Today I talked via e-mail with a respected figure in the field of YA Lit/Teacher education about these stories that have been popping up featuring prominent figureheads talking about canons and reading quality literature.
The person told me that even they feel we're starting to focus less on literature and more on reading.
I was dumbfounded, but also happy to have the case so easily qualified for me. For the life of me, I can't figure out any good reason (I know plenty of bad ones) why educated people who have made a life of letters or who enjoy teaching literature can't understand that literaCY is the prerequisite to truly engaging in and understanding literatURE.
Focusing on literature without considerations of reading, simply for the sake of preservation of a field or any other reason, is like teaching a portrait painting class without asking the students to take figure drawing or asking them to learn basic elements of shape and design. It's like assuming that students don't need to know how to multiply to do Calculus.
If the issue at hand really can be traced to worry about moving away from literature and towards reading, the solution to the "problem" is simple:
Stop viewing reading and literature as separate constructs. Instead, favoring the logical, sensible -- dare I even say it "common sense' -- notion that literature and literacy, great books and reading proficiency, are always intricately intermeshed, and our pedagogy concerning teaching all types of literature and media ought always to be based in this premise.
6 comments:
Just turned on my radio to drown out the construction noise outside my office. First song on was Pearl Jam's "Dissident." Seems appropriate to my feelings lately, lol.
Maybe folks will see that a person with a balanced view of literature/literacy is a "Betterman." ;)
At least some things are without dispute: Pearl Jam rules!
I think this is more of an old guard feeling antiquated and on the outskirts. I think some of our academics want us to love their treasured canonical texts as much as they do.
The problem is that reading does not necessarily mean appreciation. As you pointed out, if you cannot read and think deeply, then you won't understand or appreciate the canon anyway.
Again, I come back to the idea of teaching dual texts (canonical and comic adaptations) at the same time.
Why can't we, all at once, adopt new literacies and have a revitalization of traditional canon? Isn't there room for both? Wouldn't one support and nurture the other?
I'm with you Bucky C. No more "either/or" thinking.
now, in theory I agree with you. and I know that as a practical matter one must think about reading as literature and vice versa.
However, we prelapsarian types chose to major in English (i.e. literature) b/c we intended to teach 7-12 or in higher ed. and as decent readers ourselves, we thought we could leave phonics and "all that stuff" behind us.
Some of the problem rests with Reading as it's cast by its practitioners and professors and other prelates. There is all this talk about the seven essential skills - or is it five? about parts rather than wholes. so many nasty comments about "whole language." so much enthusiasm for word walls. so little enthusiasm, it seems, for the story, unless it has a message. too much chat about how some texts are too hard even if a young reader wants to try.
I have had to learn about reading, and some of my best friends are reading folks. And I have developed strong feelings about the importance of schema (is that wrod out of fashion again?) and the crucial nature of the spoken word and its relation to reading. And of having a large and varied vocabulary before entering what is really a white middle class institution - school.
But, I do understand the teacher who would like to stop hearing, "You must teach reading first."
Understood, but prelasparian folks shouldn't just hold on to old notions just because they worked for them or represent some antiquated and probably always mythological standard.
I think our common ground here comes in that we all (all who have posted) agree that reading instruction must inform literature instructionn.
I think an underlying unspoken tension might be in how "Reading people" act. Yes, they are sometimes terribly devisive, sometimes just as stubborn as literature folk, and they seem to still be fighting a war that was supposed to be over years ago. In fact, what I detest most about the Reading Professor mindset is that up-and-coming professionals seem to have to align themselves in certain camps to be taken seriously. Instead of the Ph.D. saying "I'm an intellectual and can make up my own mind and seek balance," it seems to say, "I've aligned myself with certain folks whom I know can make me successful."
Again, the overall idea is to seek balance and common sense. Common sense to me (and I know many think there's no such thing) means realizing that reading instruction and literature instruction have to be combined and work together.
p.s. one of my undergraduate degrees is in English Education, as is one of my certifications, and is my Ph.D. How did I flesh out my English Education doctorate? With Reading classes. My MA? In English with an emphasis on American Literature. My other BA? Art History. So, I've been deeply rooted in the content camp before. What changed me was taking some Reading classes and remembering all the students who were struggling in my lower-level classes and my ignorance at what to do to help them. But, I still feel content knoweldge is important.
So, content = important. Literacy skills = important too. Equally so, at the least.
"too much chat about how some texts are too hard even if a young reader wants to try."
I do, wholeheartedly, agree that we educators often spend a little too much time limiting children's access to literature simply because we deem it too high for their reading level.
Interest is an amazing scaffolding tool. I see many, many elementary classrooms that organize their libraries based on ... lexile. I have a friend, who, after reading a reading text, re-organized her fifth grade shelves by genre rather than lexile.
Perhaps that is a bigger accomplishment than I originally thought?
Yeah, you'll get no support for lexile models from me. Somewaht connected, did you know a student gets more points in AR for reading Harry Potter than for reading Maus? Crazy, ain't it?
I remember the last school librarian I worked with discouraging a kid from checking out a book he was highly motivated to read simply because it didn't match his AR level. Ignorant sh*t!
MJH also makes a good point about oracy. Reading aloud is an excellent way to even the playing field a bit, since students' comprehension of oral readings often trumps comprehension when they read difficult texts on their own. There ARE ways to teach literature even when the texts are clearly outside some students' reading competency. Of course, that might mean that teachers have to accept "exposure" to literature as good enough. Certainly high-level talk can still be crafted from listening to a slection read, or seeing it performed or otherwise interpretted. But, it is still simply silly (to use nice language) for a teacher to expect a 10th grader to read 10th grade-level material when he reads on the 4th grade level. Or, at the very least, it requires a broadened view of "reading" than traditionalists might want to accept.
So, yeah, Mr. Wilson, based on all you've told me, you are fortunate to work in a pretty good school! Lucky dog!! :)
Post a Comment