The way educators have taught students literacy in the
last third of the century stands in stark contrast to how literacy was taught
in the first two-thirds. In his article, “American Reading Instruction Since
1967” P. David Pearson’s focus is to give his readers a brief account of the
changes in reading instruction since 1967, while doing so he aims to provide an
account of the past, and present reading instruction that will hopefully render
predictions about the future.
Setting the Scene:
The article begins with a brief
account of where literacy instruction was in the 1960s, right around the time
of massive paradigm shift in literacy education. Pearson describes this as a time in which we
engaged in five-tuning and elaboration of instructional models that were born
in the first third of the century. (Pearson 2002) Jeanne Chall described the
then common set of principles as:
Chall’s Description of
Literacy Principles (1967)
·
The goal of
reading from grade one should include comprehension, interpretation, and
application, as well as word recognition
·
Instruction
should begin with meaningful silent reading of stories that are grounded in children’s experiences and
interests
·
After sight
words are learned analytic phonics should begin
·
Phonics
instruction should be spread over several years
·
Phonics
instruction should be carefully controlled for frequency and repeated
·
Children
should get off to a slow and steady start
·
Children
should be instructed in small groups
Along
with these principles Pearson notes that there was a rise in teacher manuals
and that reading instruction in the 1960s was still a straightforward
perceptual process. Pearson describes this process using the equation RC=Dec*
LC or reading comprehension is the product of decoding and listening
comprehension.
Changes are coming:
Pearson uses Chall’s recommendation of five major
changes as the catalyst to look at the five new theories that arise out of this
time period. Chall recommends the following changes should be made in literacy
instruction:
1.
Make necessary change in
method (to an early emphasis on phonics of some sort)
2.
Reexamine current ideas about
content (focus on enduring themes in folktales)
3.
Reevaluate grade levels
(increase the challenge at every grade level)
4.
Develop new tests (both
single-component tests and absolute measures with scores that are independent
of the population taking the test)
5.
Improve reading research
Responses:
In response to Chall’s recommendation the educational
community responded with five competing theories about literacy that changed
the lens through which educators teach. Gone are the days of believing reading
is the product of a perceptual process, now one views literacy as a: linguist, psycho-linguist, cognitive psychologist, socio-linguist or a literary theorist.
Linguistics:
A linguist believes not everything needs to be
taught, some language skills are inherent because of our oral traditions.
Linguistics push the idea that we are hard wired for language and
that language is acquired easily and naturally by children living in an
environment in which they are exposed to language rather than taught language.
Psycho-linguistics:
Looking at literacy through the psycholinguistics
lens made four major contributions to literacy instruction during this time.
First, they valued literacy experiences, second they helped us to value texts,
third it helped us to understand the reading process and appreciate a child’s
effort as readers, and finally it gave us means and a theory that are distinct
from previous ways at looking at literacy.
Cognitive Psychology:
Put forth the schema theory. This is the bedrock of
prior knowledge, it is the idea that our background helps us understand the
text. Everything we do either fits or expands our schema.
Socio-linguistics:
Introduced the idea of “context” to reading,
including home, and community levels of students. Also, the heightened the
consciousness surrounding language as a social construction.
Literary Theory:
Traditionally viewed as helping readers find the
“true” meaning in a text. During this
time there was a shift to reader response theory. Proposed by Rosenblatt who
suggests that we all bring to the piece a different worldview, and every reading
will be a different transaction with the text.
How you “read” a book in high school is different than how you “read” a
book as an adult.
To the future:
Pearson
does expand on several theories and discusses their contributions to literacy
theory. However, he does not advocate
for one over the other, instead he feels that a blending of multiple theories
is the best approach to take when teaching literacy.
Reflections and Connections
to my own practice:
In my opinion, it is nearly impossible to read this
article and not reflect on our own selves: how
we were taught in school, and
how we teach currently in our schools? If we look at reading as essentially how
language is understood, used, and applied, it is impossible to not take into account all of
these theories shape a child’s
education. It would be foolish to think that language
and literacy for that matter
would be understood in only one way.
As an English teacher, and former English major I am
personally drawn to Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory. I love the idea that all
of us have a different interpretation of the same text, and that every time we
read a text we are bringing our own schema and background to the piece. But
after reading this article, I am now beginning to see that looking at how
we read from a sociolinguistics lens
would say that our interactions may be based on the context of how we
read. I could dig even deeper and say
that all of this is only because we as people are hard wired for oral
communication and reading is just applying an oral sound to a symbol. But I keep finding myself asking, “Who is
right, and don’t the all relate to one another?”
In my opinion,
yes all these theories are inter-related because of schema. Schema is really the cornerstone of most of
these theories. How we form our schema may be different depending on which
theoretical lens you view the world through.
But I believe that in order to read successfully we must activate the
prior knowledge of our students. Each
reader brings their background knowledge, their cultural ideals, and their own
literacy events to reading.
If we are to teach struggling readers in a way that
is effective, we must recognize that we need to draw from our students past,
and we need to expand their prior knowledge. Our goal as educators is to expand our
student’s view of the world and have them figure out what is their role is in
it. I believe that we need to always “set the scene” for our struggling
readers. This may be a free write, it may be a simple conversation or countless
other instructional strategies. The idea is we need to start a conversation before
we read. If struggling readers feel that they already understand the “main
stuff” (to quote a student) about the text before they read they will interact
with the text in a better more authentic way.
For me, this means
when I introduce a piece regardless of the grade (I teach 7th and 8th
grade mostly but I also teach Advanced Placement students) I’ve come to realize
that I need to meet the students where they are, and it is my goal to expand
their knowledge so that they can access this knowledge from their schema at a
later date and use it independently. If they are to be college and career
ready, I need to help them be able to meet the world head on, and have the
background and the tools to it!
However, this is my take on the theories of the last
quarter century. I may be reading or “interacting” with the text differently
than you. Or I may be over simplifying a complicated piece. How does theory
shape your classroom decisions?
