Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(2), 2009, 38-56

Copyright 2010. Division for Culturally & Linguistically Diverse

Excepiinal Learners of the Council for Exceptional Children

Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy:

School-based Strategies for Closing the
Achievement
-

'

ABSTRACT

JIM CUMMINS
The University of Toronto

Despite ongoing concern about the underachievement of low-income and culturally and
'
linguistically diverse (CLD) students, there has been little focus on the kinds of pedagogy
required to reverse this underachievement. Pedagogical approaches have been increasingly
transmission-oriented, focusing on preparing students for high-stakes testing. Such approaches ignore the socioeconomic and sociopolitical roots of underachievement as well as
research highlighting literacy engagement as a strong predictor of literacy achievement. The
Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy frameworks presented here locate CLD students '
underachievement within societal power relations and highlight the negotiation of identity
between teachers and students as a central means of creating contexts of empowerment.
Heuristic tools educators can use to critically assess their own practice and to articulate
potentially productive pedagogical directions are discussed.

In the United States, educators and policymakers

have concerned themselves since the 1960s with
closing the achievement gap between low-income
and higher-income students. Tbe income distribution overlaps significantly with ethnic/racial
distinctions such that underachievement is concentrated among African American, Latino/Latina.
and Native American students (Berliner. 2009). The
most recent initiative aimed at closing the achievement gap was the Bush administration's Reading
First program that pumped $6 billion into interventions designed to improve reading achievement
among low-income elementary school students.
Like most initiatives that preceded it, Reading First
appears to have produced relatively little tangible
impact. For example, the Reading First Impact
Study (Gamse et al.. 2008) reported some evidence
of improvement in decoding skills at Grade I. but
no impact on reading comprehension performance
at Grades 1,2, or 3.

Part of the reason why educational initiatives to

combat underachievement among low-income and
culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learners
have met with minimal success is that educational
interventions alone do little to address the socioeconomic realities that contribute to underachievement. Low income is associated with a variety of
factors that directly affect students' educational
prospects such as limited access to prenatal care,
lower quality nutrition, exposure to lead, less access to books and computers, etc. (Anyon, 2005;
Berliner. 2009; Kozo!. 2005; Rothstein. 2004).
Anyon (2005) highlighted the futility of educational
initiatives that ignore the link between economic
conditions and educational achievement:
As education policymakers and practitioners,
we can acknowledge and act on the power of
urban poverty, low-wage work, and housing
segregation to dwarf most curricular. pedagogical, and other educational reforms. The

Multiple Voices. 11(2), Spring 2009

effects of macroeconomic policies continually

trump the effects of education policies. (Anyon,
2005. p. 83)
Further evidence of the impact of socioeconomic
variables is seen in the fact that interventions to
address these factors produce educational benefits. Detailed reviews by Rotbstein (2004) and
Berliner (2009) highlight extensive evidence that
nonschool interventions such as increasing family
income, etisuring adequate nutrition, provision of
prenatal and general health care were associated
wiih increased cognitive ability and/or academic
achievement among low-income students. Tbe negative impact of s(Koeconomic variables on educational achievement is exacerbated by systematic
discrimination against low-income communities
in the provision of educational .services. The disparity in funding between schools in high-income
and low-income areas, despite federal and state
compensatory programs, is one obvious example
(Ko/ol, 2(K)5).
Socioeconomic and educational disparities,
associated with ethnicity and race, reflect tbe pattern of power and status relations in tbe broader
scKiety. Societal power relations are reflected not
only in the structures of schooling (e.g.. per-pupil
funding, curriculum, assessment, language of instruction, etc.), but also in the forms of pedagogy
and classroom interactions experienced by lowincome and CLD students. This was documented
many years ago by research in the Southwestern
U.S., which reported that Euro-American students
were praised or encouraged 36% more often than
Mexican-American students and tbeir classroom
contributions were used or built upon 40% more
frequently than those of Mexican-American sttidents
(U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1973). More
recently. Neiinian and Celano (2(X)I) reported tbat
students from middle-income communities had
significantly greater access to print in tbeir schools
than did students from lower-income communities.
An implication of the documented impact of
socioeconomic variables on students' educational
achievement is that a significant proportion of
students who are classified as requiring special
education services are underachieving as a consequence of tbe social, environmental, and educational environment they have experienced in their
early development. For many students, the roots of

Multiple Voices, I}{2), Spring 2(X)9

educational difficulties are not intrinsically located

within them as individuals or in their communities, but in the social environment within which
their communities exist and in wbicb they have developed. In other words, societal power relations
are directly relevant to understanding why some
groups of students experience academic difficulties
and disproportionate special education referrals,
and to discussions about the kinds of intervention
that might be appropriate for students with special
needs (struggling learners and students with disabilities).
Tbere is clear evidence tbat the increase in highstakes standardized testing brought about by the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act , togetber with
tbe imposition of teacher-centered (and frequently
scripted) direct instruction on schools receiving
Reading First iunds, has exacerbated the preexisting pedagogical divide between low-income
and higher-income students (Cummins. 2007).
The greater challenge and pressure to demonstrate
adequate yearly progress in low-income schools
as compared to schools in more affluent areas has
resulted in teaching to the test and greater focus
on drill-and-practice instructional activities. Ironically, initiatives ostensibly designed to close the
achievement gap may have further increased the
disparity in quality of educational experiences between low-income and affluent students.
This raises the issue of what pedagogical
principles are supported by the scientific research on academic achievement among lowincome and CLD students. The Reading First
focus on direct instruction involving the transmission of content and skills has lost considerable credibility as a result of the failure of tbis
approach to demonstrate any impact on reading comprehension (Gamse et al.. 2008). That
tbe impact of societal power relations and social
variables more generally were ignored by NCLB
and Reading First, as well as by most previous
attempts at educational reform, reflects the inadequacy of the claims that these approaches
were "scientifically-based".
In this paper. I synthesize a set of pedagogical
principles that are consistent with tbe empirical
data on the causes of underachievement and that
have scientific credibility with respect to their potential impact on low-income and CLD students"

39

literacy engagement and academic achievement.

My goal is not to generate a single pedagogical
framework to guide educational change and school
improvement but. rather, to create a set of heuristic
tools that educators at the school level can use to
both critically assess their own practice and to articulate potentially productive pedagogical directions to pursue, either individually or collectively.
In the initial section, I sketch some of the relationships between research, theory, policy and practice
to correct misconceptions that have marginalized
the relevance of qualitative research and the role
of theory in guiding policy.

RESEARCH, THEORY, POLICY,

AND PRACTICE
WHAT KINDS OE RESEARCH ARE
RELEVANT TO POLICY?
Educational policy-making in the United States
and elsewhere has been dominated in recent years
by the perspective that oniy quantitative research is
relevant to policy and only experimental and quasiexperimental studies can generate causal inferences
about the effect of a treatment or instructional program. Thus, the National Reading Panel (NRP;
2000) regarded as "scientific" only experimental
or quasi-experimental studies of reading, omitting
a vast amount of equally relevant non-experimental
and qualitative research (see Cummins, 2007, for a
discussion of the inferences that can be drawn from
qualitative research on reading development). The
National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority
Children and Youth (August & Shanahan. 2006,
2(X)8) assigned a supportive role to qualitative research but only within a positivistic framework, as
illustrated in the following quotation: "Ultimately,
qualitative] studies can generate only hypotheses
about the influence instruction may have on learning (because they make no systematic manipulation
of the instruction, they have no control group)..."
(August & Shanahan, 2008, p. 133). This narrow
perspective on what kind of reseiirch is legitimate
is reflected in the claim that "there is surprisingly
little evidence for the impact of sociocultural variables on literacy learning" (August & Shanahan.
2008. p. 8). This claim should not be surprising in

40

view of the fact that the National Literacy Panel

excluded from consideration much of the empirical research that addresses the impact of sociocultural variables (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1995; Portes
& Rumbaut, 2001).
In contrast to the perspectives represented in
the NRP (2000) and August and Shanahan (2006.
2008) volumes. I argue that ethnographic and case
study data contribute to theory and knowledge generation in two ways. First, this research establishes
phenomena that require explanation. Across a range
of scientific di.sciplines. knowledge is generated by
establishing a set of observed phenomena, forming
hypotheses to account for these phenomena, testing these hypotheses against additional data, and
gradually refining the hypotheses into more comprehensive theories that have broader explanatory
and predictive power (Cummins, 1999). This is
how we discovered the nature of our planetary system and how we predict weather patterns. It is also
the basis for the interdependence hypothesis, the
principle that academic language knowledge and
skills transfer across languages (Cutnmins, 1981).
The second way in which qualitative data contribute to knowledge generation derives from the fact
that any phenomenon established credibly by observation (qualitative or quantitative) can refute theoretical propositions or policy-related claims. Any
theoretical claim or proposition must be consistent
with all the empirical data; if not. the proposition
requires modification to account for the data.
These two processes can be illustrated in Reyes'
(2001) multi-year classroom observation study of
biliteracy acquisition by English-dominant and
Spanish-dominant primary grades students in a
dual language program. Students received initial
literacy instruction only in their dominant language
(LI ) but were found to spontaneously transfer their
reading and writing knowledge across languages
despite the fact that they received no formal phonics or decoding instruction in their second language. Reyes attributed this transfer to the fact that
the progriun strongly promoted writing for authentic purposes in each language and also attempted
to affirm the status and legitimacy of Spanish (as
well as English) in the classroom. Reyes" study
contributes to scientific knowledge by establishing
the phenomenon (which is also supported by many
other studies) that, under appropriate conditions.

Multiple Voices, 1(2). Spring 20()9

students can spontaneously develop reading and

writing skills iti their second language without
overt literacy instruction in that language. This
phenomenon is consistent with claims of crosslinguistic transfer of academic skills and it also refutes the theoretical claim that systematic phonics
instruction is necessary to develop literacy skills
in a language.
Thus, contrary to the perspective expressed by
August and Shanahan (2006, 2008), ethnographic
and case study research are in the mainstream of
scientific inquiry, capable not just of generating
hypotheses but also of testing and refuting hypotheses. Thus, the theoretical frameworks ptesented
later in this paper derive their scientific credibility
from ;i much wider range of research than has been
the case in recent attempts in the United States to
link research to policy.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS IN
DIALOGUE WITH CIJ^SSROOM PRACTICE

As noted above, both individual hypotheses and

the systematic integration of these hypotheses into
theoretical models or frameworks must be consistent with the empirical data. However, within this
constraint, there are typically many different ways
of describing or organizing the data. Different disciplines (e.g., neurology versus cognitive science)
may describe and explain the same phenomenon
in quite differentbut equally validways. Also.
within a particular discipline, the phenomena may
be synthesized legitimately into very different theoretical frameworks depending on the purpose of
the framework, the audience envisaged, and the outcomes desired. The process is analogous to observing any object (e.g., a house); when we move and
shift our perspective, we see a different image even
though the {ibject of our observation has not changed
in any way. Thus, theoretical frameworks provide
alternative perspectives on particular phenomena in
specific contexts and for piirticular purposes.
Ideally, theoretical frameworks are in constant
dialogue with practice. The relationship between
theory and practice is two-way and ongoing: practice generates theory which, in turn, acts as a catalyst for new directions in practice, which then
informs theory, and so on. Theory and practice

are infused within each other. Theoretical claims

or frameworks that integrate these claims are not
valid or invalid, true or false: rather, they should
be judged by criteria of adequacy and usefulness.
Adequacy refers to the extent to which the claims
or categories embedded in the framework are
consistent with the empirical data and provide a
coherent and comprehensive account of the data.
Usefulness refers to the extent to which the framework can be used effectively by its intended audience to implement the educational policies and
practices it implies or prescribes.
Adequacy and usefulness are never ab.solutes.
More detailed frameworks than those proposed in
tbe present paper may be more adeqtiate in capturing specific details of certain literacy instructional
practices. However, gains in specificity and/or complexity may be made at the expense of usefulness.
Too much detail may lead educators and policymakers to lose sight of the "big picture" while excessive theoretical complexity or language that is
alien to educators and poliey-makers will reduce
the likelihood of implementation. Thus, the theoretical categories within the proposed frameworks
all extend in two ways: They link with the empirical and theoretical literature on literacy development on the one hand, but they are also grounded
in concrete classroom practice, and their purptise is
to stimulate sustained dialogue with thai practice.

THEORETICAL BUILDING BLOCKS

OF TRANSFORMATIVE
MULTILITERACIES PEDAGOGY
In the following sections, I sketch some of the
theoretical building blocks that have emerged
or been refined in the context of a Canada-wide
project entitled Fronx Literacy to Multiliteracies:
Designing Learning Environments for Knowledge Generation within the New Economy (Early,
Cummins & Willinsky. 2(X)2). Working collaboratively with educators, we have explored instructional strategies to increase literacy engagement
among CLD students (e.g.. Cummins et al., 2(K)5).
In the process of interpreting data from case studies, including classroom observation and interviews
with teachers, students, and parents, we have drawn
on a set of core theoretical constructs that, in this

II
Multiple Voices, 11(2), Spring 2009

41

paper, have been brought together under the label of Transfortnative Multiliteracies Pedagogy.
Among the building blocks for Transformative
Multiliteracies Pedagogy are: (a) distinctions atnong
tran.smission, social constructivist. and transforma'
/(V* orientations to pedagogy; (b) an analysis of how
societal power relations affect the schooling of CLD
students: and (c) the construct of multiliferacies.
Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy differs from many alternative pedagogical frameworks in postulating (a) identity investment as a
central component of learning and (b) the negotiation of identities as a primary determinant of
whether or not students will engage cognitively
in the learning process. Although the construct
of identity investment has not received much attention in the cognitive psychology or educational
reform research literature, it has emerged as a significant explanatory construct in the educational
anthropology and second language learning literature (e.g., Fordham, 1990; McCarty, 2005;
Norton, 2000; Toohey, Manyak, & Day, 2007). A
core proposition of Transformative Multiliteracies
Pedagogy is that societal power relations expres.s
themselves in the classroom through the process
of identity negotiation. Within a societal context
of unequal power relations, classroom interactions
are never neutralthey are always located on a
continuum ranging between the reinforcement of
coercive relations of power and the promotion of
collaborative relations of power.
With respect to the process of implementing
school change, Transfotmative Multiliteracies
Pedagogy assigns a central role to teacher agency.
Even under highly constrained conditions, teachers have choices in how they connect the curriculum to the experiences and prior knowledge of
CLD students, in the messages about language and
culture they convey through their interactions with
students, in the levels of cognition they attempt to
evoke through instruction, and in how they engage
parents with their children's education.

PEDAGOGICAL ORIENTATIONS
Three broad orientations to pedagogy are specified
within the overall framework: transmission, social
constructivist, and transfonnative (Cummins, 2004;

42

Skourtou, Kourtis-Ka/oullis & Cummins, 2(X>6).

As illustrated in Figure 1. the three pedagogical orientations are nested within each other rather than
being distinct and isolated from each other.
Transmission-oriented pedagogy is represented
in the inner circle with the narrowest focus. The
goal is to transmit information and skills specified
in curriculum (and represented in tests) directly to
students. The importance of activating students'
prior knowledge and developing learning strategies may be acknowledged within transmission or
direct instmction approaches. However, in practice, activation of students' prior knowledge is often operationally defined as re-visiting content and
skills that were taught in previous lessons. Similarly, learning strategy instruction tends to be narrowly focused on the content of particular lessons
rather than integrated into a broader process of collaborative inquiry and knowledge generation.
Social constructivist pedagogy, occupying the
middle pedagogical space, acknowledges the relevance of transmission of information and skills but
broadens this focus to include the development
of higher-order thinking abilities as teachets and

Figure 1
Nested Pedagogical Orientations
Note. From "Muitiliteracies pedagogy and the
role of identity texts" by J. Cummins, 2004. In K.
Leithwood, P. McAdie, N. Bascia, & A. Rodigue
(Eds.), Teaching for deep understanding: Towards
the Ontario curriculum that we need (p. 69). Toronto: Ontaiio Institute for Studies in Education of
the University of Toronto and the Elementary Federation of Teachers of Ontario. Copyright 2004 by
V. Kourtis-Kazullis. Reprinted with permission.

Multiple Voices. 1(2), Spring 2009

students co-construct knowledge and understanding. The focus is on experiential learning, collaborative inquiry, and knowledge building. Theorists
who endorse social constructivist approaches
to pedagogy tend to build on Vygotsky's (1978)
louiidational work. The influential synthesis of
the research on learning carried out by Bransford,
Brown, and Cocking (2000) is very much social
constructivist in its emphasis on integrating factual
knowledge with conceptual frameworks, activating
students" pre-existing knowledge, and enabling
students to take active control of the learning process through the development of metacognitive
strategies.
Finally, transformative approaches to pedagogy
broaden the focus still further by emphasizing the
relevance not only of transmitting the curriculum
and constructing knowledge but also of enabling
students to gain insight into how knowledge intersects with power. Transformative pedagogy uses
collaborative critical inquiry to enable students to
analyze and understand the social realities of their
own lives and of their communities. Students discuss, and frequently act on. ways in which these realities might be transformed through various forms
of social action. The goal is to promote critical literacy among students with a ftx'us on social realities relevant to issues of equity and justice. In other
words, transformative pedagogy enables students to
scrutinize and actively challenge patterns of power
relations in the broader society. Transformative approaches typically draw their inspiration from the
work of Freir ( 1970) while also acknowledging the
important iniluence of Vygotsky (1978).
The rationale for nesting these orientation.^
wiihin each other is to highlight that features of
transmission pedagogy are relevant to all kinds
of learning. Both in classrooms that are clearly
transmission-oriented, as well as in communities
of critical inquiry among students and teachers, explicit instruction and structured guidelines
can play an important role in effective teaching/
learning. Transmission of information and skills
becomes problematic only when it constitutes the
predominant or even exclusive focus of instruction. Exclusive reliance on transmission pedagogy
is likely to entail promotion of memorization rather
than learning lt)r deep understanding, pa-ssive rather
than active learning and minimal activation of

Multiple Voices. 11(2), Spring 2009

students' prior knowledge. Similarly, a transformative orientation is not in any way opposed either
to transmission of curriculum content or the coconstruction of knowledge between teachers and
students. Rather it builds on and expands transmission and social constructivist approaches in order
to pursue a wider variety of pedagogical goals and
a broader educational vision.
From the perspective of Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy, a significant reason why
NCLB and many previous educational reforms
aimed at closing the achievement gap have had
minimal impact is that they have typically stayed
within the realm of transmission approaches to
pedagogy. Predominant reliance on transmission
approaches contravenes core principles of learning (as documented by Bransford et al.. 2000)
and also fails to address some of the fundamental causes of CLD students' underachievement
which, as noted earlier, are rooted in the operation
of societal power relations both in schools and in
the wider society.
Social constructivist approaches indirectly address some aspects of societal power relations and
identity negotiation. In comparison to transmission approaches, social constructivism generates
an enhanced image of the CLD student. Students
are seen as capable of higher-order thinking and
their cultural experience and prior knowledge are
actively mobilized. However, the rationale for this
orientation tends to be justified with respect to cognitive dimensions of learning rather than in terms
of how societal power relations affect learning.
Thus, social constructivist approache.s may create
contexts of empowerment for CLD students, understotxl in terms of developing identities of competence (Manyak, 2004), but the empowerment is
limited by virtue of its individual rather than social
focus. Only transfonnative orientations explicitly
address the role of societal power relations in the
underachievement of CLD students. The ftKus on
creating contexts of empowerment for CLD students directly challenges the operation of coercive
relations of power in schools and society.
The differences between social constructivist
and transformative pedagogy can be illustrated
with reference to a project described by Bracey
(2000) in which her grades 4 and 5 students, many
of them English language learners (ELL), worked

43

with scientists from the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA):
Marsville was a project-based activity where
students created a prototype habitat for Mars.
The children came together to learn and build
their city and make tbeir own living spaces using a variety of interdisciplinary skills. In the
prcKess. they leiimed creative problem-solving,
cooperative learning and data analysis. (Bracey,
2000, pp. 4-5).
This example clearly reflects a social constructivist
orientation insofar as it involves collaborative inquii7 and cognitive challenge intended to develop
higher-order thinking skills. It also is likely to be
much more highly motivating for students than
simply learning about Mars or human habitats
from a textbook, as they might within a transmissionoriented classroom. However, within a transformative pedagogical orientation, the Marsville project
described by Bracey (20(K)) might be followed up
or integrated with a project that examines the problems of human habitats on earth and tbe causes
of tbese problems. Students might design a habitat on earth that addresses or avoids current urban
problems such as homelessness, violence, poverty,
and pollution. Tbis would require tbat students research and analyze sources of inequity in income
and causes of pollution and violence and discuss
how these problems can be resolved.
In short, as used in the present framework, the
defining criterion of transformative pedagogy is
that teacher-student classroom interactions challenge tbe operation of coercive relations of power.
Interactions that meet tbis criterion include (a) an
explicit instructional focus on social justice and
equity by means of critical analysis of social issues and texts (broadly defined); and (b) classroom
project work, associated witb students" cultural
and linguistic capital, that promotes identities of
competence (Manyak. 2004) among students from
marginalized community groups, thereby challenging the devaluation of these students' cultures
and languages in tbe wider society. Transformative
pedagogy shares the concern with social justice
tbat characterizes critical multicultural education as articulated by many otber theorists (e.g..
BanLs. 1996; Nieto & Bode. 2008; Wink. 2004).
However, unlike many otber formulations of social justice orientations to education (e.g.. Freir,

44

1970), the present framework does not locate a

transformative or critical orientation in opposition
to transmission and social constructivist orientations. Rather, the orientations are nested witbin
eacb other and merge into each otber along an
expanding continuum characterized by increasing
instructional inclusion of social justice and equity
concerns.
Tbe following section elaborates on tbe conception of societal power relations within Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy. Specifically,
it discusses how societal power relations affect the
schooling of CLD students and, on that basis, defines tbe construct of empowerment, which results
from the affirmation of student identity in teacberstudent interactions.

SOCIETAL POWER REIATIONS

Extensive research has been carried out by sociologists and anthropologists on issues related
to ethnicity and educational achievement (e.g.,
Bankston & Zhou. 1995; Bishop & Berryman,
2006; McCarty, 2005; Ogbu. 1978, 1992; Portes &
Rumbaut. 2001; Skulnabb-Kangas. 2000). Tbese
studies point clearly to the centrality of societal
power relations in explaining patterns of minority
group achievement. Groups that experience longterm educational underachievement tend to have
experienced material and symbolic violence at the
bands of the dominant societal group over generations. Ladson-Biliings expresses tbe point succinctly with respect to African-American students:
"The problem that African-American students face
is the constant devaluation of their culture both in
school and in the larger society" (1995, p. 485).
A direct implication is tbat to reverse this pattern
of underachievement. educatorsindividually and
collectivelymust challenge the operation of coercive power relations in the classroom interactions they orchestrate with minority or subordinated
group students.
Societal power relations express themselves
in tbe classroom through ihe process of identity
negotiation (Cummins, 2001). Tbe ways in which
teachers negotiate identities witb students can
exert a significant impact on tbe extent to which
students will engage academically or withdraw

Multiple Voices, //(2), Spring 2009

from academic effort. The intersection of societal power relations and identity negotiation in
determining patterns of academic achievement
among minority group students is expressed in
Figure 2.
The framework proposes that relations of power
in the wider society, ranging from coercive to collaborative in varying degrees, influence both the
ways in which educators define their roles and
the types of structures that are established in the
educational system. Coercive relations of power
refer to the exercise of power by a dominant individual, group, or counti'y to the detriment of a
subordinated individual, group or country'. For

SOCIETAL POWER RELAHONS

Influence
the ways in which educators define their roles (teacher tdentfty)
and
the structures of schooling (curriculum, funding, assesmien^ etc)

which, In turn, Influence

the ways In whfch educators interact
with linguistically- and culturally-diverse students.

These Interactions form

an
INTERPERSONAL SPACE
within which
lenming happens

and
Identities are negotiated.
These IDENTITY NEGOTIATIONS
either
Reinforce coercive relations of power
or
Promote collaborative relations of power

Figure 2
Societal Power Relations, Identity Negotiation,
and Academic Achievement
Note. Adapted from: Negotiating identities: Edtication for empowerment in a diverse society, by
J. Cummins. 2(X)I. p. 20. Los Angeles: California
Association for Bilingual Education. Copyright
2001 by J. Cummins. Reprinted with pennission.

Multiple Voices, 11(2), Spring 2009

example, in the past, dominant group institutions,

including schools, have required that subordinated
groups deny their cultural identity and give up
their languages as a necessary condition for success in the "mainstream"" society. For educators
to become partners in the transmission of knowledge, culturally-diverse students were required to
acquiesce in the subordination of their identities
and to celebrate as "truth" the perspectives of the
dominant group (e.g.., the "truth" that Columbus
"discovered" America and brought "civili/ation'"
to its indigenous peoples).
Collaborative relations of power, by contrast,
reflect the sense of the term "power" that refers
to "being enabled," or "empowered" to achieve
more. Within collaborative relations of power,
"power" is not a fixed quantity but is generated
through interaction with others. The more eiTipowered one individual or group becomes, the
more is generated for others to share. Within
this context, empowerment can be defined as
the collaborative creation of power. Students
whose schooling experiences reflect collaborative relations of power participate confidently in
instruction because their sense of identity is being affirmed and expanded in (heir interactions
with educators. They also know that their voices
will be heard and respected within the classroom.
Schooling amplies rather than silences their
power of .vc/Z-expression.
Educator role definitions refer to the mindset of
expectations, assumptions and goals that educators
bring to the task of educating culturally diverse
students. Educational structures refer to the organization of schooling in a broad sense that includes
policies, programs, curriculum, and as.sessment.
While these structures will generally reflect the
values and priorities of dominant groups in society,
they are not by any means fixed or static. As with
most other aspects of the way societies are organized and resources distributed, educational structures are contested by individuals and groups.
Educational structures, together with educator
role definitions, determine the patterns of interactions between educators, students, and communities. These interactions form an interpersonal
space within which the acquisition of knowledge
and formation of identity is negotiated. Power is
created and shared within this interpersonal space

45

where minds and identities meet. As such, these

teacher-student interactions constitute the most
immediate determinant of student academic success or failure.
The interactions between educators, students, and
communities are never neutral; in varying degrees,
they either reinforce coercive relations of power
or promote collaborative relations of power. In the
former case, they contribute to the disempowerment
of culturally diverse students and communities; in
the latter case, the interactions constitute a process
of empowerment that enables educators, students,
and communities to challenge the operation of
coercive power structures.
This analysis raises the issue of why privileged
groups in society (such as many policy-makers
and educators) would want to engage in a dialogue about the roots of students' underachievement which has the potential to de-legitimize their
own privilege. In addressing this issue (Cummins.
2000), I have suggested four phases in the process
of collaborative dialogue required to address inequities in society and schooling:
1. Identify and reach out to those within dominant groups who are prepared to engage in
tiieaningful dialogue: this includes inany
policy-makers and educators who are either
committed to social justice or just want their
society to function effectively.
2. Identify shared goals and common vested
interests that transcend more superficial Us
versus Them divisions between dominant and
subordinated communities.
3. Demystify research findings related to the issues under dispute (e.g., influence of poverty
on education, effects of bilingual education,
etc.).
4. Promote programs that explicitly challenge
'/. versus Them" divisions and demonstrate,
in a concrete way, the advantages for all in
establishing collaborative relations of power
(e.g., magnet dual language schools that support all students in developing biliteracy).
The bottom line is that the entire society loses
when the intellectual potential of the next generation is not developed and the entire society benefits

when all students are given a realistic chance of

contributing to their societies.
MULTILITERACIES
The essence of a multiliteracies approach to pedagogy
is that schools in the 21** century need to focus on
a broader range of literacies than simply traditional
reading and writing skills. The term multiliterucies
was introduced by The New London Group (1996)
to highlight the relevance of new forms of literacy
associated with infortnation, communication, and
multimedia technologies and, equally important,
the wide variety of culturally specific forms of literacy evident in cotnplex pluralistic societies. From
the perspective of multiliteracies, the exclusive focus within schools on linear text-based literacy in
the dominant language of the stKiety represents a
very limited conception that fails to address the realities of a globalized, technologically sophisticated
knowledge-based society. In urban contexts across
North America and Europe, the student population
is multilingual and students are exposed to, and
engage in, many different literacy practices outside the school. Within schools, however, literacy
instruction is narrowly focused on limited forms
of literacy in the dominant language, and typically
fails to acknowledge or build on the multilingual
literacies or the technologically-mediated literacies
that form a significant part of students' cultural and
linguistic capital.
The New London Group proposed a pedagogical framework that highlighted the itnportance
of situated practice, overt instrtiction, critical
framing, and transformed practice. Tbe essence
of this framework is that students should be given
opportunities to engage in meaningful experience and practice within a learning community,
and that conceptual development and understanding should be supported by explicit instruction as required. Students sbould also have
opportunities to step back and critically examine
concepts and ideas they have learned in relation
to their social relevance. Finally, they should be
given opportunities to take the knowledge they
have gained furtherto put it into play in the
world of ideas to understand how their insights
can exert an impact on people and issues in the
real world.

Multiple Voice.s, 11(2), Spring 2009

The New London Group's pedagogy of multiliteracies highlights sotne central aspects of what
we are terming Transformative Multiliteracies
Pedagogy. However, in considering its relevance
for interpreting the case study data from the Multiliteracies Project (www.multiliteracies.ca). we
noted two gaps in its ability to provide a coherent account of the data. First, the New London
Group framework combines learning perspectives
(what the student does) and teaching perspectives
(what the teacher does) into the satne set of constructs. In discussing pedagogical implications of
the case studies with educators, we found it more
useful to separate learning and teaching perspectives. This permitted more specificity with respect to instructional practices. For example, the
roles of prior knowledge and students" LI are not
explicitly specified in the New London Group
framework, despite their relevance for scaffolding instruction for CLD students in the early stages
of learning the school language. Secondly, the
New London Group categories do not explicitly
link instruction to processes of identity negotiation and societal power relations. The relevance
of these constructs is implied but not elaborated
in the framework.

EMERGING FRAMEWORKS
FOR DISCUSSION OF SCHOOLBASED LANGUAGE AND LITERACY

in an analysis of the centrality of societal power

relations to student achievement. Each framework
also views CLD students' Li as a significant cognitive t(X)l to suppt>rt literacy and overall academic
engagement. These frameworks are not in any
sense in competition with each other; rather they
represent complementary ways of "packaging"
the major research findings regarding pedagogical
approaches that promote academic achievement
among CLD students.
THE LITERACY ENGAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK
The framework outlined in Figure 3 was articulated to highlight the empirical evidence linking
the construct of literacy engagement (Guthrie,
2004) to the development of reading comprehension. Guthrie notes that the construct of literacy
engagement incorporates notions of time on ta.sk
(reading extensively), affect (enthusiasm and enjoytnent of literacy), depth of cognitive processing
(strategies to deepen comprehension), and active
pursuit of literacy activities (amount and diversity
of literacy practices in and out of school). He notes
that engaged readers are active and energized in
reading and use their minds with an emphasis on
either cognitive strategies or conceptual knowledge. Furthermore, he notes that engaged reading

Poi.ICIES
The frameworks sketched in this section are
viewed as "emerging" to highlight the fact that
they are intended to serve a heuristic function for
discussion of language policies and initiatives by
educators in multilingual school contexts. Thus.
they are dynamic rather than static and should
be adapted and extended by educators depending on particular conditions and contexts. The
Literacy Engagement framework is largely social constructivist in its emphasis whereas the
Literacy Expertise framework is more explicitly
transformative insofar as a critical orientation is
specified throughout. However, the frameworks
share a common focus on instruction that promotes identity investment and identity affirmation
among CLD students, and this focus is grounded

Multiple Voices. 7/(2), Spring 2(X)9

Activate Prior
Knuwledgc /
Build Background

ScafTuld
Meaning

Figure 3
The Literacy Engagement Framework

47

is often socially interactive insofar as engaged

students are capable of discussion or shaiing with
friends, despite the fact that much of their reading
may be solitary.
The research basis for specifying literacy engagement as a strong predictor of literacy achievement comes from numerous studies linking
extensive reading with reading comprehension
(see Krashen, 2004. for a review) as well as the
large-scale data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD)
Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA). The PISA study (OECD. 2004) showed
that "the level of a student's reading engagement is
a better predictor of literacy performance than his
or her socioeconomic background, indicating that
cultivating a student's interest in reading can help
overcome home disadvantages" (p. 8). These data
suggest that, had it focused on literacy engagement
in addition to systematic phonics instruction, the
Reading First program might have been more successful in promoting low-income students' reading
comprehension than the research indicates it has
been (Gamse et al., 2008).
The framework also specifies four broad instruclional dimensions that are critical to enabling CLD
students to engage actively with literacy from an
early stage in their learning of English. Typically,
newcomer students who arrive in the host country
after the early grades are delayed several years before they can engage actively with L2 reading and
writing at their cognitive and chronological age
level. This is because age-appropriate L2 reading
materials are beyond their comprehension in the
early stages of learning and their L2 proficiency is
inadequate to write extensively and coherently in
their L2. Numerous studies (reviewed in Cummins.
2001) from several countries show that, on average, at least five years is generally required for immigrant students to perform at grade level.
The core propositions that underlie the framework can be stated as follows: In order to teach
CLD students effectively, teachers need to maximize
their opportunities to become actively engaged
with reading and writing. Literacy engagement
will he enhanced when (a) students' prior knowledge is activated: (b) their ability to understand
and use academic language is supported through
specific instructional strategies; (c) their identities

48

are ajfinned: and (d) their knowledge of. cmd control

over, language is extended across the curriculum.
Activate prior knowledge, build background
knowledge. Effective instruction for CLD students
activates students' prior knowledge and builds
background knowledge as needed. Learning can
be defined as the integration of new ktiowledge
or skills with the knowledge or skills we already
possess. Therefore it is crucial to activate students'
preexisting knowledge so that they can relate new
infonnation to what they already know. Snow,
Bums and Griffin (1998) express the centrality of
background knowledge as follows:
Every opportunity should be taken to extend
and enrich children's background knowledge
and understanding in every way possible, for
the ultimate significance and memorability of
any word or text depends on whether children
possess the background knowledge and conceptual sophistication to understand its meaning, (p. 219)
This implies that when CLD students" background
knowledge is encoded in their LI, they should be
encouraged to use their L! to activate and extend
this knowledge (e.g.. by brainstorming in groups,
writing in LI as a stepping stone to writing in L2,
carrying out Internet research in their LI).
Scaffold meaning. The terin .scaffolding refers to
the provision of temporary supports that enable
learners to carry out tasks and perform academically at a higher level than they would be capable
of without these supports. Activation of students'
prior knowledge and building background knowledge represent a form of scaffolding that operates
on students" internal cognitive structures. Other
forms of scaffolding focus on modifying the input so that it becomes more comprehensible to
students. Tbese include the use of visuals, demonstrations, dramatization, acting out meanings,
and explanation of words and linguistic structures
(Gibbons, 2002). Scaffolding also supports students in using the target language in both written
and oral modes. Our research in the context of the
Multiliteracies Project has demonstrated that bilingual instructional strategies, such as encouraging
newcomer students to write initially in their LI and
then work witli teachers, peers and/or community

Multiple Voices, 11(2), Spring 2009

volunteers to create an English version of their LI

work, result in significantly more accomplished
English performance than does confining students
to using only English (Cummins et al.. 2005).
Affirm identity. As noted above, identity affirmation is also crucial for literacy engagement. Students
who feel that their culture and identity is validated
in the classroom are much more likely to engage
with literacy than those wht) perceive their culture
and identity is being ignored or devalued. When
students feel tbat their intelligence, imagination,
and multilingual talents are affirmed in the school
and classroom context, they invest their identities much more actively in tbe learning process
(Cummins. Brown & Sayers, 2007). The affirmalion of identity in the context of teacher-student
Interactions explicitly challenges the devaluation of
student and community idenfity in the wider society.
Extend language. As students progress tbrougb
ihe grades, they are required to read increasingly
complex texts in the content areas of the curriculum
(science, mathematics, social studies, literature).
The complexity of academic language reflects (a)
the difficulty of the concepts that students are required to understand, (b) the vocabulary load in
content texts that include matiy low frequency and
technical words tbat we almost never use in typical
conversation, and (c) increasingly sophisticated
grammatical constructions (e.g., pas.sive voice)
and patterns of discourse organization that again
are almost never used in everyday conversational
contexts. Students are not only required to read this
language, tbey must also use it in writing reports,
essays, and other forms of school work. Thus, in
order to develop students' academic language, it is
essential to reinforce language across tbe curriculum. Once again, bilingual instructional strategies
(e.g., drawing attention to cognate relationships)
can enhance CLD students' awareness of language
and how it operates.

THE LITERACY EXPERTISE FRAMEWORK

This framework is adapted from the Academic
Expertise framework (Cummins. 2(X)I) witb the
intent of focusing more specifically on literacy as

Multiple Voices. I(2\ Spring 2009

compared to overall academic achievement. The

term literacy experti.se refers to the competence
underlying students' literacy accomplishments
in a broad sense. In contrast to the term literacy
achievement, which usually refers to scores on a
standardized test or some otber measure of formal
school-based literacy, literacy expertise encompasses the full range of multiliteracies, many of
which do not lend themselves to formal quantitative assessment. This range of multiliteracies expertise might include literacy skills in languages
other tban English, arts-based literacy accomplishments, or technological skills related to digital
literacies. Furthermore, expertise implies what
Bereiter (2(H)2) terms progressive problem ,solving\ With expertise comes automaticity and the
freeing up of mental resources (e.g.. attentional
capacity, working memory). Experts then re-invest
these mental resources "back into tbe task, so that
problems can now be addressed at higher or more
complex levels'" (2002. p. 355).
Consistent with the account of how power relations operate (outlined in Figure 2). the Literacy
Expertise framework posits that teacher-student
interactions create an interpersonal space within which knowledge is generated and identities
are negotiated. Literacy development will be optimized when these interactions maximize both
literacy engagement and identity investment. The
framework attempts to express in a very concrete
way tbe kinds of instructional emphases and language interactions required to build students' literacy expertise. Optimal instruction will include a
focus on meaning, afocus on language, and afocus
on use. The focus on meaning entails the development of critical literacy rather tban surface-level
processing of text. Tbe/ocM.v on language involves
promoting not just explicit knowledge of bow the
linguistic code (e.g., phonics, grammar, ViK'abulary) operates but also critical awareness of how
language operates within society. If students are to
participate effectively within a democratic society
they should be able to "read" how language is
used to achieve social goals: to elucidate issues,
to persuade, to deceive, to include, to exclude, and
so on. The focus on use component parallels the
New London Group's transformed practice but
expresses, in much more concrete ways, wbat tbis
might look like in tbe classroom context. It argues

49

^ -

"

Teaclier - Student
Inturactions

/
Maximum
Literacy
Engagement

Ttte devetopmeni of literacy

e.xpertise requires that classroom
interactions promole htilh literacy
engagement and identity
investment

\
A>

Maximum
Identity
Investment

--

Within the inleractumat space created tty classroom interactions, literacy engagement and identity investment wiU he enahted
when instruction focuses expticiHy on deep understanding of content, criticat awareness of anklage itself and opportunities for
Students to use language in powerful ways

Focus on Meaning

Focus on Language

Making inptit
comprehensible

Awareness oflanguage forms and

uses

Developing
critical literacy

Critieal analysis of language forms

and tises

Focus on Use
Using language to:

Generate new knowledge

Create literature and an

Act on sociat realities

Figure 4
-^
The Literacy Expertise Framework
Note. Adapted from Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society, by
J. Cummins. 2001. p. 125. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education. Copyright 2001
by J. Cummins. Reprinted with permission.
that optimal instruction will enable students to
generate knowledge, create literature and art, and
act on social realities.
The Literacy Expertise framework also makes
clear that classroom instruction always positions
students in particular ways that reflect the implicit
(or sometimes explicit) image of the .student in
the teacher's mind. How students are positioned
either expands or constricts their opportunities
for identity investment and cognitive or literacy
engagement. The nested pedagogical orientations
(Figure I) can also be viewed in terms of the extent to which they constrict or expand the learning
space. Tbe continuum from transmission tbrougb
social constructivist to transformative represents a
shift from relatively constricted to more expanded
opportunities for identity investment and cognitive
engagement. The centra! components of the theoretical frameworks discussed in previous sections

50

can be articulated in terms of five core principles

of transformative multiliteracies pedagogy.

PRINCIPLES OF TRANSFORMATIVE
MULTILITERACIES PEDAGOGY
The following five principles prioritize the role of
identity investment in promoting literacy engagement and literacy expertise:
1. Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy constructs an image of the student as intelligent,
imaginative., and linguistically talented; individual differences in these traits do not diminish the potential of each student to shine in
specific ways.
2. Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy acknowledges and builds on the cultural and

Multiple Voices, 7/(2), Spring 2009

linguistic capital (prior knowledge) of students and comtnunities.

3. Transformative MuUiliteracies Pedagogy aims
explicitly to promote cognitive engagement
and identity investment on the pail of students.
4. Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy enables students to construct knowledge, create
literature and art, and act on social realities
through dialogue and critical inquiry.
5. Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy employs a variety of technological tools to support
students' construction of knowledge, literature, and art and their presentation of this intellectual work to multiple audiences through
the creation of identity texts.
As sketched above. Transformative Multiliteracies
Pedagogy draws on transmission, social constructivist, and transformative orientations to teaching
and learning. Although entirely consistent with
the empirical research on how people learn, it represents a radical departure from the pedagogical
assumptions operating in classrooms serving lowincome students in the post-NCLB era of highstakes testing.
The operation of these principles in a classroom
context are illustrated in the following case study
from the MuUiliteracies Project (Cummins et al.,
2005).

TRANSFORMATIVE MULTILITERACIES
PEDAGOGY IN ACTION: AN
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE STUDY
Within several months of her arrival in Canada,
Madiha Bajwa authored with two of her friends.
Kanta Khalid and Sulmana Hanif, a bilingual,
Urdu-English book entitled The New Country.
The 20-page book, illustrated with the help of a
classmate, Jennifer Du, "describes how hard it was
to leave our country and come to a new country"
(see http://www.multiliteracies.ca/index.php/folio/
viewGalleryBook/8/42/0). The three girls were
in Lisa Leoni's Grade 7/8 (mainstream) class in
Michael Cranny Public School of the York

Multiple Voice.s, 11(2), Spring 2009

Region District School Board. Both Kanta and

Sulmana had arrived in Toronto in Grade 4 and
were reasonably fluent in English but Madiha
was in the early stages of acquisition.
The three girls collaborated in writing The
New Country in the context of a unit on the
theme of migration that integrated social studies, language, and ESL curriculum expectations.
They researched and wrote the story over several
weeks, sharing their experiences and language
skills, in composing the story, the three girls discussed their ideas primarily in Urdu but wrote the
initial draft in English. After revising the English
version on the basis of feedback from their teacher,
the girls then translated the English version into
Urdu.
In a "'typicar' classrootii, Madiha's ability to
participate in a Grade 7 social studies unit would
have been severely limited by ber minimal knowledge of English. She certainly would not have been
in a position to write extensively in English about
her experiences, ideas, and insights. Her academic
identity would likely have been defined by the label "English language learner" (ELL), focusing
on what she lacks rather than on the intelligence,
imagination, and linguistic talents that she brings to
the classroom. However, following simple changes
to the social structure of the classroom, Madiha
was enabled to express her intelligence, feelings,
and identity in ways that few recently arrived CLD
students experience. Her LI, in which all her experience prior to immigration was encoded, became
once again a tool for learning. She contributed her
ideas and experiences to the story, participated in
discussions about bow to translate vocabulary and
expressions from Urdu to English and frotn English
to Urdu, and shared in the affirmation that all
three students experienced with the publication of
their story in print and on the World Wide Web.
Madiha's experience can be clearly articulated in
relation to the categories highlighted in both the
Literacy Engagement (Figure 3) and Literacy Expertise (Figure 4) frameworks.
In discussing this type of pedagogical initiative,
we have used the term identity te.xts to describe
the products of students' creative work or performances carried out within the pedagogical space
orchestrated by the classroom teacher (Cummins,
2004; Skourtou et al., 2006). Students invest their

51

identities in the creation of these texts, which can

be written, spoken, visual, musical, dramatic, or
combinations in multimodal form. The identity
lext then holds a mirror up to students in which
iheir identities are reflected back in a positive light.
When students share identity texts with multiple
audiences (peers, teachers, parents, grandparents,
sister classes, the media, etc.) they are likely to
receive positive feedback and affirmation of self
in interaction with these audiences. Although not
always an essential component, technology acts
as an amplifier to enhance the process of identity
investment and affirmation. It facilitates the production of these texts, makes them look more
accomplished, and expands the audiences and
potential for affinnative feedback. When CLD
students from socially subordinated communities
create identity texts that showcase their intellectual,
imaginative, and multilingual talents, they are giving a very different account of themselves than that
itnplied in the societal discourses associated with
coercive relations of power.
11*

TEACHER AGENCY IN THE **

IMPLEMENTATION OF
TRANSFORMATIVE MULTILITERACIES
PEDAGOGY
Planned change in educational systems involves
choice. Administrators make choices at a broad system level, school priticipals make choices at the level
of individual schools, and teachers make choices
within their classrooms. Thus, individual educators
always have the power to exercise agencythey
are never powerless, although they frequently work
in conditions that are oppressive both for them and
Iheir students. While they rarely have complete freedom, educators determine for themselves the social
and educational goals they wiuit to achieve with
their students. They are always faced with options
with respect to their orientation to students' language and culture, the forms of parent and community participation they encourage, and in the ways
they itiiplement pedagogy and assessment.
Thus, within the interpersonal spaces where
identities are negotiated, students and educators
together can generate power that challenges structures of inequity in small but significant ways. By

52

contrast, when we choose to frame the universe

of discourse about underachievement primarily in
terms of children's deficits in some area of psychological or linguistic functioning, we expel culture,
language, identity, intellect, and imagination from
our image ofthe child.
In pursuing the educational directions implied
by Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy, educators might use the frameworks outlined in this
paper as catalysts for the development of schoolbased language and literacy policies. The questions
outlined in Table I might be useful in enabling educators within schools to conduct a "collaborative
audit" of their own collective practice. In addressing these issues, educators might want to think in
terms of the following questions: Where are we
nowwhat are our current realities? Where would
we like to bewhat is our vision for the future?
How do we get therewhat is our action plan ?

CONCLUSION
In this paper, I have tried to provide a variety of
"lenses" or perspectives that address both the
causes of u tide rac hieve ment among some groups
of CLD studetits and the pedagogical directions
that respond to these causes of underachievement.
Obviously, causal factors do not operate in static or
isolated ways, any more than do educational interventions to proiTiote student achievement, hi order
to reflect this complexity, I have presented several
theoretical frameworks that draw oti different disciplinary perspectives and highlight different sets
of issues. All of these theoretical frameworks are
compatible with each other and all are consistent
with empirical evidence. In contrast to the implicit
theoretical assumptions underlying NCLB (e.g..
increased testing will increase achievement) and
Reading First (e.g., intensive systematic phonics
instruction for low-income students will close the
achievement gap), the frameworks organized under
the label Trati s formative Multiliteracies Pedagogy
do not prescribe a particular approach or panacea.
Rather, they are intended to synthesize the scientific
research evidence (quantitative and qualitative)
in ways that encourage educators to relate this evidence to their own school contexts. The approaches
advocated are transformative insofar as they

Multiple Voices. {2), Spring 2009

Table 1
iv.s iif Choice: Collaborative Auditing of School Organization and Instructional Practice
A. Overall School IdentityTo what extent does the school become a site of empowerment for students
and communities?
.,'
Promote respect for and high expectations in relation to students'
cultural, linguistic, and intellectual resources and actively seek to use
these resources in the instructional program?

To what extent do
school leaders:

Establish strong parental and communiiy participation as a priority;

Establish a climate where student voice is heard and students share
in the ownership of the school as a learning organization?
Establish a collaborative ethos among school staff, and work to
support teachers in developing the knowledge base to teach diverse
learners effectively?
Recruit staff with the cultLiral/lingiiistic expertise and sensitivity to
connect with students and communities?
Initiate a language poliey process within the school that articulates belief
systems about language and literacy development and directions for
attaining articulated goals?
B. Promotion of MultiliteraciesTo what extent does the school encourage and provide opportunities for
students to interpret and create multimodal and multilingual texts in the school, home and community?
To what extent are students
engaged in social networks
organized around the
comprehension, creation.
and critical discussion of
multiple forms of texts?

Medium:
Modality:
Language:
Variety:
Genre;

Electronic, Print-based, Live (e.g., drama):

Aural, Oral, Sign, Visual, Written (either multimodal
or unimodal);
Multilingual, Unilingual;
Standard variety. Group-specific variety
Expository text. Fiction. Poetry, Music, etc.

C. Student LearningTo what extent are students developing the cognitive, linguistic, and affective
dispositions for critical literacy engagement?
1. With respect to
cognitive processing, do
students systematically:
2. With respect to the
processing of language, do
students svstematicalh:

il

'

'.

3. With respect to affect,

do students consistently:

Relate their pre-existing knowledge to academic content?

Integrate facts with conceptual structures?
Actively control, self-regulate, and develop metacognitive awareness
of the learning process?
Focus on meaning, ranging from comprehensible input to critical literacy?
Focus on language, including attention to language forms and genres and
the intersections between language and power?
Focus on use. including using language to generate new knowledge, create
literature and art. and act on social realities?
Experience affirmation of identity in the process of creating multimodal and multilingual texts?
(Continued)

Multiple Voices. 11(2), Spring 2009

53

Table 1 (Continued)
D. InstructionTo what extent do teachers enable forms of earning that promote student empowerment
and literacy engagement?
<
To what extent do
teachers

Scaffold access to textual meanings?

'
-,
Scaffold production of identity texts?
Encourage student participation in literate communities ofpractice?
Make explicit the linguistic structure of academic content?
Demystify linguistic and social codes of language use?
Orchestrate classroom interactions that construct linguistic and ciillural
diversity as a resource for learning?
Implement assessment strategies (e.g., portfolio assessment) that
encourage and capture the full range of students' creative work?
Engage parents and community members in partnerships related to
literacy?

explicitly cballenge die operafion of coercive power

relations in school and societal contexts. They
reflect a multiliteracies perspective insofar as they
incorporate the multimodal and multilingual nature
of literacy practices in the linguistically diverse social and educational environments of tbe 21" century. Transformative Multilileracies Pedagogy also
diners significantly from many cunent approaches
10 educational reform insofar as teacher agency is
seen as intrinsic to the success of any reform effort,
individual educators have both the opportunity and
the responsibility to create contexts of empowerment, fueled by both literacy engagement and identity investment, in their classrooms.

NOTES
' I would like to thank all members of the Multiliteracies and Engaging Literacies project teams al the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) and the
teachers with whom we have collaborated in ihe Greater
Toronto Area for their input into the frameworks that
are discussed In this paper. As we attempted (and continue to attempt) to integrate case study data with theoretical constructs, insightful contributions were made
by Louis Chen, Sarah Cohen, Frances Giampapa. Mario
Lpez Gopar, Jacqueline Ng, Kristin Snoddon and
Saskia Stille. I would also like to acknowledge my debt
lo Margaret Early of the University of British Columbia who cotirdinated the Multiliteracies project and with
whom I have discussed the construct of multiliteracies on
a regular basis over the past eight years. Discussions with

Eleni Skourtou and Vasilia Kourtis KazouUis of the University of the Aegean in Rhodes. Greece, have also conUibuted significantly to the ideas elaborated in Ihis paper.

REFERENCES
Anyon, J. (2005). What "counts" as educational policy:
Notes towards a new paradigm. Harvard Educational
Review. 75, 65-88.
August, D.. & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2(K)6). Developing
literacy in second-language learners. Report of (he
National Literacy Panel on Mnguage-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
August, D. & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2008). De\'eloping
reading and writing in second-language learners:
Lessons from the Report of the National Literacy
Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.
New York: Routledge.
Banks, J. A. (Ed.) (1996). Multicultural education,
transformative knowledge and action. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Bankston. C. L., & Zhou, M. (1995). Effects of minoritylanguage literacy on the academic achievement of
Vietnamese youth in New Orleans. Sociology of
Education, 6H, 1-17.
Bereiter, C. (2(X)2). Eduiation and mind in the knowledge
age. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berliner, D. C. (2009). Poverty and potential: Outof-schoot factors and .school success. Boulder and
Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center &
Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved October
25, 2009 from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/
poverty-and-potential.

Multiple Voices. 11(2), Spring 2009

Bishop. R.. & Bcrryman, M. (2006). Cultute speciks:

Cultural relationships and classroom learning.
Wellington: Huia Publishers. Aoieama/New Zealand.
Brucey. B. (2(XH). Spring), A differenl divide: Teachers
and other professionals. Edutopia. 4-5.
Bransford. J. D.. Brown. A. L. & Cocking. R, R. (2000).
How people earn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washingion. DC: Niitional Academy Press.
Cummins. J. (1981). The rule uf primary language development in promoting educational success for language
minority students. In California State Department of
Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority .\tudftits: A theoreticalframework {pp. 3-49). Los Angeles:
National Dissemination and Assessment Center.
Cummins, J. (1999). Alternative paradigms in bilingual
education research: Does theory have a place? Educational Researcher. Iti. 26-32.
Cummins. J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy:
Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education
for etnpowennetu in a diverse society (2nd ed.). Los
Angeles: California Association I'ctr Bilitigual Education.
Cummins. J. (2004). Multiliteracies pedagogy and ihe
role of identity texts. In K. Leithwood, P McAdie.
N, Bascia. & A. Rodigue (Eds.), Teaching for deep
understanding: Towards the Otitario curriculum that
we tieed (pp. 68-74). Toronto: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education ot the University of Toronto and
the Elementary Federation of Teachers of Ontario.
Cummins. J. (2O()7). Pedagogies for the poor? Re-aligning reading instruction for low-income students with
scientifically based reading research. Educational
Researcher. 36. 564-572.
Cummins. J.. Bismilla. V.. Chow, P., Cohen. S.. Giampapa,
F.. Leoni, L.. et al. (2005). Affirming identity in multilingual cla.ssrooms, Educational leadership. 63(\),
38-43.
Cummins. J.. Brown, K., & Sayers. D. (2007). Literacy.
lechnology, and diversity: Teaching for success in
changittg times. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Early. M., Cummins, J., & Willinsky. J. (2002). Fmni
literacy to multiliteracies: Designing learning environments for knowledge generation within the new
economy. Proposal funded by the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
l-ordham. S. (1990). Racelessness as a factor in Black
students" school success: Pragmatic strategy or Pyrrhic victory? In N. M. Hidalgo. C. L. McDowell. &
E. V. Siddle (Eds.). Facing raci.im in education (Reprint series No. 21 ed., pp. 232-262). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Multiple Voices, 11(2), Spring 2009

Freir. P. ( 1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:

Continuum.
Gamiie. B.C.. Jacob. R.T.. Horst. M.. Boulay. B.. & Unlu. F.
( 2008). Reading Firsi mpact .Study Final Report (NCEE
2OO9A038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Institute of
Education Sciences. U.S. Dcpanment of Education.
Gibbons. P. (2(X)2). Scaffolding language, scaffolding
learning: Teaching second language learners in the
mainstream classroom. Portsmouth. NH: Heinemann.
Guthrie. J. T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement.
Journal of Literary Rt'search, 36. 1-30.
Kozol, J. (2(X)5). 771^ shame of the mttion: The restoration
of amrtheid schooling in America. New York: Crown.
Krashen. S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights fixn
theivsearch (2"'U'd.). Portsmouth. NH: Hcinemaiin.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally
relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research
Journal. 32, 465^9\.
Manyak, P. C. (2(X)4). "What did she say?" Translation
in a primary-grade English immersion class. Multicultural Perspectives, 6, 12-18.
McCarty. T. L. (Ed.) (2005). Language, literacy, ami
power in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Reading Panel. (2000). leaching children to
read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific
reseanh literature on leading and its implications
for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Child Health & Human Development.
Neuman. S. B.. & Celano. D. (2(X)I ). Access to print in
low-income and middle-income communities: An
ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading
Research Quarterly. 36, 8-26.
New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Hatyard Educational
Review. 66. 6()~92.
Nieto, S. & Bode. P. (2008). Affimng diversity: The
sociopolitical context of tnulticultural education.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
No Child Left Behind Act ot" 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110
(2001).
Norton, B. (2000). Identity'and language learning: Gender,
ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman.
Ogbu. J. U. (1978). Minority education and caste. Now
York: Academic Press.
Ogbu, J. U. ( 1992). Understanding cultural diversity and
learning. Educational Researther, 21, 5-14 & 24.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004). Me.vsages from PISA 2000. Paris:
Author.
Fortes. A.. & Rumbaut. R. G. (2(X)1). Legacie.s: The
story of the immigrant secotid generatioti. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

55

Reyes. M. L. (2001). Unleashing possibilities: Biliteracy

in the primary grades. In M. L. Reyes & J. Halcn
(Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Uitino students (pp. 96-121).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Rothstein. R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social,
economic, and educational refonn to close the BlackWhite achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic
Policy Institute.
Skourtou, E., Kourtis-Kazoullis, V, & Cummins, J.
(2(X)6). Designing virtual learning environments for
academic language development. In J. Weiss, J.
Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virttml learning environments
(pp. 441-467). Dordrecht: Springer.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide-or
worldwide diversity and human rights. Mawah. NJ:
Eribaum.
Snow. C. E.. Bums, M. S.. & Griffin. P. (Eds.) (1998).
Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Toohey. K.. Manyak, P. & Day. E. (2007). ESL learners in the early school years: Identity and mediated
classroom practices. In J. Cummins & C. Davison
(Eds.), International handbook of English language

56

teaching (pp. 545-558). New York: Springer Science +

Business Media LLC.
U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1973). Teachers
and students: Differences in teacher interaction with
Mexican-American and Anglo .students. Washington,
DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wink, J. (2004). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real
world (3^ ed.). Boston: AUyn & Bacon.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

JIM CUMMINS is Canada Research Chair in Lan-

guage and Literacy Development in Multilingual

Contexts at the Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, University of Toronto.
.,
Correspondence should be addressed to Jim
Cummins, Department of Curriculum. Teaching
and Learning, OISE, University of Toronto, 252
Bloor Street West, Toronto, Canada M5S 1V6.
Email: jcummins@oise.utoronto.ca.

Multiple Voices, 11(2), Spring 2009

Copyright of Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners is the property of Division for
Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.