teachers use scaffolding and authenticity to cope with complexity and support their students’ literacy learning.Research limitations/implications – We intentionally highlight four noteworthy approaches to literacy instruction, but our examples are relevant to specific contexts and are not meant to encompass the range of promising practices in which teachers and students engage on a daily basis.Practical implications – In this chapter we provide classroom teachers with four concrete tools for coping with the complexities of literacy instruction in classroom settings and highlight what instruction of this nature – with an emphasis on scaffolding and authenticity – looks like in four different classroom contexts.Originality/value of chapter – Teachers and other educational stakeholders must acknowledge and embrace the complexities of learning to read and write, so that students have opportunities to engage in rich and authentic literacy practices in their classrooms.

Revisiting the Role of Explicit Genre Instruction in the Classroom.

At the end of the twentieth century, genre theorists and practitioners debated the possibility of explicitly teaching genres in classrooms. Though the debate is decades old, it continues to be relevant to contemporary discussions about literacy instruction because it addresses questions about how to provide all students with access to genres of power. In this article, I highlight one example of explicit genre instruction in Australia that is particularly noteworthy for its critical and dialogic aspects, and then make connections between this approach and similar theoretical and pedagogical work in the United States. I conclude with a discussion of some of the implications for pedagogy that are derived from my analysis.

From "What Is Reading?" to What Is Literacy?.

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.

What Does It Mean to Be a Reader? Identity and Positioning in Two High School Literacy Intervention Classes

ABSTRACT Studies of high school literacy intervention classes have measured reading gains through standardized assessments, but few have considered the impact on students’ identities. In this embedded case study, I used theories of identity and positioning to answer two research questions: How did institutional and interpersonal acts of positioning in two literacy intervention classrooms build on, change, or challenge students’ personal histories and identities as readers? How did these acts shape students’ understandings of themselves as readers over time? I collected and analyzed interviews, field notes, and artifacts. Analyses revealed that ongoing positioning in one classroom thickened one student’s identity as a poor reader. Positioning in the second classroom reinforced the other student’s identity as a good student but had little impact on her identity as a reader. These findings highlight the need to better understand how instructional contexts privilege particular ways of reading and understandings of what it means to be a reader.

Struggling Readers? Using Theory to Complicate Understandings of What It Means to Be Literate in School

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.