Association, Michigan Reading

Peters, Charles W

Wixson, Karen K

English

Scholarworks@GVSU

Michigan Reading Journal Volume 17 Issue 1 Article 4 January 1984 Reading Redefined: A Michigan Reading Association Position Paper Michigan Reading Association Karen K. Wixson Charles W. Peters Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj Recommended Citation Association, Michigan Reading; Wixson, Karen K.; and Peters, Charles W. (1984) "Reading Redefined: A Michigan Reading Association Position Paper," Michigan Reading Journal: Vol. 17 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj/vol17/iss1/4 This Other 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. Reading Redefined: A Michigan Reading Association Position Paper Cover Page Footnote The Michigan Reading Association gratefully acknowledges the advice of the many people who assisted in the preparation of this paper. Special thanks go to co-authors Karen K. Wixson, University of Michigan, and Charles W. Peters, Oakland Schools. This other is available in Michigan Reading Journal: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj/vol17/iss1/4 Reading Redefined: A Michigan Reading Association Position Paper1 NOTE: The Michigan Reading Association gratefully acknowledges the advice of the many people who assisted in the preparation of this paper. Special thanks go to co-authors Karen K. Wixson, University of Michigan, and Charles W. Peters, Oakland Schools. INTRODUCTION Students lack of critical reading skill is one of the most frequently commented upon problems in education today. Consistent with its tradition as a leader in the field of reading education, the State of Michigan is taking positive steps to deal with this problem. Recognizing the complex nature of the problem, the state has initiated a comprehen-sive evaluation of current policies in light of recent theory and research in reading and reading instruction. This paper has been prepared by the Michigan Reading Association (MRA) to provide information on the new definition of reading that has resulted from the first step of this evaluative process. This definition was approved by the governing body of MRA on October 29, 1983 and will soon be brought before the State Board of Education for its ap-proval. This new definition has far reaching implications for every area of educational practice including policy making, curriculum develop-ment, local and state assessment, in-structional methods and materials, and teacher training. Therefore, it is essential that educators at every level of involvement including state department personnel, school board members, superintendents, cur-riculum coordinators, principals, teachers, and teacher educators, begin to consider the impact this definition will have on future educa-tional policies and procedures.' The intent of this paper is to provide an overview of the definition, its back-1 Bibliographical references were intentional-ly omitted from this paper for ease of reading. However, a reference list is included for those who are interested in further reading. - Nancy Seminoff, President (1983-84) ground, rationale and assumptions, and to consider generally its im-plications in four areas - profes-sional development, evaluation, in-struction, and policy making. Background and Rationale During 1982-83 the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) asked the Michigan Reading Association (MRA) to undertake an examination of the state perfor-mance objectives for reading as the starting point for the revision of the current state assessment test. The in-itial step in this process was a con-sideration of the present definition of reading in light of recent theory and research in the area of reading. The present definition clearly recognizes comprehension as the ultimate goal of reading, as can be seen from the excerpt below. The Department's definition of reading is based upon the assump-tion that the only legitimate, final outcome of reading instruction is comprehension. That is, although certain enabling word attack skills may be related to comprehension skills, mastery of these skills, in and of themselves and in the absence of comprehension is not a sufficient terminal objective for reading instruction. In many respects this statement still holds true today. However, in 1977 when the present definition was adopted, our understanding of reading in general and comprehen-sion in particular was more limited than it is today. At that time reading was conceptualized as a series of skills that were viewed as sequential 4 and hierarchical (e.g., literal, in-ferential, and applied comprehen-sion). Consequently, the objectives and the reading tests were aimed at proficiency in component skill areas such as contextual analysis, dic-tionary usage, literal and inferential comprehension. While this view of reading was appropriate for that time, it no longer adequately reflects our knowledge of reading. In the six years since the present definition was adopted significant advances in fields such as an-thropology, cognitive psychology, education, linguistics, and sociology have made it possible to broaden our view of reading. Re-cent research holds that reading is a dynamic process that involves the reader's ability to construct mean-ing through the interaction between information suggested by the written language and the reader's existing knowledge. In other words the reader is an active participant in the process. This interactive dimension focuses on how the reader derives meaning from print; what the reader brings to the reading situation in terms of experience, knowledge, skills and ability; how the informa-tion is presented in written text; and what effects context has on reading. As a result, difficulty is no longer viewed as an absolute property of a particular reading skill or task, bu.t rather as a relative property of the interaction among specific reader, text, and instructional factors. Given this theoretical focus, the new definition must respond to fac-tors such as how one's prior knowledge influences comprehen-sion, how one structures that knowledge, what strategies the reader uses to construct meaning, what skills the reader needs to per-form a particular reading task, the type of methods and materials being used, as well as the setting in which reading occurs. While these are not new concerns, it has not been until recently that reading research and theory have enabled us to integrate these issues in instructional prac-tice. The Definition Existing Definition: Reading must be defined as ... the process of transforming the visual represen-tation of language into meaning. Thus .... an idea is being transfer-red from the written page to the reader's mind. New Definition: Reading is the process of constructing meaning through the dynamic interaction among the reader's existing knowledge, the information sug-gested by the written language, and the context of the reading situation. The existing definition implies that reading is a static process and that the reader is a passive recipient of meaning that is contained in the text. In contrast, the new definition emphasizes the interactive, con-structive, dynamic nature of the reading process: 1. interactive - The term in-teraction is used in the new defini-tion to indicate that reading is an act of communication that is dependent not only on the knowledge and skill of the author, but on the knowledge and skill of the reader as well. 2. constructive - The term con-structing is used to indicate that meaning is something that cannot simply be extracted from a text, but rather that it must be actively created in the mind of the reader from the integration of prior knowledge with the information sug-gested by the text. 3. dynamic - The term dynamic is used to indicate that the reading process is variable, not static, adap-ting to the specific demands of each particular reading experience (e.g. , to a particular type of text, or reading assignment) . This new definition recognizes that reading skill will vary from situation to situation, and that skilled reading is the ability to tailor one's activities to the demands of each reading situation. Thus, within this context, skills are viewed as a means to an end, rather than an end unto themselves. Assumptions The assumptions underlying the new definition provide the basis for its translation into practice - i.e., objectives, tests, curriculum guides, instructional procedures, etc. They are as follows: Assumption -1. Reading is one component of communication: oral language (speaking/listen-ing) and written language (writing/ reading). Although unchanged from the ex-isting definition, this assumption takes on new meaning in light of the new definition. The basic premise of this assumption is that reading is a medium of communication and that the basic components of com-munication are the sender, the receiver, and the message. Reading, then, involves the com-munication of a message between an author and a reader. Thus, the meaning that is constructed by a reader is dependent to a large ex-tent on the relationship between the author's purpose for writing the text and the reader's purpose for reading. Consider, for example, dif-ferences in meaning a reader might construct regarding information on the solar system as presented by the author of a poem, an encyclopedia entry, or a science fiction story. Assumption -2. Characteristics of the reader (e.g., psychological, physical, social. cultural. linguistic) interact with characteristics of the reading task (e.g., purpose for reading, reading assignment. characteristics of the reading material, setting in which reading occurs, nature of reading instruc-tion) to influence the process. The existing definition implies that reading is static; that it remains the same for all readers and for all 5 types of reading tasks. The new definition describes a dynamic in-teraction that varies as a function of many factors both internal and ex-ternal to the reader. Therefore, reading performance can be ex-pected to vary as well. For example, the process of understanding the main idea of a text and a reader's consequent performance can be ex-pected to vary considerably depen-ding on the interaction among fac-tors such as the reader's familiarity with the topic, interest in and pur-pose for reading, and the content and structure of the text. Assumption -3. The ultimate goal of reading instruction is the development of readers who can flexibly and independently pro-cess written language for mean-ing. Skill mastery is a means to this end, not an end in itself. A. Knowledge of the reading pro-cess should determine the content (what you teach) and the delivery system (how you teach) of reading instruction. B. Interrelated components and subcomponents of the reading pro-cess can be identified for specific reader-text-context interactions and used as the basis for reading in-struction. The existing definition implies the existence of a discrete set of skills that, when mastered, add up to reading. In contrast, the new defini-tion implies that the goal of instruc-tion is to develop in students the ability to apply reading skills and strategies in a manner that is: 1) in-ternalized - can be applied in-dependently; 2) flexible - can be applied with or without conscious ef-fort as the situation demands; and 3) generalized - can be applied to a variety of reading situations. For ex-ample, the objective for teaching a student to comprehend a fable is not merely to answer the questions cor-rectly. Rather it is to understand what makes a fable a fable and how best to go about reading this type of literature . Thus, the goals of instruc-tion are determined by the specific reader-text-context interaction, and skills become a means to achieve these goals rather than the goals themselves. Implications The definition and its assumptions suggest several important implica-tions for instruction, evaluation, professional development, and policy making. Although the pro-cess of translating the definition has just begun, the following may pro-vide some insight into the direction this process is taking; a more detailed description of each of these areas will be forthcoming in other documents as each phase of this process is com-pleted. Professional Development. If the new definition is to direct instruc-tion, then teachers must have a full understanding of how this reconcep-tualization of reading affects instruc-tional decision making. In other words, teachers must become deci-sion makers; applying the principles implied by the definition to a variety of methods and materials and in a variety of reading situations. Specifically, teachers must be able to identify (1) WHAT - the nature of the materials the student is reading (e.g., a poem, a short story, an editorial, a social studies text) and the information to be learned (e.g., concepts, facts, literary themes); (2) WHY - the purpose for which the student is reading (e.g., for enjoyment, to write a report, to answer certain questions); and (3) HOW - the skills and strategies the reader must utilize in order to per-form the assigned task (e.g., to skim, to categorize, to rehearse). For example, if teachers were plan-ning a unit on the American Revolu-tion, they would have to identify the WHAT or the content to be learned (e.g., concepts, ideas, principles), and the variety of material to be read (e.g., textbook chapters, documents, diaries, newspapers); and WHY or purpose for reading. Teachers must also consider how the WHAT and the WHY influence the HOW or the skills and the learning strategies (e.g., identifying com-parative, or superordinate/subor-dinate relationships among ideas) students use to perform the required tasks. This means that professional development programs will have to train teachers to translate the WHAT, the WHY, and the HOW in-to instructional programs that are predicated on the principles that are inherent within the new definition. Evaluation. The new definition implies that our performance objec-tives and assessment instruments must also focus on the what, why and how of reading. That is, our evaluation procedures need to take into consideration factors such as the nature of the materials to be read, the assigned reading tasks, student interest in and familiarity with a topic, and the context in which the reading occurs. This means that the focus of the new ob-jectives and test items must be on students' knowledge about the in-teraction among different texts, tasks, and strategies and their abili-ty to apply that knowledge, rather than the mastery of a set of isolated skills. For example, presented with material from a science text students might be asked to identify: 1) its organizational structure and/or the relative importance of text features such as headings, italicized vocabulary, or charts; 2) the various purposes for reading this text (e.g. , to remember for a test; to provide in-formation for a report); and 3) how they would vary their reading strategies in accordance with the text characteristics and the purposes for reading. Thus, what the students' responses reveal with respect to their knowledge about reading and their ability to apply this knowledge effectively becomes just as impor-tant as obtaining the correct answer. Instruction. Again, the new definition implies that reading in-struction should focus on develop-ing in students an understanding of the what, how, and why of reading and the ability to apply this knowledge in a variety of reading situations. Thus, for the purpose of instruction, each reading situation would be considered as represen-tative of one class, of reading situa-tions and students would be taught about the characteristics that 6 distinguish one situation from another and how to tailor their reading activities to the demands of each particular situation. So, for ex-ample, students would not only be taught about the different types of stories (e.g., fairy tale, mystery, science fiction, myth) that exist in their basal readers or literature an-thologies, but also the reasons for reading each type of story (e.g. , to appreciate the author's use of figurative language), and the specific skills and strategies that are appropriate for reading each type (e.g., identifying temporal vs. causal story structure). Policy Making. In order to pro-vide a leadership role with respect to the implementation of the new definition administrators must also be conversant with the implications it has for such areas as professional development, materials selection, curriculum development, and test selection. For example, what criteria would a principal use to ascertain the extent to which teachers require students to use a variety of text processing strategies or the extent to which teachers app-ly the principles inherent in the new definition to other subjects they teach, e.g., science, math, and social studies? How would cur-riculum developers be affected by the new definition, i.e., what are the developmental considerations; how does one's knowledge of text struc-ture change; what role does the ade-quacy of text structure assume in the evaluation and adoption of cur-ricular materials? Given the impor-tance of such questions, it will be impossible to implement the new definition adequately unless policy makers have a thorough knowledge of the new definition and its implica-tions. REFERENCES Anderson, R.C., Spiro, R.J., & Montague, W.E. (Eds.). Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1977. Babbs, P. & Moe, A. Metacogni-tion: A key for independent learn-ing from text. The Reading Teacher, 1983, 36, 422-426. Berger, A. & Robinson, H.A. (Eds.). Secondary school reading. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Conference on Research in English, 1982. Dishner, E.K., Bean, T.W., & Readance, J.E. Reading in the con-tent areas: Improving classroom in-struction. Dubuque, IA: Ken-dall/Hunt Pub. co., 1981. Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., & Mason, J. Comprehension instruc-tion: Perspectives and suggestions. NY: Longman, 1984. Fisher, D.F. & Peters, C.W. Com-prehension and the competent reader: Interdisciplinary perspec-tives. NY: Praeger, 1981 . Guthrie, J.T. Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews. Newark DE: International Reading Assoc. 1981. Johnston, P.H. Reading com-prehension assessment: A cognitive basis. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1983. Jones, L.L. An interactive view of reading: Implications for the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 1982, 35, 772-777. Langer, J.A. & Smith-Burke, M.T. Reader meets author/bridging the gap. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1982. Otto, W., & White, S. (Eds.). Reading expository material. NY: Academic Press, 1982. Pearson, P.D. & Johnson, D.D. Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1978. Pearson, P.D. & Spiro, R.J. Toward a theory of reading com-prehension instruction. Topics in Language Disorders, 1980, 1, 71-88. 7 Pitts, M. Comprehension monitor-ing: Definition and practice. Journal of Reading, 1983, 26, 516-523. Resnick, L.A. & Weaver, P.A. (Eds.). Theory and practice of early reading (Vols. 1-3). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Assoc., 1976. Santa, C.M. & Hayes, B.L. Children's prose comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1981. Spiro, R.J., Bruce, B.C., & Brewer, W. F. Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence ErlbaumAssoc., 1980. Stranger, M. Instructional im-plications of a conceptual theory of reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 1980, 33, 391-397. 

Reading Redefined: A Michigan Reading Association Position Paper

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2297&context=mrj

Reading Redefined: A Michigan Reading Association Position Paper

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarworks@GVSU