A couple questions came up during my reading. The first concerns Mellinee Lesley’s article on critical literacy and developmental reading. My question is, does Mellinee make the case string enough that critical literacy was responsible for the student’s improvement? Or to put this another way, might she have replaced critical literacy with another framework and still achieved equal success? Certainly she makes the case that the students improved, as well as that the skills and drilled based courses being taught before were inadequate. But does this necessarily mean that critical literacy is therefore the developmental reading panacea that she claims it is?
My second question relates to Martha E. Casazza’s article on practice and theory, and it is a more general one. basically my question boils down to how much of the fields Casazza mentions (psychology, reading, student development etc.), and how much of the theories she describes is it necessary for a teacher to be familiar with in order to be effective? I think we’d all agree that it is impossible to have intimate knowledge of all these fields and concepts without years or perhaps a lifetime of schooling behind us. So how much of it do we need to know in order to function in a classroom?