THE IMPORTANCE OF READING IN PRIMARY EDUCATION
Reading has been one of the few ways that men use to acquire knowledge about the many interesting things that the world can offer. Ever since the childhood stage, men were taught to learn how to read and as they grow up, it served as a valuable tool in education. With this tool, many books have served their dues: journals; literary fictions; textbooks; scholarly research; and many other reading materials, which have been proven beneficial for the development of the human mind. As humans, to be able to read is one of the many points that differentiate us from animals. As humans, we discover our own knowledge and have learned to share it through words – whether it is through verbal communication or non-verbal communication such as signs and writings. The non-verbal acquisition of knowledge is easy when one knows how to read.
The importance of reading in educating the youth has been stressed out many times. Witty (1948) states that the significance in the lives of youth of ability to read effectively has long been recognized. She continued that “it is recognized, too, that if high-school and college students are to become capable citizens, they must not only be trained to comprehend what they read but educated to think about the ideas apprehended and to discriminate among the facts presented in varied types of printed material.” Kameenui and Simmons (1998) depicts that “professional educators and the public at large have long known that reading is an enabling skill that traverses academic disciplines and translates into meaningful personal, social, and economic outcomes for individuals.”
The Definition of Reading
Dechant (1991) depicts that definitions of reading are generally divided into two major types: those that equate reading with interpretation of experience generally; and those that restrict the definition to the interpretation of graphic symbols. To support the first definition, Dechant cited Spencer’s (1946) definition of reading that “in the broadest sense, reading is the process of interpreting sense stimuli . . . Reading is performed whenever one experiences sensory stimulation” Dechant (1991) continues that s significant implication of the definition of reading as interpretation of experience is that pupils must be readers of experience before they can become readers of graphic symbols. They must first be readers of the world. Pupils cannot read symbols without having had those experiences that give the symbol meaning. This last implication will interest us more at a later point in this text.
Reading as an interpretation of graphic symbols has a rather different view on how reading should be defined. Here, reading is defined as involving the comprehension and interpretation of the symbols on the page (Harris -Sipay, 1975, 1985); as a complex interaction of cognitive and linguistic processes with which readers construct a meaningful representation of the writer’s message (Barnitz, 1986); or as giving significance intended by the writer to the graphic symbols by relating them to what the reader already knows (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkerson, 1985; Dechant, 1964, 1970, 1982; Duffy & Roehler, 1986). Reading is also described as the reconstruction of the message encoded graphically by the writer; as constructing meaning from print (Gillett & Temple, 1986); and as a process of information search or information processing.
THE COGNITIVE-CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW OF READING
The environment in which a person is engaging with in reading plays an important role in the effectiveness of the learning process. A deafening environment is obviously destructive as the attention of the reader is highly diverted. In a process where concentration is required, the right environment is also required. This is the reason why instructors in primary education do not tolerate noise. They believe that it can be a hazard in the implanting of information on the students’ mind. It is why a solemn and responsive environment is observed. On the other hand, because the definition of distraction is an individual perspective, sometimes it is up to that individual to choose the environment in which he or she wants to read. In general, it is up to the educators to pick a suitable environment for their students. This is basically of the cognitive-constructivist view of learning and is important to a cognitive-constructive reading. Basically, the cognitive-constructivist view of reading emphasizes that reading is a process in which the reader actively searches for meaning in what she reads. This search for meaning depends very heavily on the reader having an existing store of knowledge and on the environment in which the reading takes place. Barr, Kamil, Mosenthal and Pearon (1984), states that reading was no longer a single product that varied according to properties inherent in written text. Instead, reading was now viewed by many as a process involving cognitive construction.
Dijikstra, et al (1997) states that the American cognitive constructivist view of learning positions that an active, self-regulated, goal-directed, and reflective learner constructs personal knowledge through discovery and exploration in a responsive learning environment. The constructivist environment can be activated by interactive technologies that can adaptively and intelligently response to at-the-moment learning needs. An ideal example of this environment is the classroom. The primary classroom perhaps has a significant importance from the rest, because it is the first step and experience of a student in such an environment. Here, different texts that teachers prepare for students’ use, such as outlines of lecture notes, worksheets, and graphic organizers; written texts authored by students, such as essays, stories, and lecture notes; and electronic texts used and generated by students
Foshay, et al (2003) states that the cognitive-constructivist view of reading stresses that reading is a process in which the reader actively searches for meaning in what he or she reads. This view also emphasizes that this exploration for meaning depends very profoundly on the reader’s having an existing and obtainable store of knowledge or “schemata” that he or she draws on in that search for meaning, and that the active contribution of the reader is significant enough to justify the assertion that the reader actually constructs the meaning he or she arrives at. There are basically three topics that describe three key components of the cognitive-constructivist model – the cognitive orientation, schemata, and construct.
The Cognitive Orientation
Having replaced behaviorism, the cognitive orientation is where cognitive psychologists view the mind as central to learning and the study of learners’ thought processes as a central focus of their work (Foshay, et al, 2003). It is also viewed in cognitive orientation that learners are active participants, who act on rather than simply respond to their external environment as they learn. In the cognitive view, reading is very much an active process in which the meaning the reader gleans from a text is heavily influenced by the cognitive work that he or she puts into the reading process. Foshay, et al (2003) further explain that Both the beginning reader – who we might observe carefully sounding out words, and the accomplished reader, who appears to be effortlessly absorbing the contents of the material being read – are in fact actively engaged in making meaning from the text.
Schema
Schema theory is concerned with knowledge; particularly with the way knowledge is represented in our minds and the importance of prior knowledge to learning something new (Foshey, et al, 2003). Based from the theory, knowledge is packaged in organized structures termed schemata. In addition, Foshey et al (2003) cited that according to Rumelhart (1980), schemata constitute our knowledge about “objects, situations, events, and sequences of events, actions, and sequences of actions”. Humans have their schemata for objects such as a house, for situations such as being in a class, for events such as going to a concert, and for sequences of events such as getting up – eating – showering – getting dressed and going to work. Humans interpret their experiences – whether those experiences are direct encounters with the world or vicarious experiences gained through reading – by comparing and in most cases matching those experiences to an existing schema. This stresses out that we have the ability to make sense of what we read and of our experience (Foshey, et al, 2003). Schemata assist the reader in initially making sense of what he or she reads, relating information newly acquired to prior knowledge, determining the relative importance of information in a text, making inferences, and remembering (Anderson & Pearson, 1984).
Constructivism
Foshay, et al (2003) depicts that constructivism serves to emphasize a point already made and to introduce an additional point. Constructivism emphasizes the fact that comprehending a text is very much an active, constructive process. Constructivists often use the phrase “making meaning” to emphasize the reader’s active role in comprehending texts. Students cannot just passively absorb meaning from texts. A truly passive reading would leave the reader simply having turned the pages. Instead, readers must actively engage with the text, consider what they are reading, and link the information they are gleaning from the text with ideas, topics, and events they already know. Furthermore, the more difficult a text becomes for students – the more new and challenging information it presents – the more actively engaged readers must be. Foshay, et al (2003) further stress that constructivism is a social construct as well as a psychological on. Most constructivists emphasize that the social world in which we live heavily influences the meaning that we derive from our experiences, including our experiences with text. Thus, constructivism strongly supports the inclusion of a variety of sorts of discussion and group work as part of reading and learning (Calfee & Patrick, 1995).
There are three concepts that broaden the view of the cognitive-constructivist view process. These are: the interactive model of reading; automaticity; and metacognition.
The Interactive Model of Reading
According to Foshay, et al (2003), the interactive model of reading serves as a reminder that both the reader and the text play important roles in reading. Dechant (1991) states that reading is described as an interactive process involving both the reader’s previous fund of knowledge and the words in the text. The interactive model of reading simply falls in the definition of reading as an interpretation of graphic symbols. To further illustrate, interactive models can perhaps be best understood when contrasted to what have been called “bottom-up” and “top-down” models.
Bottom-up models assume that the text is singularly vital and that the reader processes text by first recognizing lower-level units and then repeatedly synthesizing lower-level units into more multifaceted units (Foshey, et al, 2003). This view has been explained that the reader might first perceive letters, then synthesize numerous letters to form words, then synthesize several words to form a phrase, and so on. Processing operates in a single direction – from the text to the reader (Foshey, et al, 2003). To further elaborate, Dechant (1991) explains that in the bottom-up models, if the text processing falls down anywhere on the hierarchical ladder, remediation is applied at this point. Bottom-up models, at least in the beginning stages, give little emphasis to the influences of the reader’s world knowledge, contextual information, and other higher-order processing strategies. Dechant (1991) cited Gove (1983) on the bottom-up model. Gove (1983) suggests that advocates of the bottom-up strategy believe that: readers must be familiar with each word in a variety to grasp the selection; readers should give primary emphasis to word and sound/ letter cues in identifying unrecognized words; reading acquisition requires a mastery of a series of word-recognition skills; letters, letter/sound relationships, and words should receive primary emphasis in instruction; accuracy in recognizing words is significant; and knowledge of discrete sub-skills is important.
On the other hand, Foshey, et al (2003) explains that top-down models is the opposite of the bottom-up model in a sense that it assumes that the reader is singularly important and processes text by first hypothesizing about the content of the text and then selectively sampling the text to confirm or disconfirm her hypothesis. In addition, Dechant (1991) states that the top-down models suggest that processing of print begins in the mind of the readers with meaning-driven processes or with a hypothesis about the meaning of some unit of print. In this perspective, the reading procedure begins with the highest-level unit possible – meaning in the mind of the reader – and deals with lower-level units, for example words, only to a limited extent. Again, processing operates in a single direction – but in the top-down perspective that view is from the reader to the text (Foshey, et al, 2003). As cited by Dechant (1991), Gove (1983) suggests that advocates of the top-down strategy believe that: readers can comprehend a selection even though they do not recognize each word; readers should use meaning and grammatical cues to identify unrecognized words; reading requires the use of meaning activities rather than the mastery of a series of word-recognition skills; the reading of sentences, paragraphs, and whole selections should be the primary focus of instruction; reading for meaning is the primary objective of reading rather than mastery of letters, letter/sound relationships, and words; and the most important aspect about reading is the amount and kind of information gained through reading.
In the interactive model, processing is neither exclusively top down nor exclusively bottom up. Instead, the reader arrives at understanding of a text by simultaneously synthesizing information from a variety of sources. These include word-level knowledge, syntactic knowledge, and various sorts of schema he or she has internalized (Rumelhart, 1977). In interactive models, reading is perceived to involve parallel and simultaneous processing of all the sources of information. In addition, Dechant (1991) states that advocates of the interactive model suggest that readers process letters and words at the same time as they formulate hypotheses about the meaning of what is on the printed page. This model is useful in the developing the competence and interests of primary pupils because it is a fully interactive activity where the readers. It is on their own understanding, based on their background knowledge that would arrive them to the conclusion on their own understanding of the topic – which would be best with the guidance of an instructor.
Automacticity
An automatic activity is one that we can perform instantly and with very little attention. The human mind’s capability to focus on an attention is sternly limited. Men can only perform one thing at a time. But given with this fact, it is not impossible to achieve automaticity in activities. One example of this is the automaticity of a rock guitarist when performing on stage. The guitarist can strum the guitar, jump all around, sing, and even tricks that are hard to achieve when performing other tasks. Such is the ability of automaticity. This ability can also be achieved in reading. Reading includes a number of subprocesses that need to take place at the same time – processes such as recognizing words, assigning meanings to words, constructing the meanings of sentences and larger units, and relating the information gleaned from the text to information we already have. Foshey, et al (2003) provided an example that if a student is reading and comes across the word imperative, he or she needs to automatically recognize the word and automatically – immediately and without conscious attention – know that it means “absolutely necessary.” To achieve automaticity in reading, Foshey, et al (2003) advises that students need to do a lot of reading in materials they find relatively easy, understandable, interesting, and enjoyable; and they need to do that reading in situations that are non-taxing, that is, in situations in which they can read for information and enjoyment and not be faced with difficult questions or other requirements based on the reading. In brief, learners need to be given ample opportunity to read independently in material they find interesting, enjoyable, and relatively easy.
Metacognition
Flavel (1976) defines metacognition as one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them. In terms of reading, Foshey, et al (2003) describes metacognition refers to the reader’s awareness of his or her comprehension of a text as he or she is reading it and to the reader’s regulation of the processes that lead to comprehension. Metacognitive readers basically have the ability to mentally step outside of themselves and view themselves as learners faced with particular learning tasks. Foshey, et al (2003) further states that active awareness of one’s comprehension while reading and the ability to use effective fix-up strategies when understanding breaks down are utterly essential to becoming an effective reader (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998), and lack of such metacognitive perspectives is a particularly devastating characteristic of less proficient readers. To be able to develop the metacognitive abilities of primary pupils is vital in the achievement of high grades and improvement of reading ability.
Psycholinguistics and Reading
Reading has long been related with psycholinguistics, which is a branch of cognitive psychology that studies the psychological basis of linguistic competence and performance. Steinberg (1982) states that five fundamental principles from psycholinguistics have been formulated which would provide for optimal results in the teaching of reading to children. These are: reading should involve only meaningful words, phrases, and sentences; reading should depend on speech understanding and not speech production; reading should not depend on teaching new language or concepts; reading should not depend on teaching writing; and learning to read should be enjoyable.
These five fundamental principles are hard to be taught in students particularly in primary education but is basically very rewarding. In the first principle, the reason behind it is because research evidence shows that meaningful words are easier to learn than meaningless items such as letters. Steinberg (1982) states that what was crucial were the meaningfulness of what was said along with a written form. This is not to say that the visual complexity of a written form has no effect on learning. Undoubtedly, it does. Its effect, however, is minor with respect to that of the meaningfulness of co-occurring stimuli such as spoken words. In the second principle, it is so because it is not necessary for children learning to read to be able to speak or enunciate clearly. Reading can be learned without speaking. The third point depicts that a reading program should not include the teaching of language. If language is to be taught, it should be done in a curriculum component other than that of reading. Instead of spending time teaching new vocabulary and other aspects of language, it would be better to teach the reading of those words and structures which the child already knows. In the fourth principle, Steinberg (1982) states that because appropriate physical maturation and muscular development are prerequisites for writing and because such prerequisites do not develop early, young children have difficulty in controlling a writing implement, and, they fatigue easily. Such difficulties, however, are not present for reading. The visual ability of the child develops before the first year, when the child learns to identify objects, faces, etc. Then finally in the fifth principle, reading should be made fun for children because through this, not only will children learn to read, they will want to read. Children who are interested, intellectually stimulated, and who enjoy what they are doing will learn willingly and will not mind applying some effort.
Kenneth Goodman’s (1969) miscue analysis is one of the theories in psycholinguistics that specifically depicts a sophisticated procedure for analyzing oral reading errors. Miscue analysis is based on the assumption that oral reading errors are “windows on the reading process” that can reveal the strategies readers use to process written material (Goodman, 1976). The correction and prediction strategies are among the most important in this reading strategy. The prediction strategy is responsible with the types of cues that a reader uses when predicting upcoming text and analyzing unknown words. On the other hand, the correction strategy is concerned with whether or not the reader self-corrects miscues that are unacceptable in context and that disrupt meaning. If miscue analysis reveals that a reader is weak in either of these strategies, reading strategy lessons can be used to remediate the problem (Goodman & Burke, 1980).
It has been weighed that the relationship of writing and reading in the psycholinguistics perspective is not that that vital. To be able to read properly does not necessarily mean that a primary pupil should be able to write well. To focus on two goals would only complicate things for the learners, as it would confuse them on where they would focus well. Although writing is important, it should not be the main focus along side the reading program. The miscue analysis of Goodman would be the one of the wise steps in developing the reading capabilities of a primary pupil. The psycholinguistics approach in reading will help the pupil achieve the level of interactivity, automaticity, and metacognition needed for a child to acquire. The main point is simple – focus on reading and nothing but that. Anyway, the other skills such as the writing and language skills will soon follow as automaticity develops within a child, and in time would produce metacognitive abilities. All in all, with the discussion as the basis, it has been concluded that developing reading skills is a complex process. It would take determination and perseverance to be able to teach these theories correctly and hopefully would be able to produce positive results. It is perhaps the reason why reading is probably one of the most researched topics in education and the primary focus of instruction at the elementary levels. No wonder the topic of reading is of great social importance – because it pertains to the issues of literacy and intelligence. From a learning perspective, it has been known that reading is closely related to many other cognitive processes or domains including: attention, concept formation, imagery, language, memory, and perception. This importance has been assimilated through the different theories about the topic.
References:
Anderson R. C., Hiebert E. H., Scott J. A., and Wilkinson I. (1985). Becoming
a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Barnitz J. G. (1986). The anaphora jigsaw puzzle in psycholinguistic and reading
research. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
Barr, R., Kamil, M.L., Mosentahl, P.B., and Pearson, D. (1984). Handbook of
Reading Research. Erlbaum Associates. New York.
Calfee, R.C., & Patrick, C.L. (1995). Teach our children well: Bringing k-12
education into the 21st century. Stanford, CA: Stanford Alumni Association.
Dechant E. (1964, 1970, 1982). “Improving the teaching of reading”. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dechant, E.D. (1991). Understanding and Teaching Reading: An Interactive
Model. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, NJ.
Dijikstra, S., Schott, F., Seel, M.N., and Teneeson, R.D. (1997). Instructional
Design: International Perspectives. Volume: 1. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ.
Duffy G. G., & Roehler L. R. (1986). Improving classroom reading instruction.
New York: Random House.
Flavel, J. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B. Resnick
(Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NH: Erlbaum.
Foshay, R., McEvoy, E., Graves, M., and Parks, R. (2003). Teaching Reading
with PLATO: An Overview of the New PLATO Solution and How to Use It. PLATO Learning Inc., University of Minnesota.
Gillett J. W., & Temple C. (1986, 1990). Understanding reading problems.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Goodman, K. S. (1969) “Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied
psycholinguistics”. Reading Research Quarterly # 5. In Christie, J.F. (1981) The Effects of Grade Level and Reading Ability on Children’s Miscue Patterns by). Journal of Educational Research. Volume: 74.
Goodman, K. S. (1976) “Miscues: Windows on the reading process”. In
Goodman, K. S. (Ed.), Miscue analysis: Applications to reading instruction. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English. In Christie, J.F. (1981) The Effects of Grade Level and Reading Ability on Children’s Miscue Patterns by). Journal of Educational Research. Volume: 74.
Goodman, Y. M., & Burke, C. (1980). Reading strategies. Focus on
comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. In Christie, J.F. (1981) The Effects of Grade Level and Reading Ability on Children’s Miscue Patterns by). Journal of Educational Research. Volume: 74.
Gove M. K. (1983). “Clarifying teacher’s beliefs about reading”. The Reading
Teacher, 37. In E.D. Dechant, Understanding and Teaching Reading: An Interactive Model. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, NJ.
Harris A. J., & Sipay E. R. (1961, 1975, 1980, 1985). How to increase reading
ability. New York: David McKay Company.
Kameenui, E.J. and Simmons, D.C. (1998). What Reading Research Tells Us
about Children with Diverse Learning Needs: Bases and Basics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, New Jersey.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic
(Ed.), Attention and performance, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R.
J.Spiro, B.C. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.) (1998). Self-regulated learning:
From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
Spencer L. P. (1946). “The reading process and types of reading”. In 11th
yearbook, Claremont college reading conference yearbook. Claremont, CA. .
Steinberg, D.D. (1991). Psycholinguistics: Language, Mind, and World. Pearson
UK. London.
Witty, S. (1948). Reading in the High School and College. The University of
Chicago Press. Place of Publication: Chicago.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment