Module 2: Reading Reflection
"The major folklore of reading instruction relates to the "theory" that reading is considered an exact process. In other words, the reader is expected to read everything exactly as it is printed on the page in order to understand the message of the author. In general the consuming public, legislatures, courts and too many educators hold this theory. It is like the theory of the world being flat during the time of Columbus."
- Rober Harper and Gary Kilarr
I agree that the theory of reading being an
exact process is folklore. Reading is more than grapho/phonemic cues this is
only part of the reading process. The reading process is a combination of
schema and substitutions/omissions, as long as the meaning is still preserved.
There is no exact way to read. It is about reading effectively and efficiently
using all necessary strategies to draw meaning from what is read. To be a “proficient”
reader, you do not have to correctly read a passage word for word. You read to
construct meaning not to identify words.
On page 55, in Reading process and practice it
shows a list of sentences read by first graders who are considered proficient readers.
As the students read each sentence there are several miscues, but the meaning
of the sentence did not change. This shows that as the students were reading
they were thinking ahead, which is a sign of a proficient reader (Weaver, 2002)
Another example of being a proficient reader
without exact word identification is found on page 63. An example is given that
shows “though good readers generally make fewer miscues than less proficient readers,
they may actually make as many or more miscues involving pronouns and simple
function words— so-called sight words” (Weaver,
2002)
As the book says on page 71, “the goal of
readings instruction should not be the accurate identification of every word,
but rather the effective and efficient use of reading strategies in order to
construct meaning” (Weaver,
2002)
Weaver, C. (2002). Reading
process & practice. (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
I love how you gave an example of how students can have miscues but still understand the text. I agree with you and the quote. Reading involves multiple aspects as you mentioned. As long as the miscues are not affecting the meaning of a passage, then simply focusing on word identification is not the best strategy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the idea of reading being an exact process is folklore. I love the quote from page 71 that I also used in my reading reflection. This one really stuck out to me because I felt it summed everything up. We can often understand the meaning of the text with a few miscues. Reading is more about the ability to identify words correctly. Without understanding a text and deriving meaning from it, what is the purpose of reading?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I think that this quote almost contradicted itself. I love your explanation on how students can have miscues, but still understand the information and text that they are reading. I agree with you and I feel as a adults we do the same thing. I love the quote you took from the book. I feel that explains how readers read at a proficient level.
ReplyDelete