Theories of Reading and Implications for Teachers

8/20/2019 Theories of Reading and Implications for Teachers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theories-of-reading-and-implications-for-teachers 1/6

THEORIES OF RE DING

ND

IMPLIC TIONS FOR TE CHERS

E arcia Sheridan

INDI N

UNIV RSITY

T

SOUTH END

When reading cur ren t r e sea rch , one i s overwhelmed

by the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of new t h e o r i e s of the reading

process . The purpose of

t h i s paper i s

to present the

p re v a i l i n g t h e o r i e s of reading

comprehension,

to ex-

amine

t h e i r

s i m i l a r i t i e s

and

d i f fe rences ,

and

dete rmine

whether t he y a re d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r en t o r represen t a

gene ra l t heo ry of cogni t ive development

s p e c i f i c a l l y

app l i ed to read ing .

SKILLS MO EL

The

t r a d i t i o n a l

de f i n i t i on of reading

comprehension

as

t i s i n t e r p r e t ed

by the au thors

and w r i t e r s o f

basa l

readers and l i t e r a t u r e anthologies , r e s u l t s

in

the t each i ng of

reading

t h rough

sepa ra t e ly def ined

comprehension s k i l l s ,

and could be ca l l ed

a s k i l l s

model . S k i l l s , sepa ra t e ly t aught in a l o g i c a l and se -

quen t ia l

order ,

i s

thought

to

r e s u l t

in

the

improved

comprehension

of t ex t ua l mate r i a l .

The

t r a d i t i o n a l s k i l l s model view of

reading

i s

a bottom up or data

dr iven

proc e s s ing

model.

In t h i s

view

of r ead i ng , l e t t e r s are perce ived in

a

l e f t to

r i gh t sequence u n t i l a word

i s

perce ived as a whole,

meaning i s obta ined and r e l a t e d to

o t he r words in the

sentence , thus

a c t i v a t i n g

the dominant schema

and

ts

p a r t i c u l a r

concepts .

PSY HOLINGUISTI THEORISTS

About

t en

years

ago,

the psycho l ingu i s t i c

model

of reading

began

to as s e r t t ha t con t ra ry to

t h i s

view

of

reading as a

sequence

of s k i l l s which one could

t each , reading i s in a c tua l i t y a process of

pred ic t ing

meaning based on

the

r eade r ' s knowledge of o ra l l a n -

guage

syntax ,

semant ics ,

and

phonologica l cues . In

o the r

words,

based on

the r eade r ' s

s to re

of in format ion

about

how

language

works

from h is knowledge

of

o ra l

l anguage ,

a r eade r a l r2ady knows something

about

how

words a re orde red and what k inds of meaning words

pos-

se s s in c e r t a i n

con t ex t s .

The e a r ly psycho l ingu i s t i c model

i s

pr imar i ly a

top down

or

c onc e p tua l ly

dr iven

model where

the

empha-

s i s i s

on pred ic t ion of

meaning.

Ult imate ly . t i s the



rh 67

concepts which generate a search fo r the data or words

to confirm

these predic t ions . (Goodman) Within

t h i s

perspect ive Smith defines reading comprehension

as

mak

ing sense out of

what you

read

by

using

what you

know,

or the

theory

of the

world

which

you have in your

head.

Essen t ia l ly

the

reader i s expected

to use pr i o r

know

ledge and experience with

language

to get meaning from

pr in t .

A

charac te r i s t i c

in

the

development of both

the

s k i l l s and

psychol inguis t ic

theor ies of reading compre

hension i s the

use

of paradigms or

models

from computer

sc ience . (Goodman; LaBerge and Samuels; Ruddell)

Rum-

melhar t ' s

informat ion process ing

model

i n t egra te s

both

the top-down and bottom-up processing concepts i n to

his

i n t e rac t ive theory

of

reading comprehension.

In

th i s

view, while the reader i s processing fea tu res ,

l e t t e r s , spe l l ing

pat

t e rns , e tc . ,

a t

the

same

t ime he

or she

i s also a t tending to

genera l

context ,

syntax,

and the semantic and syntac t ic environment in

which

the

words occur

and from

which

an i n t e rp re t a t ion of

meaning i s made.

SCHEM

THEORY

A more

recen t theory

of

reading comprehension i s

cal led schema theory or the schema perspec t ive .

The

goal

of

schema

theory

i s

to

descr ibe

in te rac t ion

between what i s in the t ext and

how

tha t information

i s shaped and s tored

by

the

reader .

(Adams and Col l ins)

The under lying

assumption

i s t ha t meaning does

not l i e

sole ly in the

pr in t

i t s e l f , but

i n t e rac t s

with

the

cog

ni t ive s t ruc tu re or schemata a l ready presen t in

the

reade r ' s mind. These

schemata

represent ,

in Ausubel 's

terms,

the

idea t iona l scaf folding

or

framework

fo r

understanding new

informat ion.

Thus the reader has pre -

sent in cognit ive s t ruc tu re schemata which cons t i tu te

a cognit ive f i l t e r through which one views the world

and

from

which one predic ts

or

makes inferences about

what

i s

read.

Schemata,

according to Rummelhart

and

Ortony, re -

present

generic concepts which

are

s tored

in memory.

The way in which a

par t i cu la r

concept

i s

s tored i s not

by

remembering

tha t

i so la ted event

in i t s t o t a l i t y

down

to

i t s

most bas ic components,

but

by iden t i fy ing those

aspects

of

the

event re la ted

to

other concepts al ready

s tored. We

make

connect ions between the information

in

the t ex t

and what

we

already

know.

A par t icu la r schema would be analogous to a play

with i t s

i n t egra l s t ruc tu re corresponding to

the

sc r i p t

of

the

play (Rummelhart and Ortony) .

So

a schema repre -

sents

genera l ized

knowledge about a

sequence

of

even ts

and, as

a

play has

a

cas t of charac te r s

and a

sequence

of scenes,

a schema

has

i t s par t s and sequenced events .



68 rh

e

comprehend

the

message

in a

t e x t when

we are

able to c a l l up thp appropr ia te schema, f i t t i n g it i n to

an

i n t p r p n ~ t a t i on which

a l lows

us

to

see

the

t e x t in

a

c e r t a i n

way.

What

we

s to re

i s

the

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

of

the

t e x t ,

which we then

c a l l up

to

make i n f e rences

about

a u t h o r s purpose , s p e c i f i c

cha rac t e r s ,

and so

on

in

o the r

s i mi l a r t e x t s .

Genera l ized schemata

al low

us to l e a rn or make

sense

o f

a

wide a r r ay of informat ion

or

very

abs t r ac t

ideas ,

and these

gene ra l i zed schemata can

be modif ied

or

adap ted

as we

l e a rn new

in format ion .

This

i dea

i s

a lmost

i d e n t i c a l to the Piage t i an concepts of ass imi -

l a t i o n

and accommodation except t ha t schema t he o ry

l i m i t s the input to

pr in t ed

mate r ia l . In

P i a g e t

s

de-

f i n i t i o n

a s s im i l a t i o n t akes place

when

new

knowledge

i s i n t e g ra t e d i n to

a

preex i s t ing knowledge base . Thus,

accommodation occurs when

the

knowledge

base , or a

schema i s changed in

order

to it in new in format ion .

e

can

cons t ruc t

very

s p e c i f i c schema to

account

fo r s i t u a t i o n s

and

events

which occur f r equen t ly

in

our

environment .

This a l lows us to process

t h i s

i n f o r -

mation f a s t e r and

eas i e r by

he lp ing

us

focus on

a

pa t t e r n of elements which occurs both in the s to red

schema

and

in

the t e x t .

p a r t i c u l a r r e a d e r s i n t e rp re t a t i on of a pr in ted

message

i s

in f luenced

by the r e a d e r s

personal

back-

ground and h i s t o r y , knowledge,

and

the be l i e f s

which

a re brought to

bear

in cons t ruc t ing

schemata

to provide

the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e framework fo r comprehending d i s -

course . The

e f f e c t

of

pr i o r exper ience

can be

so

grea t

t ha t

a

reader may perce ive

only one

i n t e rp re t a t i on fo r

a t e x t

to the

exclus ion

of o the r poss ib l e

i n t e r p r e t a -

t i ons . Anderson, Ju ly , 1976)

Anderson

and others ( Ju ly , 1976) conducted an ex-

per iment

with

col l ege s tuden t s

from

two

d i f f e r e n t

d i s c i p l i n e s .

Each

group was

asked

to

read

two

passages

each

of which

was

s u f f i c i e n t l y

ambiguous so t h a t it

could be

i n t e r p r e t ed

in

ways r e l a t ed

to

e i the r of the

two d i s c i p l i n e s .

Scores

on

mul t i p l e choice and o the r

t e s t s ind ica ted t ha t

t he re

was

a s t r i k ing

r e l a t i o n -

sh i p between i n t e rp re t a t i on

and pro fe s s iona l d i s c i -

p l in e .

Most

subj ec t s were unaware t ha t more than one

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was

poss ib l e

fo r

each

of the passages .

The exper imente r s s t a t e d

t ha t

the r e s u l t s i nd ica t ed

t ha t

h igh

l eve l schemata in f luenced the

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s

of

t hese passages .

Schemata serve as the

bas i s fo r making in fe rences

or

reading

between

the

l i ne s

and

fo r

making

pred ic t ions

based

on obse rva t i on

of only pa r t of

the

input . Sche-

mata a l s o

serve

as

the

veh ic l e s fo r

search ing

memory



rh 69

fo r previously

read

mater ia l

and recons t ruct ing mean-

ing.

IMPLIC TIONS

OR

INSTRUCTION

We

can

see

t ha t schema theory

has

placed new

empha-

s i s

on

var ious

par ts

of

the

teach ing p rocess , pa r t i c u

l a r ly the

importance

of

ut i l i z ing preex is t ing knowledge

and experience of the reader , se t t i ng

purposes

fo r

reading,

and asking

appropr ia te ques t ions

before and

a f te r reading.

While

we have always

deplored

the

t eacher

who

in

s t ruc ted

s tudents to read from pages 91 to 124, the

importance

of motivating

and bui lding in te r e s t as wel l

as assess ing the knowledge and exper ience of the reader

before

having

the

student

read

i s

more

important

in

l i gh t

of the

schema

theory. The

secondary

reading

teacher

needs to

determine

whether

the

s tudents

have

the

general background knowledge or exper ience to

under

stand what

they

are reading as

well as how

to use it

For the

remedial

student

with

l imi ted exper ience in

reading,

re la t ionsh ips

or

s im i l a r i t i e s to v icar ious

or r e a l - l i f e s i tua t ions

need to be

drawn. Students

also need to

become

aware

of

the i r personal a t t i tudes

and be l i e f s

which

can shape t h e i r i n t e rp re t a t ion of

a

t ex t ,

giving

it

a

meaning

unl ike

tha t which

the

author in tended.

When

an

ex is t ing

schema

i s

i nappropr i

a te to account for

the informat ion

in the t ex t , t eacher

wil l

need

to

help s tudents modify the schema or

s h i f t

gears

to

another more appropr ia te

schema.

I t

seems ra ther

evident t ha t i f

we want s tuden t s

to comprehend

a t ex t in a par t i cu la r way,

tha t

we

must

ass i s t them in

se t t ing

up

a cogni t ive

s t ruc tu re fo r

doing so. I t

should also

be apparent

tha t

we cannot

presume

tha t s tudents have schemata

fo r

a l l poss ible

purposes

for reading.

Ins t ruc t ion

should

provide

ap-

propr ia te models or exemplars

so

t ha t s tudents can

develop

schemata which can

be

used

as

the

bas i s fo r

in fe r r ing

when faced with

the

purpose

in another

context .

Vocabulary

development

becomes more

than

simply

in troducing words,

looking up

def in i t ions

in

the d ic

t ionary , and using

the

words in

sen tences . Developing

vocabulary means

developing concepts fo r words,

and

seeing how

they

are

a l ike or di f fe ren t from other words.

Since Socrates i f not before) t eachers have recog-

nized

the

importance and value of

ques t ion ing . To a

somewhat

s imi la r

end,

reading

mater i a l s

have

at tempted

to

generate

quest ions

a t a

var ie ty of co'mprehension

leve ls

following a taxonomic mode. The s t ruc tu re of

a comprehension

taxonomy

presupposes

t ha t

higher

order



7o rh

unders tandings

a re based on

the

a c q u i s i t i o n of lower

orde r knowledge. Yet

we have a l l had

exper iences of

s tuden t s

answer ing so -ca l l ed

higher orde r or eva lua t ive

ques t i ons

abouL

a

Lext

without

r eca l l i ng

some

l l L e r a l

f ac t s i n the s to ry , and

giv ing

a

low

l eve l response

to a high l eve l ques t ion . s we

begin to focus

on

read ing comprehension

in a more whol i s t i c

way the

over lapping na t u re

of

comprehension

s k i l l s

as wel l as

the

impor tance of knowing which to use and

how

to i n t e

gra te t h i s

i n to

one ' s cogn i t i ve

s t ru c tu r e

becomes more

the i s sue .

Hopeful ly

the

most s i g n i f i c a n t

r e s u l t

of

recent

re sea rch on comprehension

would be to see

the demise

o f

the p ra c t i c e of

t eaching

s k i l l s in

i s o l a t i on .

Anyone

who

has

worked

with

remedia l

r eade r s

has noted

t ha t

some

of

them a re unable to t r a n s f e r

the

knowledge of

s k i l l s

developed

in i s o l a t i on in to context

whi le

read ing .

The

s i t u a t i o n

of s tuden t s t ry ing to outguess

the

t e ache r must be

changed. t eacher must f i r s t asses s

s tuden t s ' menta l

background

so

t ha t

new mate r i a l

can

be r e l a t ed to what

i s

known.

The process of l e a rn ing from wri t t en mater ia l must

be

made

more e f f i c i e n t .

Students

need

to be

compensated

fo r t ak ing

r i s k s

and specu la t ing about meaning. I f the

t e ache r w i l l

give t r u s t

and

conf idence

t o s tuden t s ,

s /he

w i l l

f ind them more wil l ing to

r e l a t e

how a pas

sage may have a

spec i f i c

meaning fo r them.

This

process

l e ads to f r ee exchange of i deas about why passages have

var i ous i n t e rp re t a t i ons fo r d i f f e r e n t people .

The

c la s s

may

t hus avoid

the

numbing

process

of the t e a c h e r ' s

eva lua t ing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s by absolu te au tho r i ty .

ON LUSION

In examining the var ious

t h e o r i e s

of reading com-

prehens ion

one

i s

s t ruck

by

the

p r o l i f e r a t i o n

of

d i f

f e r e n t

te rms,

and what s u p e r f i c i a l l y appear to be

d i f f e r e n t t heo r i e s . There

seems

to

be

a tendency fo r

r e sea rche r s t o coin

a new te rm

whenever

they propose

a new pe r spec t ive on the reading comprehension

process ,

l eav i ng t

up to

the r eade r

t o d i sce rn

whether

and

how

t h i s i s

d i f f e r e n t

from or s im i l a r t o o t he r t h e o r i e s .

We

a re

beginning to

i n t eg r a t e the reading process

i n to

l a r ge r t h e o r i e s o f

cogni t ive

development and l e a rn ing .

For the mature r eade r , reading i s an

a c t i v e

process

and unders tanding what you read i s

as

much what i s

a l ready in your head as what i s on the page.



rh 71

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, M. J . and A. Col l ins , A Schema-Theoret ic

View

of

Reading,

Technical

Report

No.

32,

Center

for

the

Study

of

Reading, University

of I l l inois ,

April, 1977.

Anderson, R.C., The Notion

of

Schemata and

the

Educational Enter

prise; General Discussion of the Conference, Schooling

and

the

Acquisition of Knowledge, R. Anderson, R. Spiro, and

W

Montague (eds.) , Lawrence Erlbaum

Assoc.,Hillsdale,NJ,1977.

Anderson, R. C. e t al , Instantiation of General Terms, Technical

Report No. 10, Center for

the Study

of Reading, University

of I l l ino is , March,

1976.

Frameworks for Comprehending

Discourse,

Techn. Report

No.

12, Center

for

Study

of

Reading,

University

of

I l l inois ,

July,

1976.

Anderson, R.C., R. Spiro, and

M

Anderson, Schemata as Scaffolding

for

the

Representation

of InfoIil'Btion

in Connected Discourse,

Technical

Report No. 24, Center for the Study

of

Reading,

University

of I l l ino is , March,

1977.

Anderson,

R.C.,

Schema-Directed Processes in Language Comprehen-

sion,

Technical

Report No. 50,

Center

for the

Study

of Rea

ding,

University

of I l l ino is ,

July, 1977.

Ausubel, D.,

Educational

Psychology: A

Cognitive

View, Holt, Rine

hart

and

Winston,

New York, 1968.

Goodman, K., Behind the Eye: What Happens in Reading,

In

H.Singer

and

R.

Ruddell

(eds.

),

Theoretical Models nd Processes

in

Reading,

IRA, Newark, DE, 1976, pp. 470-496.

LaBerge, D., and

S.

J . Samuels, Toward a

Theory

of

Automatic

InfoIil'Btion Processing

in

Reading, Cognitive

Psychology,

Vol.

6, 1974, pp.

292-323.

Ortony, Andrew, Why

Metaphors are

Necessary and Not Just

Nice,

Educational

Theory, Winter, 1975, 25, pp. 45-53.

Pearson,

P.

D.

and

D.

Johnson, Teaching Reading

Comprehensi

n, Holt,

Rinehart

and Winston, New

York, 1978.

Piaget, J. ,The Language and Thought

of the

Child, Harcourt Brace,

Jovanovich, New

York, 1926.

Ruddell,

R., Psycholin guistic Implications

for a

Systems

of

Com-

munications Model, in

H.

Singer and R. Ruddell (

eds.)

Theo

re t ica l Models and Processes in Reading, International Reading

Association, Newark,

DE,

1976, pp. 452-269.

Rurrmelhart,

D.E.,

Introduction

to Human InfoIil'Btion Processing,

John

Wiley

and Sons,

New

York,

1977.

- - T o w a r d

an

Interactive

Model

of

Reading,

in

S.

Doris

(ed.) ,

Attention and PerfoIil'Bnce, VI, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Hillsdale,

New Jersey, 1977, pp. 573-603.

Smith, F. ,Comprehension

and

Learning, Holt

Rinehart

& Winston,

New

York,

1975.

Documents

Theories of Reading and Implications for Teachers