Understanding Children Development from Literacy Perspective: Critique of Competing Theories

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to construct theoretically informed argument on how literacy as a discipline views children development. In particular, this paper addresses stages of reading development, examine its gap, and draw an alternative explanation upon literacy processing theory. Children development has been discussed from various lens, including health, education, science, and psychology. Research continue to discover children development as the foundation of other disciplines that bring direct and indirect impacts on the sense of self. However, less attention has been given to the understanding of children development from literacy perspective. I argue that literacy as a discipline conceptualize children development in a distinct perspective that considers children's cognitive, social, and psychological factors as pivotal domains for development.

Full text

The 1
st
International Conference on Public Health
Universitas Teuku Umar, 18 November 2019
ISSN: 2714-7045 63
Understanding Children Development from Literacy Perspective: Critique of
Competing Theories
Firman Parlindungan
Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Teuku Umar
Email: firman@utu.ac.id
Abstract: The objective of this paper is to construct theoretically informed argument on how
literacy as a discipline views children development. In particular, this paper addresses stages
of reading development, examine its gap, and draw an alternative explanation upon literacy
processing theory. Children development has been discussed from various lens, including
health, education, science, and psychology. Research continue to discover children
development as the foundation of other disciplines that bring direct and indirect impacts on
the sense of self. However, less attention has been given to the understanding of children
development from literacy perspective. I argue that literacy as a discipline conceptualize
children development in a distinct perspective that considers children’s cognitive, social, and
psychological factors as pivotal domains for development.
Keywords: children development, literacy, reading development, reading stages
Introduction
In 1960s and 1970s, theories of learning were dominated by Piaget’s notion of
children’s thinking and learning. According to Piaget, (as cited in Wood, 1998), children’s
action and self-directed problem solving are crucial for learning and development. This theory
provided universal stages of human development, which explains that when and how a child
is ready to learn and develop specific forms of knowledge and understanding. A child might
not be able to learn and develop at a later stage if he has not passed through a previous stage.
Chall (1983) based her scheme of reading stages on Piagetian view of development.
The central feature of Piaget theory is the proposition that children’s thinking is distinct in
maturation. All individuals develop thoughts or skills through the same sequence of stages. A
child might construct his or her own understanding of natural phenomena with or without the
help of others, but learning only occurs when he or she has assimilated and accommodated the
object being learned. However, development is constrained by the child’s intellectual
capabilities which means that children’ skills in one stage is prerequisite for a higher stage. It
indicates that learning experience or instruction follows his or her stage or in other words,
development drives the instruction. Informed by this notion of development, Chall theorized
that children’s literacy development also depends upon the individual interaction and
environment following a sequence of stages.
In contrast, dynamic systems theory viewed development as the emergent product of
local interactions that occur in real time. It emphasized that development is dynamic and is
attached to nonlinearity, context variability, continuity, and change. According to Thelen and
Corbetta (2002), dynamic systems theory lies under assumptions that (1) behavior, at any
level of analysis, is the cooperative assembly of multiple, contributing components, including
both those that are part of the organism and those that constitute the environment in which the
organism resides. (2) Self-organized patterns exist continually in time such that behavioral
configuration seen. (3) for dynamic system to change is unstable (relative stability). In
addition, Siegler (1996) theorized overlapping waves theory in which children typically use
multiple approaches over prolonged periods of time (multiple ways of thinking at each point
in time).

The 1
st
International Conference on Public Health
Universitas Teuku Umar, 18 November 2019
ISSN: 2714-7045 64
Clay (2001), on the other hand, coined literacy processing theory that readers make a
series of decision about what a text says. Such decisions are influenced by knowledge sources
and working system that individual has. If the act of reading is conceptualized as readers’
response to the text, what they do during reading can be varied, even when they are in one
stage. Clay (2001) argued that when children read texts, they link everything they know from
different knowledge sources (visual, auditory/phonological, movement, speaking/articulating,
and knowledge of the language). This act of reading involves problem-solving activity, which
uses different knowledge sources and makes different decision to respond to the text. It is in
line with Rumelhart (1994) who argued that reading is not simply bottom-up process, from
decoding-to-meaning, it involves “simultaneous joint application of all the knowledge
sources” (p. 732).
There has been a fruitful intellectual dialogue among experts in the field of reading on
how children development is viewed (see e.g. Chall, 1983; Singer, 1994; Clay, 2001;
Rumelhart, 1994). The dialogue includes an effort to explain how changes of children’s
reading skills might occur. However, a good theory of reading process should explain
differential progress, role of teachers or caregivers, what is happening when reading, progress
from novice – proficient, and change over time. In this paper, I would like to address stages of
reading development proposed by Chall (1983), examine its gap, and draw an alternative
explanation upon literacy processing theory proposed by Clay (2001).
Discussion
Chall’s Scheme of Reading Stages
Chall (1983) based her scheme of reading stages on Piagetian view of development.
The central feature of Piaget theory is the proposition that children’s thinking is distinct in
maturation. All individuals develop thoughts or skills through the same sequence of stages. A
child might construct his or her own understanding of natural phenomena with or without the
help of others, but learning only occurs when he or she has assimilated and accommodated the
object being learned. However, development is constrained by the child’s intellectual
capabilities which means that children’ skills in one stage is prerequisite for a higher stage. It
indicates that learning experience or instruction follows his or her stage or in another word,
development drives the instruction. Informed by this notion of development, Chall mentioned
that children literacy development also depends upon the individual interaction and
environment following the same sequence of stages.
According to Chall (1983), there are six reading stages with qualitative characteristics
in each stage. It should be noted that skills acquired in the previous stage presuppose skills the
next stage. For example, skills in Stage 1, such as relating print to speech, noticing a mistake,
and knowing functions of letters, are necessary conditions for Stage 2. Now the overarching
question is what are the distinctive features in each stage? In the following, I explain the
nature of change in each stage which shows qualitative characteristics of what changes occur
and how.
Stage 0 is prereading where children start growing control over syntax and words, and
accumulating a fund of knowledge about letters, words, and books. Growth in reading then
can take place at home and preschool years. The more children are exposed to print, the better
reading development they will have. The second is Stage 1, which is initial reading or
decoding. In this stage, children start learning set of letters and associating them with the
sounds. They also learn the function of letters and notice a mistake. The end goal of this stage
is gaining insights about the spelling system. In order to advance, children should let go of
pseudo-reading, and have to engage more in prints in more mature behavior. The third is
Stage 2 or confirmation, fluency, ungluing from print. Children in this stage typically

The 1
st
International Conference on Public Health
Universitas Teuku Umar, 18 November 2019
ISSN: 2714-7045 65
concentrate on high frequency words, learn more complex phonic elements and
generalizations. They also use context in reading and gain fluency and speed. Children in this
stage need an environment that allows them having more opportunities to read as many as
familiar books.
The fourth stage is Stage 3 or reading for learning the new. In this stage children focus
on reading to learn by relating print to ideas. They start growing word meanings and applying
prior knowledge and experience to the print. The change in this stage occurs when students
acquired critical reading skills; abilities to analyze different ideas in reading and respond
critically to those ideas. The fifth stage is Stage 4 or multiple viewpoints. The qualitative
characteristic in this stage is that children are able to deal with multiple points of view like
facts or concepts. In this stage, children develop more advance critical abilities. Typically,
children in this stage learn through formal education where they gain more information from
textbooks, assignments, and other sources. The last stage is Stage 5 or construction and
reconstruction a worldview. In this stage, children become more selective on what to read and
not. They also construct knowledge for themselves based on their analysis, synthesis, and
judgment.
To this end, Chall (1983) has provided insights on how Piagetian’s view of
development works for reading. She nicely visualized and described reading development into
a staircase model, which might become general explanation for reading research and practice.
However, since cognitive development deals with what is happening in the head, a little is
known from Chall’s scheme about individual differences. Are there variations in progress?
This question also leads to the inconclusive explanation about the role of knowledgeable
others. Does instruction matter? Does what is happening between the heads account for
change in children reading development?
In her pioneer research, “the reading behavior of five year old children”, Clay (1967)
argued that children development in learning is no longer relevant to the structured
developmental stages as proposed by preceding experts on reading readiness. The social
contexts of children, cultures, and individual differences also affect greatly how children
progress in learning. Clay challenged the hypothesis that children “grow first, read later”, and
she proposed the idea of “natural way to learn”. A notion in which a child is an active agent
and language user and that environment or adults may affect children to develop from what
they have already known. She underlined that “children came to school with very different
behavior repertoires and individually different strengths and weaknesses” (p. 24).
Individual Differences
According to Chall’s scheme of reading stages (1983), children who are stuck in a
stage might need help to proceed through the next stage, so they can keep the pace with the
rest of the class. For example, if a child is stuck in Stage 1, initial reading, due to lack of
exposure and experience gained from Stage 0, he or she might not be able to cope with Stage
2 or 3. However, it indicates that we cannot prescribe a sequence of learning for all children to
pass through the same stages because there are individual differences that we need to
consider. Although Chall did not comprehensively address individual differences in her
scheme of reading stages, children’ individual histories are indeed different from one another.
If the act of reading is conceptualized as readers’ response to the text, what they do during
reading can be varied, even when they are in one stage. Clay (2001) argued that when
children read texts, they link everything they know from different knowledge sources (visual,
auditory/phonological, movement, speaking/articulating, and knowledge of the language).
This act of reading involves problem-solving activity, which uses different knowledge sources
and makes different decision to respond to the text. It is in line with Rumelhart (1994) who

The 1
st
International Conference on Public Health
Universitas Teuku Umar, 18 November 2019
ISSN: 2714-7045 66
argued that reading is not simply bottom-up process, from decoding-to-meaning, it involves
“simultaneous joint application of all the knowledge sources” (p. 732).
Moreover, Chall (1983) hypothesized that “individuals progress through the stages by
interacting with their environment – the home, school, larger community, and culture” (p. 11).
Considering interaction with the environment, which is different from child to child, it is
inevitably difficult to approve that children follow the same sequence of stages. For example,
children’ oral language skills and exposure to literacy activities at early ages are derived from
different environments, which then accounted for different later literacy development. It
should be noted that oral language skills are not something that will fade away over time. It
will develop in accordance to the literacy skills because, according to Clay (2001), oral
language is as resource to develop reading and writing which is not simply about letter-sound
relationships and vocabulary mastery. In addition, home and community cultures also craft
children knowledge about the world differently. What students bring to the text then are also
varied if we consider together individual difference in knowledge about literacy and
knowledge about the world, especially in early stage of reading. If the students’ problem is
lack of experiences and exposures to literacy, what we need to do is giving them broad
opportunities to read and write stories at an appropriate difficulty level, which then will
broaden their ways of making decisions in each knowledge source (Clay, 2001).
Role of Knowledgeable Others
As mentioned earlier that in Chall’s scheme of reading stages (1983), instruction is
matched by the stages of children reading development. This view of development puts
instruction in limited access to foster learning, that teaching children above their stage level
cannot facilitate learning. Clay (2001), however, challenged this notion that instruction should
wait for development. She contend that “children begin to read or write using very simple
‘working systems’ borrowed at first from different kinds of learning prior to school which
have to be adapted for these novel activities” (p. 96). The working system and knowledge
source will be developed overtime with appropriate instruction. Teachers need to provide
texts in the child’s working system and at the same time challenge him or her to change over
time. It means that instruction can lift children up by providing materials that are slightly
challenging and suitable language of instruction (i.e. prompts) regardless of what stages they
are at.
Clay (2001) suggested that children develop reading and writing in co-construction
with knowledgeable adults. Learning itself is transformed by gaining children’ attention and
effort, and provide helpful information in response to what they are able to do. Teachers can
teach children to attend to visible items of reading (e.g. printed letters, words) by asking them
to read in isolation. Teachers can also prompt children to attend to invisible items (e.g.
phonological, structural, semantic) by asking questions, such as ‘Would that make sense?’ for
meaning, or ‘Can we say it that way?’ for structure. Development in this view does not solely
drive instruction. Instead, instruction is the heart of development, which is in line with
Vygotskian perspective of development as cited in Wood (1998) that intelligence itself is the
capacity to learn through instruction.
To this end, it seems that language used in instruction for Clay (2001) is crucial as it
might solidify learning and thought. Language is not only a tool for instruction, but also as a
mean by which self-regulation comes about (Wood, 1998). The interaction during reading as
mentioned earlier, for example, serves as an instrument for teachers to understand what is
happening in the head of the children when reading the text. Teachers’ language guide
students to attend to various knowledge sources and problem-solve the text they are reading.
In addition, the language also plays a role as a medium of learning that reflects what is
happening between the heads (the child and the teacher) which then form thinking. For

The 1
st
International Conference on Public Health
Universitas Teuku Umar, 18 November 2019
ISSN: 2714-7045 67
instance, a child might not have the language and strategy of rereading if the teacher does not
prompt him or her to do so as a strategy to self-monitor. Again, language and its influence in
thinking, which then in development, is the basis for understanding concept during instruction
which might become thought.
Conclusions
In this part, I draw some recommendations to modify Chall’s scheme of reading stages
(1983) and provide summary of the discussion above. As explained previously, Chall has
shed light on how Piaget’s view of cognitive development looks like in reading development.
Although she claimed that “the scheme focuses on what goes on in the person and in the
environment to bring about reading development in each of the successive stages” (p. 10).
There is still inconclusive explanation about what is happening in the head of a person when
reading the text and how changes vary across individuals. Chall’s scheme of reading stages
might also neglect the role of knowledgeable others in instruction.
As such, it would be more helpful if Chall could consider individual differences more
thoroughly as Clay did (2001). If stages do exist, and staying in one stage can cause delay to
the next stage due to lack of exposure and experience to literacy, is not this concept of
readiness itself of what cause the delay to print? If children indeed have different
opportunities and experience to literacy, then we should come to a consensus that each child
takes different path to develop reading skills. How much exposures and experiences a child
might need is varied. Furthermore, instead of focusing instruction on a prescribed learning
activities and lesson in a particular stage, it would be more helpful to focus on source of
information of what children could do, challenge them, and help them to develop. We should
not narrow instruction at the level of providing literacy experiences and materials only.
Instruction should be broaden to allow children having massive opportunities to literacy. If
interaction and environment matter for reading development, then children interaction with
knowledgeable others in a particular instructional setting should be considered crucial,
especially their use of language that might influence thinking.
In summary, I have discussed in this paper competing theory of reading development.
I draw upon Clay’s (2001) literacy processing theory to describe gap in Chall’s scheme of
reading stages. Chall based her view of development on Piagetian perspective, while Clay
considered Vygotski’s notion of development. There are at least two gaps in Chall’s scheme
of reading stages. Chall did not explain comprehensively individual differences and variation
in progress to account for what is happening in the head. In addition, Chall places instruction
not as an instrument that drives development. Instead, instruction should be matched by the
development. Clay (2001) challenged Chall’s reading stages by providing insights on how
individual differences influence greatly our understanding of development that not every child
follows to the same sequence of stages. There are many factors of individual differences like
knowledge sources, working systems, cultures, experiences and exposures to literacy, should
be taken into account. Clay also argued that instruction should not wait for development.
Teachers’ role or knowledgeable others is important to lift up children to the next level of
development. By providing texts that are slightly challenging and proper prompts can foster
students learning of literacy.
References
Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Clay, M. (1967). The reading behavior of five-year-old children: A research report. New
Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 2(1), 11-31.

The 1
st
International Conference on Public Health
Universitas Teuku Umar, 18 November 2019
ISSN: 2714-7045 68
Clay, M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. North Shore, NZ:
Heinemann Education.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J.
Unrau, & R. B. Rudell (Eds.), Theoritical models and process of reading (6
th
ed.). (pp.
719-747). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Singer, H. (1994). The substrata-factor theory of reading. In R.B. Ruddell, M. R. Rudell, & H.
Singer (Eds.), Theoritical models and processes of reading (4
th
ed.). (pp. 1149-1179).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn: The social context of cognitive development.
Oxford: Blackwell.