Historical Models of Reading and Honoring Complexity

• In Event: Decades of Reading Research: Challenging the Science of Reading

Abstract

Purposes
By exploring the contents of a set of seminal texts in the field of reading, we note the evolution of mainstream reading scholarship as theorizations have increasingly recognized and attended to the complexity and multidimensional nature of reading. Specifically, we examine the contents of Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (later retitled Theoretical Models and Processes of Literacy) over the past 50 years.

Perspective
For over 50 years, Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading/Literacy has served as a cutting-edge source of information about reading. This carefully edited and authored volume reflects emerging findings from empirical studies conducted by premier reading scholars. Importantly, the text does not present reading as a settled science. The text reports on the emergence of reading theory, and thus, serves as a proxy for understanding the development of reading scholarship across time.

Methodology, Evidence Base, & Data Analysis

We analyzed contents, introductory materials, and chapter content to explore how reading has been depicted and described, and to document various factors (e.g., sociocultural, neurological, experiential, motivational) associated with reading. Specifically, we attended to the volume length, the range of perspectives addressed, and the framings posed by volume editors.

Findings
While the inaugural volume of Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (Singer & Ruddell, 1970) highlighted “linguistic, perceptual, and cognitive components” of reading (p. xi) and variables that influence “the perception, recognition, comprehension, and utilization of printed stimuli” (p. xi), the third edition, Rumelhart (1985) proposed an integrative model of reading that addressed not only bottom-up, but also top-down models of reading. This integrative model challenged linear models of reading as involving letter, to word, to meaning processing. The most recent edition, recognized the role of multiple factors (e.g., motivation, knowledge of language, metacognitive strategies, sociocultural values and beliefs) that contribute to reading, including chapters dedicated to reading and neuroscience and critical perspectives. As Alvermann and her co-editors (2018) noted, they intentionally sought to “extend, enhance, or even break with earlier theories of reading and writing processes” (p. xiii).

Scholarly Significance
Thus, the fifty-year history of Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading/Literacy reflects the ongoing emergence of reading scholarship. It presents literacy as complex and multidimensional. While early models privileged bottom-up, phonic-based models, scholars have drawn on empirical research to recognize a much broader range of relevant factors and considerations. This does not mean that the field rejects phonics, phonemic awareness, or cognitive considerations; but it does mean that reading is complex and that reading scholarship is not a settled science.

Author

• Catherine F. Compton-Lilly, University of South Carolina