Why Literacy Is Every Teacher's Responsibility
Literacy is not the exclusive responsibility of language teachers. It is the responsibility of every teacher, in every subject, at every grade level.
“Literacy is not my problem. It's the English teacher's problem.” This was the response I once received from a math department head during a discussion about students' literacy development!
It was a disturbing statement, not simply because of the teacher's attitude, but because it revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the role literacy plays in education.
UNESCO defines literacy as “the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute using written materials in different contexts.”
This definition makes it clear that literacy extends far beyond the ability to read and write a language. It encompasses the skills required to understand information, interpret meaning, solve problems and communicate knowledge across disciplines. Literacy is therefore fundamental to learning in every subject, not just in language classrooms.
Students need literacy skills to understand mathematical problems, interpret scientific information, analyze historical events, follow instructions and communicate their understanding. Without these skills, their ability to learn across the curriculum is seriously compromised.
Yet how often do we stop to ask whether our students are actually becoming more literate?
Literacy Across the Curriculum
Every subject has its own language, vocabulary and ways of communicating knowledge.
In mathematics, students must understand the language of word problems, interpret information, recognize mathematical terminology and explain how they arrived at a solution. A student may be capable of performing calculations but unable to solve a problem because they did not understand the language..
In science, students must read informational texts, interpret diagrams and data, understand technical vocabulary, formulate hypotheses and communicate conclusions.
History requires students to analyze sources, distinguish fact from opinion, evaluate evidence and construct reasoned arguments.
Even subjects such as physical education, art and technology require students to understand instructions, interpret information and communicate their ideas.
Teachers cannot simply assume that students arrive in their classrooms equipped with all the literacy skills needed to understand the subject matter. These skills must be taught, practiced and assessed within the context of each subject.
This does not mean that every teacher must be a language teacher. It means that every teacher must recognize and teach the literacy demands of the subject.
What Do Our Grades Actually Measure?
Consider an example of a grading system used in various forms in many schools:
Assessment Components
Examinations
30%
Homework
30%
Tests and quizzes
30%
Class participation
10%
On the surface, this appears to provide a balanced assessment of student achievement. However, what do these percentages actually tell us about literacy?
Suppose a student receives full marks for homework that has been completed largely by a parent, tutor or AI. That student has already earned 30% towards the final grade. Add another 10% for enthusiastic classroom participation, and the student has accumulated 40% without necessarily demonstrating any independent understanding of the work.
The remaining 60% may come from examinations and quizzes that rely heavily on memorization. Students learn definitions, reproduce rehearsed answers and recall information for a test, only to forget much of it shortly afterwards.
I recall an incident at an institution where I taught when two students produced exactly the same incorrect answer to an examination question. Initially, we suspected that they had copied from one another, but they had been seated far apart during the examination. We were puzzled until we discovered that both students had been receiving lessons from the same private tutor. The tutor had prepared notes for them, which they had memorized verbatim. When they encountered the examination question, they recognized certain keywords and reproduced the memorized material without understanding what the question was actually asking.
This incident illustrates a fundamental weakness in assessment systems that reward memorization. The students had clearly spent time preparing for the examination, but they had not developed the comprehension skills necessary to interpret the question and formulate an appropriate response. They could reproduce information, but they could not apply it.
A student may receive a respectable final grade while remaining unable to read an unfamiliar text, interpret information independently or explain an idea coherently in writing.
Of course, examinations and quizzes can assess literacy effectively when they are appropriately designed. The problem is not necessarily the distribution of marks, but the nature of the assessment and the evidence it provides.
A grade should reflect what a student can independently understand, apply and communicate, not simply what has been memorized or completed.
When Grades Become More Important Than Learning
Another concern is the pressure placed on teachers to award high grades.
In some schools, teachers who give low marks face complaints from parents, questions from administrators and demands to justify their assessments. Rather than risk confrontation, some teachers may become more generous with their grading.
This creates a dangerous cycle. Parents are reassured by satisfactory report cards. Administrators see apparently successful academic results. Students progress from one grade to the next, while weaknesses in reading, writing and comprehension remain unaddressed.
Eventually, these weaknesses become apparent, often when students are expected to undertake more demanding academic work.
The problem is not that students have failed to achieve high enough grades. It is that the grades have failed to provide an accurate picture of their abilities.
When assessment becomes an exercise in keeping parents satisfied or maintaining a school's academic image, it loses much of its educational value.
Beautiful Worksheets Are Not Evidence of Literacy
Classrooms are frequently filled with projects, completed worksheets and attractive displays of student work. These may reflect worthwhile learning experiences, but appearances can be misleading.
A student who completes a worksheet by copying answers from the board has demonstrated the ability to copy. A student who fills in missing words using a familiar pattern may have demonstrated recognition or recall. Neither activity establishes that the student can independently read, comprehend or communicate.
The same applies to elaborate projects often completed with substantial parental assistance. The final product may be impressive, but how much of it represents the student's understanding?
We need to distinguish between the completion of an activity and the demonstration of learning.
Students must have opportunities to read unfamiliar material, interpret information, formulate their own responses and express their understanding without constant assistance.
This is particularly important in subjects where students are expected to explain processes, justify conclusions or evaluate evidence.
How Do We Evaluate Literacy Development?
If literacy is the responsibility of every teacher, then every department should consider how literacy development is assessed.
This does not require every subject to introduce separate reading and writing examinations. Instead, teachers should incorporate meaningful literacy assessment into their existing instructional practices.
A mathematics teacher might ask students to explain, in writing, the reasoning behind a solution rather than simply provide the correct answer. A science teacher could require students to interpret an unfamiliar text or describe the conclusions drawn from an experiment. A history teacher might ask students to compare two sources and construct an argument supported by evidence.
These tasks reveal far more about students' understanding than memorized responses alone.
Teachers should also examine samples of students' independent work over time. Are their explanations becoming clearer? Is their vocabulary becoming more precise? Can they understand increasingly complex information? Are they developing the ability to organize and communicate their thoughts coherently?
Formative assessment is particularly valuable because it identifies difficulties while there is still time to address them. It allows teachers to adjust instruction, provide additional support and monitor progress rather than simply record a grade at the end of a unit.
Importantly, teachers must distinguish between weaknesses in subject knowledge and weaknesses in literacy. A student who struggles to understand a mathematics word problem may need support with reading comprehension rather than additional practice in calculations.
Literacy Is a School-Wide Responsibility
Developing literacy across the curriculum requires more than an occasional reading activity or a school-wide literacy campaign.
It requires a shared understanding among teachers that reading, writing, speaking, listening and interpreting information are integral to learning in every discipline.
School leaders have an important role in establishing this expectation. Departments should identify the literacy demands of their subjects, develop appropriate instructional strategies and examine evidence of student progress.
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) can provide valuable opportunities for teachers to analyze student work, identify recurring literacy difficulties and collaborate on instructional approaches. Rather than simply comparing examination results, teachers can investigate whether students are becoming more capable of understanding and communicating complex ideas.
Such collaboration shifts the focus from the grades students receive to the skills they are actually developing.
The Question We Should All Be Asking
Education should not be measured by the number of worksheets completed, the attractiveness of
classroom displays or the percentage of students receiving high grades.
These may provide some information about classroom activity and student performance, but they do not necessarily tell us whether meaningful learning has occurred.
Literacy is fundamental to academic achievement, critical thinking and lifelong learning. Students who cannot interpret information, evaluate evidence or communicate their understanding independently will encounter difficulties far beyond the language classroom.
We therefore need to examine our teaching practices and assessment systems more critically.
Are we providing students with opportunities to develop literacy in every subject? Are we assessing their independent understanding, or merely rewarding memorization, participation and completed work? Do our grades provide an accurate picture of their abilities?
Above all, are our students becoming more literate as they progress through school, and what evidence do we have to demonstrate that progress?
Until we can answer that question confidently, impressive report cards may tell us far less about educational achievement than we would like to believe.
我們是在培養學生的素養，還是只是在給予成績？
為什麼素養培養是每一位教師的責任
素養的培養並非語言教師的專屬責任，而是每一位教師、每一門學科，以及每一個年級都應共同承擔的責任。
「素養不是我的問題，那是英文老師的責任。」這是我曾經在一次討論學生素養發展的會議中，從一位數學科主任口中聽到的回答！
這句話令人不安，不僅是因為這位教師的態度，更因為它反映出對素養在教育中所扮演角色的根本誤解。
聯合國教科文組織（UNESCO）將識字與素養能力定義為：「在不同情境中，運用書面資料進行辨識、理解、詮釋、創造、溝通及計算的能力。」
這項定義清楚表明，素養遠遠超越閱讀和書寫語言的基本能力。它涵蓋理解資訊、詮釋意義、解決問題，以及跨學科傳達知識所需的各項技能。因此，素養是所有學科學習的基礎，而不僅僅存在於語言課堂之中。
學生需要運用素養能力來理解數學問題、詮釋科學資訊、分析歷史事件、遵循指示，以及表達自己對所學內容的理解。
缺乏這些能力，學生在各個學科中的學習都會受到嚴重限制。
然而，我們有多常停下來思考：我們的學生是否真的變得更具素養？
跨學科的素養培養
每一門學科都有其特定的語言、專業詞彙，以及傳達知識的方式。
在數學課堂中，學生必須理解文字題的語言、詮釋資訊、辨識數學術語，並解釋解題過程。學生可能具備計算能力，卻因為無法理解題目的文字敘述而無法解題。
在科學課堂中，學生必須閱讀資訊性文本、解讀圖表與數據、理解專業詞彙、提出假設，並清楚表達結論。
歷史學習要求學生分析資料來源、區分事實與觀點、評估證據，並提出有理有據的論述。
即使是體育、藝術和科技等學科，學生也需要理解指示、詮釋資訊，並表達自己的想法。
教師不能理所當然地認為，學生進入課堂時就已具備理解該學科所需的所有素養能力。這些能力必須在各學科的教學情境中加以教授、練習和評量。
這並不代表每一位教師都必須成為語言教師，而是每一位教師都必須認識並教授其學科所需要的素養能力。
我們的成績究竟衡量了什麼？
請思考以下這種在許多學校以不同形式採用的成績評量制度：
評量項目比重考試30%家庭作業30%測驗與小考30%課堂參與10%
表面上，這似乎是一套相當均衡的學習成就評量制度。然而，這些百分比究竟能告訴我們多少關於學生素養發展的資訊？
假設某位學生的家庭作業大部分由家長、私人家教或人工智慧（AI）協助完成，卻因此獲得家庭作業的全部分數。這名學生已經取得總成績中的30%。
如果再加上積極參與課堂活動所獲得的10%，學生便可能在尚未展現任何獨立理解能力的情況下，累積40%的總成績。
剩餘的60%可能來自高度依賴記憶的考試與小考。學生背誦定義、重現事先練習過的答案，並在測驗中回憶資訊，卻往往在考試結束後不久便忘記大部分內容。
我記得曾經在任教的一所教育機構發生過一件事。兩名學生在考試中，對同一道題目寫出了完全相同的錯誤答案。
起初，我們懷疑他們互相抄襲，但兩人在考試時座位相距甚遠，因此我們感到十分困惑。
後來，我們才發現這兩名學生都接受同一位私人家教的指導。這位家教替他們準備了筆記，而學生將筆記內容逐字背誦下來。
當他們看到考題時，只辨識出某些關鍵字，便直接重現記憶中的內容，卻沒有真正理解題目究竟在問什麼。
這件事凸顯了以記憶為主要評量依據的制度所存在的根本問題。
這兩名學生顯然花了時間準備考試，卻沒有培養出理解題意並提出適當答案所需的閱讀理解能力。
他們能夠重現資訊，卻無法運用資訊。
學生可能取得看似不錯的學期總成績，卻仍然無法閱讀陌生文本、獨立詮釋資訊，或以連貫的文字清楚說明自己的想法。
當然，只要設計得當，考試與測驗也能有效評量學生的素養能力。問題不一定在於成績比重的分配，而在於評量的性質，以及評量結果究竟提供了什麼證據。
成績應反映學生能夠獨立理解、應用和表達的能力，而不只是他們記住了多少內容，或完成了多少作業。
當成績變得比學習更重要
另一個值得關注的問題，是教師面臨給予學生高分的壓力。
在某些學校，給予低分的教師可能面臨家長投訴、行政主管質疑，以及必須不斷為評分結果提出解釋的要求。
為了避免衝突，有些教師可能逐漸採取較為寬鬆的評分標準。
這會形成一種危險的循環。
家長看到令人滿意的成績單便感到安心。學校行政人員看到表面上亮眼的學業成績，也可能認為教學成果良好。
學生則從一個年級升上下一個年級，而閱讀、寫作和理解能力方面的弱點卻始終沒有得到改善。
最終，當學生必須面對更具挑戰性的學術工作時，這些問題便會逐漸浮現。
真正的問題並不是學生沒有取得足夠高的成績，而是成績未能準確反映學生的實際能力。
當評量變成讓家長滿意，或維持學校學術形象的手段時，它便失去了大部分的教育價值。
精美的學習單並不代表學生具備素養
教室裡經常展示各種專題作品、完成的學習單，以及外觀精美的學生作品。
這些活動可能確實帶來有價值的學習經驗，但外在表現也可能造成誤導。
一名學生透過抄寫黑板上的答案完成學習單，所展現的是抄寫能力。
一名學生按照熟悉的模式填入缺少的字詞，可能只是展現辨識或記憶能力。
這兩種活動都無法證明學生能夠獨立閱讀、理解或表達。
同樣的情況也適用於那些在家長大量協助下完成的精美專題作品。
最終成果或許令人印象深刻，但其中究竟有多少真正反映學生自己的理解？
我們必須區分完成一項活動與展現真正的學習成果之間的差異。
學生需要有機會閱讀不熟悉的材料、詮釋資訊、形成自己的回答，並在沒有持續協助的情況下表達自己的理解。
這對於那些要求學生解釋過程、提出結論依據或評估證據的學科而言，尤其重要。
我們應如何評量素養發展？
如果素養培養是每一位教師的責任，那麼每一個學科部門都應思考如何評量學生的素養發展。
這並不表示每一門學科都必須另外設置閱讀和寫作考試。
相反地，教師應將有意義的素養評量融入現有的教學實務之中。
數學教師可以要求學生以文字說明解題的推理過程，而不只是提供正確答案。
科學教師可以要求學生詮釋不熟悉的文本，或描述從實驗中得出的結論。
歷史教師可以要求學生比較兩份資料來源，並運用證據提出論述。
相較於單純背誦答案，這些任務更能揭示學生真正的理解程度。
教師也應持續檢視學生在不同時間完成的獨立作品。
學生的解釋是否越來越清楚？使用的詞彙是否越來越精確？他們是否能理解日益複雜的資訊？是否逐漸具備有條理地組織與表達想法的能力？
形成性評量尤其重要，因為它能讓教師在仍有時間改善問題時，及早發現學生的學習困難。
教師因此能夠調整教學、提供額外支持並追蹤進步情況，而不只是等到單元結束時記錄一個分數。
更重要的是，教師必須區分學生在學科知識方面的弱點，以及在素養能力方面的弱點。
一名無法理解數學文字題的學生，可能需要的是閱讀理解方面的支持，而不是更多計算練習。
素養培養是全校共同的責任
跨學科培養素養，不能只依靠偶爾安排的閱讀活動，或一次全校性的素養推廣活動。
它需要所有教師建立共同的理解：閱讀、寫作、口語表達、聆聽及資訊詮釋，都是每一門學科學習不可或缺的一部分。
學校領導者在建立這項共同期待方面扮演重要角色。
各學科部門應確認其學科的素養需求、發展適當的教學策略，並檢視學生進步的實際證據。
專業學習社群（Professional Learning Communities，PLCs）可以為教師提供寶貴的合作機會，共同分析學生作品、找出反覆出現的素養困難，並合作研擬教學方法。
教師不應只是比較考試成績，而應進一步探討學生是否逐漸具備理解與表達複雜概念的能力。
這樣的合作能將教育的焦點，從學生獲得的分數轉移到他們真正正在發展的能力。
我們每一個人都應該思考的問題
教育成果不應以完成多少張學習單、教室展示作品有多精美，或有多少學生取得高分來衡量。
這些指標或許能提供部分關於課堂活動和學生表現的資訊，卻不一定能告訴我們是否發生了真正有意義的學習。
素養是學業成就、批判性思考與終身學習的基礎。
無法獨立詮釋資訊、評估證據或表達理解的學生，在語言課堂之外的學習與生活中，也將面臨許多困難。
因此，我們需要以更具批判性的態度檢視自己的教學實務與評量制度。
我們是否在每一門學科中提供學生發展素養的機會？
我們評量的是學生的獨立理解能力，還是僅僅獎勵記憶、參與和完成作業？
我們給予的成績是否準確反映學生的能力？
最重要的是，隨著學生逐年升級，他們是否真的變得更具素養？我們又有什麼證據可以證明這一點？
在我們能夠有信心地回答這個問題之前，再漂亮的成績單，對於真正教育成就所能說明的，恐怕都遠比我們想像的少。