Literacy Matters - Winter 2020

institutions must act intentionally to “create learning spaces for our diverse students so that they build from what they have and add the knowledges and language skills needed in future schooling and work” (p. 12). Zwiers asserted that when schools and teachers recognize and value the literacies and languages students have before they come to school and build on those with direct and explicit academic language instruction, there is a stronger possibility for young people to experience higher levels of academic success and progress. Defining Culturally Responsive Theories Thirty years ago, researchers became concerned by documented disparities in achievement among students from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds (Ladson- Billings, 1994, 2009; Ima & Labovitz, 1991; Gay, 2002). As a result, scholars generated new theories that considered the cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic circumstances of children’s lives as a lens through which to develop teaching practices that may effectively address the growing disparities in academic success. Two foundational theories, Ladson-Billings’ (1995) culturally relevant pedagogy and Gay’s (2002) culturally responsive teaching will be defined in the following passage. Ladson-Billings’ (1995) influential work established culturally relevant pedagogy as a method to “provide a way for students to maintain their cultural integrity while succeeding academically” (p. 465-466). In addition to making regular use of instructional practices that maintain students’ cultural integrity, Ladson-Billings asserted teachers’ work should make visible their efforts and their students’ efforts to disrupt social and institutional inequalities (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 476). Using culturally relevant pedagogy to inform literacy practice, for example, magnifies students’ life experiences and literacy experiences, draws on students’ background knowledge, and creates opportunities for students to make explicit connections to the text or other instructional materials (Ladson-Billings, p. 118, 2009). Educators engaged in culturally relevant literacy practice (1) build strong relationships with their students, (2) implement effective, research-based literacy strategies that engage students in think alouds, role playing, pair shares, and completion of graphic organizers, and (3) allow students to take action on topics directly related to students’ lives (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Halagao, 2010). Ladson-Billings’ work was particularly developed to address the achievement gap among African American students; however, culturally relevant pedagogy has informed effective practices for wide-ranging, diverse student groups. Similarly, Gay (2010) defined the theory of culturally responsive teaching as “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them” (p. 31). Culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010) views students’ abilities as assets, values the knowledge and experiences of communities and families, and utilizes social justice strategies in instruction and curriculum design.

Zwiers (2008) affirmed, “as students leave the primary grades, their academic success depends more and more on their abilities to use academic language” (p. xiii). Snow (2010) discussed that even though teachers see middle and high school students decoding words and reading fluently, the students also “have trouble comprehending texts” (p. 450). Despite calls from the National Reading Panel (2000) to increase students’ word knowledge and vocabulary and reasoning abilities, NAEP data (2017) indicated that students are not receiving the necessary vocabulary instruction to meet K-12 academic success. Explicit vocabulary instruction is not commonly part of the curriculum (Scott & Nagy, 1997; Gallagher & Anderson, 2016). Scott and Nagy (1997) reported infrequent vocabulary instruction and that only 6% of all instructional time was devoted to vocabulary instruction in late elementary classes comprised of native English speakers and ethnically and linguistically diverse learners. Similarly, Wanzek’s (2014) study found that “about 8% of core classroom reading instruction was devoted to direct vocabulary instruction with a focus on word definitions and providing examples of word meaning” (p. 139). In middle and high school, even less instructional time is devoted to explicit word study (Zwiers, 2008; Snow, 2010; Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, Kelley, 2010). Feldman and Kinsella (2004) argued, “intensive instruction of academic vocabulary and related grammatical knowledge must be carefully orchestrated across the subject areas for language minority students to attain rigorous content standards” (p. 1). Yet, effectively acquiring mainstream academic language is particularly difficult for all children, but especially for children who do not grow up in mainstream homes (Zwiers, 2008). Zwiers (2008) defined academic language as “the set of words, grammar, and organizational strategies used to describe complex ideas, higher order thinking processes, and abstract concepts” (p. 20). Snow (2010) noted that academic language was characterized by “conciseness, achieved by avoiding redundancy; using a high density of information-bearing words, ensuring precision of expression; and relying on grammatical processes to compress complex ideas into few words” (p. 450). Hollie (2012) described academic language as “the language used in textbooks, in classrooms, and on tests; different in structure (e.g., heavier on compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences) and vocabulary (e.g., technical terms and common words with specialized meaning) from Standard English” (p. 160). Beck and McKeown (1985) developed a three-tiered structure to organize types of academic language. Tier 2 vocabulary words were words frequently used in multiple contexts and across the disciplines. Examples of tier 2 words included redundant, graphic, representation, provision, and accelerate. Tier 3 vocabulary words were words specific to a particular discipline. Examples tier 3 science terms included chlorophyll, isotope, magma, and hydrosphere. Examples of tier 3 ELA terms are figurative language, sonnet, verse, and foreshadowing.

Reading Matters Teaching Matters

Zwiers (2008) posited that for schools to prepare diverse learners, and therefore, all learners, for academic success,

| 44 | Literacy Matters | Volume 20 • Winter 2020 | scira.org

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS