1.4: Teaching Reading and Writing
These are just two examples of the power our brains have over our reading and understanding. The brain reads very intuitively by recognizing groups and patterns of letters, anticipating words and phrases in a context, and omitting redundant or unnecessary information. So with all that brain power working to our advantage, why do many students struggle with reading appreciation or comprehension? I think the answer is easy. It’s just like everything else in life. Without a clear objective, reading can become one of the most passive activities in which we can partake.
There are many reasons why we read. Some read for pleasure or entertainment and others purely for information. Many thoroughly enjoy the act of reading and look forward to any opportunity on virtually any subject, while others dread and loathe it.
We recognize reading and writing (as well as other important components of literacy—speaking, listening, technology) as fundamental language-builders, as teaching tools, and as effective means of communicating and interpreting our experiences. Teachers, all teachers in all content areas, have a responsibility to emphasize this medium and incorporate literacy into the curriculum. When literacy issues are addressed in all content areas, students have greater opportunities to appreciate and build confidence in their own personal abilities, styles, needs and comprehension.
Beyond reading alone, teachers must model appropriate language skills in the classroom. Speaking and writing correctly and clearly gives students a consistent example of effective communication. I believe it is perfectly alright, even in math class, to correct a student’s improper use of the English language. It’s not necessarily a part of the grade, but the secondary teacher does have a responsibility to maintain a consistent environment where questions are asked using clear, well-defined terms and correct structure. Further, test questions should always be written using thoughtful and well-formed sentences that properly convey intent.
My personal struggles with reading stem from my experience as a slow reader with very low comprehension. I take the process very literally and consider it a thorough endeavor. I interpret text very literally and rarely introduce my own interpretation. However, I have come to realize that reading can and should be a very personal and interactive process. My experience in L517 has provided many insights into the reading process and revealed many ways to not only improve my own enjoyment and comprehension, but to plan accordingly for my students as well. Many tactics and resources are available to teachers to engage students in content area reading.
The first priority is to provide a motivation for reading. Motivation differs from both interest and attitude. A student may be a proficient reader but be topically disengaged, or he may be highly confident but simply dislike reading for any number of reasons. Motivated readers genuinely enjoy reading a wide range of topics and genres (Guthrie, Contexts for Engagement and Motivation in Reading). Teachers can increase motivation in a variety of ways from providing content-related reading materials from literature, magazines or trade publications to emphasizing understanding over correct responses and introducing strategies that help students determine objectives throughout the reading process (pre-reading, reading, post-reading). Many of these strategies are discussed below.
Establishing a purpose for reading happens prior to reading. Teachers must state explicitly the reasons for the assignment. When readers choose their own reading material, they know why they chose it. Teachers must provide the same insight for the texts they choose to assign, so it is the teacher’s purpose that is important, and it should align with lesson objectives. The purpose also helps students determine how they will approach the reading. We read differently depending upon whether we are looking for details, themes, styles, or making comparisons to prior readings.
Eliciting prior knowledge in another effective strategy used to implement literacy. By reminding/rediscovering what students already know about a topic, it helps them prepare cognitively for the reading assignment. Having certain facts or positions called to mind prior to reading helps students organize their knowledge in context to make better connections and analyses about the reading—a process introduced by Piaget but further developed by R. C. Anderson known as Schema Theory.
To prevent further interruptions and misconceptions during reading, it is also important to introduce vocabulary as a pre-reading activity. Dictionary definitions are a far cry from a well-developed understanding of a word’s meaning and use in different contexts. Without at least the foundation for this understanding prior to reading, comprehension breaks down and is taken over by misuse, misunderstanding or interpretation of dictionary definitions. Important words that are new or words that may be in a new context should be actively pursued prior to the reading assignment. Teachers should also be careful to always model good vocabulary use and reinforce the content vocabulary throughout and beyond a specific lesson.
As an example of just one of these strategies, I wrote a Semantic-Feature Analysis (Assignment 1) for my Oncourse partner in L517. This device is designed to help introduce the text, re-familiarize him with what he may already know and raise curiosity about what he may not know regarding the history of Halloween. The chart helps focus on the information that will be important to retain from reading the text. Follow the link above, the complete the chart according to reveal your prior knowledge about the history of Halloween. After completing the chart, go to the URL above the chart and read the story. After reading, return to the chart and change any incorrect answers.
In another assignment, we are asked to respond as the school's Reading Specialist (Assignment 2) to several hypothetical e-mails from teachers. Using strategies discussed in class. we were to advise the teacher in an appropriate course of action to use in the class that would address their specific problem or issue.
My students will be exposed to a library of mathematical literature, history, and application. They will have the opportunity to reflect about mathematics verbally in journals and written response questions and argue mathematical proofs in the same manner.
I have learned that reading is a most interactive and interpretive activity. I don’t know how or when I created such a hard-lined approach to reading, but I have learned that, just like other media, books, stories, articles, etc. offer a certain perspective that can be laughable, fallible, agreeable, memorable, notable, or call an array of emotional responses as well. We want the same for our students. The development of critical thinking is at the core of our educational reform needs and should be a main reason to support content-area literacy. Developing students that can interpret and deduce linguistic meaning and communicate articulately within the parameters of their own values and those of the family/community is at the core of many educational reform initiatives.
Activity 2: L517 Week 2 Oncourse Assignment
The following is taken from: Goodman, K. (1996). On Reading. Portsmouth, NH; Heinemann, pp. 38-41.
DIRECTIONS:
Read the following paragraph through once and only once. When you've finished, look away from your computer screen. Then rewrite the story as best as you can remember. Don't reread the story until you are directed to!
THE BOAT IN THE BASEMENT
A woman was building a boat in her
basement. When she had finished the
the boot, she discovered that it was
too big to go though the door. So he
had to take the boat a part to get
it out. She should of planned ahead.
Did you have any trouble understanding this story? Probably not. It's pretty predictable: it's a familiar situation and the meaning is within your conceptual grasp since you know about boats, basements, doors and amateur builders.
I have a hunch that some of you may have been a bit bothered by a typo or two in the story. How many typos did you notice? DON'T LOOK BACK! NOT YET! And if you didn't notice any typos, don't worry--you may turn out to be among the more proficient readers!
On Oncourse, post the following information:
1. Explain what it is that you think people do when they read.
2. What do you think it means for someone to be a "careful" reader?
3. Post your rewritten story. (The one you wrote after reading the story above just once.)
4. Post any typos you remembered seeing when you read. If you didn't see any, just say so in your posting.
DON'T READ THE STORY AGAIN JUST YET! I'll have you do that in a minute. But do go read your partner's posting, then come back here.
Did you or your partner spot boot where you expected to find boat? Some of you saw boot but read boat anyway. That's because you were predicting boat so strongly that you decided to reject the typo. Did you or your partner write he in your re-written story instead of she? You may have noticed that the story slips up and refers to the woman as he. But because you knew that the story really had no male character, it was unlikely that you included a he in your story. Again, you probably just rejected the typo while reading because you were predicting she.
If you only noticed two typos in the story, it was likely these two. Boat and boot look alike and both are nouns. He and she also look alike and are both pronouns. Yet in spite of these commonalities, you likely spotted the errors because they violated your strong expectations with respect to meaning. Our brains focus on making sense in reading. That also helps to explain why you might not have noticed the remaining "errors" in this text:
The story says a part instead of apart. Did you or your partner notice? The two-word noun phrase, composed of the article a and the noun part, can't fit grammatically and doesn't make sense. You may have missed this because your expectation of what was coming in the text, based on the meaning you were constructing, was so strong that all you needed to see was some of what you expected, enough to confirm your prediction. Notice I'm talking about predictions, inferences and confirmations here, not accurate word identification. Your focus is not on recognizing words but on making sense of print. You are constructing meaning.
You and your partner probably thought you saw through in line four, but it actually says though. Did you write "through the door" when you rewrote the story? If so, you've provided more evidence that reading isn't seeing each letter, noting the sequence of letters, deciding what the word is, and then going on to the next word.
Now look at the last line of the story, where you'll find should of instead of should've. The latter is the contraction for should have. Of is a very common word with an unusual spelling for its usual pronunciation. The <of> and <ve> both represent the same sound pattern, but they have very different grammatical functions; of doesn't make sense after should. Graphically, this error should have been the easiest to detect, since the visual difference is greatest. Again it's the strength of your prediction and your focus on meaning-making that kept you from perceiving it (if you didn't).
There is a sixth error. If neither you nor your partner spotted the sixth error, see if you can find it. YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE STORY NOW! While you're looking at the story, take note of the other five errors I've already pointed out.
Did you find the sixth error?
Look at the end of line two and the beginning of line three, where the is repeated. A whole extra word! Why was it so hard to see if reading is a careful, successive recognition of words and letters? It isn't that your eyes don't see both words, but that your brain rejects the likelihood. The eyes are tools of the brain. The brain tells them where to look and what to look for. It decides what to attend to and use from what the eye reports. The brain is completely in charge of all human information processing. So, when your eye sent the input for the repeated the, your brain's response was: "Don't get sloppy. I've got that information already!"
On Oncourse, post the following (in response to your partner's first posting):
1. Do a quick comparison of the number of errors your partner saw and the number that you saw.
2. Comment on whether or not your partner's rewritten story and your rewritten story indicate whether you
both seemed to understand the story. Which seems more important, finding more of the errors or
coming away with a good understanding of the story?
3. Assuming that neither you nor your partner caught all of the errors in the "boat" passage after reading it
once, does that mean neither of you is a "careful" reader? Explain.
4. Talk about ways in which this exercise changed (or reinforced) your understanding of what we
(good readers) do when we read.
