Module 2: Reading Reflection

"The major folklore of reading instruction related to the 'theory' that reading is considered an exact process. In other words, the reader is expected to read everything exactly as printed on the page in order to understand the message of the author. In general the consuming public, legislatures, courts and too many educators hold to this theory. It is like the theory of the world being flat during the time of Columbus." -Robert Harper and Gary Kilarr

I agree with Harper and Kilarr's quote that it is folklore to consider reading an exact process. Reading is more than merging graphemes, morphemes, and phonemes to derive meaning from a word. The reading process takes into account syntactic and semantic context within sentences and an entire text. Just because a reader is able to read a passage correctly doesn't mean they are a proficient reader. A proficient reader not only correctly reads the passage, the proficient reader constructs meaning from what they have read.

Proficient readers use "tools" in order to construct meaning from words. Weaver says that "we can and do use our entire personal context of knowledge and experience, our schemas to help us identify words" (Weaver, 2002). Our social and cultural context as well as our background help us to identify words. Just because we read a word correctly, doesn't mean we have identified it. To identify a word, we pull together our background knowledge and schemas to determine what the words means to us. Person A and person B might derive two totally different meanings from a word based on their preexisting schemas or personal context. This is why we cannot consider reading an exact process. There is nothing exact about it.

The activity on pages 49 and 50 further show that reading cannot be consider an exact process. While I was able to read each sentence, many of the words had two meanings. I was able to derive meaning from the first four sentences based on the syntactic clues given. This allowed me to eliminate one of the meanings and narrow in on what the sentence is actually saying. The last four sentences, however, did not give enough context in order for me to determine the meaning. The dual meaning words caused confusion for me although I knew what each word meant. I either needed context to predict what was coming next or following context to confirm or correct my prediction (Weaver, 2002).

Lastly, page 71 sums up the idea of why we cannot consider reading to be an exact process. Weaver says "the goal of reading instruction should not be the accurate identification of every word, but rather the effective and efficient use of reading strategies in order to construct meaning" (Weaver, 2002). No reader is alike. As readers, we each use our own strategies and tools in order to construct meaning and gain an understanding of what we have read. While we both might be able to read each word correctly without any miscues, we cannot say that we had the same process in doing do. We must approach teaching reading like we approach any other subject. Each child learns in a different way. We must help them learn by presenting information in multiple ways. This will eliminate the notion that reading is an exact process where students must read words correctly in order to gain meaning.

Weaver, C. (2002). Reading process & practice. (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.