Proponents of a psychometric view of reading support the notion that there are identifiable  skills.  These skills portray a compact picture of reading that underlies both its measurement and its teaching

Johns, Jerry L.

Vacca, Richard T.

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and 
Language Arts 
Volume 17 
Issue 1 October 1976 Article 2 
10-1-1976 
R> S1 + S2 + S3 +…Sn 
Richard T. Vacca 
The University of Connecticut 
Jerry L. Johns 
Northern Illinois University 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons 
 Part of the Education Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Vacca, R. T., & Johns, J. L. (1976). R> S1 + S2 + S3 +…Sn. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and 
Language Arts, 17 (1). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol17/iss1/2 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by 
the Special Education and Literacy Studies at 
ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion 
in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language 
Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. 
For more information, please contact wmu-
scholarworks@wmich.edu. 
+ S2 + S3 + . . . Sn
Richard T. Vacca
THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
Jerry L. Johns
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
Consider two ways of looking at reading which can influence the
manner in which we plan and implement instruction. Expressed as a
symbolic representation, the first view can be stated as:
R = S1 + S2 + S3+ ...S
In this equation, R (reading) isequal to S, + S2 + S3 + . . . S (thesum
of "teachable" skills generally believed to be operating while reading). A
secondrepresentation, however, suggests:
R > S, + S2 + S3 + . . . S
In this formula, R (reading) is greater than S, + S^ + S3 + . . . S (the
sum of"teachable" skills generally believed tobeoperating while reading).
Teaching children to discover meaning has often been translated into
scores of ditto-produced skill materials designed to build comprehension
skills whose labels have been a source of mystery to teachers and students
alike. Haven't we all wondered at one time oranother what would happen if
the ditto machine broke down? As reading teachers we should create a
context in which childrenwill develop a concept that R > S! + S2 + S3 +
. . . S . This view is not a denunciation of skills instruction. Rather, it
embodies anattitude that places instructional emphasis onthe development
of reading as an active, meaning-getting process and places skills
development within that context.
The first representation reflects one facet of a psychometric view of
reading—that reading is a mental activity composed of discrete, but in
terrelated, skills and processes. By reducing reading toits skill components,
we have typically sought to intensify learning through emphatic teaching
and practice. The second symbolic representation, that reading is greater
than the sum of its skills, subtly arises out of a psycholinguistic view
(Goodman, 1970; Smith, 1972) ofthe reading process-one thatcombines
an understanding of how language wofks with how individuals learn. In
short, the emphasis is on how learners process various kinds of information
inaneffort tomake sense outofwritten language.
Proponents of a psychometric view of reading support the notion that
there are identifiable "skills." These skills portray a compact picture of
reading that underlies both its measurement and its teaching. The rock
upon which most ofreading instruction is built isa psychometric one! Tests,
i  .  
THE IVERSITY  IC T 
 .  
ERN ILLINOIS IVERSITY 
si  t o s f l oking t r i  hich  i fl ence t  
 i  i   lan  i l  i t  r  s  
 r r t ti , t  fi t ie    t t  s: 
 is ation,   s l  )      ..    
           
 t ti ,   
        )  ~  ~  ..   
           
          
         
             
              
            
           )      
.        i     ,  
  itude t  r ti l    t 
 ing   i , ting s  s lls 
l t t in at t t. 
 irst tation fle ts e t   t  i   
eading-t t ing i   l ti ity ed  r te,  i -
terrelated, ills d r s s.  re cing r ading t  its ill ts, 
 e t ically t t  i te sify learning t rough tic teaching 
nd r tice. e second s lic re rese tation, that reading is reater 
than the su   its s ills, s tly rises t   li istic ie  
( ood an, 70; ith, 972)  the reading rocess-one t  co ines 
a  t  f o  la  rks it   individuals lear . In 
short, the e asis is o  how learners process various kinds of infor ation 
i  a  effort t  ake sense o  of ritten language. 
Proponents of a psycho etric vie  of reading support th  notion th  
there are identifiable "ski ls." hese ski ls portray a co pact picture o  
reading th  underlies both its asurement and its teaching.  rock 
upon hich ost of reading instruction is b ilt i  a psycho etric onel Tests, 
io -rh
materials, taxonomies, etc.—most all are ensconced in the" belief that
reading is measurable. By identifying the skills involved in reading and
studying the relationships among them, appropriate instruction can be
planned and executed.
The field of reading is icplete with its own special terminology,
especially its clusters of skills in each of the broad areas of instruction:
word identification, comprehension, and study skills. In many instances,
authorities have found it difficult to reach consensus on what the labels
should be or what theyeven mean. Kerfoot (1965) has indicated that many
problems in reading result from a confusion in terminology. In the in
structional area of comprehension, he claims that reading experts have
confused teachers by personalizing terms with theirunique labels. Kerfoot
recommends that we dispense with confusing, generalized labels and,
instead, identify the specific tasks of reading.
Where attempts have been made to operationalize these specific tasks
into instructional materials and strategies, theyhavetendedto reinforce the
questionable notion that reading equals the sum oftheseparate skills. As a
result, reading instruction runs the risk ofbecoming quantified: teaching,
practice, and reinforcement in X number of skills lead to more effective
and efficient reading. Frequently, false dichotomies areestablished. Martin
(1969), for example, points out thedilemma established by"code-breakers"
vs. "meaning-pursuers":
Discussions of reading sometimes assumea contradiction
between decoding a passage and discovering its meaning. If
decoding is interpreted as converting graphemes into
phonemes, then there is indeed a fence on whose two sides
partisans of two opposed points ofview can range themselves:
code-breakers vs. meaning-pursuers. The decoding advocate
can argue that speech is common property, even among non-
readers, and that writing is a set of clues designed to elicit in
the reader's mind the spoken language; since native speakers
already know the greater part of the spoken languagebefore
they come to school, the teaching of reading is simply a
matter of clueing the student into the system for turning
printed hieroglyphics into the already-familiar language of
speech. The pursuer of meaning, on the other hand, can
argue that the capacity to pronounce haltingly a page of
prose is a far cry from understanding what one is
pronouncing that the principal problem in promoting
literacy is not to teach the empty mouthing of sounds but to
foster an intelligent approach to the significance of the
passage, including a capacity for judgment, appreciation,
and lively animated response, (p. 22)
The "code-breakers" and "meaning-pursuers" represent extremes on a
continuum. Genuine readers, however, pursue meaning and use the
lo-rh 
aterials, taxonomies, etc. ~ os  all are ensconced in the' beli  that 
reading is asurable. y identifying the ski ls involved i  reading and 
studying the relationships a ong them, appropriate instruction can be 
planned and executeu. 
e field ot reading i  leplele ith it  o n special ter inology, 
especia ly its clusters o  ski ls i  each o  the broad areas o  instruction: 
 ide tification, co r e sion, a  st  s ills. I   instances, 
a t rities ave found it ifficult to reach c  n at the labels 
should  r  t  ven  rfoot ( 965)  in icated t t  
roble s i  reading result fro   fusion i  ter inology. I  the i -
tructional   ion,  lai s t  reading rts ve 
fused teachers  rs lizing ter s ith t  ique la ls. f ot 
co s t   is e se th i , lized l ls  
i t  i  t  ific t s s f  
 te ts     i lize  ic  
 tr ti l ls  t i ,     i f rce  
i le i   i  s     t  .   
, i  r tion      i : i , 
,  rce t         i  
 i t . ,    .  
    t    i    
.  
       
       i .  
 s t  s    
           
          
-  s.     
    s     -
    s  t  l s   it  
      i e t  ers 
l    t r     age f re 
t ey  t  l  t  t  f ing is   
t  f l i  t   i t  t   r t  
ri ted i  i to t e l il  l  f 
  r  f ea i   t e t er and,  
rgue t t t  i  to r  alt   age f 
r  is  far r  f  er t  t ne is 
ng~ t at t e ri i l roble  in r ti  
literacy is ot t  t  t e e pty outhi  f s  t to 
foster a  intelli ent ap r ac  to t e significance of t e 
passa e, including a capacity for j dg ent, appreciati , 
a  li\'ely ani ated response. (p. 22) 
he "code-breakers" and " eaning-pursuers" represent extre es on a 
continuu . enuine reader , ho ever, pursue eaning and use th  
rh-n
alphabetic code to help them process print. There should not be an un
necessary dichotomy among these readers —they realize that both code and
meaning are necessary for comprehension to occur.
Rather than reinforce a restricted concept of reading as a collection of
skillsfrequently taught in isolation from one another, wesuggest that reading
be viewed as a language-based process that is greater than the sum of its
so-called "skills." Goodman and Burke (1972) have recognized that all the
skills of reading, no matter how they are identified, do not necessarily
combine to produce effectivereading performance. As they explain:
You cannot know a process by listing its ingredients or
labeling its parts; you must observe the effect of the parts as
they interact with each other. Acting together, the parts
compose an entity which is uniquely different from the
identity of any of the separate parts. Flour, sugar, baking
soda, salt, eggs and water can all be listed as ingredients of a
cake. Yet the texture, weight, flavor and moistness of a cake
cannot be related directly to any one of the ingredients, but
only to the quality and result of their interaction, (p. 95)
In recent years a number of teachers have been giving their students an
opportunity to approach reading as a process that is greater than the sum of
its individual skills. Their instruction has emphasized the "product" of each
student's reading as much, if not more, than the skills by which a student
reads. Children are encouraged to engage in reading as a search for
meaning without having to worry about whether X, Y, and/or Z skill has
been mastered. Moffett (1973) has suggested that teachers create a
framework in which a student must do something with what he has read.
Thus, a teacher's ability to deal with the resulty of a child's search for
meaning in written language will lead to productive reading in the long
run. Moffett prescribes strategies for dealing with the results of reading
through writing, discussion, and dramatic work.
Hunt (1970) has contended that "by emphasizing silent reading . . .
ultimately better readers can be developed" (p. 150). He suggests a strategy
that has become popularly known as USSR or SSR —(Uninterrupted)
Sustained Silent Reading. This strategy permits the student to focus on the
task of generating meaning from print. The teacher's role is to develop the
understanding in the reader's mind that reading means getting as many
important ideas out of print as he possibly can. Again, instructional em
phasis ison the results ofproductive reading. According to Hunt (1970), the
teacher helps students to sense reading as an entity in itself by asking
questions such as:
1. Howdid you read today? Did youget a lot done?
2. Did you read better today than yesterday?
3. Wereyou able to concentrate todayon yoursilentreading?
4. Did the ideas in the book hold your attention? Did you have the
feeling of moving right along with them?
ll 
  t  l  t  r cess i       -
 i   t   - the  l  t t t    
i     i  t  . 
t  t    t         
il s        e st   
       s       
ll  ills."    )    ll  
ills           ril  
   tive   s   
          
 ts    r e       
         
         
        ,  
             
           
          
        .  ) 
          r   
       t       
           
's         l      
            
 t     r       
 .     t  t   
r              
,  's         '    
            
     i      i  
 ,     
         . 
i l   s     .     
         -(Uninterr  
       t     
  i      's    l   
t i    's        
 s      i l     -
is    lts  tive i . i    ,  
r l s t ts   ing     t lf  i g 
ti    
     t ?   t  l   
    tt r t  t  t rday? 
    t  r te t     ing? 
  t  i  i  t     tte ti     t e 
f li  f  ri t l   t  
\2-rh
5. Did you have the feeling of wanting to go ahead faster to find out
what happened? Were you constantly moving ahead to get to the
next good part?
6. Wasit hard for you to keepyourmindon whatyouwere reading?
7. Could you keepthe ideas in your bookstraight in yourmind?
8. Did you get mixed up in any place? Did you have to go back and
straighten yourself out?
Recently, Evans and Towner (1975) have acknowledged the increasing
numbers of teachers at all educational levels who have implemented SSR.
They also have questioned the influence ofSSR on skills achievement and,
therefore, designed a preliminary study involving forty-eight students in
fourth grade^ Over a period of ten weeks, halfof thestudents were involved
in SSR, while the other half used selected commercial practice materials
that commonly supplementbasal reading programs. All students also were
given daily reading instruction in a popular basal readingseries. Pretest-
posttest data using the Metropolitan Achievement Test revealed no
significant treatment, classroom, or interaction effects between the SSR
group and the supplemental skills practice group. Within the limitations of
the study, the researchers have concluded that SSR is"neither more nor less
effective than a multi-material form of practice" (p. 156) in which skills
instruction is emphasized.
We interpret the finding of no significant differences in the Evans and
Towner study to support an instructional environment beyond the basic
program where the focus is directed toward reading as an entity in itself.
Obviously, the added instructional time spent in supplemental skills
practice did not have the potency on skills performance we might have
assumed. Why, then, not have children practicereading byreading!
REFERENCES
Evans, Howard M., and Towner, John C. "Sustained Silent Reading: Does
It Increase Skills?" The Reading Teacher, 29 (November, 1975), 155-
156.
Goodman, Kenneth S. "Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game,"
Journal of Reading Specialist, 6 (May, 1967), 126-135.
Goodman, Yetta M., and Burke, Carolyn L. Reading Miscue Inventory
Manual: Procedure for Diagnosis and Evaluation. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1972.
Hunt, Lyman C, Jr. "The Effectof Self-Selection, Interest, and Motivation
Upon Independent, Instructional, and Frustrational Levels," The
Reading Teacher, 24 (November, 1970), 146-151, 158.
Kerfoot, James F. "Problems and Research Considerations in Reading
Comprehension," TheReading Teacher, 18 (January, 1965), 250-256.
Martin, R. G. "Decoding and the Quest for Meaning, "Journal ofReading
Behavior, 1 (Fall, 1969), 22-30.
Moffett, James. A Student-Centered Language Arts Curriculum, Grades K-
13. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1973.
12-rh 
5. id you have t  feeling of ting t  go ahead faster t  find o  
at appened? re ou c stantly ing ahead t  et t  the 
e t  art? 
G. \-Va  it ard f  ou t    i     ere reading? 
  u  t  ideas i  m h  str i  i   ind? 
 id u  ixed  i  ny lace? id u ave t   ack  
str i t  rs lf ut? 
tly, s   ( ) e ledged t  i creasing 
rs f t rs t ll ti l l    i l t   
 ls  e tioned t  i fluence    ills ieve t  
t r f re, igned  li inary tudy i l ing t -eight t ts i  
rth rade .. r  riod  t  ,   t  t ts re i l ed 
    t er lf  t  ial tice rials 
t l     .     
 l   tr tion      i . 
t  i   ta  t  l   
i t  r ,  ti  t     
   l  i   i   i tio s  
             
   l         
   
            
r   t       
             
     t   . 
          t  
 ,     ti     
 
s,      .  t  s 
  ills?" e eadz"  eacher)   , -
. 
  .   li isti  i   
al  eadz"  pecz" l )  ay, 7), -135. 
      .  z e tory 
anual:   l   l i   r :  
ill  , . 
  .    ffect  l l  t r st,  otivation 
  tr ti al,  r str ti l l  he 
e i  eacher)  (  0), - 51, . 
erf t   .   s  si r t  i   
r si ,  he eading eacher) 8 Q r , 65), 0-256. 
art  . . " i   t  est f r ea i , "Journal  eadz" g 
e avior)  ( ll, ,22-3 . 
offet , J es.  t de t- e t  ang a  rts urric l ) ra es -
13. st : ought - iffli  a , 3. 
rh 13
Smith, Frank. Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic Analysis of
Reading and Learning to Read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1971.
-13 
it , rank. derst i  ea i :  li isti  nalysi   
e i   e i  to ea .  rk: l  i rt  
i st , I ., . 


R\u3e S1 + S2 + S3 +…Sn

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts Volume 17 Issue 1 October 1976 Article 2 10-1-1976 R> S1 + S2 + S3 +…Sn Richard T. Vacca The University of Connecticut Jerry L. Johns Northern Illinois University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons  Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Vacca, R. T., & Johns, J. L. (1976). R> S1 + S2 + S3 +…Sn. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 17 (1). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol17/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Education and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact wmu-scholarworks@wmich.edu. + S2 + S3 + . . . SnRichard T. VaccaTHE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUTJerry L. JohnsNORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITYConsider two ways of looking at reading which can influence themanner in which we plan and implement instruction. Expressed as asymbolic representation, the first view can be stated as:R = S1 + S2 + S3+ ...SIn this equation, R (reading) isequal to S, + S2 + S3 + . . . S (thesumof "teachable" skills generally believed to be operating while reading). Asecondrepresentation, however, suggests:R > S, + S2 + S3 + . . . SIn this formula, R (reading) is greater than S, + S^ + S3 + . . . S (thesum of"teachable" skills generally believed tobeoperating while reading).Teaching children to discover meaning has often been translated intoscores of ditto-produced skill materials designed to build comprehensionskills whose labels have been a source of mystery to teachers and studentsalike. Haven't we all wondered at one time oranother what would happen ifthe ditto machine broke down? As reading teachers we should create acontext in which childrenwill develop a concept that R > S! + S2 + S3 +. . . S . This view is not a denunciation of skills instruction. Rather, itembodies anattitude that places instructional emphasis onthe developmentof reading as an active, meaning-getting process and places skillsdevelopment within that context.The first representation reflects one facet of a psychometric view ofreading—that reading is a mental activity composed of discrete, but interrelated, skills and processes. By reducing reading toits skill components,we have typically sought to intensify learning through emphatic teachingand practice. The second symbolic representation, that reading is greaterthan the sum of its skills, subtly arises out of a psycholinguistic view(Goodman, 1970; Smith, 1972) ofthe reading process-one thatcombinesan understanding of how language wofks with how individuals learn. Inshort, the emphasis is on how learners process various kinds of informationinaneffort tomake sense outofwritten language.Proponents of a psychometric view of reading support the notion thatthere are identifiable "skills." These skills portray a compact picture ofreading that underlies both its measurement and its teaching. The rockupon which most ofreading instruction is built isa psychometric one! Tests,i  .  THE IVERSITY  IC T  .  ERN ILLINOIS IVERSITY si  t o s f l oking t r i  hich  i fl ence t   i  i   lan  i l  i t  r  s   r r t ti , t  fi t ie    t t  s:  is ation,   s l  )      ..                t ti ,           )  ~  ~  ..                                                                                   )      .        i     ,    itude t  r ti l    t  ing   i , ting s  s lls l t t in at t t.  irst tation fle ts e t   t  i   eading-t t ing i   l ti ity ed  r te,  i -terrelated, ills d r s s.  re cing r ading t  its ill ts,  e t ically t t  i te sify learning t rough tic teaching nd r tice. e second s lic re rese tation, that reading is reater than the su   its s ills, s tly rises t   li istic ie  ( ood an, 70; ith, 972)  the reading rocess-one t  co ines a  t  f o  la  rks it   individuals lear . In short, the e asis is o  how learners process various kinds of infor ation i  a  effort t  ake sense o  of ritten language. Proponents of a psycho etric vie  of reading support th  notion th  there are identifiable "ski ls." hese ski ls portray a co pact picture o  reading th  underlies both its asurement and its teaching.  rock upon hich ost of reading instruction is b ilt i  a psycho etric onel Tests, io -rhmaterials, taxonomies, etc.—most all are ensconced in the" belief thatreading is measurable. By identifying the skills involved in reading andstudying the relationships among them, appropriate instruction can beplanned and executed.The field of reading is icplete with its own special terminology,especially its clusters of skills in each of the broad areas of instruction:word identification, comprehension, and study skills. In many instances,authorities have found it difficult to reach consensus on what the labelsshould be or what theyeven mean. Kerfoot (1965) has indicated that manyproblems in reading result from a confusion in terminology. In the instructional area of comprehension, he claims that reading experts haveconfused teachers by personalizing terms with theirunique labels. Kerfootrecommends that we dispense with confusing, generalized labels and,instead, identify the specific tasks of reading.Where attempts have been made to operationalize these specific tasksinto instructional materials and strategies, theyhavetendedto reinforce thequestionable notion that reading equals the sum oftheseparate skills. As aresult, reading instruction runs the risk ofbecoming quantified: teaching,practice, and reinforcement in X number of skills lead to more effectiveand efficient reading. Frequently, false dichotomies areestablished. Martin(1969), for example, points out thedilemma established by"code-breakers"vs. "meaning-pursuers":Discussions of reading sometimes assumea contradictionbetween decoding a passage and discovering its meaning. Ifdecoding is interpreted as converting graphemes intophonemes, then there is indeed a fence on whose two sidespartisans of two opposed points ofview can range themselves:code-breakers vs. meaning-pursuers. The decoding advocatecan argue that speech is common property, even among non-readers, and that writing is a set of clues designed to elicit inthe reader's mind the spoken language; since native speakersalready know the greater part of the spoken languagebeforethey come to school, the teaching of reading is simply amatter of clueing the student into the system for turningprinted hieroglyphics into the already-familiar language ofspeech. The pursuer of meaning, on the other hand, canargue that the capacity to pronounce haltingly a page ofprose is a far cry from understanding what one ispronouncing that the principal problem in promotingliteracy is not to teach the empty mouthing of sounds but tofoster an intelligent approach to the significance of thepassage, including a capacity for judgment, appreciation,and lively animated response, (p. 22)The "code-breakers" and "meaning-pursuers" represent extremes on acontinuum. Genuine readers, however, pursue meaning and use thelo-rh aterials, taxonomies, etc. ~ os  all are ensconced in the' beli  that reading is asurable. y identifying the ski ls involved i  reading and studying the relationships a ong them, appropriate instruction can be planned and executeu. e field ot reading i  leplele ith it  o n special ter inology, especia ly its clusters o  ski ls i  each o  the broad areas o  instruction:  ide tification, co r e sion, a  st  s ills. I   instances, a t rities ave found it ifficult to reach c  n at the labels should  r  t  ven  rfoot ( 965)  in icated t t  roble s i  reading result fro   fusion i  ter inology. I  the i -tructional   ion,  lai s t  reading rts ve fused teachers  rs lizing ter s ith t  ique la ls. f ot co s t   is e se th i , lized l ls  i t  i  t  ific t s s f   te ts     i lize  ic   tr ti l ls  t i ,     i f rce  i le i   i  s     t  .   , i  r tion      i : i , ,  rce t         i   i t . ,    .      t    i    .                i .   s t  s                         -  s.         s     -    s  t  l s   it        i e t  ers l    t r     age f re t ey  t  l  t  t  f ing is   t  f l i  t   i t  t   r t  ri ted i  i to t e l il  l  f   r  f ea i   t e t er and,  rgue t t t  i  to r  alt   age f r  is  far r  f  er t  t ne is ng~ t at t e ri i l roble  in r ti  literacy is ot t  t  t e e pty outhi  f s  t to foster a  intelli ent ap r ac  to t e significance of t e passa e, including a capacity for j dg ent, appreciati , a  li\'ely ani ated response. (p. 22) he "code-breakers" and " eaning-pursuers" represent extre es on a continuu . enuine reader , ho ever, pursue eaning and use th  rh-nalphabetic code to help them process print. There should not be an unnecessary dichotomy among these readers —they realize that both code andmeaning are necessary for comprehension to occur.Rather than reinforce a restricted concept of reading as a collection ofskillsfrequently taught in isolation from one another, wesuggest that readingbe viewed as a language-based process that is greater than the sum of itsso-called "skills." Goodman and Burke (1972) have recognized that all theskills of reading, no matter how they are identified, do not necessarilycombine to produce effectivereading performance. As they explain:You cannot know a process by listing its ingredients orlabeling its parts; you must observe the effect of the parts asthey interact with each other. Acting together, the partscompose an entity which is uniquely different from theidentity of any of the separate parts. Flour, sugar, bakingsoda, salt, eggs and water can all be listed as ingredients of acake. Yet the texture, weight, flavor and moistness of a cakecannot be related directly to any one of the ingredients, butonly to the quality and result of their interaction, (p. 95)In recent years a number of teachers have been giving their students anopportunity to approach reading as a process that is greater than the sum ofits individual skills. Their instruction has emphasized the "product" of eachstudent's reading as much, if not more, than the skills by which a studentreads. Children are encouraged to engage in reading as a search formeaning without having to worry about whether X, Y, and/or Z skill hasbeen mastered. Moffett (1973) has suggested that teachers create aframework in which a student must do something with what he has read.Thus, a teacher's ability to deal with the resulty of a child's search formeaning in written language will lead to productive reading in the longrun. Moffett prescribes strategies for dealing with the results of readingthrough writing, discussion, and dramatic work.Hunt (1970) has contended that "by emphasizing silent reading . . .ultimately better readers can be developed" (p. 150). He suggests a strategythat has become popularly known as USSR or SSR —(Uninterrupted)Sustained Silent Reading. This strategy permits the student to focus on thetask of generating meaning from print. The teacher's role is to develop theunderstanding in the reader's mind that reading means getting as manyimportant ideas out of print as he possibly can. Again, instructional emphasis ison the results ofproductive reading. According to Hunt (1970), theteacher helps students to sense reading as an entity in itself by askingquestions such as:1. Howdid you read today? Did youget a lot done?2. Did you read better today than yesterday?3. Wereyou able to concentrate todayon yoursilentreading?4. Did the ideas in the book hold your attention? Did you have thefeeling of moving right along with them?ll   t  l  t  r cess i       - i   t   - the  l  t t t    i     i  t  . t  t    t         il s        e st          s       ll  ills."    )    ll  ills           ril     tive   s              ts    r e                                 ,                                            .  )           r          t                  's         l                   t     r        .     t  t   r              ,  's         '                     i      i   ,              . i l   s     .              -(Uninterr         t       i      's    l   t i    's         s      i l     -is    lts  tive i . i    ,  r l s t ts   ing     t lf  i g ti         t ?   t  l       tt r t  t  t rday?     t  r te t     ing?   t  i  i  t     tte ti     t e f li  f  ri t l   t  \2-rh5. Did you have the feeling of wanting to go ahead faster to find outwhat happened? Were you constantly moving ahead to get to thenext good part?6. Wasit hard for you to keepyourmindon whatyouwere reading?7. Could you keepthe ideas in your bookstraight in yourmind?8. Did you get mixed up in any place? Did you have to go back andstraighten yourself out?Recently, Evans and Towner (1975) have acknowledged the increasingnumbers of teachers at all educational levels who have implemented SSR.They also have questioned the influence ofSSR on skills achievement and,therefore, designed a preliminary study involving forty-eight students infourth grade^ Over a period of ten weeks, halfof thestudents were involvedin SSR, while the other half used selected commercial practice materialsthat commonly supplementbasal reading programs. All students also weregiven daily reading instruction in a popular basal readingseries. Pretest-posttest data using the Metropolitan Achievement Test revealed nosignificant treatment, classroom, or interaction effects between the SSRgroup and the supplemental skills practice group. Within the limitations ofthe study, the researchers have concluded that SSR is"neither more nor lesseffective than a multi-material form of practice" (p. 156) in which skillsinstruction is emphasized.We interpret the finding of no significant differences in the Evans andTowner study to support an instructional environment beyond the basicprogram where the focus is directed toward reading as an entity in itself.Obviously, the added instructional time spent in supplemental skillspractice did not have the potency on skills performance we might haveassumed. Why, then, not have children practicereading byreading!REFERENCESEvans, Howard M., and Towner, John C. "Sustained Silent Reading: DoesIt Increase Skills?" The Reading Teacher, 29 (November, 1975), 155-156.Goodman, Kenneth S. "Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game,"Journal of Reading Specialist, 6 (May, 1967), 126-135.Goodman, Yetta M., and Burke, Carolyn L. Reading Miscue InventoryManual: Procedure for Diagnosis and Evaluation. New York: TheMacmillan Company, 1972.Hunt, Lyman C, Jr. "The Effectof Self-Selection, Interest, and MotivationUpon Independent, Instructional, and Frustrational Levels," TheReading Teacher, 24 (November, 1970), 146-151, 158.Kerfoot, James F. "Problems and Research Considerations in ReadingComprehension," TheReading Teacher, 18 (January, 1965), 250-256.Martin, R. G. "Decoding and the Quest for Meaning, "Journal ofReadingBehavior, 1 (Fall, 1969), 22-30.Moffett, James. A Student-Centered Language Arts Curriculum, Grades K-13. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1973.12-rh 5. id you have t  feeling of ting t  go ahead faster t  find o  at appened? re ou c stantly ing ahead t  et t  the e t  art? G. \-Va  it ard f  ou t    i     ere reading?   u  t  ideas i  m h  str i  i   ind?  id u  ixed  i  ny lace? id u ave t   ack  str i t  rs lf ut? tly, s   ( ) e ledged t  i creasing rs f t rs t ll ti l l    i l t    ls  e tioned t  i fluence    ills ieve t  t r f re, igned  li inary tudy i l ing t -eight t ts i  rth rade .. r  riod  t  ,   t  t ts re i l ed     t er lf  t  ial tice rials t l     .      l   tr tion      i . t  i   ta  t  l   i t  r ,  ti  t        l  i   i   i tio s                  l                        r   t                         t   .           t   ,     ti      s,      .  t  s   ills?" e eadz"  eacher)   , -.   .   li isti  i   al  eadz"  pecz" l )  ay, 7), -135.       .  z e tory anual:   l   l i   r :  ill  , .   .    ffect  l l  t r st,  otivation   tr ti al,  r str ti l l  he e i  eacher)  (  0), - 51, . erf t   .   s  si r t  i   r si ,  he eading eacher) 8 Q r , 65), 0-256. art  . . " i   t  est f r ea i , "Journal  eadz" g e avior)  ( ll, ,22-3 . offet , J es.  t de t- e t  ang a  rts urric l ) ra es -13. st : ought - iffli  a , 3. rh 13Smith, Frank. Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic Analysis ofReading and Learning to Read. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston, Inc., 1971.-13 it , rank. derst i  ea i :  li isti  nalysi   e i   e i  to ea .  rk: l  i rt  i st , I ., . 

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2324&amp;context=reading_horizons

R\u3e S1 + S2 + S3 +…Sn

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU

ScholarWorks at WMU