Reading
and School Literary Education – Research-based Classroom Practice
Kateřina
Homolová
Leanrning
and education are active processes. Cognitive psychology extends noted
attainments about ways of mental representations of pupil’s knowledge in case
evocations and connections. Nevertheless the basis of contemporary didactics
still stays behavioral analysis of educational goals and appropriate choose of
teaching methods. Icreasing emphasis is placed on eduacational produces
evaluation. (Kalhous, Obst a kol., 2002, s. 29).
Reading
(or readinghood) as an expression of personal set on specific kind of receptive
operation, on reading, is in its quantities and qualities projected into
general person behavior in all socila roles. Thus reading is the grading function
for the course of all social acts. Children’s reading is, according to its
bearers, socially high determinated (socialized) phenomenon. Prism of pupil
social role reading gets into action area of intentional school education and
becomes a pedagogical cathegory.
Pedagogical and didactical aspects of children’s reading
Children’s
reading can be seen as a reciprocal system of two planes. While the inner one
appeals on psychosocial characteristics of children’s reader personality, the
outer plane works round the possibility of pedagogical usage of children’s
reading. In this way, pupil as a subject and also ano object of education is
regarded with his reader’s preferences.
Constructivistic
base of contemporary pedagogy together with behavioral analysis of its
principles can on general level use the children’s reading potentials as
implicit diagnostic instruments. Then, in teacher’s practice it is possible to
incorporate the pupil’s “reading behavior” to the complex of class
microdiagnostics.
Didactical
aspects of children’s reading reflect the specifics of pupil’s reception of
literary texts (artistic and non-artistic) in updating of applied didactical
principles and rules in theory of instruction. At the same time, if the
evaluation of educational produces is stressed in the way of key competences,
just then the knowledge of surface and deep structure of children’s reading as
a basis of effective pedagogical leading.
Rank
of contemporary attempts to curricullum, teaching and learning innovations is
based on constructivism, the wide stream of theories in behavioral sciences and
social sciences, which uderlines both active role of subject and force of its
inner presumptions in pedagogical and psychological processes, and importance
to its interaction environment and society (Průcha, Walterová,
Mareš, 2001, s. 105).
For
effective working with pupil’s reading attitudes it is necessary to pay attention to pupil as to reader much
more than ever. It means to get to know his reading interests, reading habits
(including reading skills) and motivation for reading as well.
The
traditional conception of school literary education arranges pupil into the
role of reader as though artificially. It pursues to bring him into reading
line by course of extrinsic pattern. In addition this reading is still seen
only as a sorting instrument for selecting readers and non-readers. In the
light of up-to-date children’s reading researches (Lederbuchová, 2004;
Homolová, 2007) this way appears to be only one-way, without sufficient
area for contemporary young people and their interior aims to be readers.
In
productive communicative literary education it is necessary to see the child in
front as a reader in the role of pupil.
Apriori reader approach appeals on latently present reader’s competence
and invocates its elementary reading experiences and interests.
The
preference of the role of reader prior to the pupil role also facilitates
transfer of pedagogical and didactical priciples needed for forming pupil’s
personality (with its active cooperation).
The
important presumption of constructivistic applications is situation of the
initial point of educational process into the place of pupil who has in his
mind more or less comprehensive conception of what the world is like. Entire
effective learning is then perceived as a modification and perfection of this
conception (Kalhous, Obst a kol., 2002).
The
learner’s way to reading can be seen as individually constructed cognition,
objective and depended on cognizant’s intelectual development. As well used
metaphoric denomination of lerner “the naive scientist” describes child’s
situation in the reader education process. In doing so “naive” is its
disposition for reading and “science” is reading as a value apriori existing in
potency. Also learning is conceived as “personal force finding” by solving the
problems, assimilation and accommodation of knowledge structures or by
reflections of experience. This is right adequate both to children’s reading
characteristics and school educational chances of literary training. The
teacher is a facilitating figure, he lightens learner’s orientation in
educational reality. The leaner earn experience with this reality by his own
activity, assimilating information, modifying current and creating new schemes
of world reflections.
Herefrom
the effectivness of school literary education is unwind. Then, within the
meaning of the sketched apriori reader theory, the literary education offers
many possibilities how to make its contents interesting and motivating. At the
same time the demand for educational process as a working (active) process is
respected as well. The learner becomes competent by contructing meanings and
understanding force of information. The teacher in this conception goes out of
the autoritative expert role in case literary texts and accepts the role of
respecting elder reader (Lederbuchová, 2004).
Actual trends of children’s reading education
The
criterion of effective education and instruction of young people is teacher’s
primary orientation on the best recognition their personal habits. Only so it
is possible to realize training as active, intentional social process of
creating new meanings from contrued information and induced experiences. The
need of knowing the children’s reading structure and its dominant aspects is
hold without rest.
Actual
trends of young reader’s education lay in the area outlined also by cognitive
constructivism, that means the teacher and also the method and strategy of
education.
The
cognitive constructivism imposes liabilities upon teacher to give rise to feel
conflict among learner’s current concept and incoming experience. The teacher
helps him to find new, better balance (Kalhous, Obst a kol., 2002). The teacher has to give the learner new
experience only with awareness of cognitive conflict and with anticipation of
learner’s active searching for “conclusion”. In this way functions also
teacher’s expert reading and its preparing qualitatively higher pupil’s reading
experiences. These trends are closed to student-centered and constructivist approaches
in general (Scavin, 2000).
If
the postulate of communicative literary education as a way to acquire the
reader competence has to be filled, the teacher has to get to know his pupil as
a reader. He has to know how modern-day young people think about the sense of
reading and being a reader, which values are they able to award it, which
manners of “reader’s behavior” do they have, and if they perceive themselves as
readers on the hole. That’s why it is more than necessary to open the literary
education theory and practice actual children’s reading researches outcomes.
Only this way of teaching literacy and teaching of reading can accentuate its
psychosocial dimension and enable full usage its pedagogical and didactical
aspects.
The
conditions of effective children’s reading development in situation of school
literary education are make of orgazining training forms and teaching methods.
As a major motivating principle works the creating personal force of
information (Petty, 2002). Communicative literary education can effectively use
such organizing training forms based on working combination of frontal,
individualized, group and pair instruction (Vališová,
Kasíková a kol., 2007; Skalková, 2007).
In
terms of up-to-date frontal literary (research-based) education increares the
need of individualized classwork within the meaning of pupil’s learning manners
and pace, and also withing the meaning of teaching sense and subject-matter.
Accordant to these postulates the teacher can use individualized “matching“
(Vališová, Kasíková a kol., 2007). Teacher’s (expert
reader’s) teaching style is interconnected with pupil’s (less experienced
reader’s) learnig/reading style. The teacher regulates his instructional
strategies to the learner/reader on the base of expert knowledge of learner’s
congnitive/reading style.
Another
form available for working with actual shape of children’s reading is also “mastery learning” (B. S. Bloom’s term,
“managed learning“, “expert learning“). This conception is based on premise
that learning and its results are related to time given us for learning. Then
the educational standard can manage all learners, if they are given suitable
conditions for learning, especially sufficient time and optimal feedback.
Motivation for learning rises. After collective training the teacher give his
learners feedback – whether and on which level they have managed defined goals
of given thematic unit. This system is based on successive (gradational)
combination of basic and sequential education (Vališová, Kasíková
a kol., 2007).
In
case of modern school literary education we can apply this mechanism as
“mastery reading”. Literary training as a guiding to active reading is framed
by basic quantity, but primary it leads to successive swelling the reading
experience and competence. Newertheless it is not classical frontal education,
but it is an educational model based on respecting individual differences among
learners, which are natural for reading habits and have to be supposed.
To
progressive organizing forms succesfully exercisable in literary education
belongs also the group training. Its effectiveness lays in the possibility of
developing social and intelectual qualities of all learners given the teacher
to keep, in integral unity.
The
effectviveness of literary education process depends not only on the setting of
specific goals, but also on proper choosing of instructional methods. From
didactical point of view the literary education still uses conventional methods
– monological (interpetation, narration), dialogical (debate, dramatization)
and text-using methods. In according to
the level of learner’s activity and educative self-reliance predominate
“statement” methods supplemented by group work methods .
While
using monological methods in school literary education it is possible to
activate learners by the “provocative principle”, which is based on teacher’s
uttering controversial and debatable statements. Classical explanation changes
into interactive labour emphasising emocional and experience aspects of young
people’s life and reading as well (Vališová, Kasíková
a kol., 2007).
Communication
with teen-age reader in school literary education may be realized as a form of
instruction, especially when learner’s motivation for conscious observace of
practical purposes is pointed out. This
allows learner’s to better understanding, evaluation and reasoning the
educational process. For literary education practice it means that there is a
possibility of natural transition from emocional motivation to rational reasoning
and then to strengthen intrinsic values.
Altenative
activating form of instruction with appeal to children’s searching for sense
and personal profitablity in general and in reading as well, can be aslo the
“reading pact performance”. This conception works by analogy to RWCT (reading
and writing to critical thinking) method called “study pact performance”
(Grecmanová, Urbanovská, Novotný, 2000). Literary learners
togerther with their teacher draw up a project of reading schedule and learners
decide about the sequence of goals and time rate for their observance. The
basic sense so conceived work with reading is to teach young people
responsibility for their own reading development.
What
it means to be a reader in the 21st century, and what the teaching
of reading looks like or might look like in light of changing times and
changing notions of literacy? In this paper we wanted to sum up some research
outcomes about special didactic ways of teaching reading in relation to
“reading meaning” for young people and their teachers (or largeer society as
well).
Presented
teaching and training forms and methods usable in literary class-work need also
well disposed teachers – expert readers and expert partners. The teacher has to
know his pupils well as readers, but primary he has to be able to find,
understand and apply the children’s reading researches otucomes into his work.
Confronting literacy teachers, reading teachers and researchers brings new
opportunities and possibilities for the field.
Only
this seems to be the best way how to learn literacy and reading in new times.
References
BEAN, T., HARPER, H.
Literacy education in New Times: In These Times. In Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy. 52 (1), september 2008, pp. 4 – 6. ISSN 1081-3004.
GRECMANOVÁ, H.,
URBANOVSKÁ, E., NOVOTNÝ, P. Podporujeme
aktivní učení a samostatné myšlení
žáků. Olomouc : Hanex, 2000. 159 s. ISBN 80-8578-328-2.
HOMOLOVÁ, K.
Čtenářství pubescenta v jeho subjektivním
pohledu. In Svět výchovy a vzdělávání
v reflexi pedagogického výzkumu. České
Budějovice : JČU, 2007. ISBN 978-80-7394-061-4. s. 223 – 232.
KALHOUS, Z., OBST, O. a
kol. Školní didaktika. Praha : Portál, 2002. 448 s.
ISBN 80-7178-253-X.
LEDERBUCHOVÁ, L. Dítě
a kniha : o čtenářství jedenáctiletých.
Plzeň : Aleš Čeněk, 2004. 179 s. ISBN 80-86898-01-6.
MOON, B., BROWN, S.,
BEN-PERETZ, M. Routledge International Companion to Education.
London/New York : Routledge, 2000. 1006 p. ISBN 0-415-11814-X.
PETTY, G. Moderní
vyučování. 2. vyd. Praha : Portál, 2002. 380 s.
ISBN 80-7178-681-0.
PIKE, G., SELBY, D. Global
teacher, global learner. London : Hodder & Stoughton,
1988. 312 s. ISBN 0-340-40261-X.
PRŮCHA, J.,
WALTEROVÁ, E., MAREŠ, J. Pedagogický slovník.
3. rozš. a aktualiz. vyd. Praha : Portál, 2001. 328 s. ISBN
80-7178-579-2.
SCAVIN, R. E. Educational
Psychology : Theory and Practice. 6th ed. Allyn & Bacon, 2000.
596 p. ISBN 0-205-59570-4.
SKALKOVÁ, J. Obecná
didaktika. 2. rozš. a aktualiz. vyd. Praha : Grada Publishing a. s.,
2007. 328 s. ISBN 978-80-247-1821-7.
VALIŠOVÁ,
A., KASÍKOVÁ, H. a kol. Pedagogika pro učitele. Praha
: Grada Publishing a.s., 2007. 404 s. ISBN 978-80-247-1734-0.
PhDr. Kateřina
Homolová, Ph.D.
Department of Czech
language and Literature with Didactics
Pedagogical faculty,
University of Ostrava
Mlýnská 5
70103 Ostrava
Czech Republic