A Contested History

The History of Reading Movements in the Twentieth Century

Chapter Two outlines the ongoing division between the two most widely-accepted approaches to reading instruction in the twentieth (and now twenty-first) centuries:  the behaviorist model and the psycholinguists and whole language approach.  At stake here is the answer to the ultimate question: How do students learn most effectively?  The first model, the behaviorist model, was exemplified by graduated readers, recitation, drill, and mastery, in which the teacher is the holder of knowledge and the student must have that knowledge "drilled" into them through routine activities.  We see elements of this model throughout our schools still today, not only in timed reading comprehension assessments, but also in the nation's commitment to standardized testing.  A key theorist in this approach was Edward L. Thorndike, who applied his stimulus-response theory to education, arguing that "all learning is a matter of habit formation," and that rigorous training and discipline was key to everything from civic and moral education to penmanship to reading speed (p. 10).  This approach to learning views a student's abilities as innate, or natural, and essentially unchangeable (an approach we see often used in justifying tracking).  Other elements of this approach involve focusing on the development of phonemic awareness regardless of word meanings; the phonics approach so popular in the 1990s and early 2000s was driven by the mass marketing of this behaviorist, repetitive, skills-driven approach.

The second model, the whole-language, meaning-centered, social constructivist approach, has its roots in theorists such as John Dewey and E.B. Huey.  Dewey, whose educational philosophies on education were fundamentally based on incorporating a student's lived experience into the classroom (and beyond), advocated an "inquiry-based lesson" which presents problems to be solved by students who are encouraged to think and question and interact.  This focus on building knowledge around the child's own experience marked a major shift in the more authoritarian, behaviorist approach to learning (and, as we know thanks to James Gee, better incorporates the student's primary Discourses by developing lenses through which a student can transfer new knowledge of their secondary Discourses).  According to Dewey, the student is at the center of the learning process and are active co-constructors of knowledge.

Huey, whose seminal book The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading (1908) may be worth taking a look at (but who is so widely-cited that I likely will simply keep my eyes open for what the major relevant takeaways are), found that it takes longer for us to read unrelated letters or words aloud than it does for us to read words combined into meaningful units.  This is an important early finding in reading education, as it shows us that the instruction of nonsensical sounds (such as isolated phonemes) is more difficult, and that students would be better taught to read using meaningful words. 

Other advocates of the meaning-centered approach include whole language philosophers, such as psycholinguistics researchers and Noam Chomsky, who emphasizes that the deep structure of a text is connected not to the reader's own knowledge and to the rest of the text.  These advocates continue to remind us that "reading is not word-centered but meaning-centered, a transaction between the print and the reader" (p. 18).  Further, social constructivists remind us that "knowledge is always in the process of being negotiated," especially through our development of new Discourses and identitity development.

Multiple Voices, Multiple Texts: Reading in the Secondary Content Areas

I chose to read this theoretically-driven approach to teaching reading in the secondary content areas not because of its original cover design (see below for proof that I try hard not to choose a book by its cover) nor because of the first author's first name (someone with the first name of Reade must be a literacy expert!).  Rather, I chose this book because our school, like others across the nation, is beginning to implement the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, and I (like many other English teachers) am excited about the fact that all content area teachers will be incorporating reading and writing into their instruction.  After all, by the time students are in middle and high school, they are no longer learning to read (although they do continue to develop as readers throughout their lifetimes), but are instead reading to learn.

The authors of Multiple Voices, Multiple Texts (1997) approach literacy with "the belief that as readers use written language to understand the world in which they live, they learn more about how to read at the same time" (pp. ix-x).  For them, literacy is best approached through a multi-dimensional, complex process that is best supported through transactional instruction, where teachers are facilitators of independent learning and thinking and the teaching of reading is integrated into the students' lives and mastery of the content itself.  The teaching of reading, thus, has important implications for teachers of all subjects.  In fact, the authors argue that "knowledgeable subject area teachers are best able to organize curriculum and instruction that provides the rich background of content knowledge, language, and experience that allows students to construct meaning in response to a range of written materials" (p. x).  Imagine a world where history teachers were not only experts in World War II, but were also helpful reading instructors.  Imagine a biology class where students were not only taught about osmosis and cell walls, but were also assisted in developing strong scientific reports.  Reading and writing are such an integral component of learning in every field that to deny explicit reading and writing instruction in those areas seems catastrophic!

The Foreword and Introduction clearly outline the authors' approach to literacy: rather than take a phonics-driven, word-recognition approach (behaviorist) to reading, they advocate a whole language, meaning-centered view (social constructivist, psycholinguistic).  They argue that students are best supported in knowledge creation when student writing in multiple genres is encouraged, displayed and celebrated; when students are required to write in ongoing inquiry and problem solving journals and complete I-search papers on specific topics; when students are encouraged to work collaboratively on research projects, learning logs, and creative writing; and when reading for understanding is promoted through daily assignments using multiple texts (popular media, textbooks, young adult literature, scholarly journals) in every content area.

Why Blog?

I'm a newbie to this whole blogosphere thing.  In fact, I'm new to the whole idea of writing continuously for myself, and probably wouldn't be starting this tech-journey without the requirements set forth by my summer grad class.  I'm notorious for starting a journal, writing in it for a few days (or less), and then setting it to the side and letting it slip my mind.  I'm no good at doing things for myself (but try to be excellent at doing things really well for others).  So, we'll see what happens to this blog in a month or so.

For now, let me begin by saying that I'm excited about the potential that blogging promises.  As I foraged the endless online writing spaces for ideas, I realized that blogging makes knowledge accessible, makes people's lives real, and has the potential of bringing us closer together.  Consider, for instance, http://twowritingteachers.wordpress.com/, a blog started by two teachers who are over 500 miles apart.  These women share ideas for teaching writing as well as create online spaces in which others can share ideas and resources. 

I think a good blog is one that can include personal reflection, but also focuses on timely issues.  As an expectant mother and always teacher, I struggle with my concern for teaching "revolutionary love," and transformative ways of thinking about the world.  I know that race, class, gender, sexuality are social constructions, but am also painfully aware of the very real consequences these identities have in schooling and society.  The anti-racist parenting blog, http://loveisntenough.com, highlights issues that are pertinent in today's media, education, and legal news, while including links to primary sources and celebrating positive events and families.  Similarly, www.mochamomma.com shares one woman's experiences as a mother, writer, middle school teacher, and critic.  Another blog, www.racialicious.com, investigates the intersections of race and the media.

The most effective blogs, to me, use the author's point of view to address popular opinion, difficult issues, or personal moments of reflection while also staying committed to intertextuality.  This idea of intertextuality, to me, has to do with the overlap of multiple forms of media and texts (including historical moments, legal issues, young adult literature, other blogs) and how texts inform and create other texts in a dialectic.

Baptism by Blogging Fire

When Dr. Pence asked us to create blogs for an online summer course, Reading Across the Content Areas, I have to admit, I was shaking in my flip-flops.  I'm not the most tech-savvy, but I'm eager to learn, so stay tuned for the trials and tribulations of troubleshooting!

This summer, my blogs will likely focus on how my teaching can be improved based on what I learn from reading Multiple Voices, Multiple Texts: Reading in the Secondary Content Areas (1997), by Reade Dornan, Lois Matz Rosen, and Marilyn Wilson. 

In the fall, I'll hope to continue the journey by celebrating the little victories I might experience while teaching Reading at a local middle school and English II and III at the high school.

The most exciting part of this blog will come early in 2013, though, when we welcome the newest addition to our family!  Do they have professional development for new parents?