That there is a concern regarding low levels of literacy in Canada today is an
understatement.  Fairbairn (1987), a Canadian senator, describes the situation as follows:
 

          ... illiteracy is truly a national disease and a national crisis.  It spreads
     across all groups in our society, regardless of age, economics, or
     region.  It cripples individual(s) ... for a lifetime - in a way sometimes
     just as deadly as a physical disability - and, in doing so, it also cripples
     the social development and economic productivity of our country (p.
     597).

 While causes of illiteracy are many and varied, the school is often a prime target
in terms of how it honours its mandate of teaching children how to read and write
(Calamai, 1988).  Mishra (1987) expresses concern that the increase in adult illiterates
in Canada each year is approximately 30,000, due in large measure to a 30 percent
dropout rate of Canadian high school students.  Deciding who and what is at fault may
not be a productive task to pursue.  There is no doubt that all segments of society,
including schools, can do a better job of improving the literacy skills of Canadians.  As
Newman and Beaverstock (1990) state, literacy is "a value we cannot do without" (p. 1).
 

Lack of Definition

 A key problem in discussing literacy (illiteracy) and its implications is the lack of
a clear cut definition as to what it means.  This problem is characterized by Venezky,
Wagner, and Ciliberti (1 990) as follows:
 

          Social concepts such as literacy and poverty are integrally tied to their
     labels.  Like jelly and sand, they are without intrinsic shape, defined
     and redefined by the vessels that hold them.  Who is literate depends
     upon how we define literacy (p. ix).

 The problem is not that there is not a definition but that there are too many
definitions; for example, the school system may be unjustly criticized for what it does in
terms of business expectations for literacy, or there may be a lack of congruency between
literacy development in schools and literacy demands on adults.  Cervero (1985)
questions whether a common definition of literacy is possible and eventually suggests a
way out of this dilemma by proposing that in order to give the direction necessary to
policy makers, program developers, and teachers/instructors, any definition of literacy
must be viewed from a conceptual framework and an operational perspective.  The
conceptual framework would provide a mechanism for understanding literacy as a unitary
construct while an operational definition would provide direction and leeway for
implementing this construct according to specific contexts and demands.  Cervero refutes
a common belief that conceptual frameworks or theories are the opposite of practice.  As
the famous psychologist, Kurt Lewin, said, "There is nothing so practical as a good
theory" (1944/1951, p. 169).  Consequently, it is necessary to develop a conceptual
framework which provides a unitary and common conceptual understanding and which
allows for variation in implementation as conditions demand.  On the basis of such a
conceptual framework, teachers could make decisions about the choice of a literacy
curriculum, would understand the commonalities and differences between literacy in the
school and in the workplace or other out-of-school contexts, and could determine the
evaluation criteria by which literacy development could be measured.
 

Developing a Model:  The Process

 The methodology for deriving an appropriate definition or model of literacy may
be considered as operating at two levels.  On one hand, a series of eight studies on
literacy completed by the writer formed the "basic data".  While each study involved a
particular research design, the data of all studies were subjected to content analysis in
order to identify significant concepts and relationships that would become the building
blocks of a conceptual framework (Budd, Thorp, and Donohew, 1967).  Carney (1972),
however, proposed that content analysis should go beyond identifying concepts,
information, etc. to that of inference making.  Four of the six stages of content analysis
suggested by Budd, Thorp, and Donohew (1 967) were chosen to guide the process of
developing a definition.  These were:
 

   1. Formulate research questions, theory, or hypotheses.
   2. Select a sample and define categories.
   3. Read, listen, observe, and code content via objective rules.
   4. Interpret findings.

 The research question may be paraphrased as, "How shall literacy be
conceptualized to provide a common framework of understanding and operational
variability?"  The sample consisted of the resulting data of the eight studies conducted
by the researcher.  With regard to stage 3, the focus was on non-frequency counting,
which according to Carney, "involves qualitative assessment of the significance of a
single, an intensive, or an attenuated mention" (p. 39).  Significant literacy concepts and
relationships were identified.  The final stage was most challenging for as Carney states,
"There are no rules to tell anyone how to make the inferential leap" (p. 4).  To do so, the
researcher drew on critical or reflective thinking (critical reflection) as part of the
methodological framework.  Higgins, Flower and Petraglia (1990) state that critical
reflection "can play an important role in helping (individuals) move out of knowledge-
telling and into knowledge-transforming" (p. 3) - an important goal in a definition building
process.  To accomplish this step, the researcher adopted a modified form of a model of
the process of theorizing by Snow (1973), trait-state theory of Allport (1937, 1960, 1961)
and Cattell (1950, 1979) and psychopathological constructs from psychologists such as
Murray (1938) and Millon (1986).

A Definition of Literacy:  The Trait-State Model

The Trait-State Model

 In order to conceptualize literacy as construct and operation, the Trait-State
model was developed.  (While trait-state is a term borrowed from personality theory; only
those aspects of personality theory were adopted which were pertinent to developing a
model of literacy.)  A trait, according to Allport (1961) consists of:

      ... a broad system of similar action tendencies existing in the person
   we are studying.  'Similar action tendencies' are those an observer,
   looking at them from the actor's point of view, can categorize together
   under one rubric of meaning (p. 337).

 Literacy traits would include skills, knowledge, language conventions, and
language processes - all focal aspects of a school literacy curriculum.  In order to infer
trait from behavior Allport proposed three criteria:  the frequency of its enactment, the
range of situations in which it occurs, and the individual's intensivity of his/her reactions
in striving towards a preferred pattern of behavior.  Rather than making a decision about
such competency on a single test (with a specific score often assigned), a teacher should
sample a child's literacy expertise over a range of situations at different times, including
the child's commitment and determination in pursuing literacy goals.

 Another trait characteristic is that it may be surface or source (according to
Hergenhahn, 1990, this distinction was first made by Cattell).  A surface trait correlates
with other characteristics of the individual and, according to Street (1 984), literacy as trait
correlates with such characteristics as 11 empathy, abstract context free thought,
rationality, critical thought, post-operative thought (in Piaget's usage), detachment and
the kinds of logical processes exemplified by syllogisms, formal language, elaborated
code, etc. (p. 2).  An erroneous conclusion, frequently made by literacy advocates, is that
literacy is a source trait or the cause of certain behaviours.  It is not uncommon for such
advocates to describe literacy as the cause of poverty, crime, unemployment, physical
abuse (see Fagan, 1990), or even ill-health (Movement for Canadian Literacy, 1990).

 Literacy as trait focusses on the individual operating in a fairly constrained
language situation, such as occurs in schools, where the mandate of the literacy
curriculum is to develop competency in language related knowledge, skills, processes,
and tasks.  In school, students read to answer questions, complete worksheets, discuss
stylistic components of various authors, or write journals.

 Allport (1961) did not view behaviour only as trait but conceived of trait as
extending beyond competency to functioning in different contexts "according to the
demands of the situation" (p. 181).  Allport insisted that the whole individual - the
possessing and the doing - should never be lost sight of (note the similarity to 'whole
language' philosophy, now common in schools).  The doing, of course, refers to state, a
notion extended by Cattell (1950, 1979) to include mood, disposition, and emotional
status.  State refers to literacy as use.  Kirsch (1990) maintains that "It is the difficulties
individuals have with employing skills and strategies that characterize the literacy problem
for much of the young adult population, not illiteracy or the inability to decode print or
comprehend simple textual material (lack of literacy as trait)" (p. 46).

 Focus on literacy as state is directed to providing for survival skills such as
locating street names, reading medicine labels, ordering from a menu, or applying for a
loan.  The context or occasion becomes the controlling factor; often very little attention
is given to the cognitive processes and linguistic skills which are needed to encode print
integral to such situations.  On the one hand, educators/program developers often fail to
distinguish between child and adult literacy as trait and state and adult literacy programs
are often similar to school type programs, being taught in the same developmental
manner, and using school (child) oriented reading material.  On the other hand,
educators/program developers may dichotomize child and adult literacy on the basis of
trait and state.  In schools, children often work only on language/reading related exercises
without any attempt to relate what they are learning to their lives beyond the classroom. 
In the field of adult literacy, programs may focus on individuals' rights through tenants'
organizations, churches, or neighbourhood activist organizations where attention to
language processing is minimal and incidental (Brookfield, 1984).  The goal in such
programs is that of "empowerment", defined as obtaining power over some socio-political
economic aspect of one's life as opposed to control over knowledge, understanding, and
manipulation of language.  While such a goal is worthy, one must question whether
indeed the adults are participants in a literacy program or a community support group. 
The implications are significant for program evaluation, program development, policy
makers, and funding agencies (including government).
 

The Trait-State Connections

 The relationships between trait and state aspects of literacy are best understood
through drawing on constructs from psychiatric literature.  In 1938 Murray proposed the
needs-press construct.  Applied to the trait-state model of literacy, this would mean that
an individual has certain needs which involve literacy (writing a resume for a job
application, understanding a memo from one's work supervisor, shopping at a
supermarket, writing a thank you note, reading a daily paper, or writing an exam).  The
context or situation may be kind or hostile depending on the degree of literacy
competency one has in executing a particular need, the understanding one has of a
particular environment or set of conditions, and the awareness one has of her/his level
of functioning.  Literacy needs may be thwarted or met.  One's reactions will be
determined by, and will vary, depending on, the participation and outcome.  Four types
of functioning, including maladaptive patterns and resulting reactions, may characterize
the state-trait relationships with respect to literacy.  These are presented in diagram form
in the figure below and are described briefly in turn.

   1. An individual may attempt to meet a certain literacy need (for example, reading the
   dosage on a medicine bottle) and becomes aware that he cannot do so; he may
   guess at the dosage resulting in his taking an overdose with unpleasant but not fatal
   complications.  This individual becomes aware through external sources that he
   needs to develop greater competency in language decoding.  This relationship is
   labelled (++) since the individual concurs with the press or feedback that literacy
   skills are lacking.

      2.  A (+-) relationship occurs when an individual decides that she would feel better about
     herself if she could read and/or write better.  This decision may not have come from
     an external conflict situation as in the case above, but through observation of others,
     introspection and awareness of one's functioning in written language skills.

     3.   A third relationship (-+) exists when an individual is informed by an external agent
     that he does not have sufficient literacy skills to accomplish a particular task but the
     individual rejects this assessment.  For example, a research assistant who is hired
     to do a literature review may not be able to provide a synthesis of literature
     researched and may have difficulty accepting this, with the result that this person
     may not attempt to improve this skill for future employment.

     4.   The final relationship (–) occurs when an individual does not encounter situations
     where meeting literacy needs is perceived as a problem, either from a personal
     perception or through feedback from others.  A (–) relationship will not only
     characterize those individuals whose literacy ability is adequate for the tasks
     encountered but also those individuals whose literacy abilities, while low (or even
     minimal), do not encounter situations where manipulating print is a factor.  Such a
     relationship may characterize older individuals living within a secure family unit,
     those in non-skilled or semi-skilled jobs and who live in a simplified environment
     (away from taking buses, using banks, and shopping at supermarkets).  Whether the
     latter group is literate, low-literate, or non-literate is not an issue; for this group,
     literacy is simply irrelevant.

 One of the criticisms of school literacy is that it is limited in providing contexts
for students to become aware of the relationships described above, a condition described
by Venezky (1990) as contributing to "plain vanilla literacy".  In schools, students may be
told they are not achieving, an evaluation with which they concur and they try and do
better (#1), are told they are doing well and continue to do so, or are not told they are
doing poorly and continue to do so (#4), or are told they are not doing well and they
refuse to work harder (42).  Number 3, though rare, may also be present where students
simply want to do better even without external feedback of any kind.
 

Implications

 An understanding of literacy must encompass trait and state; however, the
degree of focus will depend on the contexts and goals.  For example, school literacy
programs and literacy programs for adults planning on completing high school or entering
post-secondary institutions will focus more on literacy as trait, on developing competency
in language: competency in language analysis, construction and generation of meaning,
evaluation and extension of language use through manipulating various linguistic
structures (word, sentence. clause, argument, thesis, connective, etc.).  On the other
hand, workplace literacy, and literacy for personal development will relate more to the
situation demands than to language control per se.  It must be emphasized that children
must encounter literacy as state within schools; that is, literacy as trait (language control)
must at times be related to the various activities that children engage in which involve
print.  Otherwise, these children will develop an extremely narrow perspective of literacy
and will be limited in the degree to which they can use their level of literacy expertise as
they encounter various situations.  Likewise, adult literacy programs (if they are to be
called literacy programs) must to some extent involve the participants in print, no matter
how focal the goal of empowerment may be.  From a trait-state perspective, literacy
programs need considerably more balance than presently exists.

 Accepting a trait-state model of literacy necessitates a different perspective
towards assessing literacy than is common at the present time.  Standardized tests,
which are frequently used in schools, tend to measure trait aspects only.  Even from a
trait perspective, evaluation, according to Paris (1984), should also be directed at an
individual's competency in tasks, knowledge, skills, and strategies.  Literacy as use must
also constitute part of evaluation, use, of course, being dependent on the situations in
which individuals find themselves.

 Understanding literacy as trait-state will help clarify the notion of empowerment. 
A common perception is that only those literacy activities which could be described as
state would constitute empowerment occasions.  However, Delpit (1988) points out that
empowerment through literacy necessitates having control over language use (trait
aspects) and considers it a disservice if individuals are not provided with sufficient
language control (competency) that they can meet the possessors of power on their own
literacy terms.  In other words, empowerment through literacy may grow out of states or
situations, but depends on trait competency.

 Finally, those who inform us that the literacy standards of Canada today put us
in a crisis situation (Fairbairn 1987), those who present simplistic notions for improving
literacy standards (Calamai, 1988) and those who try and shame individuals into
attending literacy classes, would learn from the fourth relationship (–) of the trait-state
model that for some people, literacy is simply not relevant to their lives.
 

   Allport, G.W. (1937).  Personality:  A psychological interpretation.  New York:  Henry
   Holt & Co.

   Allport, G.W. (1960).  Personality and social encounters.  Boston:  Beacon Press.

   Allport, G.W. (1961).  Pattern and growth in personality.  New York:  Holt, Rinehart &
   Winston.

   Brookfield, S. (1984).  Adult learners, adult education and the community.  New York: 
   Teachers' College Press.

   Budd, R.W., Thorp, R.K., & Donohew, L. (1 967).  Content analysis of communication. 
   New York:  Macmillan Co.

   Calamai, P. (1988).  Broken words:  Why five million Canadians are illiterate. 
   Ottawa:  Southam Communications.

   Carney, T.F. (1972).  Content analysis.  London:  Batsford, Ltd.

   Cattell, R.B. (1 950).  Personality:  A systematic theoretical and factual study.  New
   York:  Teachers' College Press.

   Cattell, R.B. (1979).  Personality and learning theory (Volume 1).  New York: Springer.

   Cervero, R.M. (1985).  Is a common definition of adult literacy possible?  Adult
   Education Ouarterly, 36, 50-54.

   Delpit, L.D. (1988).  The silenced dialogue:  Power and pedagogy in educating other
   peoples' children.  Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-298.

   Fagan, W.T. (1990).  Misconceptions about adult literacy.  Alberta Teachers'
   Association Magazine, 70, 26-30.

   Fairbairn, J. (March 11, 1987).  Illiteracy in Canada.  Senate Debates, Ottawa.

   Hergenhahn, B.R. (1990).  An introduction to theories of personality.  Englewood
   Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice Hall.

   Higgins, L., Flower, L., & Petraglia, J. (April, 1990).  Planning text together: The role of
   critical reflection in student collaboration.  Paper presented at the American
   Education Research Association Annual Meeting, Boston.

   Kirsch, I.S. (1990).  Measuring adult literacy.  In R.L. Venezky, D.A. Wagner, & B. S.
   Ciliberti (Eds.), Toward defining literacy (pp. 40-47).  Newark, DE: 
   International Reading Association.

   Lewin, K. (1951, originally published 1944).  Field theory in social science (D.
   Cartwright, Ed.). New York:  Harper.

   Millon, T. (1986).  A theoretical derivation of pathological personalities.  In T. Millon &
   G.L. Klerman (Eds.), Contemporary directions in psychopathology (pp.
   639667).  New York:  The Guildford Press.

   Mishra, M. (1987).  Southam report shocks Canadians:  Special report - literacy in
   Canada.  Worldlit, 78, 1-3.

   Movement for Canadian Literacy.  (November, 1990).  1990 is international literacy
   year.  Ottawa, ON:  The Movement for Canadian Literacy.

   Murray, H.A. (1938).  Explorations in personality.  London:  Oxford University Press.

   Newman, A.P., & Beaverstock, C. (1990).  Adult literacy:  Contexts and challenges. 
    Newark, DE:  International Reading Association.

   Paris, S.G. (1984).  Teaching children to guide their reading and learning.  In T.E.
   Raphael (Ed.), The contexts of school-based literacy (pp. 115-130).  New
   York:  Random House.

   Snow, R. E. (1973).  Theory construction for research on teaching.  In R.M.W. Travers
   (Ed.), Second handbook on research on teaching.  Chicago:  Rand McNally
   College Publishing Co.

   Street, B.V. (1984).  Literacy in theory and practice.  Cambridge:  Cambridge
   University Press.

   Venezky, R.L. (1990).  Gathering up, looking ahead.  In R.L. Venezky, D.A. Wagner, &
   B.S. Cillberti (Eds.), Toward defining literacy, (pp. 70-74).  Newark, DE: 
   International Reading Association.

   Venezky, R.L., Wagner, D.A., & Ciliberti, B.S. (Eds.), Toward defining literacy, Newark,
   DE:  International Reading Association.