Introduction
There are three leading literacy theories that are present today in local schools: Emergent Literacy, Family Literacy, and Whole Word Theory. These theories all hold the commonality that literacy, like oral language, develops naturally out of the child’s need, curiosity and purpose for communication and is influenced by the daily life of children and their families. These theories respect the role families play in the development of their child’s literacy skills and place teachers in a guiding role alongside parents and students to advance literacy. Here we will look at each theory in brief detail and provide examples of how each of these theories have influenced practices within local schools.
Emergent Literacy
Marie Clay started developing the theory of Emergent Literacy in 1966. Emergent literacy is defined as “the view that literacy learning begins at birth and is encouraged through participation with adults in meaningful activities; these literacy behaviors change and eventually become conventional over time” (as cited in Green and Lilly, 2004). It is the knowledge, skills and behaviours that children exhibit prior to learning to read and write. Clay’s belief was that this process started at birth and developed in the same manor as oral language (as cited in Green and Lilly, 2004). A number of skills and abilities define a student’s acquisition of emergent literacy: print motivation, vocabulary, print awareness, narrative skills, letter knowledge, and phonological awareness (Blake, 2017).
Emergent Literacy Examples in Practice
One common practice that came from Emergent Literacy Theory and the work of Marie Clay is the Reading Recovery Program. Reading Recovery (Canada) and the Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery supports early literacy learning across Canada by providing conferences, program training, research and data to teachers. Several teachers locally have been trained to use the Reading Recovery program and provide this program at several schools. Many school divisions locally also offer literacy rich ECE programs that focus on developing emergent literacy skills through a play-based, literacy rich learning environment. Some schools also use an assessment tool developed by the Learning Disabilities Association of Alberta (LDAA). This tool is designed to identify which of the emergent literacy skills (vocabulary, print awareness, letter knowledge and phonological awareness) a learner has and has not mastered. Ironically, this tool is called the “Reading Readiness Screen”. Reading Readiness, according to the Emergent Literacy Theory, is deemed an inaccurate term, since Clay’s research showed that there was not a specific sequence of skills children needed to master prior to reading and writing (Green and Lilly, 2014). That being said one can easily see how the Reading Readiness Screen developed by the LDAA was influenced by some of the research on Emergent Literacy.
Whole Word Theory
Whole Word Theory stemmed from Noam Chomsky’s ideas on language acquisition. In 1967 Ken Goodman took Chomsky’s ideas and expanded on them, bringing them new light. Goodman observed that educators were breaking whole (natural) language up into bite-size, but abstract little pieces turning it into words, syllables, and isolated sounds (Goodman, 2005). His Whole Word Theory proposed that when instructing reading practice we needed to use the same process that children use to learn oral language. Whole Word Theory prescribes that educators keep language whole and involve children in using it functionally and purposefully to meet their own needs (Goodman, 2005). Whole Word Theory includes 5 tenets to help guide educators on how to make learning language easy. First is relevance; language should be whole and meaningful for learners. Secondly it should have purpose; learners should use language for their own purposes. Thirdly, meaning for communication should be the focus of language instruction. Fourthly, respecting learners and their experiences is paramount. Lastly, empowerment of learners by helping them to achieve a sense of control and ownership over their own use of language and learning in school, over their own reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking (Goodman, 2005).
Whole Word Theory Examples in Practice
Whole Word Theory was very much a ‘grassroots’ movement supported by enthusiastic educators (Gills, 2006). Current practices today include: a focus on children’s literature, literature study, strategies in reading and authentic reading assessment. In many schools the whole language approach has been adopted as a leading practice of literacy instruction because of its alignment with the Reggio Philosophy and Inquiry Based learning, which are the leading philosophies of many local school divisions. These two approaches to education fit whole language “like a glove.” Reggio, Inquiry Based learning and Whole Language are, “ideolog[ies] founded in social equity and the democratic process based on the assumption that schools must produce highly productive critically literate graduates if democracy as we know it is to survive” (as cited in Gilles, 2006). In following with these guiding theories schools have introduced more student centred learning through the application of Daily 5 and Guided Math (centre based approaches) and using the opportunities this structure creates to spend more time guiding, observing and coaching students in reading and writing situations. We have also reduced the use of phonics based textbooks, rote spelling tests, and organized writing exercise books. Instead we present writing opportunities based on student interest, allowing them to choose freely what they want to write and learn about, incorporating cross curricular materials and designing guided reading sessions to incorporate the whole language approaches.
Many teachers have found that it is a constant struggle to maintain the inquiry and whole language approach to learning. Time constraints, standardized testing, and published teacher/student materials are always drawing us away from student centred learning to more traditional workbook based programs. We have found that allowing teachers who are using the whole language, inquiry and Reggio practices time to collaborate, share ideas and successes with each other is the best way to ensure that these practices continue in their intended form.
Family Literacy
Family Literacy is a term first coined by Denny Taylor in 1981. Taylor, who has long been an avid researcher of reading, first used the term to describe the ways in which reading and writing were embedded in the daily lives of the middle-class families. It is the way families expose and introduce literacy to their children in their normal context and not in intentional specified lessons. For example, how parents might help their child ‘guess by context’, sound out and read the word STOP as they pull up to a stop sign on their daily commute in the car. Taylor used her research to demonstrate that while parents do not deliberately set out to teach their children literacy skills, they do so by encouraging their children to participate in literacy activities and thus support early literacy development (Family Literacy, 2003). It was her findings that parents linked their own experiences of learning to read with experiences of their children and when this happened the parents were intent on providing the same positive experience, or when necessary, alternate more positive experiences (Taylor, 1993). For example, a mother who reads to her children because of the joy she had when her father read to her, or in the case of providing a more positive experience, a father who works to make reading a ‘game’ with his daughter because he found no joy in it as a child (Taylor, 1993). Taylor's ethnographic research does not pin family literacy as dependant on sex, race or economic status but instead she advocates that Family Literacy is about understanding, from the personal and shared perspectives of individual family members, the extraordinary funds of knowledge that they bring to a learning situation (Taylor, 1993).
Family Literacy Examples in Practice
It is easy to see how Taylor’s research has found it’s way into our current teaching practices. Since her initials findings were published the idea of Family Literacy has seemingly taken on a life of its own. There is considerable debate as to what the best methods are to ‘improve’ family literacy to benefit lifelong literacy skills for the next generation. From this debate we have seen the creation of many different types of programs, but what is common among them is that they are all aimed at supporting parents and children in the development of early literacy. In Canada we see such programs as ‘Parent-Child Mother Goose,’ which aims to support parents and children develop their oral language through nursery rhymes (Family Literacy, 2003). Many local organizations regularly provide this program through their Early Childhood departments. Furthermore, the early childhood program Head Start has taken root all across North America, and although the programs vary in delivery, purpose and focus, they all have family literacy and development as a core tenet. In Sturgeon School Division we offer the Mother Goose program to families in conjunction with students being enrolled in our Head Start ECE program. Across these two environments we work collaboratively with parents to increase early literacy exposure and bring literacy into their day-to-day routine by reading stories, teaching rhymes, increasing vocabulary and other oral language, and to help parents draw attention to all the little ways they can introduce literacy to their child at home.
Conclusion
In summary, local schools are demonstrating some success at incorporating practices which stem from Family Literacy, Emergent Literacy and Whole Word Theory. These three theories all work well in connection with their driving mission to help students become 21st Century Learners through an Inquiry Based educational experience. Teachers in Alberta strive to incorporate practices from the research of these theories; however, there is still much work to be done.
References
Askew, Billie and Gaffney, Janet S. (2016). About Marie Clay. Retrieved from http://irrto.org/about-marie-clay/
Blake, Caitrin. (2017) Defining Emergent Literacy: Developing Lifelong Learners. Retrieved from http://online.cune.edu/defining-emergent-literacy/
Emergent Literacy. (2017, April 7). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 18, 2017 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_literacies
Family Literacy. (n.d.) International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family. . Retrieved July 17, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/family-literacy
Gadsden, Vivian. (2002). Current Areas of Interest in Family Literacy. Volume 3: Chapter Seven. Retrieved from, http://ncsall.net/index.html@id=571.html
Gilles, C. (2006). The future of whole language. International Journal of Progressive Education, 2(2), 43-61. Retrieved from http://inased.org/ijpev2n2/gilles2.htm
Goodman, Ken. (2005). Goodman on Whole Language. Retrieved from: http://newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-5/goodman-on-whole-language
Lilly, E., & Green, C. (2004). Developing partnerships with families through children's literature. Prentice Hall. Retrieved from https://www.education.com/reference/article/early-literacy/
Reading Recovery. (2015). Retrieved from http://rrcanada.org/reading-recovery/
Taylor, D. (1981). The family and the development of literacy skills and values. Journal of Research in Reading, 4(2), 92-103.
Taylor, D. (1993). Family Literacy: Resisting Deficit Models. TESOL Quarterly, 27(3), 550-553. doi:10.2307/3587487
Whole Language. n.d. In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 17, 2017, from tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_language