





































Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

A Balanced Approach to Literacy Instruction and 
Support for Diverse Learners 

 
Bonnie Mondesir 

 University of West Georgia 
 

Robert A. Griffin  
University of West Georgia 

 

Abstact 

In this article, the authors explore various theories to inform educators and educational leaders who are 
looking for ways to better meet the literacy needs of all of their diverse students, including striving 
readers, culturally and linguistically diverse readers, and proficient and excelling readers. They call on 
educators to embrace a balanced approach that is informed by multiple bottom-up and top-down theories 
to better meet the needs of all their students. Focus is first given to Gough’s and LaBerge and Samuels’ 
information processing models (bottom-up models) followed by the psycholinguistic, schema, and 
transactional reader response top-down theories. Discussion of both the bottom-up and top-down 
theoretical approaches includes background information on notable theorists and explanations of specific 
theories that are instrumental in enriching the teaching of reading in a variety of classroom settings to a 
variety of students. Literature relevant to these theories is reviewed, and practical classroom implications 
of implementing these theories are explored to provide educators with hands-on tools and suggestions 
they can use to improve and enrich literacy instruction for all their students. Finally, a case is made for 
why educators should call upon multiple theories when making instructional decisions. 
 
keywords: literacy theory, balanced literacy, diverse learners, striving readers 
 

The purpose of this article is 
to explore various theories to inform 
educators and educational leaders 
who are looking for ways to better 
meet the literacy needs of their 
diverse students, including striving 
readers, culturally and linguistically 
diverse readers, and proficient and 
excelling readers. Recent results from 
our National Report Card regarding 
lower achievement levels in reading 
raises alarm and points to the need for 
changes in the way we approach 
reading instruction in schools 
throughout the U.S. and our state 

specifically. Looking specifically at 
results in Georgia on the 2019 
National Assessment of Educational 
Progress (NAEP), only 32% of 
students in 4th and 8th grades 
performed at or above the proficient 
level in reading, a 2% decrease from 
2017. Even while statistics reveal a 
lack of improvement in reading, they 
also show an increase in the diversity 
of the student population, which calls 
for differentiated instructional 
practices to address the needs of 
students from a variety of cultural, 

Page 30 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

linguistic, and socioeconomic 
backgrounds. 

Because literacy is a critical 
component in the academic and future 
success of students, selecting 
instructional strategies that will help 
to build and develop a literacy-rich 
environment that will contribute to 
literacy success for all students is 
challenging, but this challenge does 
not result from a lack of knowledge or 
focus on reading as an area of 
concern. Literacy has been and 
continues to be a key initiative in 
many states, districts, and schools 
throughout the U.S. and specifically 
here in Georgia with the new dyslexia 
legislation signed into law in 2019. 
Considerable funding has been 
invested in numerous reading 
programs and research-based literacy 
incentives that promise impactful 
results, yet outcomes continue to 
show the need for more change, as 
our students continue to struggle to 
reach, much less surpass grade-level 
reading proficiency. 

Improving literacy instruction 
does not rely on what is new or yet to 
be discovered; instead, we need to 
look back to the foundational theories 
and models that continue to provide 
guidance, methods, and strategies that 
contribute to a strategic, informed, 
intentional, and balanced approach to 
the teaching of literacy. Helping 
teachers recognize how theories 
affect the way we think about life and 
learning will ultimately lead to a 
better understanding of how a variety 
of models and theories can lead to 

more effective and high-quality 
instruction for all students (Tracey & 
Morrow, 2017). Moreover, educators 
should approach the teaching of 
literacy intentionally and 
strategically; one effective way of 
doing this is through the exploration, 
examination, and application of 
multiple foundational literacy 
theories. 

Considering the diversity of 
their students and the different levels 
of their reading abilities, a one-size-
fits-all approach will not be effective; 
teachers need to be familiar with a 
variety of theories so that they will be 
able to call upon multiple strategies to 
meet the diverse needs of their 
students. A balanced approach to 
literacy instruction requires 
knowledge of both bottom-up and 
top-down models. Being proficient in 
various theoretical approaches also 
empowers teachers to be strategic and 
flexible in designing lessons that will 
engage all of their students, including 
less-motivated readers, striving 
readers, multilingual learners, and 
proficient or excelling readers 
(Griffin, 2019). 

Reading is a complex 
endeavor that integrates both lower 
and higher-order thinking, and both 
are required to achieve understanding 
of a text (Afflerbach et al., 2015). As 
such, bottom-up approaches posit that 
the road to reading comprehension 
begins with processing lower-level 
information, like letter sounds and 
word meanings, which will then lead 
to higher-level information 

Page 31 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

processing, such as comprehending 
the overall meaning of the text 
(Tracey & Morrow, 2017). Top-down 
approaches, conversely, begin with 
an overall understanding of the 
central idea of a text, and from there, 
readers then focus on the lower-level 
processes, such as the phrases and 
words that create the overall message 
(Angosto et al., 2013). 

This paper is an exploration of 
bottom-up and top-down theoretical 
approaches and how they both 
contribute to an effective balanced 
approach to literacy instruction. First, 
focus will be given to two prominent 
bottom-up models, followed by a 
focus on three leading top-down 
theories. These five theories are 
included as a representative sample of 
prominent paradigms from both 
schools of thought. Discussion of 
both theoretical approaches will 
consist of historical background 
information, notable theorists, and 
explanations that are instrumental in 
enriching the teaching of literacy in a 
variety of classroom settings. 
Literature relevant to these theories 
will be reviewed and practical 
classroom implications of 
implementing these theories will be 
explored to provide educators with 
hands-on tools and suggestions they 
can utilize to improve and enrich 
literacy instruction. Finally, a case 
will be made for why educators 
should consider multiple theories 
when making instructional decisions. 

 
 

Bottom-Up Theoretical Approach 

Background 
 
To reach the top of a flight of 

stairs, one must begin at the bottom 
and climb each step one by one, each 
step providing the leverage and 
support needed to reach the next until 
one finally achieves the goal of 
reaching the top. Much like climbing 
stairs, the bottom-up approach to 
literacy instruction posits that the 
reading process begins with 
mastering foundational lower-order 
skills that then provides access to the 
next set of skills, and this process 
continues in a step-by-step fashion to 
higher-order skills which eventually 
lead to the goal of overall reading 
comprehension. Gough’s information 
processing model and LaBerge and 
Samuels’ automatic information 
processing model are two models that 
have influenced and continue to 
influence literacy pedagogy and 
classroom practices. 

Bottom-up theorists perceive 
reading as a process that begins with 
decoding. According to Samuels 
(1988), decoding refers to the ability 
to connect the printed word to its 
corresponding sound. This process is 
critical in helping students to be 
successful in the next component of 
reading, comprehension (Samuels, 
1988). This bottom-up approach to 
reading reflects the ideas found in the 
cognitive-processing perspective, 
which focuses on examining the 
fundamental mental actions that take 

Page 32 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

place during reading. One model that 
reflects the bottom-up and cognitive-
processing perspective is Philip 
Gough’s information processing 
model. Gough described the stages 
the mind goes through to process, 
store, and receive information when 
interacting with texts during reading 
(Tracey & Morrow, 2017). Initially 
proposed in 1972, Gough’s 
information processing model was 
later renamed The Simple View of 
Reading (Hoover & Gough, 1990). 
Around the same time as Gough, 
David LaBerge and S. Jay Samuels 
presented another reading model that 
stemmed from the cognitive 
processing lens called the automatic 
information-processing model. Like 
Gough, LaBerge and Samuels viewed 
reading as a stage-by-stage process 
(Tracey & Morrow, 2017). 

 
Selected Theories 
 
Gough’s Information Processing 
Model 
 

Gough’s information 
processing model is text-driven 
where the reading process begins with 
the printed word on the page and 
proceeds in sequential order from a 
phonics-based approach to word 
recognition to the overall meaning of 
the text (Lonigan et al., 2018). The 
process starts when the visual 
representation of the letter, the iconic 
image, is examined by the scanner 
and decoded and changed to the 
corresponding sound in the phonemic 

tape. At the next level, these letter 
sounds are brought together and 
attempts are made to connect them to 
word meanings—a stage referred to 
as the librarian. Once meaning is 
attained, the next step involves 
combining the words into sentences 
in the primary memory, and the 
Merlin stage, helps to give these 
sentences meaning; the sentences are 
then added to the knowledge system 
(Lonigan et al., 2018; Tracey & 
Morrow, 2017). According to 
Rumelhart (1994), Gough’s model 
takes into account the various ways 
that different types of information 
interact to lead to understanding. The 
Simple View, as this model was later 
coined, posits that decoding skills and 
language comprehension are the 
processes that lead to the higher-order 
skill of reading comprehension, 
which can be illustrated as the 
equation R = D x LC where R is 
reading comprehension, D is 
decoding, and LC is language 
comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 
1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990). 

 
Automatic Information Processing 
Model 
 

Another notable model that is 
bottom-up in orientation is the 
automatic information processing 
model (AIPM) developed by LaBerge 
and Samuels (LaBerge & Samuels, 
1974). The AIPM rests on two 
assumptions: (a) The human brain is 
capable of processing a small amount 
of information at one time, and (b) it 

Page 33 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

is necessary for someone to decode 
and understand words in a text in 
order to achieve understanding 
(Samuels, 2004, 2006). As shown in 
Figure 1, the AIPM has five different 
parts that, like Gough’s model, occur 
in a linear order (Sadoski et al., 2012; 
Tracey & Morrow, 2017). First, 
readers use their visual memory (VM) 
to process the text and identify the 
visual input as letters. Readers then 
move to the phonological memory 
(PM) where sounds are attached to 
images, then on to the episodic 
memory (EM), where the reader now 
pays attention to the context 

surrounding the information they are 
viewing. This and other knowledge is 
stored in the semantic memory (SM). 
This follows to the final part of this 
process, attention (A), of which there 
are two types—external attention and 
internal attention (LaBerge & 
Samuels, 1974; Samuels, 2004). 
Readers must be able to decode words 
accurately and automatically 
recognize them to achieve fluency; 
once they can do this, readers will 
have more working memory available 
to dedicate to understanding what 
they are reading (Schrauben, 2010). 

 
Figure 1 

 
Stages of the Automatic Information Processing Model 

 
A discussion of the AIPM is 

incomplete without highlighting one 
of its core components, automaticity. 
More clearly, automaticity is the 
ability to perform a complex task 
effortlessly with little attention 
(Samuels, 1988). Emergent and 
striving readers often struggle with 
decoding, which leaves their mental 
faculties so taxed that they have little 
mental energy left to devote to 

comprehending the text they are 
struggling to decode. As such, 
emergent and striving readers need 
extensive practice with letter-sound 
recognition (phonemic awareness) 
and phonics, along with a vocabulary 
of high-frequency words, knowledge 
of morphological (word parts) and 
orthographic (spelling) patterns 
(rimes and phonographs), etc. for 
them to build skills in decoding so 

Page 34 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

that the mental task of decoding 
becomes more and more effortless 
and automatic, thus freeing their 
attention to devote to understanding 
or comprehending the text (LaBerge 
& Samuels, 1974; Samuels, 2004). 
 
Selected Research Findings 
 

Several studies have been 
conducted that investigate 
instructional strategies that emerge 
from Gough’s simple view of reading 
and the AIPM, both of which 
emphasize the linear progression 
from decoding to comprehension. To 
find ways to improve the decoding 
skills of students identified as poor 
readers, Squires (2018) explored how 
working memory and cognitive load 
affected the decoding skills of 
elementary students. Squires noted 
the negative effect when readers have 
to devote a significant amount of 
attention to cognitive tasks associated 
with decoding that then leave fewer 
resources for them to use for the job 
of comprehension. Specifically, 
Squires administered three different 
measures to a group of 2nd and 5th-
grade students that required varying 
levels of cognitive demand for 
auditory-verbal and visual-spatial 
working memory, then assessed their 
level of decoding skills. Findings 
revealed a relationship between 
auditory-verbal working memory and 
the students’ ability to perform 
decoding tasks, which suggests that 
reading programs that are language-

rich would be beneficial in improving 
reading and academic performance. 

 
In a paper where he reflected 

on his career in reading education, 
Samuels (2006) noted the positive 
results, specifically in fluency, 
associated with using the repeated 
reading strategy for the first time with 
a group of special education students 
in the late 1970s. Over 30 years later, 
Bennett et al. (2017) investigated the 
effect of repeated reading, combined 
with culturally relevant stories and 
technology, to improve the reading 
fluency of a small group (N = 7) of 
second-grade African American 
students in two inner-city elementary 
schools. Results showed 
improvement in reading fluency and 
comprehension for six of the seven 
students who participated and the 
gains were greater when compared to 
some of their peers in the conduct 
group. 

In a similar study, Redcay and 
Preston (2016) used a control and 
experimental group of 20 second-
graders in each to determine the effect 
of teacher-guided repeated reading 
instruction delivered using an iPad 
app. The goal was to help students 
improve their ability to read 
automatically. Though there were 
some limitations due to differences 
between the groups selected, both the 
fluency and comprehension scores of 
students in the experimental group 
were significantly higher than those 
in the control group, thus 
demonstrating the benefits of the 

Page 35 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

repeated reading strategy in 
improving automaticity in the reading 
process with the added benefit of 
meaningfully integrating technology 
in the process (Redcay & Preston, 
2016). 

 
Instructional Implications 

 
Bottom-up models like 

Gough’s simple view of reading and 
AIPM emphasize the importance of 
students mastering the skills needed 
for success in reading sequentially.  
This linear progression is significant 
as it relates to the classroom, not only 
in terms of daily decisions that 
teachers make about instruction but in 
decisions regarding helping striving 
readers. Research-based practices in 
literacy instruction have the potential 
to influence historically lower-
performing groups, including 
students of color, students with 
exceptionalities, and multilingual 
learners. Utilizing technology may 
also help to make instruction more 
engaging and accessible to students 
(Redcay & Preston, 2016). 

Georgia’s Standards of 
Excellence, based heavily on the 
Common Core Standards, emphasize 
higher-level, critical thinking, which 
has inadvertently prompted some 
teachers to drift away from spending 
time on foundational reading skills 
such as decoding and fluency, even 
when supporting striving readers in 
the upper elementary and secondary 
grades (Hendrix & Griffin, 2017). 
Bottom-up models suggest that 

without helping students to master 
these early reading skills, they will 
not be able to acquire higher-level 
comprehension skills. 

 
Implementing repeated 

reading activities in classes of striving 
readers and multilingual learners 
could lead to significant improvement 
and growth in their literacy skills 
(Bennett et al., 2017; Rasinski, 2017; 
Redcay & Preston, 2016; Samuels, 
2006). Samuels (2006) found that 
incorporating a peer-lead repeated 
reading activity had a more 
significant effect on student 
performance than a teacher-led one. 
Teachers can plan group activities 
where they can work with small 
groups of students, while other 
students read aloud to each other 
(Rasinski, 2017). As shown in 
Redcay and Preston’s (2016) study, 
teachers can also use iPads or other 
forms of technology to incorporate 
repeated reading activities in the 
classroom with small groups or 
individually at home, thus increasing 
the ease and likelihood of 
differentiating instruction. In another 
study on scaffolding second language 
reading for multilingual learners, 
Taguchi et al. (2016) introduced 
another way to incorporate 
technology in the learning process by 
using an audio recording to model 
reading the text, so students can hear 
the text being read aloud and practice 
reading it on their own. 

 

Page 36 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

Bottom-up models are also 
useful for coming up with 
interventions for striving readers. 
Students at all grade levels who are 
having trouble with comprehension 
or demonstrating higher-order 
reading skills need to be assessed for 
their knowledge of the lower-level 
skills. Having students read aloud 
will help teachers recognize where in 
the reading process they require 
support and interventions (Rasinski, 
2017). Free software programs, such 
as Screencast-O-Matic (screencast-o-
matic.com), allow teachers to record 
lessons that meet the needs of their 
students. In addition, free audio 
recording or video recording apps like 
Flipgrid (flipgrid.com) enable 
students to practice and demonstrate 
their progress to their teachers, 
parents, and themselves. Readers 
theater is another fun way for students 
of all ages to work on improving their 
fluency and mastery of lower-level 
reading skills (Young et al., 2019). 
Frequent formative assessments also 
need to be in place to monitor 
students’ progress so that instruction 
is aligned with their specific needs. 
The bottom-up approach continues to 
earn its place in the literacy classroom 
as it continues to be relevant for 
improving literacy instruction, 
especially for emergent and striving 
readers. 

 
 
 
 
 

Top-Down Theoretical Approach 
 
Background 

 
Before working on learning a 

new musical piece, a conductor will 
often allow the musicians to hear the 
entire composition, so that each 
member will have a clear 
understanding of how each part and 
instrument works together to produce 
the final performance. This whole-to-
part metaphor is similar to the 
thinking behind the top-down 
orientation toward the reading 
process, which focuses first on the 
role of the readers and their 
understanding of the overall text 
rather than the elements of the text 
itself (Tracey & Morrow, 2017). 
When students begin with a 
contextual understanding of the text, 
they may more easily master the 
individual skills and vocabulary that 
they need to grasp the meaning more 
fully. For example, a reader begins by 
trying to understand the message of 
an entire paragraph first before 
focusing on the words, phrases, and 
sentences that comprise the paragraph 
(Angosto et al., 2013). This theory 
contrasts with the bottom-up 
approach to reading, which stresses 
the importance of first mastering the 
foundational skills, such as decoding, 
word recognition, and fluency before 
the reader can reach the higher-order 
thinking that is involved in grasping 
overall meaning (Suraprajit, 2019). 

 

Page 37 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

Top-down theories find their 
roots in constructivism with three 
primary factors underlying literacy 
acquisition: (a) Not all learning can 
be seen by an outside viewer, as some 
learning processes occur internally 
within the reader’s mind; (b) some 
learning occurs as a result of 
successful educational guesswork on 
the part of the reader (e.g., using 
context clues); (c) readers sometimes 
attain meaning by inserting their 
background knowledge and making 
connections when there are gaps in 
their understanding of the text—a 
process called inferencing (Tracey & 
Morrow, 2017). Noted educational or 
learning theorists that contributed to 
top-down theories include Jean Piaget 
and John Dewey. Piaget influenced 
the foundation of constructivist 
theory through his beliefs that 
humans learn using a process of 
continuous building of logical 
structures; Dewey added the 
importance of learning to be 
grounded in experiential and inquiry 
learning. According to Dewey, an 
effective learning environment is one 
where students have the opportunity 
to create hypotheses, test their 
hypotheses using data that they have 
collected, and reflect on the process 
they engaged in to arrive at their 
conclusions. These early thinkers 
influenced the later development of 
top-down theories that continue to 
play a significant role in literacy 
education, including 
psycholinguistic, schema, and 

transactional reader response 
theories. 

 
Selected Theories 

 
Psycholinguistic Theory 

 
One of the theoretical models 

of reading closely associated with the 
top-down processing approach is the 
psycholinguistic theory. Artley 
(1980) described psycholinguistics as 
the joining of linguistics and 
cognitive psychology. This theory 
suggests that when readers engage in 
the process of reading, they use their 
prior knowledge of language and the 
world to make sense of what they are 
reading (Goodman, 1971). As such, 
young children learning to read would 
be more impacted by the knowledge 
they obtain from the adults and the 
environment around them than from 
specific instructional materials 
(Smith & Goodman, 1971). 
According to this constructivist 
viewpoint, at the center of the 
learning process is the learner herself 
actively connecting old knowledge 
with new knowledge, formulating 
hypotheses to make sense of 
unknown information, and making 
inferences to help him understand 
what the text means. Kenneth 
Goodman (1967), one of the first 
theorists to apply psycholinguistics to 
the reading process, referred to this 
process of predicting the meaning of 
a text based on prior experiences and 
schemata as “a psycholinguistic 
guessing game” (p. 126). As shown in 

Page 38 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

Figure 2, this theory posits that 
proficient readers use three central 
cueing systems: (a) graphic cues, 
referring to letters and words; (b) 
syntactic cues, referring to how words 
are arranged grammatically; and (c) 

semantic cues, referring to the 
reader’s perception of what words 
and phrases mean in the text (Hayes, 
1980). 

 

Figure 2 
 
Cueing Systems in Psycholinguistic Theory of Reading 

 

 
 
Schema Theory 
 

Another notable top-down or 
constructivist theory is the schema 
theory. The ideas surrounding schema 
theory and its connection to the 
reading process were first developed 
by psychologist Sir Frederic Barlett 
(1932/1995), who used the term 
schema to describe one’s mental 
organization of events that occurred 
in the past. Anderson and Pearson 
(1984) applied schema theory to 

reading by suggesting that readers 
had schemata for content, text 
structures, and reading processes; 
they posited that a reader’s ability to 
comprehend text is directly related to 
how detailed their schemata are. 
According to Anderson and Pearson, 
existing structures of knowledge are 
always changing, and these changes 
involve three processes: (a) 
accretation occurs when readers 
acquire new information; (b) tuning is 
when a schema has to be changed to 

Page 39 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

integrate new information; and (c) 
restructuring occurs when the reader 
realizes that an old schema is no 
longer enough and a new one needs to 
be created. 
 
Transactional Reader Response 
Theory 
 

Both the psycholinguistic and 
schema theories place heavy 
emphasis on readers’ prior 
knowledge and how they use 
schemata to engage in the reading 
process to construct meaning. In her 
development of the transactional 
reader response theory (TRRT), 
Louise Rosenblatt (2013, 1994/1978) 
also gives credence to the 
significance of the reader’s schemata 
in extrapolating meaning from the 
text; however, she also adds another 
element to the reading process, the 
reader’s transaction with the text. 
Rosenblatt (1994/1978) postulated 
that because schemata are acquired 
from life experiences, a reader’s 
response to the text is central to 
comprehension. Stated differently, 
what readers take from a text is 
influenced by the knowledge that they 
bring to it. This exchange between 
reader and text is referred to as a 
transaction, as the way each affects 
the other is what contributes to the 
meaning (Probst, 1987). This meeting 
between reader and text is further 
influenced by the type of response the 
reader has to the text: An efferent 
response refers to the factual 
information that a reader gathers from 

a text, while an aesthetic response 
refers to a more personal or emotional 
response (Sebastian, 2014). In 
keeping with the constructivist view, 
the TRRT emphasizes that the reader 
is an active participant in the reading 
process (Woodruff & Griffin, 2017). 
 
Selected Research Findings 
 

Instructional strategies that 
emerge from top-down literacy 
theories such as psycholinguistic 
theory, schema theory, and TRRT 
have been shown to significantly and 
positively affect student literacy 
outcomes. In a meta-analysis of 
articles published between 2007 and 
2017 on effective vocabulary 
instruction, Moody et al. (2018) 
examined the theories that influenced 
word-learning strategies and found 
that recommendations for effective 
vocabulary instruction were greatly 
influenced by both schema and 
psycholinguistic theories. Strategies 
based on these theories included 
comparing and contrasting word 
features using semantic groupings, 
utilizing a Frayer Model graphic 
organizer to learn new vocabulary 
words, incorporating the home 
languages of multilingual students in 
classroom discussions, and 
examining common semantic 
meanings and phonological features 
of words. The influence of both 
schema and psycholinguistic theories 
highlighted the importance of prior 
knowledge, word connections, and 

Page 40 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

mentally organizing words to 
maximize understanding. 

Chilton and Ehri (2015) 
demonstrated the central role 
schemata play in vocabulary 
acquisition and reading 
comprehension of elementary school 
children (N = 40). Their research 
experiment examined the impact of 
connecting semantic scenarios to 
meanings for third graders who were 
learning the definitions of six new 
verbs (anticipate, attain, devise, 
restrain, wield, and persist). To 
observe the influence of schema and 
context on learning, Chilton and Ehri 
provided instruction for one group of 
students where the new words were 
used in sentences where events were 
all connected to a common scenario, 
like a birthday party, while another 
group of students was also provided 
with sentences with the new words, 
but without connections to everyday 
events or scenarios. Results showed 
that students who were offered the 
opportunity to use their existing 
schemata of the common scenarios 
included in the sentences were better 
able to acquire and retain the 
meanings of the new words that they 
learned. This theory also 
demonstrates how students actively 
apply their schemata of content and 
reading processes to build knowledge 
and achieve reading comprehension 
(Suraprajit, 2019). This focus on the 
reader being the central agent in the 
creation of meaning during the 
reading process is also evident in 

Rosenblatt’s TRRT (Sebastian, 
2014). 

 
Meyer and Schendel (2014) 

explored the use of the TRRT with a 
small group (N = 10) of first-grade 
students who were identified as 
striving readers. This action research 
study examined the effect of the 
implementation of literature circles 
on student’s assessment outcomes 
and classroom behaviors. Students 
were placed in literature circles and 
given specific roles, including Artful 
Artist, Question Asker, Connector, 
and Passage Picker, to facilitate 
meaningful transactions with the text. 
Students called upon their collective 
prior knowledge to discuss and write 
about their aesthetic and efferent 
responses to the high-interest texts 
they were reading collectively in 
literature circles. Meyer and Schendel 
cited high student engagement, 
enhanced comprehension, and 
attainment of new learning strategies 
and tools as just some of the benefits 
gained from their implementation of 
literature circles. 
 
Instructional Implications 
 

The discussion above of 
research studies highlights practical 
ways instructional strategies that 
emerge from psycholinguistic theory, 
schema theory, and TRRT can 
positively influence student 
achievement in reading. These 
strategies include the use of graphic 
organizers to explore prior 

Page 41 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

knowledge and to make connections 
to the text and build new meaning, the 
use of existing schemata to acquire 
new vocabulary, and participation in 
literature circles to increase 
engagement and learning while 
reading a text. Little and Box (2011) 
suggested using semantic mapping as 
a useful instructional tool to help 
students who may not have enough of 
the background knowledge they need 
to comprehend the text they are 
reading. Much like the example with 

common animals shown in Figure 3 
below, this strategy involves allowing 
students to create a visual 
representation of ideas connected to 
the concepts in the text they will read; 
this can be even more effective if, 
after allowing students to brainstorm 
on their own, the teacher leads the 
class in a collective sharing of ideas 
that helps all students build their 
knowledge of the concept using what 
they already know and what they are 
learning from their peers. 

 
Figure 3 
 
Example of Semantic Map to Build Schemata Related to Common Animals 

 

 
 
Technology can also be 

integrated. Venn diagrams and 
mapping tools are available via free 
online apps for students to use to 
explore their prior knowledge. 
Literature circles may be conducted 
online using discussion boards so that 
students not only get to interact with 
the text but also communicate with 
their peers to discuss the books they 

are reading. In discussing the use of 
technology to facilitate reader 
response, Clarke (2014) suggested 
several technological tools that could 
be used to engage students in 
strategies based on the TRRT. These 
digital tools include Wordle 
(wordle.net) to create a graphic 
representation of word connections, 
Kami (kamiapp.com) to annotate text 

Page 42 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

online, VoiceThread 
(voicethread.com) to allow students 
to discuss text with their peers, and 
Glogster (glogster.com), Smore 
(smore.com), or Prezi (prezi.com) to 
create engaging multimedia 
presentations. 
 

The top-down approach 
continues to play a significant role in 
the teaching of literacy; its premise 
that the learner is the most vital 
component in the reading process 
encourages teachers to keep students 
at the center of their instructional 
practices and learning activities. 

Concluding Thoughts 
 

Viewing learning experiences 
from multiple theoretical 
perspectives, including from bottom-
up and top-down approaches as we 
have done, allows educators to 
consider different explanations and 
ways to analyze and meet the needs of 
diverse at all stages of the literacy 
acquisition continuum. When 
educators are aware of the theories 
they use to “see” and work through a 
phenomenon, theoretical background 
knowledge is even more effective. 
Being conscious of and purposeful in 
the way we use and apply various 
theories allows us to analyze, think 
through, discuss, reuse, improve, or 
even dismiss them if needed; most 
importantly, this awareness will 
enable us to recognize when 
something is working, how it is 
working, and how to make it work 
better (Tracey & Morrow, 2017).  

 
In the context of literacy 

instruction, if teachers only choose to 
consider one theoretical orientation in 
their approach to teaching students 
how to read, they could miss the 
opportunity to help many students 
reach their potential, and may even 
cause some to fail in their attempts. 
Considering multiple theoretical 
perspectives also improves our 
understanding of individual 
components that need to be 
considered when trying to solve a 
problem (Tierney, 1994). When a 
teacher has a student who is 
struggling to read, utilizing all 
methods at her disposal to help that 
student to be successful is vital, and 
understanding that there are multiple 
ways to understand and work through 
literacy problems is equally essential 
(Tracey & Morrow, 2017).  
 

What was and what is, as it 
relates to learning and life, continue 
to be inextricably linked. Ryan and 
Dagostino (2017) pointed out that 
Louise Rosenblatt’s warning made 80 
years ago that teachers were not doing 
a sufficient job developing their 
students’ interest in having a 
pleasurable and meaningful 
experience in reading is still relevant 
to today’s standardized testing driven 
school environments. This is not just 
a literacy problem; the way students 
relate to reading and writing 
correlates to their development as 
creative, problem-solving, productive 
members of a democratic society 

Page 43 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

(Ryan & Dagostino, 2017). Increased 
knowledge of the strategies affiliated 
with various theoretical orientations, 
including bottom-up and top-down, 
can lead to immediate improvement 
in the way we help our students to 
read. There is no old way versus new 
way—all strategies should be 
considered in developing a balanced 
approach that meets the needs of all 
our students. 

 
References 

Afflerbach, P., Cho, B. Y., & Kim, J. 
Y. (2015). Conceptualizing 
and assessing higher-order 
thinking in reading. Theory 
Into Practice, 54(3), 203–
212. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405
841.2015.1044367 

 
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. 

(1984). A schema-theoretic 
view of basic processes in 
reading comprehension. In P. 
D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook 
of reading research (pp. 255–
291). Longman. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo97
81139524513.007 

 
Angosto, A., Sánchez, P., Álvarez, 

M., Cuevas, I., & León, J. A. 
(2013). Evidence for top-
down processing in reading 
comprehension of children. 
Psicología Educativa, 19(2), 
83–88. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S113
5-755X(13)70014-9 

Artley, A. S. (1980). 
Psycholinguistics applied to 
reading instruction. Reading 
Horizons: A Journal of 
Literacy and Language Arts, 
20(2), 106–111. 

 
Barlett, F. C. (1932/1995). 

Remembering: A study in 
experimental and social 
psychology (2nd ed.). 
Cambridge University Press. 

 
Bennett, J. G., Gardner, R., 

Cartledge, G., Ramnath, R., 
& Council, M. R. (2017). 
Second-grade urban learners: 
Preliminary findings for a 
computer-assisted, culturally 
relevant, repeated reading 
intervention. Education & 
Treatment of Children, 40(2), 
145–186. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.20
17.0008 

 
Chilton, M. W., & Ehri, L. C. 

(2015). Vocabulary learning: 
Sentence contexts linked by 
events in scenarios facilitate 
third graders’ memory for 
verb meanings. Reading 
Research Quarterly, 50(4), 
439–458. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.10
6 

 
 

Page 44 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

Clarke, L. W. (2014). Reader 
Response 2.0: Using 
technology to support literacy 
growth. New England 
Reading Association Journal, 
50(1), 44–49. 

 
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and 

education. Macmillian. 
 
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A 

psycholinguistic guessing 
game. Journal of the Reading 
Specialist, 6(4), 126–135. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388
076709556976 

 
Goodman, K. S. (1971). 

Psycholinguistic universals in 
the reading process. In P. 
Pimsleur & T. Quinn (Eds.), 
The psychology of second 
language learning. 
Cambridge University Press. 

 
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. 

(1986). Decoding, reading, 
and reading disability. 
Remedial and Special 
Education, 7(1), 6–10. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419
3258600700104 

 
Griffin, R. A. (2019). Exploring the 

reading motivation of less-
motivated adolescent Latinx 
English learners. Georgia 
Journal of Reading, 42(1), 
18–30. https://bit.ly/2GiNiry 

 

Hayes, C. G. (1980, March 13–15). 
An overview of 
psycholinguistic reading 
theory [Paper presentation]. 
31st Annual Meeting of the 
Conference on College 
Composition and 
Communication, 
Washington, DC, United 
States. 

 
Hendrix, R. A., & Griffin, R. A. 

(2017). Developing enhanced 
morphological awareness in 
adolescent learners. Journal 
of Adolescent & Adult 
Literacy, 61(1), 55–63. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.6
42 

 
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. 

(1990). The simple view of 
reading. Reading and 
Writing, 2(1), 127–160. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00
401799 

 
LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S. J. (1974). 

Toward a theory of automatic 
information processing in 
reading. Cognitive 
Psychology, 6(2), 293–323. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010- 
0285(74)90015-2 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 45 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

Little, D. C., & Box, J. A. (2011). 
The use of a specific schema 
theory strategy—semantic 
mapping—to facilitate 
vocabulary development and 
comprehension for at-risk 
readers. Reading 
Improvement, 48(1), 24–31. 

 
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & 

Schatschneider, C. (2018). 
Examining the simple view 
of reading with elementary 
school children: Still simple 
after all these years. 
Remedial and Special 
Education, 39(5), 260–273. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419
32518764833 

 
Meyer, A., & Schendel, R. K. 

(2014). Capitalizing on social 
and transactional learning to 
challenge first-grade readers. 
Reading Horizons, 53(3), 25–
44. https://scholarworks. 
wmich.edu/reading_horizons/
vol53/iss3/3 

 
Moody, S., Hu, X., Kuo, L., Jouhar, 

M., Xu, Z., & Lee, S. (2018). 
Vocabulary instruction: A 
critical analysis of theories, 
research, and practice. 
Education Sciences, 8(4), 
180–202. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/educs
ci8040180 

 
Probst, R. E. (1987). Transactional 

theory in the teaching of 

literature. ERIC Digest. 
https://www.ericdigests.org/p
re-926/theory.htm 

 
Rasinski, T. V. (2017). Readers who 

struggle: Why many struggle 
and a modest proposal for 
improving their reading. The 
Reading Teacher, 70(5), 
519–524. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.15
33 

 
Redcay, J. D., & Preston, S. M. 

(2016). Improving second 
grade student’s reading 
fluency and comprehension 
using teacher-guided iPad 
app instruction. Interactive 
Technology and Smart 
Education, 13(3), 218–228. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-
12-2015-0035 

 
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994/1978). The 

reader, the text, the poem: 
The transactional theory of 
literary work. Southern 
Illinois University Press. 

 
Rosenblatt, L. M. (2013). The 

transactional theory of 
reading and writing. In D. E. 
Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & 
R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), 
Theoretical models and 
processes of reading (6th ed., 
pp. 923–956). International 
Reading Association.  

 

Page 46 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

Rumelhart, D. E. (1994). Toward an 
interactive model of reading. 
In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell 
(Eds.), Theoretical models 
and processes of reading (3rd 
ed., pp. 722–750). 
International Reading 
Association. 
https://doi.org/10.1598/08720
75028.41 

 
Ryan, K., & Dagostino, L. (2017). 

The coding, scoring, and 
analysis of teachers’ 
responses following exposure 
to Louise Rosenblatt’s 
theories of reading. New 
England Reading Association 
Journal, 52(2), 35–48. 

 
Sadoski, M., McTigue, E. M., & 

Paivio, A. (2012). A dual 
coding theoretical model of 
decoding in reading: 
Subsuming the Laberge and 
Samuels model. Reading 
Psychology, 33(5), 465–496. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02702
711.2011.557330 

Samuels, S. J. (1988). Decoding and 
automaticity: Helping poor 
readers become automatic at 
word recognition. The 
Reading Teacher, 41(8), 
756–760. 

 
Samuels, S. J. (2004). Toward a 

theory of automatic 
information processing in 
reading, revisited. In R. B. 
Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), 

Theoretical models and 
processes of reading (5th ed., 
pp. 1127–1148). International 
Reading Association. 

 
Samuels, S. J. (2006). Looking 

backward: Reflections on a 
career in reading. Journal of 
Literacy Research, 38(3), 
327–344. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1554
8430jlr3803_3 

 
Schrauben, J. E. (2010). Prosody’s 

contribution to fluency: An 
examination of the theory of 
automatic information 
processing. Reading 
Psychology, 31(1), 82–92. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02702
710902753996 

 
Sebastian, R. M. (2014). 

Transactional reader 
response: A pedagogical tool 
in an ELT classroom. Writers 
Editors Critics, 4(1), 43–47.  

 
Smith, F., & Goodman, K. S. (1971). 

On the psycholinguistic 
method of teaching reading. 
The Elementary School 
Journal, 71(4), 177–181. 

 
Squires, K. E. (2018). Decoding: It’s 

not all about the letters. 
Language, Speech & Hearing 
Services in Schools, 49(3), 
395–408. 
https://doi.org/10.1044/ 
2018_LSHSS-17-0104 

Page 47 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring, 2020 
 
 

 
Suraprajit, P. (2019). Bottom-up vs 

top-down model: The 
perception of reading 
strategies among Thai 
university students. Journal 
of Language Teaching & 
Research, 10(3), 454–460. 
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1
003.07 

 
Taguchi, E., Gorsuch, G., Lems, K., 

& Rosszell, R. (2016). 
Scaffolding in L2 reading: 
How repetition and an 
auditory model help readers. 
Reading in a Foreign 
Language, 28(1), 101–117. 

 
Tierney, R. J. (1994). Dissensions, 

tensions, and the models of 
literacy. Theoretical models 
and processes of reading, 4, 
1162-1182. 

 
Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. 

(2017). Lenses on reading: 
An introduction to theories 
and models (3rd ed.). 
Guilford Press. 

 
Woodruff, A. H., & Griffin, R. A. 

(2017). Reader response in 
secondary settings: 
Increasing comprehension 
through meaningful 
interactions with literary 
texts. Texas Journal of 
Literacy Education, 5(2), 
108–116. 
https://bit.ly/36kRX6Y 

 
Young, C., Durham, P., Miller, M., 

Rasinski, T. V., & Lane, F. 
(2019). Improving reading 
comprehension with readers 
theater. Journal of 
Educational Research, 
112(5), 615–626. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220
671.2019.1649240 

Page 48 of 68




