7 The historical development of reading as a pedagogical practice

So far this course has highlighted the complexities and different stances taken in response to the question ‘What is literacy?’. While this might at first glance appear to be a simple question, when examined more closely it is difficult to agree a simple, straightforward answer or definition for literacy. For example, there are definitions of literacy that emphasise literacy skills and the technical mastery of decoding words, and of writing and communicating clear instructions to ensure that all future workers can access information and communicate at a given standard in order to carry out their work efficiently. This view of literacy will often stress the technical and work-based skills, and worker–employer communications aspects of literacy. This differs from critical literacy-based definitions of literacy, which emphasise how literacy allows the literate individual to engage in the wider society and political processes. This contributes to the democratic process and can enable disadvantaged individuals to have control over their lives.

As well as these quite obviously polarised views of functional and critical literacy, it is possible to have views of literacy that emphasise other aspects of what is considered to be ‘literate’. For instance, it is possible to argue that being a ‘literate individual’ implies a person who has an extensive knowledge of ‘high-quality’ literature and literary forms. In English-language contexts, this might include reading Shakespearian plays and other classic works.

Gillen and Hall (2003) and Green et al. (2013) focus on the development of literacy after compulsory education was introduced in many western countries in the late 1800s. These two articles both present views of the historical development of reading and the teaching of reading. Gillen and Hall (2003) trace their narrative forward in a sequential way from the end of the 19th century. Green et al. (2013), however, start from the present and divide their discussion up into thematic considerations rather than tracing a historical narrative.

Interestingly, although Gillen and Hall produce a systematic historical narrative, they do not present it in a linear fashion culminating in a clear and straightforward definition of literacy, which would allow for clear measurements and unproblematic assessments of literacy achievement. Instead, they stress a historical progression towards a view of literacy as an increasingly complex phenomenon. They also mention that they have been selective in order to trace this progression. They trace the complexity of our research understandings of early childhood literacy from initial ‘scientifically’ individual and skill-based psychological influences, such as the behaviourist theories of the mid-20th century, through to an ever more complex view which currently encompasses the cultural aspects of literacy alongside broader disciplinary influences. Gillen and Hall also mention that they have been selective in order to trace this progression. They also imply that in order to develop a historical narrative like this it is difficult to avoid being selective. However, it is also possible to be selective and create another narrative (see, for example, Miles and Miles, 1999).

Green et al. (2013) report on a historical research project which focuses on Australian contexts. They concentrate on historical examples of reading lessons in primary and secondary schools, and the resulting emergent themes related to current and global contexts. They make the point that when looking at pedagogy and practice historically, literacy has always been about more than just teaching reading skills. They also argue that there has always been a broader moral agenda underpinning how we have taught literacy; the importance of this agenda has differed at various times since the development of compulsory schooling in the late 19th century.

Whereas Gillen and Hall (2003) begin their narrative with the influence of psychology and scientific approaches on early reading research in the early 20th century, Green et al. (2013) point out that before this, the canon of English literature (or ‘western canon’) dominated curriculum policies and the teaching of early reading. They note that in the early part of the 20th century, reading and literacy teaching in primary education was underpinned by an overt moral emphasis on being a ‘good reader’ and reading the appropriate cultural canon. This view can be seen in the Newbolt Report (Board of Education, 1921) produced during this period in England, which, in turn, influenced former colonies such as Australia and New Zealand (see also Soler, 1999).

As Green et al. (2013) observe, the 1921 Newbolt Report and accounts of classroom practice during the early 1900s emphasised the teaching of the canon of English literature, rather than the techniques and skills of reading. This emphasis and understanding of literacy starkly contrasts with the views that underpin recent debates over how we now teach reading. Green et al. (2013) argue that this view of literacy also influenced secondary school pedagogies related to supporting reading and English teaching. They also note that there was a shift from emphasising the moral imperative, which seeks to foster good character and a knowledge of great literature, to a scientifically and psychologically based view of literacy with its associated supposedly neutral views of assessment and testing. As you may be aware, as well as the earlier ‘reading wars’ in the 1950s, many recent debates over how to teach literacy have reflected this latter view and placed an emphasis on functional literacy and decoding text.

Acquiring literacy at a functional level does not focus on using literacy to impart complex culturally specific meanings, or to interact and engage in complex social situations. It also implies a degree of passivity rather than agentive behaviour, as functional literacy does not encompass notions of ‘multiple literacies’ or the use of literacy to empower learners actively to engage in diverse and complex environments. Concentrating solely on functional literacy in global campaigns is therefore often seen as potentially keeping individuals tied to lower skilled work environments.

If we recognise that there have been changing and expanding understandings of what literacy is over time, we must acknowledge the complex nature of literacy. We need to view literacy not just as an individual skill, but as something that is also strongly rooted within social and cultural understandings and practices. And if we accept that people view literacy in different ways, we must also accept that this will have an inevitable impact on how we and others approach both learners and research into literacy.