CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON LEARNING AND TEACHING
2.2 T HEORETICAL P ERSPECTIVES ON R EADING
2.2.4 Interactive (balanced) theories of reading
learners at a specific time. The learner is seen as an active constructor of meaning who already has knowledge which can be built on.
From this perspective, value is placed on texts using natural language patterns which enable learners to predict words and meanings. Genuine literature, language experience texts, patterned and highly predictable texts are commonly used. Altered or simplified texts are typically avoided for teaching and learning purposes, as these would prevent learners from making use of innate language knowledge and strategies. Classroom libraries of trade books (books which are not designed specifically for instructional purposes) and Big Books (large format books which can be seen and read together by a whole class) are commonly used, as are the materials of real life such as newspapers, menus, instructions and other genres. In response to schema theory, the reader‘s knowledge and cultural background are taken into account in choosing reading materials.
pronunciation and/or meaning in the ―mental lexicon‖ (Coltheart, 2006, p. 7). Our mental lexicons, or memory stores of previously seen words (Castles, 2006, p. 50), contain information about the spelling of words and their visual forms (the orthographic lexicon), about the pronunciation of words (the phonological lexicon) and about the meaning of words (the semantic system). Studies of people with various kinds of brain damage indicate that the three components of the lexical system operate independently and two can still function if the third is impaired in some way (see, for example, Coltheart, 2006). But we are also capable of recognising regular words by using a ―non-lexical procedure‖ (Coltheart, 2006, p. 8) which does not consult the mental lexicon. This procedure involves the use of grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules. Regular words (which obey the grapheme-phoneme rules) can be read using either the lexical or the non-lexical procedures, but irregular words can only be read using the lexical procedure which makes use of orthographic, phonological and semantic knowledge.
Coltheart represents his model diagrammatically as in Figure 2 below. The left hand side of the diagram represents the lexical, word level, processes and the right hand side shows the non-lexical, sub-word level processes. Note that both processes rely on the initial identification of letters in the printed word and that because the semantic and phonological lexicons serve both the oral and the written language, reading is ―heavily dependent on oral language‖ (Stuart, 2006, p. 21). Neither Coltheart nor other researchers using this model relate it directly to use by English language learners specifically. However, the model would seem to emphasise that for reading in English, which is a highly irregular language, the lack of stored semantic knowledge would be a significant barrier to reading in English as an additional language.
Coltheart argues that all children who have begun to learn to read have all three of the mental lexicons described, although there are quantitative differences in what is stored in these lexicons. Thus learning to read is explained by the model as a ―progressive quantitative expansion‖ of the system rather than as a staged process (Coltheart, 2006).
According to the dual route model, words are ―locally represented‖ in the reading system, i.e.
a word corresponds to a single entry in the lexicon, rather than having a unit in the system playing a role in representing many different words. This is in contrast to Goodman‘s
explanation. In the non-lexical route of the model, processing happens in series, i.e. letters and sounds are translated in order, one at a time, from left to right. Coltheart cites a literature review to which he contributed which identified eight different aspects of reading aloud which cannot be explained unless serial processing is occurring in the reading system (2006, p. 13).
Figure 2: The dual route model of reading aloud (Adapted from Coltheart, 2006, p.8 & 9 )
Another model of reading which exemplifies the interactive paradigm is that proposed by Whitehurst and Lonigan (2003). This model derives from the sources of information from which meaning of text is produced and is presented in Figure 3 below because of the clear way in which it represents the fact that ―meaningful comprehension of all but the simplest of writing depends on knowledge which cannot be found in the word or sentence itself‖
(Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2003, p. 14). This expands on the argument of the socio- psycholinguistic model. According to Whitehurst and Lonigan, literacy involves the use of
―two interdependent domains of information‖: outside-in information comes from outside of the text but supports the reader‘s understanding of print (e.g., conceptual knowledge, story schemas and vocabulary); inside-out information is contained within the printed word and
enables the reader to connect print and sound (e.g. phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, punctuation and cognitive sequencing skills).
Note that Whitehurst and Lonigan‘s domains are distinct from so-called ―top-down‖ and
―bottom-up‖ processing in that their domains refer to sources of information rather than the way text is processed. Thus it is possible for top-down and bottom-up processing to occur within both of the domains they describe.
Figure 3: Whitehurst and Lonigan's domains of literacy (adapted from Whitehurst and Lonigan, 2002, p.13)
Implications for teaching reading
The preceding section has shown that in the interactionist paradigm reading is understood to involve using both information about sounds and their representations and also contextual and semantic information. At the practical level of teaching reading, however, interaction, or balance, is ―one of those elusive concepts that means different things to different people‖
(Vacca et al., 2003, p. 51). A number of different positions emerge.
Contextual units (e.g. narrative)
Semantic Units (e.g. concepts)
Language Units (e.g. words)
Sound Units (e.g. phonemes)
Print Units (e.g. graphemes)
OUTSIDE-IN Information from outside
the text
INSIDE-OUT Information from inside the
text
READING
Balance is about both teaching direct, explicit skills and language-rich literature instruction in two separate, parallel strands. Phonics and word knowledge is a prerequisite to successful reading (Honig, 2001).
Balance is about giving reading and writing equal status, about recognising the affective and the cognitive dimensions of literacy, and about giving diverse students similar opportunities to become good readers, as well as being about balancing meaning with a skills emphasis (Au, Carroll, & Scheu, 2001).
Balance is about planning instruction based on children‘s backgrounds, interests, strengths and needs, which might mean using either top-down or the bottom-up methodologies with different children (Freppon & Dahl, 1998).
Balance is about integrating the language arts with children‘s literature (Tomkins in Freppon & Dahl, 1998, p. 243).
One of the important implications of ―balanced‖ instruction, however it is defined, is that good pedagogic practice requires extensive teacher knowledge about literacy. This position is supported by number of large-scale investigations (Adams, 1990; Bond & Dykstra, 1967;
Chall, 1967; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; J. Hoffman, 1994).
Of particular importance to the present study is the assertion that teachers need a wide pedagogic knowledge base, and need to be able to differentiate instruction. This will be investigated and discussed in later chapters and picked up again in the analysis and discussion of data collected in this study.
In general therefore, the integrated or balanced approach to reading instruction would see skills being taught in the context of authentic reading in a whole-part-whole fashion which emphasises that the purpose of reading is comprehension of meaning.
Recent major studies into the teaching of early reading commissioned by the governments of the USA (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000, otherwise known as the Report of the National Reading Panel or NRP), England (J. Rose, 2006) and Australia (Australian Government, 2005), as well as the school curriculum in South Africa, all support balanced or integrated approaches and offer a blueprint of the essential elements of reading which should be taught. These studies emphasise the following five components of teaching reading:
Phonemic awareness instruction;
Phonics instruction;
Fluency instruction;
Vocabulary instruction;
Text comprehension instruction.
While there is no disagreement that these are critical aspects of learning to read, the hegemonic conclusions of these government-sponsored reports in singling out these ―Big Five‖ for attention, have been criticised from many quarters. The NRP report has been criticised for its narrowly focused research review, which not only excluded qualitative studies in favour of experimental research with both an experimental and a control group, but also divided up research studies that it did consider in terms of different reading skills, in effect supporting a skills-based approach to reading (Weaver, 2002, p. 258). NRP panel member Tim Shanahan (2003) lists 20 topics the NRP considered but ultimately did not study. Michael Pressley (2001) and Jim Cunningham (2001) have also noted the narrow list of topics included in the NRP report. Allington suggests five additional ―pillars‖ of reading instruction which are supported by a substantial body of experimental research (2004; 2005), arguing that we ignore these five additional pillars at our own peril. The additional aspects of reading instruction which he identifies for attention are:
1. Providing access to interesting texts, choice and collaboration (all of which have been shown to have greater effect than phonics instruction).
2. Matching readers with appropriate texts (in other words, differentiated instruction is crucial).
3. Recognising that writing and reading have reciprocal positive effects.
4. Balancing whole class teaching with small group and side-by-side instruction.
5. Making expert tutoring available.