BOOK REVIEW:

PROGRESS IN UNDERSTANDING
READING FROM THE
VIEWPOINTS OF STANOVICH
AND RAUDING THEORY

Ronald P. Carver Progress in UnderstandingReading:Scientific Foun-

UNIVERSITY OF dations and New Frontiers. Keith E. Stanovich,
MISSOURI AT 2000. New York: Guilford Press (72 Spring St.,
KANSAS CITY New YorkNY10012). Paperback, 536 pages.

When Keith E. Stanovich talks, reading research-

ers listen. This claim can be validated by (a) count-
ing the number of researchers attending his con-
ference presentations, (b) counting his research
publications, or (c) counting the number of times
his research publications have been cited by other
researchers. So, it is incumbent on reading re-
searchers to take note of his recently published
book, entitled Progress in Understanding Reading:
Scientific Foundations and New Frontiers. This
book is a collection of 21 chapters; 14 chapters
are previously published articles of his (from
1978 to 1998) organized into seven parts with
each part introduced by a chapter of new obser-
vations. Out of the 420 pages of text, 115 pages
contain new material. In his introductory chap-
ters to each of these seven parts, he relates the

J LR
V. 33 NO. 2
2001
PP. 361-381

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 relevant prior publications to subsequent or current research, and often
makes a judgment regarding whether or not his prior research "got it right."
In this review, I critique this book from the viewpoint of rauding theory
(Carver, 2000a), highlighting both commonalties and differences with re-
J LR spect to progress in understanding reading and new frontiers. In short, I
Carver will be looking closely at whether Stanovich "got it right" from the view-
point of rauding theory. It would be misleading, however, to infer that
rauding theory was somehow completely independent of the research and
ideas expressed by Stanovich. Rauding theory has been directly influenced
by almost all of the ideas expressed by Stanovich (and many other reading
researchers), because I have read, reread, and read again almost all of his
previously published research during the past 20 years. I am a student of
Keith Stanovich, in the sense that he has probably taught me more about
reading than any other single person. But, it is not uncommon for students
to have their own ideas. Rauding theory is an attempt to organize the best
ideas of the past and improve on them.
Before I start reviewing the seven parts of Stanovich's book, which con-
tain concepts already familiar to most reading researchers, I first summa-
rize some of the basic ideas in rauding theory, which are not familiar to
most reading researchers.

Rauding Theory

Rauding theory is concerned with the typical or normal reading of text,

called the "rauding process" to distinguish it from other text reading pro-
cesses such as scanning, skimming, learning, and recalling. Individuals
ordinarily engage their rauding process when they are given texts that are
not too difficult in relation to their ability to read accurately. Stated differ-
ently, individuals operate their rauding process when they are given rela-
tively easy texts. Relatively easy text is defined more precisely as text writ-
ten at a difficulty level (D L ) which is lower than the rauding accuracy level
(A L ) of the individual, when both are measured in grade equivalent (GE)
units. The accuracy level (A L ) of the individual is a construct that is simi-
lar to the traditional concept of an unspeeded measure of reading level,
and difficulty level (D L ) is a measure of text readability.
The words in relatively easy texts are decoded automatically by the
reader such that their meaning is recognized relatively quickly. These words
are called raudamatized words, that is, words that an individual (a) knows
when spoken, (b) can be pronounced accurately when seen in print, and
(c) can be recognized relatively quickly because theyhavebeen overlearned
through practice to a speed limit. When given texts containing raudama-

362

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 tized words, good and poor readers alike are "automatic" readers because
all of the words in these texts can be read "automatically."
Because all raudamatized words have been learned to the same speed
limit of the individual, this means that relatively easy text will be read at a
constant rate. This constant rate at which individuals operate their rauding J LR
process is called their rauding rate (Rr). Rauding rate (Rr) can be mea- Book Review
sured in various ways, such as standard words per minute (Wpm) or grade
equivalents (GE). When Rr is measured in GE units, it is called rauding rate
level (R L ), or simply "rate level."
Rauding theory includes a causal model of reading achievement, which
has been shown to be highly consistent with relevant prior research (Carver,
1997,2000a; Carver & David, 2001). In this model, each construct has
two proximal causes, as summarized in Figure 1. In this figure, a theoreti-
cal construct is inside a circle, and a similar traditional concept is above a
circle. Under each circle is an abbreviated name of a test that has been de-
signed to measure a construct, with a box in the figure containing the full
name of each test.
Notice in Figure 1 that reading achievement is located above the circle
on the far right side, and inside the circle is the theoretical construct called
rauding efficiency level (E L ). This EL construct has been designed to up-
grade the traditional concept of reading achievement, or general reading
ability, as measured by a speeded test of reading comprehension. The two
proximal causes of reading achievement are reading level and rate level, as
described earlier. The two proximal causes of reading level are (a) listen-
ing comprehension level (or verbal knowledge level, v L ), and (b) word
identification level (or pronunciation level, P L ). The two proximal causes
of rate level are (a) word identification level, and (b) naming speed (or
cognitive speed level, c s ). The two proximal causes of listening level are
(a) teaching and learning, and (b) verbal aptitude (gv). The two proximal
causes of word identification level are (a) teaching and learning, and (b)
pronunciation aptitude (gp). The two proximal causes of naming speed
level (c s ) are (a) age, and (b) cognitive speed aptitude (gs).
In this model, which contains the proximal and distal causes of high
and low reading achievement, the constructs can also be related using very
simple mathematical equations. Reading level and rate level can be aver-
aged to determine the level of reading achievement, as follows: EL = (AL +
R L ) / 2 . In addition, reading level can be determined from the average of
listening level and word identification level, as follows: AL = (vL + P L ) / 2 .
Also, rate level can be determined from the average of word identification
level and naming speed level, as follows: RL = (Pj^ + c s )/2. This means that
if we have measured a student's listening level, word identification level,

363

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 listening
Teaching/ i ^- ^
Learning 1

7 h \
1 verbal 1
I knowledge 1
\ level / reading
level
9v
verbal
aptitude
V""'^
I
/
V^ XN y i
^\
v y
AALT 7
I k
\\
rauding
accuracy
word V level 1 reading
s—x identification achievement
Teaching/ \ \
Learning I ^—\ yX
\ A/ y ^

ALT J
s
^^y
/ p \ 7. \ general
/ pronunciation 1
1 knowledge 1 normal I m& 'eadin9
\ level / reading \ level / abilit
^
rate \
Dronunciation 1
\ A /

aptitude 1 PLT
y^^^y" RELT
7
/ k
\\
v y rauding |
rate 1
naming y level /

Ana
Age
1
1
y^\
^—~\
speed
y V RLT
y
MOR
v y ^7I Q
cognitive
\
I AALT = Auding Accuracy Level Test
1 speed 1 ALT = Accuracy Level Test
•A level / ART = Alphabet Rate Test
^—x 9s
cognitive \
\ y^ \ / MOR
PLT
=
=
Maximum Oral Rate
Pronunciation Level Test
speed 1 V y RELT = Rauding Efficiency Level Test
aptitude / ^-—^
ART RLT = Rate Level Test
STT STT = Speed of Thinking Test

Echelon 4 Echelon! Echelon 2 Echelon 1

Figure 1 .The causal model of reading achievement. (Note. Adapted from"Reading for
One Second, One Minute, or One Year From the Perspective of Rauding Theory," by
R.P. Carver, 1997. Sc/enf/ffcStudies of Reading, 7, p. 22. Copyright 1997 by Lawrence
Eribaum Associates. Adapted with permission.)

364

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

and naming speed level (vL, pL, and c s ) in GE units, then we can average
pairs of values to determine that student's reading level, rate level, and read-
ing achievement level in GE units.
In rauding theory, there are two additional, highly important constructs
closely associated with the traditional concept of reading comprehension. JLR
One is the accuracy of text comprehension (A), and the other is accuracy Book Review
of comprehension that accompanies normal reading, called rauding accu-
racy (Ar). Both text accuracy, A, and rauding accuracy, Ar, can be predicted
using mathematical equations given elsewhere (Carver, 2000a). The ac-
curacy of comprehension that accompanies normal reading, Ar, can be pre-
dicted using a formula involving the relative difficulty of the text. The ac-
curacy of text comprehension, A , can be predicted from formulas including
(a) two attributes of the individual, AL and R L , (b) two attributes of the
text, D L and length, and (c) the time taken to read the text. Table 1 contains

Table 7. Examples of How Rauding Accuracy (Ar) and Text Comprehension Accuracy (A)
can be Determined Using Mathematical Models
Given: Suppose we have a female student in grade 6 who is reading at the fourth-grade
level (AL = 4), and has a fifth-grade rate level (RL = 5). She is given 2,000 words of text to
read that is at the second-grade level of difficulty (DL = 2). If this student operates her
normal reading process (rauding process) on this text, then her accuracy of
comprehension during rauding would be predicted as follows:
Ar = .04 <AL - DL) + .64
Ar = .04 (4 - 2) + .64 = .72
Interpretation: This student would likely comprehend 72% of the thoughts, or sentences,
in this text written at the second-grade level when she reads it once at her normal
reading rate.
Given: In the above example, this student would require 12.8 minutes to finish reading
the 2,000 words because the fifth-grade rate level is equal to a rauding rate of 156 words
per minute (Table D-1; Carver, 2000a). Now, suppose this student is given only 10 minutes
(t = 10) to read this text, which is not enough time to finish reading it. Her rate of 156
words per minute is also 9.3 sentences per minute (Rr = 9.3) using the conversion of 16.7
standard length words per one standard length sentence; the length of the text in
standard length sentences would be 2,000/16.7, or 120 standard length sentences, or 120
thoughts in the passage (T = 120). Therefore, her accuracy of text comprehension would
be predicted as follows:
A = ArRr(tfTp)
A = (.72)(9.3)(10/120) = .56
Interpretation: This sixth grader who has a fourth-grade reading level and a fifth-grade
rate level would likely comprehend 56% of the sentences in a 2,000 word passage
written at the second-grade level of difficulty when given 10 minutes to read it.

365

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 an illustration of how rauding accuracy and text accuracy can be predicted
for a student. Notice that this student in Table 1 comprehended 72% of the
text written at the third-grade level when allowed to finish reading all of
the 2000 words in the text (Ar = .72). However, if this student was given
J LR only 10 minutes to read the text, when it would take her 12.8 minutes to
Carver finish, then her accuracy of comprehension of these 2,000 words would
be 56% (A = .5 6).
In rauding theory, good readers are defined as having a high level of
reading achievement (high E L ) for their age, whereas poor readers are de-
fined as having low reading achievement (low E L ) for their age. Beginning
readers are defined as having their listening level or their word identifica-
tion level below grade 3 (vL < 3 or P L < 3). Intermediate readers are defined
as having their listening level and their word identification level above grade
3 (vL > 3 and P L > 3), but their listening level or their word identification
level below grade 8 (vL < 8 or pL < 8). Advanced readers are defined as
having their listening level and their word identification level at grade 8 or
higher (vL > 8 and P L > 8). For advanced readers, word identification level
drops out of the causal model; listening level and reading level become
reciprocally causal, and naming speed becomes the sole cause of rate level.
A disability for an individual is defined as being low in reading level,
rate level, listening level, word identification level, or naming speed level as
compared to age. Almost all poor readers have a disability in reading level
and/or rate level. In turn, almost all individuals with a disability in reading
level or rate level also have a disability in listening, word identification, or
naming speed; individuals with one of these later three disabilities are likely
to have a corresponding handicap in verbal aptitude, pronunciation apti-
tude, or cognitive speed aptitude. A handicap is defined as being low in
one of the three aptitudes (gv> gp, or gs). A dyslexic is defined as being handi-
capped in pronunciation aptitude (low gp) but not handicapped in verbal
aptitude (not low in g,,), whereas a severe dyslexic is defined as being handi-
capped in both pronunciation aptitude and cognitive speed aptitude (low
gp and low gs),but not handicapped in verbal aptitude (not low gy). It should
be noted that a disability can be remediated with teaching and learning,
but a handicap cannot be remediated.
An example may be helpful to demonstrate how rauding theory and its
purported lawfulness might be used to characterize a male student in sixth
grade and to suggest a plan for instruction. Suppose we have measured the
listening level of this student; it is grade 8 (vL = 8). Suppose his word
identification level was measured and found to be grade 2 (P L = 2), and his
naming speed level was measured and found to be grade 4 (c s = 4). There-
fore, we could determine by averaging that his reading level is grade 5 (A L
= 5), his normal or typical reading rate is grade 3 (R L = 3), and his level of

366

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

reading achievement is grade 4 (E L = 4). This student (a) would be a poor
reader with disabilities in word identification and naming speed, and (b)
would probably have a handicap in pronunciation aptitude and cognitive
speed aptitude. This student is likely to be a severe dyslexic but still would
be able to raud texts at grade level 3, and would comprehend 72% of the JLR
sentences (A, = .72) in these texts. He would operate his rauding process at Book Review
a constant rate on these relatively easy texts, because all of the words in-
volved would be words that he had raudamatized. This poor reader could
be taught to raudamatize all the words he knows when listening so that his
word identification level would increase to the eighth grade (P L = 8), and
he would then be an advanced reader who reads at the eighth-grade level
(At = 8).
Now that rauding theory has been summarized, it is used to critique
each of the seven parts of the Stanovich book.

Part One

There are three articles in Part 1, published in 1978,1980, and 1984, deal-
ing with context effects and word recognition speed. Stanovich points out
that prior to collecting the data in these articles, he and his colleagues agreed
with the early theoretical ideas advanced by Ken Goodman and Frank
Smith about 25 years ago - that good readers relied more on context
whereas poor readers relied more on visual information or graphic cues.
However, he says that "to our surprise, all of our research results point in
the opposite direction; it was the poor readers, not the more skilled read-
ers, who were more reliant on context to facilitate word recognition" (p. 6).
His conclusions relevant to these three articles in Part 1 can be summa-
rized as follows:"... it is not failure at the Goodman guessing game that
characterizes the poor reader, but difficulty with the graphophonemic
analysis of words" (p. 52). This research conducted by Stanovich and col-
leagues undermined the idea that poor readers need to be taught to guess
at words using context rather than teaching them about connections be-
tween the letters and sounds within words or how isolated words are pro-
nounced. This research started Stanovich down a path toward many battle-
fields in the Reading Wars involving whole language. These battles are still
going on today, and comments on those wars also take up much of the
space in his seven chapters that contain new text.
With the benefit of hindsight, and rauding theory, it seems important
to point out how the research articles reprinted in Part 1 would be different
if they were to be published today under the influence of rauding theory.
Rauding theory does not use the term "fluent reader," but it was used a
great deal in Part 1, and it is still being used by researchers today. Almost

367

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 all reading researchers will probably agree with Stanovich that teaching a
student to guess at words from context will not create a fluent reader. How-
ever, creating fluent readers is not a goal of rauding theory. Instead, the
main goals of reading instruction are (a) to help poor readers become av-
J LR erage or good readers, (b) to help beginning readers become intermediate
Carver readers, and (c) to help intermediate readers become advanced readers so
they can accurately comprehend text at the eighth-grade level of difficulty
when they read it at their own normal reading rate (Carver, 2000b).
The term "fluency" is not used in rauding theory because both good
readers and poor readers are likely to read fluently. For example, Student A
and Student B are both in grade 5. Student A is a poor reader who is read-
ing at the third-grade level (E L = 3, A L = 3, RL = 3). Student B is a good
reader who is reading at the seventh-grade level (E L = 7, AL = 7, RL = 7). If
we give text written at the first-grade level of difficulty (DL = 1) to Student
A (poor reader), it will very likely be read aloud effortlessly and with rela-
tively good comprehension; notice that Student A, who is a poor reader,
will likely be a fluent reader in this situation. On the other hand if we give
text written at the ninth-grade level to Student B, it will very likely be read
aloud with hesitations and with relatively poor comprehension; Student B,
who is a good reader, will not likely be a fluent reader in this situation. So,
the term "fluent reader" is not used in rauding theory, because a goal of
reading instruction should not be to help children become fluent readers.
We can instantly help most poor readers become fluent readers by asking
them to read aloud relatively easy text. Reading well aloud is not a goal of
rauding theory. However, if fluency means to comprehend accurately dur-
ing silent reading of relatively easy text, then fluency is no different from
what is called "rauding" in rauding theory. Notice that rauding is not a
goal; rauding is what is likely to occur when all of the words in the text are
raudamatized.
Embedded in the above problems associated with the term "fluent
reader" is the notion that poor readers have some processing deficit that
keeps them from reading fluently. Throughout this book by Stanovich, we
see such terms as "phonological processing," "orthographic processing," "a
core processing problem," "information processing skills," and "the read-
ing process." Because Stanovich reports that his early background was in
information processing, the use of these terms is understandable. Many
reading researchers through the years have striven to find the key to over-
coming reading problems by searching for a malfunction or a deficiency
in the reading process of poor readers.
Directly opposing the above ideas regarding processing deficits is the
idea in rauding theory that poor readers use exactly the same normal read-
ing process as good readers. There is no malfunction or deficit in the nor-

368

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

mal reading process used by poor readers. As noted earlier, poor readers
use exactly the same normal reading process as good readers (called the
rauding process) when they are asked to read relatively easy texts. Again,
poor readers and good readers ordinarily use exactly the same word rec-
ognition process and text comprehension process when they are reading J LR
relatively easy text. Lack of fluency during reading is mainly caused by Book Review
words in text that have not been raudamatized by the reader. This is not a
problem with any of the processes used by the reader, it is a problem caused
by asking students to read aloud texts that contain unknown words and
are not relatively easy.
With the advantage of hindsight associated with years of excellent re-
search conducted by Stanovich and others, there seems to be no need to
assume that poor readers have a deficit in their reading process when such
a deficit is not needed to explain the variance in reading achievement (E L ).
Almost all of the variance in reading achievement (E L ) can be explained
by reading level (A L ) and rate level (R L ). Almost all of the variance in read-
ing level (A L ) can be explained by listening level (vL) and word identifica-
tion level (P L ). Almost all of the variance in rate level (R L ) can be explained
by word identification level (P L ) and naming speed level (c s ). So, if we
want to help poor readers in grades 1 to 7 become average readers (or good
readers), then we are going to have to increase the number of words these
students know when they hear them (listening level) or we are going to
have to increase the number of known spoken words that they also know
how to pronounce (word identification level). This will have to be done on
a word-for-word basis. Poor readers have no problem with the process of
identifying words that they have learned well, otherwise they would not
be able to identify these words relatively easily on a word identification
test. Also, poor readers have no problem with the process of comprehend-
ing the thoughts in relatively easy texts.
Again, there appears to be no existing evidence that "processing" defi-
cits explain why some students are poor readers. On the other hand, if the
learning handicaps in rauding theory (low verbal aptitude, low pronun-
ciation aptitude, and low cognitive speed aptitude) are called processing
deficits, then these processing deficits are likely to be some of the root causes
of low reading level, low rate level, and low reading achievement level. How-
ever, low aptitudes are not called processing deficits in rauding theory, be-
cause they represent individual differences in the time required to learn to
a criterion when instruction is constant and everyone uses the same learn-
ing process.
In summary, the contents of Part 1 effectively illustrate how science was
used to test the theoretical ideas of Goodman and Smith, and how the data
did not support those ideas. There was no evidence that good readers used

369

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 less graphic cues and more context to identify words, or that poor readers
over rely on visual information without using context. The research and
interpretations in Part l were highly compatible with rauding theory, be-
cause the ability to use context is neither a proximal nor distal cause of
JLR high reading achievement, whereas the ability to pronounce a large num-
Carver ber of words, out of context, is a primary cause of high reading achieve-
ment. The conflict between rauding theory and Part 1 of this book is that
(a) the concept of "fluent" readers used by Stanovich, and others, does not
exist as a construct in rauding theory, and (b) the idea that poor readers
have some type of deficit or malfunction in their reading process is alien
to rauding theory.

Part Two

Part 2 contains an introductory chapter on early reading acquisition and

the causes of reading difficulty, followed by three reprinted research ar-
ticles (1984,1988,1994) dealing with phonological awareness (PA) and
the phonological-core variable-difference (P C V D) model, PA and P c VD will
be discussed, in turn.
Stanovich contends that "phonological awareness facilitates decoding
skill, which in turn determines word recognition ability, which in conjunc-
tion with listening comprehension determines reading comprehension"
(p. 61). These ideas can be translated into rauding theory relatively easily.
Phonological awareness (PA) in beginning readers is an indicator of pro-
nunciation aptitude (gp), which is a distal cause of reading achievement
(E L ). Stanovich says that PA facilitates decoding skill, which determines
word recognition ability. Translated, pronunciation aptitude (g_) is one
proximal cause of word identification level (P L ). Stanovich says that word
recognition ability together with listening comprehension determine read-
ing comprehension. Translated, word identification level (P L ) and listening
comprehension level (vL) are the two proximal causes of reading level (A L ).
Although there seems to be a great deal of agreement between Part 2
and rauding theory, there are important differences. Recall the quote from
Stanovich cited previously in this review that"... word recognition ability,
which in conjunction with listening comprehension determines reading
comprehension." This quote seems to be emphasizing processes, not a level
of knowledge such as that involved in saying that word identification level
(P L ) and listening level (vL) are the proximal causes of reading level (A L ).
It seems that Stanovich is saying that some individuals have a better pro-
cess for recognizing words, which somehow interacts with their superior
comprehension of words during listening to produce better comprehen-
sion during reading. Again, in rauding theory, there are no individual

37O

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

differences in the rauding process, which is the reading process used typi-
cally or normally by all readers. Notice that Stanovich seems to be infer-
ring individual differences in the word recognition process, the listening
comprehension process, and the reading process, which do not exist in
rauding theory. He is also not discriminating among four quite different }LR
constructs related to reading comprehension, namely, accuracy of com- Book Review
prehension during normal reading (Ar), text accuracy (A), reading level as
measured by an unspeeded test (A L ), and reading achievement as mea-
sured by a speeded test of reading comprehension (E L ). Lawfulness in read-
ing is quite difficult to discern when the above distinctions are not made.
With respect to Stanovichs phonological-core variable-difference model,
rauding theory is mostly in agreement. This PCVD model holds that "all
poor readers have a phonological deficit, but that other processing deficits
emerge as one drifts in the multidimensional space from 'pure' dyslexics
toward garden-variety poor readers" (p. 117). Rauding theory is mostly in
accordance with the PCVD model,because word identification level (P L ) is
a major causal factor affecting reading achievement (E L ), and having a pho-
nological processing deficit is often operationally defined as scoring low
on a word identification test (low P L ). Low word identification level (P L )
has a double effect on reading achievement (E L ) because it is a proximal
cause of both reading level (A L ) and rate level (R L ) - which are the two
proximal causes of reading achievement (E L ).
On the other hand, there are some important differences between the
PCVD model and rauding theory. Recall again that in rauding theory poor
readers have low levels of listening (or a disability in verbal knowledge,
i.e., low v L ), or poor readers have low levels of word identification knowl-
edge (or a disability in pronunciation level, i.e., low PL), or poor readers
have low levels of naming speed (or a disability in cognitive speed, i.e., low
c s ). This means that all poor readers do not have a disability in word
identification level (P L ) as a cause of their reading difficulty, or as a cause
of their low reading achievement. Many poor readers are average or above
in word identification level (P L ) but have disabilities in listening level ( v j
or naming speed level (c s ). Therefore, in its present form, the PCVD model
is simply wrong from the standpoint of rauding theory, because all poor
readers do not have a major problem with learning how to pronounce newly
encountered printed words that they know when listening.
What are the consequences of holding that all poor readers have a pho-
nological processing deficit with respect to pronouncing words? Research-
ers who hold this view are likely to measure speed of word recognition
under various conditions, and remedial treatments are likely to involve
word attack strategies. However, if you accept rauding theory, you are more
likely to find out first whether the poor reader has a deficit in listening

371

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 level, word identification level, or naming speed level (vL, P L , c s ), or a com-
bination of these three. The best remedial treatment depends on which of
seven possible combinations of disabilities is involved: V L ,P L ,C S ,V L P L ,V L C S ,
P L c s ,or V L P L C S . Notice that in rauding theory one does not assume that all
J LR poor readers have a disability in phonological processing, or word identi-
Carver fication level (P L ), via one of the four following possible combinations: P L ,
V L P L , P L C S , V L P L C S . Poor readers could also have one of the following three
combinations of disabilities that do not involve a phonological deficit, or
low word identification level (P L ), namely, vL, c s , or v L c s . It should be noted
that such disabilities (vL, c s , v L c s ) have been found empirically (Carver &
Clark, 1998), and these data seem to constitute evidence against the PCVD
model.
In should be pointed out that advancing an hypothesis, or a theoretical
idea, that is eventually show to be inconsistent with empirical findings is
nothing to be ashamed of in science. In fact, it is to be lauded. Making a
strong theoretical claim that seems to make sense on the basis of what is
known at the time, makes it more likely that researchers will take the trouble
to collect relevant data and eventually find out if this claim continues to
hold water or not. Stanovich articulates these general ideas about science
extremely well in Part 2. For example, he noted that "the phonological-
core variable-difference model... had most of the basic trends right but it
emphasized subword processing differences between high- and IOW-IQ
poor readers that have not borne out under further empirical scrutiny" (p.
69). The problem in science is not "getting it wrong." Instead, it is a major
problem (a) if there is no effort to find out if the ideas underlying research
and instructional practices have empirical support, or (b) if the empirical
evidence does not support an idea and this evidence is ignored.
Another major difference between rauding theory and Part 2 is the ac-
ceptance by Stanovich of the dyslexic subtypes called phonological and
surface. In rauding theory, the phonological dyslexic would likely be clas-
sified as disabled in word identification level (P L ), and not necessarily a
dyslexic at all; furthermore, the surface dyslexic would likely be classified
as disabled in listening level (vL) and not necessarily a dyslexic at all. Fi-
nally, these dyslexic subtypes used by Stanovich disregard a deficit in nam-
ing speed (disabled c s or handicapped gs), which is a part of being a severe
dyslexic in rauding theory.
This review of Part 2 will be concluded by noting a major agreement.
Stanovich appears to be collaborating the construct of raudamatized words
when he suggests that the critical problem of poor readers has something
to do with "automatic context-free word recognition" (p. 57). Recall that
raudamatized words are those words that appear in relatively easy text for

372

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

an individual, and their meaning can be recognized relatively quickly be-
cause they have been practiced so many times. In rauding theory, poor
readers (low E L for age) are likely to have fewer raudamatized words (low
A L ) and have lower speed limits for these words (low R L ) . Thus, there seems
to be much more agreement than disagreement on the importance of raud- J LR
amatized words as a key to understanding how to help a poor reader be- Book Review
come average, or a good reader.
In summary, there seems to be agreement between Part 2 and rauding
theory with respect to the importance of raudamatized words, and the
importance of low word identification level when trying to understand
why many students are poor readers. On the other hand, there is no agree-
ment that "phonological processing" is the major problem of all poor read-
ers, and there is no agreement that certain poor readers should be classi-
fied as phonological and surface subtypes of dyslexia.

Parts Three and Five

Parts 3 and 5 have much in common so they will be reviewed together. Part
3 (Chapters 9 and 10) is concerned with what Stanovich has called Mat-
thew Effects. His famous article on this subject was published in 1986 and
is reprinted as Chapter 10. His new observations are in Chapter 9. There
are two main ideas underlying Matthew Effects. First, it is the idea that bet-
ter readers keep getting better compared to poor readers so that the stan-
dard deviation of a measure of reading ability would increase each grade
of school. Second, it is the idea that the reason why good readers keep get-
ting better is because they tend to read more than poor readers; good
readers supposedly have a higher volume of reading each year and this
extra reading is what makes the good readers gain more than the poor
readers each year. Therefore, Part 3 has much in common with Part 5 which
deals with print exposure, or the effect of a high volume of reading on read-
ing ability. Part 5 has four chapters, three of which are print exposure ar-
ticles (1989,1993,1998); again, the first chapter of this part contains new
observations.
An earlier version of rauding theory was very much influenced by the
general idea that the best way to learn to read better is to read more, that is,
practicing the act of reading is likely to help a child read better. More specifi-
cally.rauding theory was greatly influenced by this 1986 article of Stanovich,
which holds that a high volume of reading is a major cause of high reading
ability. In 1990, the causal model of reading advanced as part of rauding
theory had reading volume as a proximal cause of reading level and also as
a proximal cause of rate level (Carver, 1990). However, the research that

373

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 has been conducted since 1990 has convinced me that a high volume of
reading does not necessarily result in a good reader. The research evidence
convinced me that the position occupied by volume of reading in the causal
model of reading achievement should be replaced with word identifica-
J LR tion level (P L ). So, the current causal model does not include volume of
Carver reading or print exposure. Therefore, Stanovich's ideas about print expo-
sure are in complete disagreement with model 2000 of rauding theory.
Research evidence relevant to the effects of reading volume comes from
Carver and Leibert (1995). We had children in grades 4 to 6 in a summer
reading program for 2 hours a day for 30 days. We could find no evidence
that these children gained more in reading level, rate level, or achievement
level than the children in the same school not enrolled in this program.
Curiously, Stanovich never referenced this research when he reviewed the
data relevant to volume of reading and Matthew Effects. In fact, none of
the research studies referenced by Stanovich were experimental studies
where the amount of reading was under the control of the researcher so
that the causal effect on reading achievement could be determined. All of
this research on print exposure was correlational, as was acknowledged by
Stanovich. Based on the data available, it seems equally reasonable to draw
a conclusion that is the opposite of Stanovich - being a better reader is
more likely to be a cause of a higher volume of reading. Indeed, this later
interpretation is what is held by rauding theory.
None of the research referenced by Stanovich convinced me that we
can turn poor readers into good readers by getting them to spend more
time reading library books, or that teachers will be helping their students
gain more in reading achievement during the year if they set aside an hour
a day, for example, for students to engage in free reading so that they read
library books of their own choice. According to rauding theory, a high vol-
ume of reading is not an important proximal or distal cause of high read-
ing achievement.
One caveat is in order, however. Most readers will probably increase
their reading level by reading more books written at a difficulty level equal
to their reading level, so they will get enough practice to raudamatize all
the new printed words they are learning. Yet, when most readers engage in
free reading they tend to select relatively easy texts which contain only
words they have already raudamatized (Carver, 1994; Carver & Leibert,
1995). Therefore, it seems likely that students will not improve their read-
ing level, or their reading achievement, by increasing their volume of read-
ing print,because they are likely to select relatively easy texts, which contain
no new words but instead only words that have already been raudama-
tized. According to rauding theory, a high volume of reading is not a major

374

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

factor causing high reading achievement; instead, high reading achieve-
ment is a cause of a high volume of reading because good readers ordi-
narily find reading to be a relatively easy, fast, and fun activity.
In summary, Parts 3 and 5 completely disagree with rauding theory. For
Stanovich, a high volume of reading will produce a good reader and will J LR
increase the differences between good and poor readers. In rauding theory, Book Review
encouraging children to read relatively easy texts will not help them read
better, because all of the words have already been raudamatized. On the
other hand, helping poor readers raudamatize new words will help them
become good readers, and good readers are likely to read more. Additional
correlational research will not be helpful for resolving this theoretical con-
flict, with respect to whether (a) more reading of texts causes an increase
in reading achievement, or (b) high reading achievement causes more read-
ing of texts.

Part Four
In this part, Stanovich has reprinted a 1990 article on word recognition
(Chapter 12), which he prefaces with remarks on the word recognition
"module" (Chapter 11). This part contains several agreements and several
disagreements with rauding theory.
Stanovich holds that the printed word is an important unit, or module,
in word recognition. This may sound redundant, or trite, but remember
that the particular spelling of a word was not considered very important
in the psycholinguistic guessing game associated with Goodman (1976),
Smith (1971), and the more recent whole language movement. Further-
more, the ideas originally underlying the concept of automaticity (LaBerge
& Samuels, 1974) were that it was the reading process of the individual
that becomes automatized with practice, not the individual words. That is,
better readers were supposedly able to recognize chunks of words at a time,
and that practicing fast reading might help the reader overcome the bad
habit of recognizing one word at a time. Furthermore, it was the ability to
recognize chunks of words - not just individual words - that supposedly
freed up limited attentional processes so that more time was left over for
comprehending. Notice that these original automaticity ideas are primal
for the popularity of "fluency" in reading. That is, the better readers sup-
posedly have learned to automatize their reading process and have there-
fore become fluent readers.
In Part 4, Stanovich leaves no doubt that he considers the individual
words to be automatized by each reader, and it is not the process of read-
ing chunks of words that is automatized. This means that Stanovich does

375

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 not think that some readers have automatized their reading process and
others have not; these ideas of his are therefore inconsistent with the origi-
nal concept of automaticity and are also inconsistent with the concept of
fluency. Consequently, his ideas are completely in accordance with rauding
JLR theory which holds that each individual has had to raudamatize each indi-
Carver vidual word in the sentences that comprise relatively easy text. Each word
is an important unit, or module, because the spelling of each new word
encountered in print needs to be learned and practiced enough times so
the word is recognized at the individual's own rauding rate, or rate limit.
This means that each student (a) has a lexicon of words that have been
raudamatized, (b) a lexicon of words that are in the process of being raud-
amatized, and (c) a lexicon of words that have not been raudamatized.
Stanovich has emphasized the representational quality of each word
for each reader and this translates into emphasizing the importance of
helping students learn to recognize a known word relatively fast, which is
again the concept of raudamatized words in rauding theory. Also, Stanovich
has deemphasized the concept of limited attentional resources, and this is
also completely compatible with rauding theory, because there is no strong
evidence that limited attentional resources is a major reason why many
children have low achievement in reading. If limited attention was a major
causal factor, then why is it that poor readers in sixth grade can usually
read second-grade level material and have good comprehension. Or, why
is it that we can read aloud to those poor readers in sixth grade and they
would have no difficulty comprehending relatively hard texts. If a major
cause of poor reading was limited attentional resources, then poor readers
should not be able to comprehend (a) relatively hard texts when they are
read aloud to them, or (b) relatively easy texts when they are read silently.
The problem of limited attentional resources only occurs when we give
children texts to read that contain words that have not yet been raudama-
tized. If students have to try to figure out the meaning of unknown words
in a sentence while they are trying to understand the complete thought in
the sentence, then they will have a problem with limited attentional re-
sources. However, the solution to this problem is not to try to teach poor
readers to become fluent readers so they will have greater attentional re-
sources. Instead, the solution to the problem is to help those children
raudamatize more words so they will be more likely to encounter raud-
amatized words when they are given texts to read.
By emphasizing the importance of the word and its unique spelling as a
module in reading, Stanovich has (a) undermined the original concept of
automaticity, (b) has undermined the psycholinguistic guessing game, and
(c) has undermined the concept of a fluent reader. At the same time, these
ideas of his in Part 4 are highly compatible with rauding theory.

376

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Part 4 also contains content that is not in accordance with rauding
theory. Stanovich has contended that prior research has shown that"...
word decoding skill accounted for significant additional variance in the
reading comprehension ability of adult college readers even after measures
of general intelligence, listening comprehension, sentence memory, and JLR
vocabulary were entered into a regression equation" (p. 209). Thus, Stano- Book Review
vich seems to be contending that word identification is an important cause
of high and low reading achievement in advanced readers, or college stu-
dents. In contrast, rauding theory holds that level of word identification is
no longer a causal factor in advanced readers (including most adults and
most college students). On the surface, there appears to be a major conflict
here with rauding theory, because word decoding skill is often measured
by a traditional word identification test or a traditional word attack test.
However, in the research that Stanovich refers to {Cunningham, Stanovich,
8c Wilson, 1990),"word decoding skill" was measured by a z-score average
of an accuracy measure and a rate measure. Therefore, when Stanovich
contends that word decoding skill is important in adults, you might think
that he meant a skill such as that measured by an accuracy score on a tra-
ditional word identification test that requires the correct pronunciation of
words in a difficulty-ordered list. Instead, his measure of word decoding
skill was actually a combination of skills that would correlate highly with
the average of an accuracy measure and a rate measure. And, his measure
of reading comprehension ability was speeded (Nelson-Denny Reading
Comprehension), so it was more a measure of reading achievement. None
of the measures that were entered first into his regression analysis included
rate, therefore it is not surprising that his decoding measure added to the
predictable variance as it was the only measure involving rate. That is, add-
ing a measure involving rate, would add to the prediction of a measure of
reading achievement, because rate level is a proximal cause of reading
achievement in the causal model. The use of rauding theory and its causal
model may help researchers avoid these kinds of confusions. From Stano-
vich's conclusions, it would appear that decoding may be an important
causal variable for reading achievement for advanced readers, or college
students, and this is completely contrary to rauding theory. However, a
closer examination reveals that the measure of decoding skills Stanovich
used involved an indicant of rate, and that there is no conflict at all be-
cause rate is a proximal cause of reading achievement.

In summary, the ideas of Stanovich that the word is a very important

module in reading is highly compatible with the idea of raudamatized
words in rauding theory, but these ideas of his do not provide support for
(a) the psycholinguistic guessing game, (b) the original automaticity con-
cept, or (c) the fluent reader concept. On the other hand, when Stanovich

377

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 suggests that individual differences in decoding skill is a major cause of
reading comprehension ability in adult college readers, this is in complete
disagreement with rauding theory. Yet, this disagreement can be resolved
(a) by recognizing that the decoding measure used by Stanovich and col-
J LR leagues contained an indicant of rate, and (b) by recognizing that rate is a
Carver proximal cause of "reading comprehension ability" when a speeded mea-
sure is used. The precise constructs of rauding theory can be used to show
that some disagreements, conflicts, or inconsistencies are more apparent
than real.

Part Six
In Part 6, Stanovich has included his 1991 article on intelligence and dis-
crepancy definitions of reading disability (Chapter 18). In Chapter 17, he
gives his current observations on this subject. In general, Stanovich con-
tends that IQ tests should not be used to diagnose reading disabilities or
dyslexia. This contention is completely in accordance with rauding theory.
IQ is not a proximal nor a distal cause of reading achievement (E L ) in the
causal model. Fluid intelligence, or cognitive power, as measured by the
Raven Progressive Matrices test, was a causal factor in the 1990 causal
model of rauding theory. But, subsequent research indicated that it did
not belong in the causal model, so it is not used to diagnose reading dis-
abilities or dyslexia in the current model.
Stanovich also holds that the discrepancy between listening and read-
ing is likely to provide a measure of potential, and therefore should be use-
ful for diagnostic purposes. In rauding theory, listening comprehension
level (vL) is a proximal cause of reading level (A L ), but the discrepancy
between them is not used to diagnose why some children are poor read-
ers. For example, if a student in fourth grade has a high level of listening
(vL = 6) and a lower level of reading (AL = 4), then this student must have
awordidentificationlevelthatisverylow(p,_ = 2), because reading level is
the average of listening level and word identification level. So, this student
with a high listening to reading discrepancy would be diagnosed as dis-
abled in word identification level, which was very low for the age of the
student. This means that rauding theory has incorporated these ideas of
Stanovich but has not used the discrepancy between listening level and
reading level to diagnose a disability.
In summary, Part 6 and rauding theory are in complete agreement that
IQ should not be used to diagnose reading disabilities or dyslexia. Fur-
thermore, the disagreement about whether a listening-reading discrepancy
should be used to diagnose reading problems is more apparent than real.
Rauding theory has quantified the listening-reading discrepancy and shown

378

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

that when this discrepancy exists then there has to be a disability in word
identification knowledge, that is, there has to be a low score on a word
identification test.

Part Seven ;LR

Book Review
Chapter 19, which introduces Part 7, is 32-pages long and is much longer
than any of the other introductory chapters containing new observations.
It deals primarily with the "Reading Wars" and the politics of early reading
instruction. Here we have Stanovich at his best, talking about "putting chil-
dren first by putting science first." He outlines what the most vocal and
extreme proponents of the whole language camp have advocated, and then
he systematically rebuts these ideas and practices showing them to be un-
scientific and unprofessional. He gives the following advice to teachers:

Teachers should not fall prey to facile, inaccurate straw men designed to
make the traditional correspondence view of science seem unpalatable -
seemingly leaving the teacher with the "new paradigm" embodied in ex-
treme whole language views as the only alternative. If teachers want a con-
ceptualization that recognizes that observation is theory-laden and takes
this into account, that is tentative in its knowledge claims, that recognizes
its inherent fallibility, that recognizes that phenomena are conditioned by
contexts and tries to take that into account, that uses a plethora of methods
and logics, and whose methods can be employed outside of the laboratory
as well as in, then modern science fits the bill exactly, (p. 373)

He also chides the teachers of teachers as follows:

Faculties in schools of education do have a lot to answer for. I myself would
like to know why they teach an outmoded, 30-year-old notion of a"psycho-
linguistic guessing game" that has been superseded by modern research (in-
deed, that was superseded some time ago - see Part 1). (p. 387)

He points out that it is ironic that "the primary casualties of the Reading
Wars are disadvantaged children who are not immersed in a literate envi-
ronment and who are not taught the alphabetic code - precisely the chil-
dren that progressive forces most want to aid" (p. 363).
Also contained in Part 7 is a reprint of his 1993 article in the Reading
Teacher, entitled "Romance and Reality" (Chapter 20). Chapter 21 is the
last chapter, and it is a reprint of his 1998 article in the Forty-Seventh Year-
book of the National Reading Conference, entitled "Twenty-Five Years of
Research on the Reading Process: The Grand Synthesis and What it Means
for our Field." These two articles contain reviews of research, and comprise
a fitting ending to a book entitled "Progress in Understanding Reading."

379

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 Concluding Comments

Keith E. Stanovich is undoubtedly the most prolific and most cited reading
researcher in the 20th century. His contributions to our understanding of
J LR reading, via his empirical research studies and his syntheses of research,
Carver are enormous; these contributions should be appreciated immensely by
the reading research community. His strong advocacy of the scientific
approach to the understanding of reading, and his articulation of what the
scientific approach entails, deserves a standing ovation. This book sum-
marizes his past contributions, summarizes his current views, and pro-
vides the field with many ideas that deserve to be scrutinized and tested -
frontiers to be explored.
In the frontiers of the 21st century, will we continue to assume that poor
readers have some kind of cognitive malfunction in their reading process,
or will we accept an opposing paradigm that poor readers execute exactly
the same reading process as good readers when both are reading relatively
easy texts? Will we agree that all poor readers have a phonological deficit,
or will we decide that there are some poor readers who only have a deficit
in listening and other poor readers who only have a deficit in naming speed?
Will we agree that almost all children would learn to read better if teachers
would devote an hour a day to free reading, or will we decide that a higher
volume of reading relatively easy texts causes little or no gain in reading
achievement? Will we continue to measure an individual's level of reading
comprehension using both unspeeded and speeded measures without
making a distinction, or are we more likely to find extremely lawful rela-
tionships in reading if we make distinctions among reading level, reading
achievement, accuracy of text comprehension, and accuracy of compre-
hension during normal reading? Will we make better progress in under-
standing reading disabilities and dyslexia using such concepts as listen-
ing-reading discrepancy, phonological dyslexics, surface dyslexics, and
garden-variety poor readers, or will we make more progress using the pre-
cise definitions of disabilities and dyslexia found in rauding theory? Will
we learn more about reading by using such concepts as fluent readers and
less-skilled readers, or will the more precisely defined constructs of ad-
vanced readers and poor readers serve us better? These are some of the
new frontiers that Stanovich has brought to the forefront, from the view-
point of rauding theory.
This book by Keith E. Stanovich containing theoretical ideas and em-
pirical findings superbly illustrates how science is the best tool we have for
understanding reading and eventually helping all students learn to read
better. It also includes much more richness in the form of theoretical in-

380

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

sights and reviews of research than this short commentary could begin to
capture adequately. Thanks a million for another big contribution, Keith.

REFERENCES
J LR
Carver, R.P. (1990). Reading rate: A review of research and theory. New York: Aca- Book Review
demic Press.
Carver, R.P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a func-
tion of the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 26, 413-437.
Carver, R.P. (1997). Reading for one second, one minute, or one year from the
perspective of rauding theory. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1 (1), 3-43.
Carver, R.P. (2000a). The causes of high and low reading achievement. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Carver, R.P. (2000b). How will literacy be defined? Reading Research Quarterly,
35, 67-68.
Carver, R.P., & Clark, S.W. (1998). Investigating reading disabilities using the
rauding diagnostic system. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 (5), 143-174.
Carver, R.P., & David, A.H. (2001). Investigating reading achievement using a causal
model. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (2), 107-140.
Carver, R.P., & Leibert, R.E. (1995). The effect of reading library books at different
levels of difficulty upon gain in reading ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,
26-48.
Cunningham, A.E., Stanovich, K.E., & Wilson, M.R. (1990). Cognitive variation in
adult college students differing in reading ability. In T.H. Carr & B.A. Levy (Eds.),
Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 129-159). New
York: Academic Press.
Goodman, K.S. (1976). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In. H. Singer
& R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 497-
508). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974).Toward a theory of automatic information pro-
cessing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

381

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
 BOOK REVIEW

Cassie Schultz Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Com-

UNIVERSITY OF munity. David Barton and Mary Hamilton, 1998.
WISCONSIN AT New York: Routledge (29 West 35th Street, New
MADISON York, NY 10001). Softcover, 299 pages.

Local Literacies is an ethnography about the cul-

tural practices of literacy in one working-class
community (Springside) in Lancaster, England.
Through this study, Barton and Hamilton link
literacy to a more general understanding of the
social practices of the community, emphasizing
how literacy is embedded in people's daily lives.
These everyday literacies, or vernacular literacies
as Barton and Hamilton call them, are learned
informally, rarely separated from use and reflect
the logic of practical application. Moreover, the
vernacular literacies are more than an individual
activity; they also serve as a vital community re-
source.
Believing that people's orientations to and uses
of literacy are an important part of literacy learn-
ing, the authors seek to uncover the strategies of
learning new literacies and to create a space for
alternative discourses surrounding the issues
of literacy. Barton and Hamilton's ethnographic
approach not only provides a useful tool for re-
searchers and educators interested in community

J LR
V. 33 NO. 2
2001
PP. 383-388

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 literacy, but their study makes room for new ways of thinking about lit-
eracy, exploring connections between vernacular literacies, school-based
literacies and learning.
The book is presented in three parts. The first part consists of four chap-
J LR ters that lay the foundation for "telling the tale" (p. xvi). The first chapter
Schultz introduces the authors' social theory of literacy that serves as the theoreti-
cal framework for their ethnographic study. Barton and Hamilton lay out
six propositions that frame their concept of literacy as a social practice (p.
7): (a) Literacy is best understood as a set of social practices; these can be
inferred from events that are mediated by written texts; (b) there are differ-
ent literacies associated with different domains of life; (c) literacy practices
are patterned by social institutions and power relationships, and some lit-
eracies become more dominant, visible, and influential than others; (d)
literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in broader social goals
and cultural practices; (e) literacy is historically situated; and (f) literacy
practices change, and new ones are frequently acquired through processes
of informal learning and sense making.
These propositions identify Barton and Hamilton as part of the second
generation of the New Literacy Studies. The groundbreaking studies of
Scribner and Cole (1981), Heath (1983), and Street (1984) came in reac-
tion to earlier theories that treated literacy as an autonomous skill that led
to predictable outcomes, both social and cognitive. These studies exposed
the misconceptions of the oral-literate divide, setting the stage for a sec-
ond generation of research, such as Barton and Hamilton's, which extends
and complicates the concept that literacy is a set of cultural practices whose
form and function are shaped by contexts - social, political, historical,
material, and ideological. In their ethnography, Barton and Hamilton il-
lustrate the validity of these propositions by making the daily practice of lit-
eracies , both vernacular and dominant (formal institutionally controlled
literacies, such as school-based literacies), visible.
After a historical sketch of literacy in Lancaster from the mid 1600s
through the 19 0 0 s (Chapter 2) and a description of Lancaster today (Chap-
ter 3), Barton and Hamilton present their methodology in Chapter 4. They
walk the reader through their approach to research, identifying their mo-
tivation for selecting methods, their process of selecting and collecting
data and the framework for their analysis. By clearly revealing their meth-
odology, they provide an example that other researchers may use.
As such, Local Literacies may serve as a handbook for researchers, edu-
cators and students. By incorporating features such as "Asides" (e.g., par-
ticipants' stories, crucial local statistics, syntheses of related research from
other fields), Barton and Hamilton provide valuable insights into their in-
terpretation of the ethnography without muddling the narrative. Similarly,

384

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

the appendices offer practical applications of insights from their ethnog-
raphy. Not only do they provide information about how research was con-
ducted, they also make links to how this research can be translated to the
classroom. For example, in Appendix 4: Research into Practice, Barton and
Hamilton provide examples of different ways they have applied aspects of JLR
this study in the classroom, ranging from using a collection of Asides as Book Review
starting points for discussions to building frameworks for activities in
which students (e.g., preservice teachers or anyone interested literacy re-
search) may begin research in a literacy domain of their choice.
The second section of the book consists of four chapters, each chapter
focusing on an in-depth profile of an individual's "literacy life and his-
tory." Just as they embed present-day Lancaster within its historical con-
text, the authors discuss the participants' literacy lives in terms of each one
of their personal histories, providing the participants' own words talking
about literacy issues. The chapters focus on themes that emerged through-
out each case study. At the end of each chapter, the authors provide an
interpretation of how literacy fits into the life of each participant. A no-
table feature of these interpretations is that the participants' literacy prac-
tices are not described as fixed and finite; rather Barton and Hamilton imply
that as the participants' lives change, their literacy practices also change.
The power of these case studies lies in the ways Barton and Hamilton show
literacy as subtly interwoven with the many aspects of an individual's daily
life. Literacy is not an independent force that alters these people's lives.
Rather literacy is an activity that blends into their lives and is adapted to
connect them to different parts of the community.
Whereas the second part of the book focuses on literacy practices of
the individuals through separate case studies, the third part of the book
integrates information from all aspects of their study, including data from
interviews at an adult college, surveys from Lancaster, neighborhood in-
terviews, and observations of the town, as well as from many community
groups. This third part places their findings within their social theory of
literacy and widens the perspective of current literature on literacy research
by exposing the many strategies of vernacular literacies, which can be used
both in conjunction with as well as in contrast to dominant literacies, that
are formal institutionally controlled literacies.
One such example is in their discussion of educational support at home.
Barton and Hamilton adapt a framework from Hannon (1995) that iden-
tifies four forms of educational support that parents provide for young chil-
dren learning to read at home: opportunities, recognition, interaction,
models (ORIM). Hannon designed this framework to describe parental
support in terms that would influence teachers' thinking about how par-
ents could contribute to the school's aims. Barton and Hamilton extend

385

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 this framework to examine how the participants in their study promoted
literacies in the home. For instance, Barton and Hamilton use the ORIM
framework to examine different literacy practices, some validated in school
(reading aloud) and others not (writing fan letters), and how different fam-
J LR ily members aligned themselves with the school-based literacies, whereas
Schultz others did not. By providing this analysis of home practices, Barton and
Hamilton not only illustrate the differences between the development of
vernacular and the dominant school-based literacies, but also the manner
in which these different literacy practices are valued or not valued.
In the third section, the authors move from the level of individual lit-
eracy practice to the level of literacy as a community resource by clarify-
ing the connections between individuals and groups and by revealing how
literacy practices are intertwined in these connections. They b egin by docu-
menting the range of literacy practices within Springside, pointing out the
diversity of the practices within this range. Then they discuss patterns of
literacy that occurred within the community, dedicating one chapter to
each of the three patterns they found: (a) literacy as a family resource, (b)
literacy as a collective organizational resource in which they discuss the
layers of connection between literacies, and (c) literacy as a resource for
sense making.
In discussing the literacies involved in becoming an expert in any do-
main, Barton and Hamilton explore the issue of vernacular knowledge.
Vernacular knowledge has significant local dimensions because it is spe-
cific to its locality. The examples of how participants in their study gained
local expertise provide insights into the connections between informal
learning strategies and ordinary participation in human activities. In gain-
ing local expertise, both the knowledge and learning is situated. Corrobo-
rating Chaiklin and Lave (1993), they state,

situated activity involves changes in knowledge and action and these changes
are central to what we mean by learning: participating in activities is engag-
ing in learning; learning is effectively people's changing participation in
culturally designed settings of life, or as we prefer to call them, events, (p. 243)

Furthermore, the study addresses the issue of what is culturally valued

knowledge. Several participants in the study, skeptical of professional ex-
perts in fields such as medicine, law, or education, became themselves lo-
cal experts and experienced a new sense of empowerment. One woman in
the study had her house broken into and consequently learned the time-
consuming literacy practices of insurance claims. Not only was this knowl-
edge, which was embedded in a dominant institutional literacy, not readily
accessible to her, but she was required to master it under stressful condi-
tions. However, this woman eventually gained enough procedural knowl-

386

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

edge of the literacy practices to become a great resource for the commu-
nity in terms of insurance claims. As Gee (1992) points out, although local
experts may never be legitimate members of a professional discourse com-
munity (in this case, those officially working for the insurance company,
in other words, the insurance experts), they can offer the possibility of de- JLR
veloping alternative discourse communities to those of the professional Book Review
experts. These local experts in the community may then become sources
of authority in their own right, strengthening the vernacular knowledge of
the community. Thus, in this way, literacy practices gained by becoming a
local expert may become integral links in a community.
In the traditional writing style of ethnographies, Barton and Hamilton
present "the tale" of the local literacies of Lancaster. This ethnographic
approach tends to lead the reader through all the details, allowing each
reader, in the end, to come to their own conclusions based on the presen-
tation of data and analyses. In my opinion, the power of this work rests in
Barton and Hamilton's ability to make visible the vernacular practices and
the vital connections they have with community life. By controlling the
literacy practices of a community, the social relations of the community
are also controlled. Barton and Hamilton point out that "there is greater
regulation and surveillance of social practices, especially in terms of en-
croachment of the professional into the private realm of the family" (p.
261). Examples they provide from their data, such as state-intervention
family literacy programs, illustrate the homogenizing forces of the domi-
nant literacy practices in diminishing some vernacular literacy practices.
Barton and Hamilton show that this regulation is "rooted not in an appre-
ciation of vernacular practices but rather in the views of schools and
policymakers about the kind of support that families should provide their
children with" (p. 263).
One area that needs more investigation is what Barton and Hamilton
refer to as "negotiated literacies" (p. 254). In general, they have contrasted
vernacular literacies with dominant literacies in the ways that they are
learned and used. Because vernacular literacies are not institutionally con-
trolled, they tend to be "voluntary and self-generated, rather than imposed
externally" (p. 253), Often they embody a different set of values from domi-
nant literacies. However, in examining the literacy of networks, for example
the literacy practices involved in making a welfare claim, this simple di-
chotomy does not explain some of the literacies that are integral to the
social relations of the community but that are not reciprocal. They liken
this type of literacy to Finch and Mason's study (1993) of how responsi-
bilities are negotiated between members of extended families. Although
the role of negotiated literacies is still unclear, it is evident that it is an area
that needs to be explored.

387

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 In conclusion, Barton and Hamilton have provided evidence of the ways
that vernacular practices bind communities together, as well as how the
erosion of other vernacular literacy practices reshape community life. Their
ethnographic approach provides a framework for others interested in pur-
JLR suing these issues in other communities. By seeing dominant literacies
Schuhz through the lens of vernacular literacies, Barton and Hamilton have brought
a new perspective to the kind of work that needs to be done to build bridges
between communities and institutions.

REFERENCES
Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1993). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activ-
ity and context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Finch, J., & Mason, J. (1993). Negotiating/amity responsibilities. London: Tavistock/
Routledge.
Gee, J. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York
Bergin & Garvey.
Hannon, P. (1995). Literacy, home, and school: Research and practice in teaching
literacy with parents. London: Falmer.
Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (19 81). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA : Harvard
University Press.
Street, B. (1984) Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.

388

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016