Michigan Reading Journal Michigan Reading Journal

Volume 15 Issue 2 Article 10

October 1981

CONTENT READING: An Appropriate Assertion of Responsibility CONTENT READING: An Appropriate Assertion of Responsibility

Juliette Reilly

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Reilly, Juliette (1981) "CONTENT READING: An Appropriate Assertion of Responsibility," Michigan Reading Journal: Vol. 15 : Iss. 2 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj/vol15/iss2/10

From The Teachers & Writers Guide to Classic American Literature, edited by Christopher Edgar and Gary Lenhart, 2001, New York, NY: Teachers & Writers Collaborative. Copyright 2001 by Teachers & Writers Collaborative. Reprinted with permission.

This work is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Reading Journal by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gvsu.edu.

CONTENT READING: An Appropriate Assertion

of Responsibility Juliette Reilly

Juliette Reilly Teaches Social Studies at the Secondary School Level

The dear people do not know how long if takes to learn to read. I have been at

if all my life and I cannot yet say I have reached the goal.

-Goethe

Before assigning responsibility for the teaching of reading, it would seem prudent to define terms, state assumptions, and reveal biases, so that the thrust of my argument will not be discarded as specious.

Like Mortimer Adler ( 1), I believe that: .. . the art of reading ... includes all the same skills that are involved in the act of discovery: keeness of observation, readily available memory, range of imagination, and, of course, a reason trained in analysis and reflection. To whatever extent it is true that reading is learning, it is also true that reading is thinking (p . 43).

It is critical that the teacher veiw reading as an activity that necessarily includes interpretation and a search for meaning. As Austin and Morrison (2) note,'' ... reading is a thinking process, in which the reader both grasps the author's meaning and reflects on the significance of his ideas ... "(p. 35) Before the teacher can accept responsibility for teaching reading, he must believe that reading is a thinking process, and that it is possi­ble for the student to be trained to read critically and effectively. Perhaps, more importantly to be ef­fecttive the teacher must understand the developmental nature of reading. In no sense is the ability to read something we acquire in the way that we acquire a baseball mitt or a stereo set; it is a proficiency that is never completed or perfected. The acquirement of the ability to read is on going and the potential for doing so is present in almost all learning situations. As Smith (10) observes, "Today we see that

"Today we see that (reading) readiness applies to every child ... every student at every level in his development encounters new reading problems and his develop­ment of reading skills is a continu­ing process". (p. 4) If this view of reading is shared by the teacher, it would seem to make a strong appeal that the teaching of reading become a "cooperative project" shared by all teachers.

The assumption here is that reading success is critical to scholastic success. This view is rediscovered frequently in the scholarly opinions of linguists, psychologists, and educators, who seem united in this perspective. If the teacher accepts this view, he cannot expect to find poor readers learning his subject matter readily.

A pertinent bias, which is shared by Thomas Carlyle (3) is that the raison d'etre of schools is to teach students to read- to read critically, to adopt a point of view, to read with enthusiasm and interest, and to read as the means for independent learn­ing. If this is an accurate assertion of responsibility, then certainly the function of the schocl is the function of the teacher.

The content teacher, it thus seems, should take the responsibility for teaching reading, because otherwise he cannot teach effectively. If the con­tent teacher is responsible for the teaching of content, he must necessarily take the responsibility for the teaching of reading as well. To the extent that reading skills are lacking, content will not be learned.

IMPORTANT CRITERIA TO EFFECTIVE READING

The selection and provision of ap­propriate materials is critical to both

56

the development of reading and the learning of content. Materials must be selected on the basis of criteria that includes such variables as the degree of complexity, conceptual level, vocabulary, and pace. For ef­fective teaching of reading and con­tent, materials must meet considera­tions of child developmental stages, of age characteristics, and of sex­specific interests (5). Ideally, they must afford the opportunity to ex­tend the experience of the reader, and help the learner better under­stand himself and the world in which he lives. Whether the content is worthwhile, if it has literary merit, if it provides continuity of growth in reading skills, habits, and attitudes, are considerations which must be brought to bear by the classroom teacher. Further, decisions must be made as to whether material con­tains information relevant to the ex­perience of the pupil, whether there is a sufficient balance among topics, if controversy has been edited out, or if alternatives are, in fact, ex­pressed (4). These and many other considerations lie within the pro­vince of the subject matter teacher. The skill with which he selects and provides material will be directly reflected in the reading and content learning of his students.

To raise students' comprehension of content reading material, signifi­cant questions must be raised. "Children," Stauffer (11) notes, "can only be led to intelligent in­quiry by teachers who are critical readers themselves, and who ask questions which encourage evalua­tion:' (p. 29) . As the teacher demands evidence of support for statements, defines and clarifies terms, as he demands reaction and its expression, he encourages and

fosters habits of critical reading that will inevitably lead to the learning of subject matter . Judging an author's purpose, his competence , and the value of his ideas; exposing his bias and distinguishing fact from opi­nion, reality from fantasy, and in­ference from literalness, are all necessary to developing reading competence, as well as ingesting content.

Interest and the motivation to read cannot be separated from the motivation to learn subject matter. The teacher is in a unique position to promote and stimulate interest in his subject and in reading by his choice of materials, by his personal enthusiasm, and by the sharing of direct and vicarious experiences relevant to the subject being studied. Incentives and in­ducements to learn, and the promo­tion of curiosity in books are one and the same. The reading ex-

perience cannot be neutral. It will engender responses of some kind, the nature of which will depend partly on the instructor ( 8). Feelings toward learning in large part reflect feelings toward reading; a desire for independent learning is nurtured by well-developed reading skills.

The effective teaching of content entails prompt detection of reading strengths and weaknesses. Im­mediate evaluation may prevent a serious reading (and thus, learning) problem from developing. The sub­ject teacher is in a position to make constant observations and ap­praisals of reading behavior. He can mount the "on-going, continuous evaluation of reading ability that is necessary to student growth in lear­ning." (7, p. 50) The most critical aspect of evaluation is, the realiza­tion that widespread individual clif­f erences do exist and must be dealt with. "Today's teacher in an average tenth grade classroom," Marksheffel (7) reminds us, "will have some students who are reading from six to nine grade levels above the poorest readers. In many in­stances the range of differences in

students' reading achievement wiil be even greater': (p. 47) When we view reading as part of a developmental program, we see that each child's present level of skills, his background, interests, and abilities must be considered. Detec­ting and evaluating reading pro­blems and dealing with individual

differences are necessary aspects of effective content teaching. Good reading evaluation can encourage students to make optimal use of their abilities to learn subject matter.

Content area reading requires special techniques that the reading of sports pages or comic books doesn't in the same sense require: setting purposes, adjusting rate, relating old and new information, surveying, and summarizing to name a few. Different strategies for different disciplines further involve the classroom teacher in teaching reading in order to teach content. It is incumbent upon the content teacher "to identify the purposes of instruction and to identify the reading and thinking skills required to achieve those purposes ... He must

isolate the skills that require development. .. The development of a child's thinking skills for a content subject should be integrated with the books he reads." (6, p.17)

To teach content means then, to a large degree, to provide proper reading materials, to raise signifi­cant questions regarding the materials, to stimulate interest in reading, to evaluate reading skills, to provide for individual clif­f erences, and to teach reading skills that are specific to a discipline. The nature of content teaching demands the teaching of reading.

Perhaps this argument is stated in its most compelling form by the behaviorist B.F. Skinner. In his apologia for determination, About Behaviorism, he wrote: "We cannot choose a way of life in which there is no control. We can only change the controlling conditions." (9, p.18) In teaching, as in every aspect of life, influences of one kind or another abound. The classroom experience will be controlled by some strategies, by some decisions, by some designs, either random or pur­poseful. The teacher who takes con­trol and conscientiously plans and directs his efforts toward providing the tools for life-long learning, has accepted the responsibility that is rightly his.

REFERENCES

1. Adler, Mortimer J. HOW TO READ A BOOK. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1940.

2. Austin, Mary C.; & Coleman, Mor­rison. THE FIRST R. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1963.

57

3. Carlyle, Thomas. "The Hero As a Man of Letters," In ON HEROES, AND HERO WORSHIP, AND THE THE HERO IN .HISTORY. London: O~ford University Press, 1904.

4. Colvin, Cynthia; Goodman, Ken­neth S.; Olsen, Hans L.; & Vanderlinde, L.F. CHOOSING MATERIALS TO TEACH READING. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1966.

5. Estes, Thomas H.; & Vaughn, Joseph L. READING AND LEARN­I NG IN THE CONTENT CLASSROOM. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1978.

6. Harris, Larry A. & Smith, Carl B. READING INSTRUCTION, Second Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1976.

7. Marksheffel, Ned D. BETTER READING IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1966.

8. Niles, Olive S. "Reading Skills Common to the Content Area." In H. Allan Robinson and Ellen Lamar Thomas (Eds.) FUSING READING SKILLS AND CONTENT. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1971.

9. Skinner, B.F. ABOUT BEHAV­IORISM. New York: Vintage Books, 1974.

10. Smith, Henry P.; & Dechant, Emerald V. PSYCHOLOGY IN TEACHING OF READING. Engle­wcxxi Cliffs, New Jersy: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961.

11. Stauffer, Russell G. DIRECTING READING MATURITY AS A COGNITIVE PROCESS. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

tt

1982 MRA CONFERENCE SPEAKERS 11Reading for a Changing World11

SUNDAY, MARCH 14, 1982 1 . Gerald Duffy

Professor, Michigan State University

2. Nancy Murray Windsor Separate School Board

3. Joyce Van Tassel-BAska Director, Area Service Center Matteson School District

"Fighting Off the Alligators: Using Research to Improve Your Classroom Teaching of Reading"

"There's a Micro Computer in Your Future"

MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1982 4. Richard Allington

Associate Professor State University of New York at Albany

5. Sam Sniderman Associate Director Michigan Association of School Boards

6. Don Shaw Director of Bionomics Jefferson County Schools Colorado

7. Ira Aaron Vice-President International Reading Association Professor, Reading Department University of Georgia

8. Al Granowsky Educational Consultant Dallas Independant School District

"Making Bad Readers Better"

"What Do People Really Want Out of Life?"

"T award Improved Comprehension"

"Lighting Up Kids' Eyes!"

TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1982 9. Bob Barton

Education Officer Ontario Ministry of Education

10. Peggy Brogan Educational Consultant

11. Bobbye Goldstein, Reading Specialist New York City Schools

12. Dan Fader University of Michigan Chair, English Composition Board

13. Jacque Wuertenberg Educational Consultant

14. Joan Blos Author, Newberry Award Winner

A Gathering of Days

15. Florence Schale Northwestern University

"Story Matters"

"Home and School-A Joint Venture in Reading"

"Writing for Reading by Children"

58

MICHIGAN READING JOURNAL STYLE SHEET

1. Manuscripts should be typed, doubled-spaced throughout (bibliography as well) and no more than 10 pages in length, including references. An original and three copies should be submitted with a large, self­addressed, stamped envelope.

2. Manuscripts must be original and must not have been sent out for simultaneous review by any other publica­tion.

3. The author's name should appear only on a cover sheet for the original and should not appear as iden­tification anywhere else in either the original or the 3 copies.

4. Place all references in a separate referenced section at the end of the article. Alphabetize the references by author's last name, then number each reference con­secutively (See example below).

5. Refer to the reference in text by a parenthetic state­ment at the end of the appropriate sentence (See exam­ple below).

SAMPLE TEXT

Recent studies support the author's position. Strom

provides a theoretical base for the first hypothesis ( 4).

Other researchers have replicated Storm's study utiliz­

ing a broader data base. In all cases, the researchers

noted a significant increase in the test scores of control

group members over a one-year period (3; 5; 6;). Brady

has suggested that recent population shifts necessitate a

revision of previously reliable theories ( 1). She is cur­

rently conducting research which is consistent with the

theoretical assumptions underlying the author's second

and third hypotheses (2).

REFERENCES

1. Brady, Penelope M. DEMOGRAPHY AND THE CLASSROOM. Brainard, Ohio: Morrison Publishers, Inc. 1974.

2. Brady, Penelope M. POPULATION SHIFTS AND EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS. Modesto, CA: Modesto State College, 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 617 272).

3. Grace, L.A. "Strategies in Curriculum Design," In C.R. Philips & J.T. Davis (Eds.) CURRICULUM DESIGN AND ANALYSIS. New York: Academic Press, 1966.

4. Strom, Raymond P. Fundamental Designs in the Primary Grades. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1964.

5. Thompson, Patricia. "Organizaional Patterns in Grades K-3." REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 41, 1969, 123-131.

6. Tregar, Lillian; Steitz, Lois; & Coast, Richard. "Multi­Age Grouping Patterns in Selected Elementary School Settings." JOURNAL FOR CURRICULUM AND IN­STRUCTION, 29, 53-54; 66-74.

MICHIGAN READING ASSOCIATION 2100 Pontiac Lake Rd.

Pontiac, Michigan 48054

:>l.332:>71. iEV EVARTS ROSE t0990 B{Gf:LO\'l

fl.\J l SBU~

Q l £t80l.9

I

\ \ J

Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage

PAID Permit No. 161

Pontiac, MI