Week 2: Summary of "A Historical Perspective"

Patricia A. Alexander and Emily Fox provide a comprehensive overview of fundamental changes in reading research and practice from 1950 to the present in “A Historical Perspective on Reading Research and Practice.” The authors point to important historical conditions that have shaped the ways in which reading is studied and taught. Beginning with the era of Conditioned Learning from 1950-1965, Alexander and Fox note that in this mid-century period, reading acquisition was often seen as a problem to be fixed, and an empirical scientific method was employed in order to “correct” reading problems; the act of reading was viewed in terms of a medical metaphor, in which the researcher “diagnosed” the problems and attempted to “correct” or eradicate them. The authors note a growing concern in this period with the United States’ ability to compete with other nations on a global scale, connecting this concern with a growing pressure in the reading community to solve the “problems” of developmental readers (34). In psychological research Skinnerian behaviorism became highly influential. Skinnerians aimed to bring an empirical scientific approach to reading problems, examining the ways in which certain behaviors resulted from particular environmental factors. For Skinnerians, there was no concept of growth or progress in a reader, but only certain results that were produced by certain environments; in practice, this meant an approach that focused on “stimulus and response,” similar to the ways in which clinical experiments were conducted on laboratory animals. For reading researchers, subjects were viewed in terms of their ability to perform a “chain of discrete skills,” skills which derived from particular behaviors and which could be broken down and treated separately from one another. Because of behaviorism’s emphasis on studying observable behavior, reading was seen as a perceptual activity, which laid the foundation for phonics to become the dominant method of instruction.

In The Era of Natural Learning from 1966-1975, there was a turn away from Skinnerian behaviorism as attention was focused instead on the workings of the human mind and on the preexisting structures that determined language use; unlike the behaviorists, researchers in this era downplayed the role of environment. Also during this time, an interdisciplinary perspective on reading took hold, as researchers from multiple disciplines applied their knowledge to the nature and teaching of reading. There was widespread agreement that learning was a natural process and that it could be meaningfully developed. The community of linguists, led by Noam Chomsky, sharply rejected behaviorist approaches to focus instead on how innate mental capacities shaped language use; these linguists believed that one’s mental competency was separate from one’s reading performance, and that focus should be placed on the natural unfolding and development of language skills. These ideas were formative for the field of psycholinguistics. In terms of views of reading, language acquisition was now seen in a more unified way, so that the study of speaking and listening was combined with the study of the acquisition of written language, creating a more unified perspective. In contrast to behaviorist attempts to “correct” reading problems, researchers in the Era of Natural Learning examined how readers reached divergent interpretations and how this reflected their particular attempts to construct meaning.

In the Era of Information Processing from 1976-1985, changes in the field of cognitive psychology greatly influenced approaches to reading. There was a turning away from Chomsky’s view of innate and natural abilities, as “information processing theory” gained dominance. Influenced by the thinking of philosopher Immanuel Kant, this approach utilized a metaphor centered on mechanistic information-processing. With this understanding, knowledge was seen as “powerful, pervasive, individualistic, and modifiable” (42), and there was an emphasis on the ways in which prior knowledge shaped the processing of information and the acquisition of new knowledge, along with reading performance. Among the cognition-related theories that emerged in this period, schema theory has proven to be one of the most influential, which included a focus on the individual mind and the value of individualistic and various interpretations. This individualistic focus tended to exclude considerations of the learner’s cultural conditions and indeed, of the environment in general. A belief in the modifiability of knowledge led to approaches to reading instruction that centered on direct intervention and explicit training during the reading process.

In the Era of Sociocultural Learning from 1986-1995, there was a shift away from the information-processing model, in part because of the failure of this model to work as well as expected when practically applied in the classroom. In addition, there was an expansion in reading research beyond the field of cognitive psychology, as researchers in the fields of social and cultural anthropology entered the conversation and provided new perspectives. These researchers promoted ethnographic approaches that rejected the previous era’s individualistic focus, so that learning was now viewed as the product of social interactions within a particular place and time. Learning was seen as being shaped by sociocultural conditions that were primarily collaborative and mutual, rather than individual and isolated. Additionally, the earlier, more formal approach which favored using the scientific method and formal knowledge to teach reading was discounted. Skepticism grew toward “schooled” knowledge, and toward prior knowledge in general, while there was instead an emphasis placed upon “the conditionality of knowledge,” how knowledge is shaped within certain communities. This transformation in views of traditional knowledge and education promoted a new conception of the teacher as more of a facilitator, rather than an all-knowing authority, a conception which laid the foundation for student-centered approaches to learning.

Finally, the era of Engaged Learning from 1996 to the present is defined by a radical change in traditional notions of the text. As opposed to earlier conceptions of texts as printed materials read only in a linear way, texts now are often nonlinear and come in online and audiovisual forms, what the authors call “hypertext” and “hypermedia” (50). For teachers of reading, attention must now be paid to how students process both traditional and alternative texts, and the specific problems that accompany encounters with diverse materials. More attention is paid also to the role of classroom discourse on students’ development and reading performance. Concurrently, motivation theory has led to a new interest in a learner’s interests, goals, and beliefs, and a new view of the student as a motivated learner and reader. Cognitive factors are now linked with motivational factors as researchers attempt to understand the learning process. Perhaps most fundamentally, there has been a transformation in how the reading process is viewed, to focus on the changing and lifelong nature of reading and learning as students develop over the years of their lives, what the authors call a “developmental perspective on reading” (53). Moreover, students are seen as “active learners,” both members of a sociocultural community that shapes their perspective, as well as unique individuals who must discover their own meaning of a text. This approach reconciles the individualistic and collective approaches that characterized the previous eras.

Week 2: Active Reading

Question: Briefly discuss how you might teach or convey the ideas in "Active Reading" to a developmental reading writing class.  How would you help students to understand these processes and strategies? And how might we use writing to practice some of these readings processes and strategies?  

When introducing the concept of Active Reading, Van Woerkum states that readers are viewed as “active persons who bring a lot to the text from themselves,” so that we must focus as instructors on “what readers do with a text” (266). If what the reader brings to the text is as important as the content of the text itself (266), then if I were to convey the ideas of Woerkum’s article in a developmental reading/writing class, I would take some time to explore and discuss the predispositions that my students bring to the classroom before entering into the reading process. I would ask them to create a portrait of themselves as a reader and writer, finding out about their particular interests as well as any strengths and weaknesses that they become aware of as both readers and writers. As part of this pre-reading self-portrait assignment, I would ask students to identify which areas of the reading process they anticipate they will have trouble with when they read a text.

In the Before Reading process, Woerkum discusses three stages: the act of selecting; the inferences that are made; and how this leads to anticipation of the reading itself. So in an in-class pre-reading assignment, I would ask students to identify, in a thoughtful paragraph, what kinds of gratifications they are seeking when they read, and assess whether these align with Woerkum’s categories of: information, personal identity, integration and social interaction, or entertainment (267). This written assessment could provide a sense of how well these particular students will identify with the chosen readings.

Also as a Before Reading activity, I would ask students to preview an assigned text and then make a prediction, in a thoughtful paragraph, about what the text will be about, and to draw an inference about how they as a reader will respond to this text (i.e., will they agree or disagree with it, and why?). Once the reading process is completed, they can assess the accuracy of these predictions. Woerkum states that inferences can be visual, so students could be given the option to draw the associations triggered by a text, in order to visualize the inferences they are making. I would explain to students that developing an awareness of our predispositions, along with our initial assumptions and predictions about a text is an important first step in the reading process, as it informs our engagement and comprehension of the text itself.

Moving on to the During Reading process, Woerkum notes that the reader makes “ongoing inferences while reading,” which is connected to ongoing acts of “focusing and reflecting (including coping with surprises)” (269). In order to identify and discuss the inferences that students make while reading a text, I would ask students to keep a journal as they read and record a certain number of quotations per section of the reading, and then to interpret the meaning of these quotations AND draw a conclusion/make an inference about how these specific quotes relate to the broader meaning of the entire text, or to the thesis. This relates to Woerkum’s notion that one form of inference involves “how the fragments in a text are linked to each other” (270), focusing on the relationships between the parts of the text and to the larger whole.

Woerkum also describes how the process of reading leads to an active process of connecting to other concepts outside of the text, so I would provide study questions to guide students’ reading of a text, which ask them to make connections between the content of a text and either other texts they have read, or social and cultural issues that can be connected thematically or stylistically to the text. I might ask as well, “what other ideas or images came up for you while reading this text? Which specific parts of the text triggered these associations?” This can get students to connect the text to the world beyond the text, to draw deeper connections between text, world, and self.

In terms of the Focusing and Reflecting aspect of the During Reading process, I would ask students to revisit their initial predictions about the text during the Before Reading process, assessing if these predictions seem correct. Woerkum also mentions the experience of “dissonance,” when there is a conflict or gap between the reader’s views or assumptions and the text’s perspective; this can lead the reader to rethink their initial assumptions (271). In light of this idea, I would ask students to write about how the text has either reinforced or challenged their initial assumptions, and to think about how their Before Reading predictions fit into this.

As part of the After Reading process, I would ask students to discuss and write about how their initial predictions and assumptions during the pre-reading stage might have been reinforced, challenged, and/or transformed by the reading process. In terms of Woerkum’s notion of “activation of new reading,” I would ask students to think about what other texts they might read to develop the ideas encountered in the current reading, in order to “stimulat[e] the reader to look further” (273). I believe it is very important for students to connect the current text with texts they have already read and might read in the future, to see how the assigned text could be situated within a broader framework. Finally, in order to translate Woerkum’s notion of readers as members of discourse communities, I would assign group activities that ask students to develop their own discussion questions based on their reading and to share these with the class. Hopefully, each of these steps in the process will continually be connected to the topic of their upcoming essay, so that each step of the reading process is completed with the larger purpose of the writing assignment in mind.

Week 2: Literacy Narrative

My Literacy Narrative:

A Testament to the Power of Teaching

It all began on my first day of preschool at three years of age. My love of reading and books flourished under the protective wing of my teacher Sylvia, the nurturing and wise owner of the preschool. Sylvia allowed each child to discover their own unique personality and to develop an understanding of this personality through books. She encouraged my love of fairy tales and fantasy stories, and after I took certain books home to read with my parents, she questioned me about my favorite parts of each story, and prompted me to vividly imagine the lives of the characters I encountered in books. I credit this early experience at preschool with initiating a lifelong love of reading and learning; perhaps even more importantly, it instilled a confidence in my own ability to interpret and creatively engage with literary texts. I expressed this passion for reading in the short stories and poems I wrote as a teenager and young adult, when I found myself drawn to creative writing in particular.

As I advanced through the education system (and through life), I encountered other teachers who facilitated my passion for reading and writing in different ways. While these teachers presented markedly different teaching styles, they all engaged my thoughts and stimulated my thinking by showing authentic interest in what I had to say, and for this I am grateful. My high school English teacher, in a class called “Dreams and Myths,” encouraged me to take a psychoanalytic approach to literary texts, which opened up a new way to look at literature and solidified my interest in majoring in English in college. In a different way, my history professor at the University of Oregon helped me to discover my critical and analytic skills, and encouraged me to pursue my interest in the connections between history and literature, particularly in contemporary writings on the American West.

As I proceeded to earn a Masters degree and then a Ph.D. in English at the University of Oregon, I found that my initial zest for creative writing was squelched as I was trained (disciplined?) to produce tightly argued, convincing, and highly theoretical analytical essays. While I value my training as a literary scholar and critic, following this path also meant that something had to be left behind: the creative impulse that was rooted in a simple love for words and language. As an English instructor at Foothill College, I have tried to express and transmit this love of language in the classroom, but the conventions of academic discourse and the realities of life as an instructor often place constraints upon the “pleasurable" aspects of reading texts. 

I focused on the work of contemporary Native American and Chicano/a authors in my Ph.D. dissertation and book, and this specialization provided a way to rediscover my early love of language, as I examined the ways in which particular postmodern authors (sometimes playfully) created multivocal and multigenre narratives in order to critique dominant narratives that assumed the disappearance or inherent "savagery" of their cultures. Being able to pursue this literary interest enabled me to achieve more of a balance between reading for sheer enjoyment and the rigors of being a thinker and teacher in an academic setting. Yet even as I analyzed these texts out of a genuine interest in their content and style, the learning process involved in becoming an academic thinker and writer was full of stumbles, doubts, and roadblocks. It involved persevering when I was overwhelmed by the highly theoretical and difficult conversations that I encountered with my graduate student colleagues and within the dense texts that we read. I learned that taking the process step-by-step, one article or book at a time, and engaging in informal conversations with my peers, helped to alleviate this frustration and anxiety, although it never erased it entirely. This process of being trained to be an academic, to think and write like an academic, gradually took hold as I persevered through my graduate program each year. This, then, is what I have taken away that I think might be valuable for my teaching: the importance of perseverance and of not letting self-doubt take over, as self-doubt can drag us into a dark abyss, keeping us from simply accomplishing the tasks at hand. This psychological aspect of the student experience plays a large and often overlooked role in student success rates.

I believe that my early teachers played an essential role in instilling a sense of confidence in my own ability, which served me even as I was wracked with self-doubt during the Ph.D. process. Their authentic engagement and deep understanding have prompted me to continually strive to improve as a teacher, to approach this job with integrity and also a commitment to staying balanced in other areas of life. In the words of author John Steinbeck, “I have come to believe that a great teacher is a great artist . . . Teaching might even be the greatest of the arts since the medium is the human mind and spirit.”

Introduction to English 709

Hello English 709 class,

My name is Jordana Finnegan, and I'm excited to take this class because I'm very interested in learning more about integrated reading and writing concepts and strategies. I am completing a Certificate in the Teaching of Composition at San Francisco State as part of my sabbatical from my position as a full-time English Instructor at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, CA. At Foothill I teach English 1A and 1B (transfer-level) composition courses (both face-to-face and online), along with the American Literature survey course and Native American literature. I have taught at Foothill College since 2005 and was granted tenure in 2009. Prior to joining the faculty at Foothill, I completed a Ph.D. in American Literature at the University of Oregon, with a focus on Native American and Chicano/a Literature, and ecocriticism. Since my scholarly background is in literature, I am hoping to enhance my composition-teaching skills and understanding of composition pedagogy in the Teaching of Composition program.

Several of my colleagues at Foothill College have earned certificates or taken classes in the Teaching of Composition program, and I have been working with them on developing a new "pathway" for Foothill College's basic skills-level English courses that is based upon an integrated reading and writing approach to composition. So I am very excited to be able to learn more about this approach here, and to also focus on how metacognitive strategies can enhance student success. I live in the Santa Cruz mountains and in my free time (what there is of it), I enjoy reading, hiking, and spending time with my four year old son. I look forward to working alongside you in this class.