Kaplan, Leonard

English

Scholarworks@GVSU

Michigan Reading Journal Volume 14 Issue 2 Article 5 October 1980 Teaching Reading: Is It All That Basic? Leonard Kaplan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj Recommended Citation Kaplan, Leonard (1980) "Teaching Reading: Is It All That Basic?," Michigan Reading Journal: Vol. 14 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj/vol14/iss2/5 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. Berger continued. .. integrity? Yet tenure provides the luxury of integrity, the academic freedom to ask ethical questions: Do we encourage an honest ex-change of ideas between and among faculty, students, staff, and administrators? Do we encourage researchers to pursue long- as well as short-range goals? What do we do if we are pressed to change marks (whether or not we have a yen to do so? What do we say when articles and books are ripped off? When copyright laws are violated? Or when people are used in research, labeled subjects (a concept not too far removed from objects), have their privacy violated? What do we do if we see image passing for substance? Educational fads? Misleading claims? Do we remain silent when we hear back-biting or character assassination? When meetings are conducted in an unbusinesslike manner, wasting taxpayer and university time and money? Do we arrange conditions so that all who are in higher education can strive for excellence? If administrators do not wish to have their performance reviewed by those whose performance they review, what else can one say other than that they do not wish to improve? Do we restrain ourselves from speaking up for fear of reprisal, in effect imposing upon ourselves a devastating and ignominious censorship? The questions of course are endless. We each have our own lists. The maxim that "speech is silver; silence is golden" may tell us how to get ahead in the world, but it says little about ethical behavior. In all facets of educational life there are some people who find it easy to ask thoughtful, disturbing questions and confront the answers. They are the ones, whether faculty, students, staff, administrators, who are fulfilling their responsibilities as leaders in teh educational communi-ty. Others who find it difficult to do so, even under the aegis of tenure, might prefer to transfer to a person or group the responsibility of asking trenchant, ethical questions-a con-cept not too far removed from that of the loyal opposition which is an in-tegral part of many governments in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. The upshot of whatever happens appears clear, that the extent to which we are will-ing to speak up is a measure of the spirit of our freedom and a revela-tion of our confidence in ourselves and humanity. TEACHING READING: IS IT ALL THAT BASIC? When asked to write this article, I immediately responded with, "every-one teaches reading." Before you jump in with "everyone teaches reading," permit me to res-ps;md with, nonsense! If anything, the "back to basics" movement has developed an elite that not only sees itself as the primary teachers of reading, but makes it clear that what we really need is more courses in reading at the pre-service and in-service levels taught by specialists. Only a passing look at journals that advertise for college instructors would indicate that methodologists are in, especially in the communica-tion skills. Seemingly one-half the positions are for reading experts, the rest seem to be in mathematics. Special education and bilingual education are ·"in" but that seems to be due to funded programs. Their Leonard Kaplan Leonard Kaplan is a Professor of Education at Wayne State University continued success remains in doubt inspite of P.L. 94: 142 or the desires of the National Association of Bil-ingual Educators. In preparing for this writing I ex-amined a number of texts that are used to "train" teachers of reading. The topics were overwhelming. Chapters includ~d: Readiness, Language Experience Approaches, Comprehension, Organization, Word Attack Skills, Diagnosis, Evaluation, Content Reading, Selecting Reading Materials, Phonics, Linguistics, Structural Analysis, and Contextual Analysis. I'm sure that a few have been left out, but the list is fairly inclusive and certainly representative of the literature. In the literature search I kept 44 looking for a chapter that discussed the nature of the learner. The joy of reading, or how to teach children that reading deals with personal values or how one feels was missing from the majority of texts. A few of the prefaces or introductory statements in the books made pass-ing comment in these areas, but few if any gave the discussion of Affect any real commitment. I kept remembering the look of excitement on the face of Leland Jacobs, one of my professors at Teachers College, Columbia University, when he would read to us from a children's book in his reading classes. We felt his enthusiasm because he brought joy to his reading. Somehow our teaching of "basics" doesn't find this very basic. continued. .. Kaplan continued. . . AFFECTIVE TEACHING "The affective domain contrasts sharply with the cognitive in that the cognitive has to do primarily with growth and development of intellec-tual skills and abilities. Affect con-sists of such factors as emotions values, attitudes, appreciations, im~ pressions, desires, feelings, preferences, interests, tempera-ment, integrity, character, love-of-beauty, anesthetics, and the like. "l Even though cognition and affect seem to go hand-in-hand, there are clear indicators that reading is taught as if only the- acquisition of informcttion will create an informed reader. And yet, we all seem to know, at least verbally, that how we feel about ourselves and those around us influences our ability to learn because of them or possibly in spite of them, but certainly always with them. If learners are expected to develop effective reading habits then it is essential that they have teachers who not only recognize how to teach the skills of reading, but even more importantly, teachers who value teaching, children and themselves. 'Those adults who value reading had their reading habit established in early childhood and their initial stimulus to reading came through the efforts of another person, rather than as a self-initiated activity. 112 The inability to read has long been recognized as the sing le most contributor to school failure. Just about everything we do to measure school success, from informal teaching to text material to the all important standardized test, is bas-ed on the student's ability to deal with the printed word. However, students who perceive themselves as inadequate or failures cannot or will not attend to what a teacher believes is a priority. No teacher can teach a child absent from class physicafly, psychologically or emotionally. Re-cent research in this area suggests that good reader tend to have more positive self-concepts than poor reader. In addition, good readers possess feelings of adequacy, per-sonal worth, confidence and self-reliance. "3 AFFECTIVE TEACHER EDUCATION AND RE-EDUCATION Rosenshine has pointed out that "there is no need for teachers to be harsh and demeaning in order to ob-tain academic engaged time :·4 Even though Rosenshine is discussing classroom organization, some have takep this to mean that almost anything goes as long as teachers are humane about what they do. Teacher educators, at both the pre-service and in-service levels, have begged the issue by sug-gesting that since affect cannot be measured or at least not with some difficulty, skills must be stressed. This is what the public wants and this is what must be delivered. However, we normally leave one class period to a discussion of the relationship between reading suc-cess and personal esteem. The assumption here is, of course, that all teachers are humane and instinc-tively use affective objectives in their daily procedures. This assumption is not only inaccurate, but harmful. The lack of attention to this area gives cause to the believe that affect is a side product rather than an instructional process that enhances cognitive growth. "Respect for the pupil increases his self-esteem and self-confidence. If the teacher listens intently to the student and shows that he understands how he is thinking and feeling, he thus conveys his respect and genuine concern for the pupil as a pupil. On the other hand, self-esteem is not usually developed by superficial reassurance. "5 Teaching behaviors such as these do not just happen. They are acquired through intensive preparation as thorough as those given to the cognitive areas. Instructors must be made aware of these strategies qnd learn to plan for them in the same manner and with a similar commitment as other teaching models. It follows, of course, that teacher educators must be not only aware of the importance of affect in teacher preparation, but must be exemplar in their use through their own instruction. In other words, we cannot preach what we do not know or do not exhibit. 45 SUMMARY People are more basic than things. Values and feelings are more basic than phonics or basal readers. If we are really committed to the "back to basics" movement, we must question what is really basic. The child who would rather play in the autumn leaves than sit in a seat with his reading group may not be in the wrong. Can't we do both? REFERENCES Kaplan, Leonard. Developing Objectives In The Affective Domain: Collegiate Publishing Company, San Diego, California, 1978. McNeil, John D., Donant, Lisbeth, Atkins, Marvin C. How To Teach Reading Successfully: Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, 1980. Athy, Irene. "Reading Research In The Affective Domain" Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading: Second Edition; edited by Harry Singes and Robert B. Ruddell: Newark, Delaware, International Reading Association, 1976. Rosenshine, Barak, "Academic Engaged Time, Content Covered and Direct Instruction." A paper presented at ·the American Educational Research Association, NewYork, 1977. Strang, Ruth. Diagnostic Teaching of Reading: McGraw-Hill Book Compar;iy, Second Edition, New York, 1969. 

Teaching Reading: Is It All That Basic?

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2333&context=mrj

Teaching Reading: Is It All That Basic?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarworks@GVSU