This article by Richard L. Allington makes a relevant point. The title is true- you cannot learn much from books you cannot read. If the student is solely relying on a textbook to learn material (without the lessons and lectures from an educator) and the textbook is beyond his reading level, this could be harmful. The student may not have the reading skills he needs to read and comprehend the book. The curriculum that he needs will not be able to be learned because of his frustration. However, it is not likely that the child is teaching himself from the textbook alone, with no teacher's lectures or lessons. Today, the textbook is/should be merely a guide for learning and should not be used by educators as the main source of information.
For this reason, I do not see how every student having the same textbook ("one size fits all" approach) can be a terrible thing, even for lower level readers. If the students did not have the same textbook, than the teacher could not refer to the same pages and sections of the book during lessons. Also, if each student has different textbooks based on reading level, would the content be exactly the same? Would it just be a dumbed-down version of the original textbook? How would this make the child feel to have a lower reading level textbook? They may be embarrassed to carry around this dumbed-down version of a textbook. Instead of dumbing-down a textbook, why don't educators shoot for a higher goal? How will the student improve if he is not challenged to a certain extent?
On the other hand, our class text, Reading to Learn in the Content Areas by Judy Richardson, Raymond Morgan and Charlene Fleener touches on constructivism and reading this within page 86:
"By discovering what learners do as they read and how they constantly strive to construct meaning while reading, we can design strategies for assistance that enhances their learning. This can be illustrated by an encounter one of the authors had in helping an elementary school youngster read a history passage about log cabins. The boy could not say the word oil lamp as he read the passage orally. Throughout the reading, he was not given the pronunciation of these two words. After the reading, the boy was asked several questions to help him recall the story, including one concerning what kind of lighting was used in the log cabin. The child quickly answered, "Oh, they had an oil lamp." This child was thinking as he read, trying to piece together the clues. He was processing what he knew were unknown data. When he reached the stage of retelling the story, he realized that he did not know; he had successfully put the clues together. If the teacher had interpreted as a final product his failure to pronounce the words while he was reading, he would have thought the boy did not know the words. In fact, all along the boy was constructing meaning, Ultimately, his processing led to a correct understanding. As this experience illustrates, we must give our students every chance to process information, thus discovering meaning as they read, before we measure their understanding."
It could be a good thing that the book is somewhat challenging for the lower reading level student. It allows the student to shoot for a high goal to achieve results. Allington argues that "adults use the easiest texts they can find when they want to learn about something [, so] why do these same adults think that hard books are good for children and adolescents?" Of course adults choose the easiest texts they can find! An adults brain is already developed. An adult has gained the option to choose how and what they want to learn. School age children still need to be taught how to learn and what to learn. They do not get to choose just yet. If a child does not know their multiplication facts should educators backtrack and just have them do addition since this is what they know? How will the child ever learn their multiplication facts? We have to shoot higher to achieve higher results.
To put it all together, having different reading level textbooks may not be the key. What if we simply give our students time to process information? (as the Reading to Learn in the Content Areas textbook suggests).
On the other hand, our class text, Reading to Learn in the Content Areas by Judy Richardson, Raymond Morgan and Charlene Fleener touches on constructivism and reading this within page 86:
"By discovering what learners do as they read and how they constantly strive to construct meaning while reading, we can design strategies for assistance that enhances their learning. This can be illustrated by an encounter one of the authors had in helping an elementary school youngster read a history passage about log cabins. The boy could not say the word oil lamp as he read the passage orally. Throughout the reading, he was not given the pronunciation of these two words. After the reading, the boy was asked several questions to help him recall the story, including one concerning what kind of lighting was used in the log cabin. The child quickly answered, "Oh, they had an oil lamp." This child was thinking as he read, trying to piece together the clues. He was processing what he knew were unknown data. When he reached the stage of retelling the story, he realized that he did not know; he had successfully put the clues together. If the teacher had interpreted as a final product his failure to pronounce the words while he was reading, he would have thought the boy did not know the words. In fact, all along the boy was constructing meaning, Ultimately, his processing led to a correct understanding. As this experience illustrates, we must give our students every chance to process information, thus discovering meaning as they read, before we measure their understanding."
It could be a good thing that the book is somewhat challenging for the lower reading level student. It allows the student to shoot for a high goal to achieve results. Allington argues that "adults use the easiest texts they can find when they want to learn about something [, so] why do these same adults think that hard books are good for children and adolescents?" Of course adults choose the easiest texts they can find! An adults brain is already developed. An adult has gained the option to choose how and what they want to learn. School age children still need to be taught how to learn and what to learn. They do not get to choose just yet. If a child does not know their multiplication facts should educators backtrack and just have them do addition since this is what they know? How will the child ever learn their multiplication facts? We have to shoot higher to achieve higher results.
To put it all together, having different reading level textbooks may not be the key. What if we simply give our students time to process information? (as the Reading to Learn in the Content Areas textbook suggests).
Since today's classrooms do not solely rely on textbooks, the student will be able to get the information that he needs to thrive if the teacher provides an instructionally rich environment. He will not be missing huge gaps if material, because the teacher does not rely solely on a textbook for information. Moreover, the textbooks are not only filled with text. They include visual aids such as pictures, diagrams, and charts to help visual learners.
Richardson, J., Morgan, R., & Fleener, C. (2011). Reading to learn in the content areas. (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Richardson, J., Morgan, R., & Fleener, C. (2011). Reading to learn in the content areas. (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
1 comment:
I agree with you about the one size fits all approach not working for classroom lectures. Students need to receive all the same materials during a lecture and supplementary materials should be given on an appropriate reading level. Some students may require additional materials that will break the topic down to understandable chunks.
Post a Comment