Foundations of Literacy: 1
Foundations of Literacy: The Transactional Theory
Foundations of Literacy: 2
Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory relies on reader response and in essence, allows the
students to form a stance or view from the text they read. In other words, readers often bring
their prior experiences with them while reading (Martin, 2016). This information can be useful in
the classroom. For example, a teacher in a low income school, could assign literature that would
correlate with the student’s environment. This would allow the student to have a more accepting
stance towards the text. In all, the Transactional Theory is a key element that allows the educator
to curate literature based on the students prior experiences.
Prompt 1: Explain how the theoretical model can support first and second language
development.
The Transactional Theory is beneficial to both first and second English learners.
Furthermore, the Transactional Theory allows students to base the given text on situations and
schemas that they are familiar with. In addition, the Transactional Theory encourages the use of
small group learning. Using small groups allows students to acquire ideas from other students
that may help with increased comprehension. In fact, author Saovapa Wichadee (2014). From
Research In Education mentions that, “the process of discussing the accuracy of summary in
small and large groups enhances students' opportunity to acquire knowledge from peers” (p.61).
In all, the Transactional Theory emphasizes that reading and comprehension are systematic and
that makes use of non-conventional methods to increase literacy in students.
Not implementing the Transactional Theory has proven to be detrimental to students. In
other words, the traditional model is flawed. Numerous English language learners have become
discouraged. In fact, a participating teacher in C.M. McElvain’s (2010) article entitled
Transactional literature circles and the reading comprehension of English learners in the
Foundations of Literacy: 3
mainstream classroom stated, “They say to themselves: ‘I only am able to read this part’. So they
never have mastery over a whole story from beginning to end that they know they can digest and
can interact with. It’s just so disabling” (p.169). Furthermore, Implementing the Transactional
Theory is not only beneficial to the English language learner’s students with comprehension. It is
beneficial to the whole class when everyone can understand the given topic.
Prompt 2: Summarize the reading demands placed in students by specific content’s area’s
professional standards.
Most people would not be surprised to find that history and social studies classes require
a lot of reading. In essence, reading is essential for success in any class, but particularly a history
or social studies class. Furthermore, primary documents are essential for students to understand
the personal accounts of important historical events. However, some of these documents use
different versions of English (old, classical) and translated text that can be difficult to interpret.
This is why it is important for educators to find text or alternatives to text that is based on the
Lexile level of the student. Moreover, the Transactional Theory has proven to be effective when
selecting text as Malbert Smith (2014) from the National Center for Educational Research
Statistics tells us. “The Lexile Framework was created within the Transactional nature of
student’s relationships with text. Unlike some quantitative text-complexity tools that are just
“test-centric”, the Lexile Framework was created through a conjoint measurement of model of
both reader and text” (p.24). In essence, the Lexile level and implication of the Transactional
theory is paramount when selecting and assigning text in a social studies or history classroom.
As mentioned earlier, reading is essential for success in the social studies or history
classroom. In fact, studies have shown that implementing reading skills or fluency into the social
studies or history classroom can have positive effects. The implementing of literacy in the
history classroom has proven results as Rollanda O’Conner (2017) explains, “We interpret these
Foundations of Literacy: 4
results as support for integrating reading instruction with history instruction... Not only did
students improve their ability to understand difficult history text; they also improved their
reading scores over half a standard deviation, and did so without adding instructional time to
their school day” (p.184). In all, now matter the class, literacy is key for success of the students
and in turn, the teacher.
Prompt 3: Describe what a motivating literature environment looks like (wall walls, and
classroom libraries) and feels like (variety of text and opportunities to read traditional and
digital) to a student.
Considering literacy is paramount for student’s success, motivating them to read more
should be the main goal of every educator. This is not an easy task but is an achievable one.
Educators could use classroom libraries with not only books, but magazines and graphic novels
too. This will create an exciting variety of text and a differentiated learning environment. In fact,
Tracy Hodges (2014) explains in her article entitled Renovating Literacy Centers for Middle
Grades: Differentiating, Reteaching, and Motivating, that literacy centers are a good idea for
creating a motivating literature environment as she states, “We define literacy centers as a
framework of short, independently oriented activities conducted in small groups and focused on
teaching specific literacy standards. By framework, we suggest that literacy centers provide a set
of individual learning activities (e.g., posting and responding to a class blog) that can be
frequently updated to match the current objectives (e.g., a weekly theme for the class blog) but
do not need to be planned completely anew” (p.156) In all, implementing a literacy center would
beneficial for students to become motivated in literacy.
Furthermore, designing a motivating literature environment does require thinking outside
the box. For example, Ruth Sylvester author of the article Digital Storytelling: Extending the
Foundations of Literacy: 5
Potential for Struggling Writers tells us that implementing digital storytelling can increase
literacy in the class room. Sylvester explains how using digital storytelling can help struggling
writers as she states, “However, the components of creating digital storytelling may help them
compose more strategically. Students’ narrations of their stories reduce overt weaknesses in
conventions such as spelling, capitalization, and handwriting” (p.291). In all, there are numerous
ways to create a motivating literature environment and all educators should do all they can to
make the students feel both comfortable and excited about literacy.
Prompt 4: Discuss how the literate environment includes traditional and digital text.
Students in the twenty-first century classroom are well versed in the many different ways
of acquiring and reading text. There are countless resources online and traditional text all at their
fingertips. However, it is important not to rely on just one, offering a variety of mediums will
help to reach a broader spectrum of the student population. Furthermore, students vary in how
they feel comfortable when they read, some like pages computer screen, some like kindle paper
white pages, and some prefer the traditional paper pages of a good old-fashioned book.
Although, these are the most common methods to promote literacy, there is one that is
often overlooked, the radio. Using the radio in the classroom is called “soundscaping”. If you
think about it, the radio is the most used tool for literacy. From infancy, the radio has helped us
to create stories and piece together words in our own way. In fact, Miglena Todorova (2015) tell
us in her article, that. “Constructing soundscapes also expands one’s literacy to include various
skills, tools, and modes of communication beyond the printed text” (p.49). Although using the
radio to promoted literacy may seem unusual, it is a tool that should be implemented to promote
literacy in the classroom.
Prompt 5: Explain how reading instruction can be differentiated by using this model.
Foundations of Literacy: 6
Considering the importance of differentiation in the classroom, implementing it is
paramount. One effective method of differentiation is scaffolding. Scaffolding is essentially
offering support at different levels. In essence, offering support to struggling students by placing
them in similar groups who also need the same level of scaffolding is beneficial. On the other
hand, students who need little scaffolding should be placed in similar groups too. This will
ensure that their learning will not be held back. Although scaffolding may seem vague and
difficult to apply for some, in reality scaffolding can be done verbally as Elizabeth Belcastro
(2013) explains, “The verbal scaffolding that a teacher offers to support student learning is an
essential ingredient in differentiated lessons. Verbal scaffolding includes prompting, questioning,
and praising learners; it is this spoken interaction between the teacher and the students that can
ultimately make the difference to struggling reader” (41).
Small groups are the core of differentiated learning, using them allows for students not
only to interact with other students, but also work as different levels using different methods and
mediums. Educator Rachel Cook (2008) employs differentiated learning in her classroom and
offers the following advice,” Create centers through which each group will rotate. Although the
students will participate in the same centers, each group will have the opportunity to be working
at their ability level for each activity. For example, each group will use books, vocabulary lists,
and skills from their ability level” (p.93). In all, every student is different, this is why we use
differentiated learning in the classroom. Our goal as educators should be to rest every student in
the class, no matter their ability level.
Prompt 6: Explain district and state assessment frameworks, proficiency standards, and
student benchmarks as they pertain to assessing students’ literacy abilities.
Common Core state standards is a debated topic to say the least, but for social studies
teacher’s evidence has shown that CCSS (common core state standards) are detrimental to the
Foundations of Literacy: 7
overall comprehension of historical context in students. In fact, Ginny Wright (2015) tells us,
“There are significant disciplinary concerns with using a rubric based on the CCSS that will omit
many other possible and desirable outcomes history educators seek. We find this to be
particularly troubling given the accelerating trend of evaluating teachers” performance based on
the test scores of their students” (322). In essence, social studies teachers are held back if they
stick to CCSS, the subject of history is broad and abstract. Comprehension of history requires
primary and secondary sources they possibly do not fit the CCSS curriculum. Also, not all text
books and mandated assignments of Common Core are understandable to students. Some
students have different levels of literacy, so it is important for teachers to select their own text
based on the student’s abilities.
There is no question that students learn in many different ways. Considering this, how
can CCSS reach all students? Simply put, it cannot, students learn and become literate at very
different rates. The instructional shift of CCSS is unfair and one-sided and Emily Hodge (2014)
tells us, “we find the instructional shifts seem to imply a one-sided narrative about existing
instructional practices and to project a singular vision about how these practices should be
changed” (189). In all, it is impossible for state and national standards to effectively gauge a
student’s literacy without employing the many different learning methods and mediums.
Foundations of Literacy: 8
Resources
Ankrum, J. W., Genest, M. T., & Belcastro, E. G. (2014). The Power of Verbal Scaffolding:
"Showing" Beginning Readers How to Use Reading Strategies. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 42(1), 39-47.
Connell, J. M. (2008). The Emergence of Pragmatic Philosophy's Influence on Literary Theory:
Making Meaning with Texts from a Transactional Perspective. Educational Theory,
58(1), 103-122.
Cook, R. (2008). ESSAY--Strategies for Differentiated Instruction. Journal Of The American
Academy Of Special Education Professionals, 92-95.
Harper, R. G. (2014). Making Sense of Texts. SRATE Journal, 23(2), 21-27.
Hodge, E., & Benko, S. L. (2014). A "Common" Vision of Instruction? An Analysis of
English/Language Arts Professional Development Materials Related to the Common
Core State Standards. English Teaching: Practice And Critique, 13(1), 169-196.
Hodges, T. S., & McTigue, E. M. (2014). Renovating Literacy Centers for Middle Grades:
Differentiating, Reteaching, and Motivating. Clearing House: A Journal Of Educational
Strategies, Issues And Ideas, 87(4), 155-160.
Martin, K. H. (2016). Reading Styles Theory and Reader Preference in Approaching and
Responding to Text. Ohio Journal Of English Language Arts, 56(1), 29-37.
McElvain, C. M. (2010). Transactional Literature Circles and the Reading Comprehension of
English Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Journal Of Research In Reading, 33(2),
178-205.
O'Connor, R. E., Beach, K. D., Sanchez, V., Bocian, K. M., Roberts, S., & Chan, O. (2017).
Building Better Bridges: Teaching Adolescents Who Are Poor Readers in Eighth Grade
to Comprehend History Text. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(3), 174-186..
Ralston, N. C., Waggoner, J. M., Tarasawa, B., & Jackson, A. (2016). Concurrent Validity of the
Independent Reading Level Assessment Framework and a State Assessment. Journal Of
At-Risk Issues, 19(2), 1-8.
Smith, M. I., Schiano, A., & Lattanzio, E. (2014). Beyond the Classroom. Knowledge Quest,
42(3), 20-29.
Sylvester, R., & Greenidge, W. (2009). Digital Storytelling: Extending the Potential for
Struggling Writers. Reading Teacher, 63(4), 284-295.
Todorova, M. S. (2015). Dusty but Mighty: Using Radio in the Critical Media Literacy
Classroom. Journal Of Media Literacy Education, 6(3), 46-56.
Wichadee, S. (2014). Developing Reading and Summary Writing Abilities of EFL
Undergraduate Students through Transactional Strategies. Research In Education, 925971.
Foundations of Literacy: 9
Wright, G. P., & Endacott, J. L. (2016). Historical inquiry and the limitations of the common
core state standards. The Journal Of Social Studies Research, 40309-324.
doi:10.1016/j.jssr.2015.07.003