Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Literacy Research.

Language and Education, 2001

Introducing the Collection The papers collected here are, in the main, based on those presented in a symposium 'New Directions in Literacy Research' at the International Association for Applied Linguistics (AILA) Conference held in Tokyo in August 1999. The symposium brought together scholars in what can be broadly defined as 'the New Literacy Studies' and aimed to review research developments in the literacy field across a range of research sites and to identify future directions and agenda for research. Earlier versions of the papers were published on the AILA Scientific Commission on Literacy Website (http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk/AILA). An earlier version of Gemma Moss's paper was published as part of the AILA Literacy SC Virtual Seminar series on the same website. In order to situate the papers collected here, it is perhaps useful to start by considering both what the term 'New Literacy Studies' (NLS) has come to mean over the last decade or so and also the 'research conversation' within which it has been developed.

2008

Mastin Prinsloo and Mike Baynham Renewing literacy studies Literacy has emerged strongly in recent times as an applied linguistic research focus, exemplifying in many ways the expanding scope of applied linguistics. There is now a network of literacy researchers from many parts of the world who are engaged in the empirical and theoretical study of literacy practices in a wide range of settings and social contexts. The AILA Special Interest Group on Literacy has contributed to the international networking that has brought together these scholars, furthering collaboration through international seminars, colloquia and conferences, that started in Tokyo in 1999, and has continued in Campinas,

Journal of Literacy …, 1998

Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 2016

The concept of boundaries, as borders that separate two entities, can be problematic in that those who “belong” within a boundary in a given social world or entity are separated from those who do not, creating binaries. The field of literacy research has had a long history of binarism in which instructional methods, epistemological positions, and paradigms have been pitted against one another. An ontological discussion of the nature of boundaries, combined with a content analysis of journal citations, revealed that current literacy research is characterized more as multidisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary, suggesting that literacy research may be characterized by disciplinary binarism. A situational analysis of the social worlds and arenas present in an interdisciplinary research project illustrates the complexity of interdisciplinary partnerships and the manner in which boundary objects can be created to negotiate boundaries and avoid intellectual, disciplinary, epistemologi...

2005

wentieth-century psychology has placed an extraordinarily high value on data that are publicly observable and replicable, while it has not distinguished itself for the quality of its theories. Much of contemporary linguistics has focused on the construction of elaborate theories invented for the understanding of minuscule and questionable observations. The human sciences thus suffer from various pathologies that block more complete understandings of language and the mind. (Chafe, 1994, p. 11) It is the objective task of the scientist-an objective World 3 task which regulates his 'verbal behaviour' qua 'scientist'-to discover the relevant logical consequences of the new theory, and to discuss them in the light of existing theories.

Journal of Literacy Research, 2018

As we publish the last issue in our anniversary volume, we pause to reflect on the vast amount of knowledge about literacy, literacy education, and literacy research that is represented across the 200 issues that are the Journal of Literacy Research (JLR). As we read (and reread) the statements written by earlier editors and editorial teams, we remained humble to serve as the current editorial team. We have worked hard this year to make sure JLR readers have access to literacy research that moves our field forward. We thank our authors, our current editorial review board, and ad hoc reviewers for supporting us in our efforts with JLR. We would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the newest members on our editorial team. Dr. Fenice Boyd is now serving as a coeditor. Dr. Boyd is a professor and department chair at the University of South Carolina. She brings to our team expertise in literacy learning opportunities for adolescents who struggle with reading, writing, and traditional schooling practices; responses and reactions to multiethnic and multicultural literature; and principled practices of literacy instruction. We also welcome Dr. Pelusa Orellana. Dr. Orellana is a professor and associate dean for research at the Universidad de los Andes in Santiago, Chile. Her expertise in early literacy, motivation, and literacy assessment (in both English and Spanish) completes our team. We are excited both agreed to work with us as coeditors of JLR. We are equally excited about the studies that appear in this issue. Individually and collectively, they contribute important findings that can inform the field of literacy, literacy education, and literacy research. Take, for example, Tierney's anniversary article. In this interdisciplinary essay, Tierney proposes a model of cross-cultural meaning-making as a foundation for what he terms "global epistemological eclecticism" in our scholarly pursuits, including our research and teaching. He calls for scholarly pursuits that are cooperative, collaborative, contrastive, and always respectful and reciprocal. It is through his work that we can see beyond policies and practices that propagate insularity and divisiveness. Mirra, Coffey, and Englander used a sociocritical approach to explore the ways in which two high school English teachers leveraged disciplinary literacy practices in a high school classroom. Using a figured worlds framework, the team documented the ways in which teachers engaged youth in what the authors call "civic literacy learning." This study has implications for how our field considers the intersection of race, literacy, and citizenship in order to disrupt social inequities. In their study, Frankel, Fields, Kimball, and Murphy applied positioning theory in their collaboration with 12th-grade literacy mentors to reimagine literacy teaching and learning with their 10th-grade mentees. Using social design methodologies, the team documented the various ways the positioning of mentors as collaborators was taken up, sometimes in unexpected ways. The team argues that such collaborations with youth should account for 803834J LRXXX10.

The course will be divided into four parts: (1) historical meanings of literacy and introduction to tensions in the field (classes 1-3); (2) literacy and the individual (classes 4-7); (3) socio-cultural perspectives on literacy learning (classes 8-11); and (4) literacy and the social world (classes 12-15). Within these parts of the course, we will discuss questions such as the following: (a) What is literacy? How is it defined? (b) Historically, what has it meant to be literate? (c) What is known about the relationship between literacy and thought? Between literacy and learning? What are the implications for schooling? (d) What theories can teachers use to guide students in becoming literate? (e) What are the influences of school, culture, and community on literacy development? (f) What are the relationships between literacy and economic and political development? (g) What are the implications for the future of literacy research? I hope you will leave this course with a critical understanding of central theoretical issues in literacy studies, with understanding of their implications for schools and the larger culture, and an understanding of how these issues relate to our social and political world. I also hope you will learn about how the theories we study can be used as a foundation for research on language, literacy, learning, and culture.

Journal Article, 2018

This article discusses the concepts of Literacy and Language and then state their similarities and differences in general and in relation to education. The two terminologies (literacy and language) sound familiar and highly talked about by nearly everybody yet, confounding to comprehend and to distinguish. Literacy is a word highly used by the public yet difficult to comprehend. While basic or conventional literacy is lightly understood as reading and writing skills, its conventional premises are technically profound in Language. Language on the other hand is many times viewed as means of communicating and sharing ideas. If these ideas are disseminated or communicated in writing, literacy skills are implied. These land marking similarities are crucial to pinpoint in such an article. In other words, it is immaterial to argue about the importance of language in communicating ideas, emotions and feelings in a human society because language is a tool for disseminating information in different modes. Similarly, it is irrelevant to question the importance of literacy skills in people’s lives as it helps in; getting them employed, develop individually, operate in more meaningful ways and contribute more effectively in a society. Practically, there are some members of different communities around the world who knows and can speak a language fluently, but they may be unable to read and write it. Such earmarking distinctions and similarities are the focus of this paper. In terms of differences, literacy from a broader sense, where it is defined as being knowledgeable or competent in a specific area, impinges on all domains of the society. In other words, there is no such a thing or a person as literate or illiterate without putting them into context as everybody in a broader sense is literate and illiterate in some area. While basic literacy of reading and writing skills associated with language can be a shared background among five people, their knowledge or area of expertise as professionals might be different. Hence, the need to explain some similarities and differences between literacy and language.

2009

1990

As was true last year, we are highly pleased with the content of the 39th NRC Yearbook. When we put the final touches on the Table of Contents and werd able to see as a whole the scope of this year's articles,_ several things _were evident. First, a glance down through the titles shows such diversity that it appeari there should be something here for almost everyone. Second, an examination of the anthori of these articles discloses an excellent mix of work by the most respected individuals in our field, along with perspectives from many promising new contributors. Third, the titles, as well as the content of the articles, reveal analyses from varied philosophical and methodological paradigmsas reflected in the title we have chosen for the 1990 edition of the Yearbook. These diversified views are a strength of the National Reading Conference, and we oelieve, of this publication. The Yearbook is truly the work of the National Reading Conference membership. This year 77 members served on our editorial advisory review board and an additional 27 served as guest reviewers. Reviewers maintained high standards in recommending manuscripts for acceptance and provided concrete, thorough suggestions for revision. Of the 104 general papers reviewd, 41 are published in this 39th Yearbook; there also are 3 special papersthe NRC Annual Review of Research, one invited address, and the student award paper. These articles, along with the Presidential Address, represent the work of 99 NRC members. The special papers except for the Presidential Address, as. with the general papers, all received outside, blind reviews. The overall acceptance rate for this NRC Yearbook was 41%. We thank the authors for their high quality research, reviews, and position papers, feeling certain that these add important knowledge to our literature base in the literacy field. Our deep appreciation also goes to the reviewers for their conscientious attenfion to their tasks. We wish, also, to give special recognition to Mona Connolly, our graduate student and editorial assistant for the Yearbook, for her intelligent and careful attention to all manner of details and to Pat O'Keefe, our liaison with NRC Headquarters, for her patience and knowledge. Our job has been made easier by the contributions of so many competent professionals.