Grade
level passages, comprehension worksheets, rereading for understanding, an
emphasis on fluency and questions pulled from the text that are written to get
to the bottom of what children understand implicitly and explicitly are all the
things that define whether a student is or is not successful. Have we overlooked and missed the heart of
the purpose of reading? The act of
reading within the classroom seems to have turned into a compliance and
functional task. If a student is
successful at reading grade level passages and answering a set of comprehension
questions that consists of low, moderate and high levels of complexity, then
that student can be classified as a proficient reader and therefor, success has
been defined. But is this the
reality?
Paolo Freire has defined the importance of the act of reading as having the ability to read the world. He expresses the notion that reading is a way of connecting oneself to the world in which we live. A statement that resonated with me in Freire’s article entitled The Importance of the Act of Reading (1983), was that “mechanically memorizing the description of an object does not constitute knowing the object,” (p.9). It almost seems as though this is the assumption. If a child is able to recall facts, then the student really “understands” and “knows” the content. The idea of this word “know” implies a deeper understanding and connection. We do know that a child simply having the ability to transfer information from text to a workbook does not mean that there is a deep connection and a real “understanding” that exists. To read the ideas from individuals that preceded us and to gain an awareness of how their identities and experiences are shaped, will help us to better understand ourselves. There is no way that we can have every lived experience to provide us with the opportunities to know and grow to maximize our greatest potential.
The words of Langston Hughes in the poem “Theme for English B,” provide me with a perspective in life I can never authentically have as a white middle class woman. I may never be able to live the experiences that he had and I may never be able to authentically connect, but I can get a glimpse into his experience. This simple glimpse helps me to think about how complex the idea of understanding our “truth” is. Perhaps, as I move forward, I won’t be as inclined to simplify the idea of the “truth.” Perhaps now, I will think twice before asking someone to define oneself in the context of a single written paper. This is not something I would have thought of had the words of Hughes not brought this notion forward. Prior to understanding what I think was his attempt at expressing his feeling of being patronized with this assignment, I may have thought this a great example of a Literature assignment.
This brings me to the next idea of Paolo Freire, where he begins to make us question quality over quantity. He expresses this idea that students consistently read many diverse texts rather futilely. Reading text after text after text without really connecting seems all but a waste of time. We have to help our students work on this idea of “connecting and understanding” versus “mechanical memorization.” Mechanical memorization and having the ability to answer a set of explicitly stated comprehension questions does not transfer to understanding our world. Freire explains that “words should be laden with the meaning of the people’s existential experience, and not of the teacher’s experience.” (p.10). As I reflect on my prior role as a teacher, I realize I lived inside of this framework of Social Efficiency. I think as I reflect back on my instruction, it represented the idea that, as a teacher, I defined what I felt was exemplar quality literature. I used these exemplar resources as my “read alouds” and they also adorned my bookshelves. My text selection allowed my students to connect to and engage with the world around them. The Social Efficiency component of my delivery is that I made declarations prematurely about what I considered significant and what I felt students should be able to connect with. This was defined by me, the teacher, and my ideas and beliefs about society, as well as what I felt students needed to know in order to connect with their world and have empathy. So what does this mean for reading? If we look at these two individuals Freire and Pearson, we can begin to see how kids can connect passionately and intimately with reading our world. Freire expresses the goal in using reading to connect to our world and Pearson provides us with more of a framework to ensure this happens. P. David Pearson indicates four criteria necessary to ensure that children get the “most” out of their reading. Among these four things are: choice, optimal difficulty, multiple readings, and negotiating meaning socially. The work of P. David Pearson expresses that students need to be able to connect with their reading in meaningful ways. He lists the ways that we can ensure that quality reading occurs. Pearson expresses that allocating time and resources is simply not enough to foster a love of reading to make reading applicable to their lives. I will connect the concepts of Choice and of Negotiating Social Meaning to the work of Paulo Freire. Providing students with a “choice” in what they are reading, allows them to participate in the selection of texts that they connect with; texts that are directly related to their own learning. The idea that Linda Fielding and P. David Pearson connects us to in the article, Synthesis of Research/Reading Comprehension: What Works? is that there is “no research that directly links “choice” to reading comprehension growth, we speculate that choice is related to interest and motivation, both of which are related directly to learning.” If kids have an opportunity to select texts that are significant to them and relevant to their own world and that motivate them on their continued track for learning, then isn’t this the goal in reading, learning, and growing?
The idea of Negotiating Meaning Socially is that reading is a social as well as a cognitive process. We are using the cognitive process to get to a social response to reading. The conversations that are a result of students who connect with reading on a social level “help to build the all-important community of readers.” (Fieldings, Pearson. p. 3). Students will be able to shape their opinions, beliefs and ideas through the support of relevant text. They will read the work of those who had experiences similar to and in opposition of their own. They will live through pictures of the world and through the experiences of others.
In summary, Paulo Freire, explains that reading can be a way to understand our reality as well as shape our beliefs, feelings, and how we see ourselves in relationship to the world in which we live. P. David Pearson reminds us that reading “once thought of as the natural result of decoding plus oral language, comprehension is now viewed as a much more complex process involving knowledge, experience, thinking, and teaching. It depends heavily on knowledge—both about the world at large and the worlds of language and print.” (Fieldings, Pearson. p.1). We need to provide our students with rich texts that they find relevant to their lives and beliefs in order to promote a world of thinkers and culturally and socially responsive individuals.
Paolo Freire has defined the importance of the act of reading as having the ability to read the world. He expresses the notion that reading is a way of connecting oneself to the world in which we live. A statement that resonated with me in Freire’s article entitled The Importance of the Act of Reading (1983), was that “mechanically memorizing the description of an object does not constitute knowing the object,” (p.9). It almost seems as though this is the assumption. If a child is able to recall facts, then the student really “understands” and “knows” the content. The idea of this word “know” implies a deeper understanding and connection. We do know that a child simply having the ability to transfer information from text to a workbook does not mean that there is a deep connection and a real “understanding” that exists. To read the ideas from individuals that preceded us and to gain an awareness of how their identities and experiences are shaped, will help us to better understand ourselves. There is no way that we can have every lived experience to provide us with the opportunities to know and grow to maximize our greatest potential.
The words of Langston Hughes in the poem “Theme for English B,” provide me with a perspective in life I can never authentically have as a white middle class woman. I may never be able to live the experiences that he had and I may never be able to authentically connect, but I can get a glimpse into his experience. This simple glimpse helps me to think about how complex the idea of understanding our “truth” is. Perhaps, as I move forward, I won’t be as inclined to simplify the idea of the “truth.” Perhaps now, I will think twice before asking someone to define oneself in the context of a single written paper. This is not something I would have thought of had the words of Hughes not brought this notion forward. Prior to understanding what I think was his attempt at expressing his feeling of being patronized with this assignment, I may have thought this a great example of a Literature assignment.
This brings me to the next idea of Paolo Freire, where he begins to make us question quality over quantity. He expresses this idea that students consistently read many diverse texts rather futilely. Reading text after text after text without really connecting seems all but a waste of time. We have to help our students work on this idea of “connecting and understanding” versus “mechanical memorization.” Mechanical memorization and having the ability to answer a set of explicitly stated comprehension questions does not transfer to understanding our world. Freire explains that “words should be laden with the meaning of the people’s existential experience, and not of the teacher’s experience.” (p.10). As I reflect on my prior role as a teacher, I realize I lived inside of this framework of Social Efficiency. I think as I reflect back on my instruction, it represented the idea that, as a teacher, I defined what I felt was exemplar quality literature. I used these exemplar resources as my “read alouds” and they also adorned my bookshelves. My text selection allowed my students to connect to and engage with the world around them. The Social Efficiency component of my delivery is that I made declarations prematurely about what I considered significant and what I felt students should be able to connect with. This was defined by me, the teacher, and my ideas and beliefs about society, as well as what I felt students needed to know in order to connect with their world and have empathy. So what does this mean for reading? If we look at these two individuals Freire and Pearson, we can begin to see how kids can connect passionately and intimately with reading our world. Freire expresses the goal in using reading to connect to our world and Pearson provides us with more of a framework to ensure this happens. P. David Pearson indicates four criteria necessary to ensure that children get the “most” out of their reading. Among these four things are: choice, optimal difficulty, multiple readings, and negotiating meaning socially. The work of P. David Pearson expresses that students need to be able to connect with their reading in meaningful ways. He lists the ways that we can ensure that quality reading occurs. Pearson expresses that allocating time and resources is simply not enough to foster a love of reading to make reading applicable to their lives. I will connect the concepts of Choice and of Negotiating Social Meaning to the work of Paulo Freire. Providing students with a “choice” in what they are reading, allows them to participate in the selection of texts that they connect with; texts that are directly related to their own learning. The idea that Linda Fielding and P. David Pearson connects us to in the article, Synthesis of Research/Reading Comprehension: What Works? is that there is “no research that directly links “choice” to reading comprehension growth, we speculate that choice is related to interest and motivation, both of which are related directly to learning.” If kids have an opportunity to select texts that are significant to them and relevant to their own world and that motivate them on their continued track for learning, then isn’t this the goal in reading, learning, and growing?
The idea of Negotiating Meaning Socially is that reading is a social as well as a cognitive process. We are using the cognitive process to get to a social response to reading. The conversations that are a result of students who connect with reading on a social level “help to build the all-important community of readers.” (Fieldings, Pearson. p. 3). Students will be able to shape their opinions, beliefs and ideas through the support of relevant text. They will read the work of those who had experiences similar to and in opposition of their own. They will live through pictures of the world and through the experiences of others.
In summary, Paulo Freire, explains that reading can be a way to understand our reality as well as shape our beliefs, feelings, and how we see ourselves in relationship to the world in which we live. P. David Pearson reminds us that reading “once thought of as the natural result of decoding plus oral language, comprehension is now viewed as a much more complex process involving knowledge, experience, thinking, and teaching. It depends heavily on knowledge—both about the world at large and the worlds of language and print.” (Fieldings, Pearson. p.1). We need to provide our students with rich texts that they find relevant to their lives and beliefs in order to promote a world of thinkers and culturally and socially responsive individuals.
References
Freire, P. (1983). The importance of the act of reading. Journal
of Education, 165(1), 5-11.
Fielding, Linda G.,
Pearson, P. David. (1983). Comprehension that works: synthesis of research, 1-3
