The Case for Literature-Based Reading Programmes - Essay Example

The Case for Literature-Based Reading Programmes at the Elementary School Level The importance of children's literature in reading programmes for elementary-aged children remains the subject of debate. On the one hand, many teachers and scholars believe that children's literature is an extraordinarily valuable part of the elementary-school curriculum. This view has been the dominant one over the past twenty years. Indeed, "The whole language and literature-based reading movements of the 1980s and 1990s fostered a burgeoning interest in children's literature, unlike any seen previously in elementary reading education" (Serafini, 2003, np). The publication of children's literature has increased substantially and its incorporation into reading programmes has also increased significantly (Harris, 1992). At the same time, there has been a simultaneous interest in literature-based reading instruction. Nonetheless, the importance and the usefulness of children's literature have been questioned. The nature of these attacks, however, seem to have less to do with the value of the instructional approaches and substantive materials than a preoccupation with preparing students for standardized tests and a stubborn adherence to traditional methods. Of particular concern is the use of children's literature as a means for teaching children how to decode information in order to perform better on standardized tests. This instructional method, without more, neglects the very purposes of literature-based reading instruction and renders the inclusion of children's literature in elementary reading programmes an almost tangential inclusion. The strict emphasis on decoding and on standardized testing, while of some relevance to literacy, is harming the very goals and usefulness of literature-based reading instruction. This essay will argue that the inclusion of children's literature is of fundamental importance to effective reading programmes at the elementary school level. To this end, it will discuss the theoretical bases of literature-based reading instruction, the benefits of children's literature, and suggest the four resource model of reading as the proper framework upon which to implement a literature-based reading program. Literature-Based Reading Instruction: Theoretical Foundations As a preliminary matter, it is essential to identify the theoretical foundations of literature-based reading instruction. This is because the mere inclusion of literature in a reading programme, without a corresponding shift in instructional methods, may defeat or diminish the very purposes of the programme. Serafini argues that in order for elementary teachers to implement a quality literature-based reading program and make a substantial shift in the way that children's literature is used in the curriculum, they must first make a parallel shift in the theoretical perspectives they use to ground their practice. Without this parallel shift, teachers may simply change the materials they use to teach reading, relegating children's literature to an instructional device in the service of higher test scores. In order to make a shift, however, one must first understand what the theoretical perspectives are and how they influence classroom practice (2003, np). The modernist approach to reading and literacy is a major obstacle to more comprehensive literature-based reading goals. This approach begins with the premise that the meaning of a text is located solely within that text. This is an extraordinarily limited and strict perception of reading. In short, there is one true meaning in the text and children are required to decipher or decode this meaning from the text. This type of reading perspective excludes an interactive approach to the text; more troubling, perhaps, is the fact that it subordinates rather completely the context in which the text is examined and enjoyed. This type of approach is typically implemented as part of a reading skills programme. Teachers teach students how to decode true meanings, students engage in analyses which exclude social contexts, and assessment tends to depend upon the extant to which the students are successful at decoding this true meaning. The implications of the modernist approach are significant. As a logical matter, true meanings can be assessed through literal recall. This doesn't require much thought. Nor does this approach demand a particularly inquisitive mind. Quite the contrary, this type of reading comprehension demands a very precise, inflexible type of thinking. There is no doubt that precision is a valuable skill. There is a great amount of doubt, however, about whether this type of reading and literacy approach is effective. It is a very exclusionary approach. Where children's literature is included in a modernist reading programme there is very little benefit. This is because the children's literature is treated in the same fundamental way as any other reading excerpt. It is decoded for true meaning. It is possessed of a singular, true meaning. In short, it offers nothing new or worthy for the elementary school student. Children's literature thus becomes diluted and a captive to the modernist's quest for absolute meaning. The transactional approach seeks meaning from a broader perspective. More particularly, meaning is derived from three sources. These sources are the individual reader, the text itself, and a particular context. It is the interplay of these three sources that generates meaning. Morrow and Gambrell describe this as "a two-way process that resides in the transaction that occurs between the reader and text wherein the reader constructs a personal envisionment of meaning that is guided by the text" (p. 565). The significance for elementary reading programmes is evident. The students are interacting with the text. They are able, in effect, to create meaning through their relationship with the text. There is no absolute meaning, as the modernists would argue, but a sort of personal meaning. The children are participants rather than mere bystanders. Instructional methods and assessment strategies diverge from the strictly modernist approach. Absent a true meaning, teachers are now able to participate with their students in interpreting the meaning of the text rather than dictating answers and truths. Small group discussions are possible. A community of readers begins to evolve and to supplant the text as the sole arbiter of meaning. Comprehension questions are used more to initiate discussions regarding meaning than the conclude discussions. The transactional method begins to take advantage of the opportunities offered by a literature-based reading programme. Elementary students can begin to interact with children's literature without being compelled to make absolute choices. They can put themselves in the shoes of the characters and consider how they might behave in similar circumstances. They can begin to understand the characters rather than simply reciting what happened and why. They can begin to rewrite the stories and thereby become, in an intellectual and emotional way, a very real part of the literature. The transactional approach offers far more opportunities for intellectual, emotional, and social growth than does the modernist approach. Critical literacy is an expansive approach to reading programmes. This approach seeks to find meaning in the ways in which the reader fits into contemporary society. The most significant point, consistent with the transactional approaches, is that there is no true meaning. Cervatti, et al summarize this approach to reading and to meaning by stating that "Critical theories of literacy have been greatly influenced by critical social theory's view that meanings are always contested (never givens), and are related to ongoing struggles in society for the possession of knowledge, power, status, and material resources" (2001). Knowledge of meaning is therefore dependent on the reader's understanding of larger social, cultural, historical, and political issues in relation to the text. While interesting and useful for older audiences, the critical literacy approach to reading programmes is a bit advanced for elementary school students. Indeed, it may confuse the search for meaning and the development of fundamental literacy skills. If the modernist approach is too narrow, then it must be conceded that that critical literacy approach may often prove too broad for elementary students. This is not to say that the critical approach is unworthy, it very well might be in small and carefully controlled doses, but that this approach risks making a literature-based reading programme for children too difficult and perhaps incomprehensible. From a theoretical perspective, therefore, a literature based reading programme ought to lean towards the transactional approaches to literacy. This is of particular importance at the elementary school level. Students are certainly able and willing to transact with the text. They are, perhaps, not so able to incorporate all of the relevant social, historical and political contexts in order to synthesize meaning. The Importance and the Implementation of a Literature-Based Reading Programme at the Elementary School Level Children's literature is valuable for several reasons. First, and sometimes a neglected point, is that children have different reading preferences and interests. The market place reacts to a sort of collective set of preferences and interests in terms of book sales, conversion of popular children's literature into movies, and the incorporation of successful children's literature into pop culture. Campbell and Green express astonishment at the fact, for instance, that weak and reluctant readers have sometimes read Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix multiple times despite its substantial length (734 pages) and its comparatively difficult plot (2006, pg. 125). The message is that even weak and reluctant readers may be able to improve their skills through the use of children's literature which appeals to their interests. This is hardly a minor point. In addition to generating a demonstrable interest in reading, research also shows that the proper use of children's literature can aid students in improving their analytical, social, and academic skills. Ash et. al. detail some the important benefits, such as increasing a knowledge of the world and certain text patterns, increasing the ability to identify specific literary devices, an increased recognition of and ability to shift between literary and non-literary registers, and an increased interest and willingness to incorporate these literacy skills into other subjects such as writing (1999). That a literature-based reading programme at the elementary school level provides important benefits is not, however, the troublesome issue. The difficulties are more involved with the effective implementation of the literature-based reading programme. The aforementioned goals can be defeated if instructional methods are not tailored to emphasise these benefits. There must be a shift of instructional methods and assessment if the literature-based reading programme is to have any substantial value. Simply including children's literature in a reading programme, without a shift in the underlying teaching methods, is largely worthless. The proper implementation of a literature-based reading programme must begin with an acceptance of three fundamental premises. First, quality children's literature should be selected. This quality children's literature ought to reflect the preferences and the interests of the students rather than of the teacher. This can be accomplished by asking the students what kinds of stories they like, what books they may have already read, or what they would like to read in class. Second, the instructional methods should be tailored to encourage and demand more of the students than simple literal recall or decoding. Rather, the instructional methods should incorporate an interactive and transactional approach to the text. Finally, a literature-based reading programme should strive to maximize and broaden literacies. More specifically, it should follow and employ the "four resource model of reading" developed by Freebody and Luke (1999). Freebody and Luke explain that "The model posits four necessary but not sufficient "roles" for the reader in a postmodern, text-based culture: Code breaker (coding competence), Meaning maker (semantic competence), Text user (pragmatic competence), and Text critic (critical competence)" (1999, np.). The significance of this framework, in reference to the reading theories mentioned above, is that it is an inclusive rather than inclusive framework for designing and implementing a reading programme. Decoding is not abandoned wholesale, but addresses as one particular type of lesson and skill. Meaning is not overly expansive; on the contrary, it is interactive and transactional in an individualistic way. This model also allows for critical theory. In particular, the four resource model of reading is flexible enough to allow teachers to present text in different places and different times without jeopardizing the larger issue of the text's relationship to contextual issues. In short, by applying the four resource model of reading to a children's literature based-reading programme, elementary school children can have the best opportunity to develop a broader set of literacy skills. The implication is that "single-method" types of reading programmes are undesirable. Indeed, Freebody and Luke states as their objectives in articulating and refining the four resource model of reading, We wanted to shift the focus from trying to find the right method to determining whether the range of practices emphasized in a reading program was indeed covering and integrating the broad repertoire of textual practices required in today's economies and cultures. The model could be more a map of the normative terrain of possible practices -- the "selective tradition" -- in any classroom. It would be drawn from understanding of a group of students' existing repertoires of linguistic, cultural, and textual practices, and from a sense of the kind of life trajectories that might be possible and relevant for those students (1999, np). It must be noted that the teacher assumes heightened responsibilities in the conception and the implementation of this type of reading programme. These responsibilities include an awareness of student interests and preferences, an awareness of multiple methods of reading instruction, and the ability to shift from one method to another in ways which maintain the transactional and interactive nature of the children's literature-based reading text. Campbell and Green demonstrate how a teacher can use the four resource model effectively. They begin with a teacher reading a story to the children. The code breaker skill can be taught by focusing on small excerpts, hopefully exciting, and having the students concentrate on how adjectives or verbs are used. The children can experience the power of these selected topics and see how they contribute to the larger text. The text participant role can be fulfilled in a variety of ways. The central question is how may children participate and thereby interact with the text. They may be asked to construct story maps of the plot in chronological order, to construct literary sociograms based on the characters, to create a storyboard that reflects their interpretation of the text, or to simply read and re-read the text themselves (pgs. 127-129). The text user is an active role, and can be taught by employing a variety of methods. Students might prepare a mock television broadcast of the text, about the text, or write a review or advertisement. Finally, the text analyst role can be taught by allowing children to reach different conclusions than what actually happens. Children might be shown instances of foreshadowing and asked to brainstorm and make predictions. They might be asked to read an excerpt and compose their own headlines and draw their own photographic representations. The four resource model of reading, with children's literature as a textual source, is significant benefit in the classroom. In the final analysis, the question is not so much whether the inclusion of children's literature in a reading programme is important. The question is whether it is implemented properly. There are very important benefits for students of all ages (Hanzl, 1993). That said, instructional methods should be tailored to ensure the maximum benefits for students. The four resource reading model is an excellent framework for implementing such a literature-based reading programme for elementary-aged school children. References Ash, G. E., Cullihan, B.E., & Galda, L. (1999). Research on Children's Literature. Reading Online. http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp Campbell, R., & Green, D. (2006). Literacies and Learners: Current Perspectives. Pearson Prentice Hall: Australia. Cervetti, G., Pardales, M.J., & Damico, J.S. (2001, April). A tale of differences: Comparing the traditions, perspectives, and educational goals of critical reading and critical literacy. Reading Online, 4(9). www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp Hanzl, A. (1993). Critical literacy and children's literature: Exploring the story of Aladdin. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 16(4), 84-89. Harris, V. (1992). Literature-based approaches to reading instruction. Review of Research in Education, 19, 269-297. Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1999). Further Notes on the Four Resources Model. Reading Online. http://www.readingonline.org/past/past_index.aspHREF=/research/lukefreebody.html Morrow, L.M., & Gambrell, L.B. (2000). Literature-based reading instruction. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 563-586). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Summary available: www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp Serafini, F. (2003, February). Informing our practice: Modernist, transactional, and critical perspectives on children's literature and reading instruction. Reading Online, 6(6). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.html Read More