Catching Readers Before They Fall by Pat Johnson and Katie Keier does an excellent job of providing ideas and insight for early childhood and elementary teachers in the trenches, trying valiantly to ensure that all students are successful readers. It's an incredibly informative book--I highly recommend it.
There's just one point that I am unclear about: who are the struggling readers and how do we identify them? Where is the fine line drawn between a child labeled a "hardest-to-teach" student, and a child who is not yet ready for formal reading instruction? Catching Readers appears to take the stance that all children are ready for instruction. In their chapter about Vygotskian theory, a distinction is made between Piaget's belief in stages of child development and Vygotsky's idea that what a child can't learn alone, he can learn from an experienced other. Catching Readers uses David Wood's 1998 study of mothers teaching their toddlers complex puzzle construction to illustrate Vygotsky's theory. While the three-year-olds couldn't assemble the block pyramid independently (in fact, the study says that this activity could not be performed by children under seven), they could complete the puzzle with support from attentive mothers.
Can this example be applied to reading instruction? Should it be? The children in Wood's study would eventually be able to assemble the puzzles when they reach the developmentally appropriate age for the activity (8+). What benefit do they receive from assembling the puzzle at a much earlier age? Likewise, with the push for reading instruction coming earlier and earlier (see: Your Baby Can Read), how do our children benefit from literacy instruction at age three--or younger? Conversely, is it really so detrimental to them if formal reading instruction is introduced in kindergarten or first grade?
In the case of early childhood, are we catching readers before they fall? Or are we catching readers before they're ready? When are struggling readers simply reflecting expectations that are out of touch with developmental appropriateness?
I think that's an interesting point you bring up. I guess I would say that there are standards that have been created about what is to be expected of kindergarteners and first graders in regards to their reading ability, and presumably those that fall far behind those standards are the ones regarded as the "hardest-to-teach" students.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, it does seem like there is a sort of arms race going on amongst some parents to teach children as much as possible as early as possible. Some parents are trying to teach their small children English and Mandarin so that they can be competitive and get into the best elementary schools, highs schools, and eventually colleges. While I understand taking advantage of the sponge-like minds children have at a young age, particularly for language, it does seem like a bit of undue pressure to put on such young children.
Anecdotally, I've heard that, in the past, the real push for teaching reading took place in 1st grade, whereas now I think there is much more pressure to be reading and writing by the end of kindergarten and enter 1st grade already reading. If in fact the goalposts have been moved, then it is unfortunate for children who are still progressing along a traditional development timeline, and are consequently seen as struggling or having fallen behind. I don't think that sort of assignation is necessarily a positive thing.
I had the same reaction to the study about building with blocks. I don't think that study illustrates the same process as learning to read. The building exercise can be completed by simply mimicking the motions of the demonstrator. Reading, as the chapter points out in other places, is about making meaning. It would be impossible to read by just mimicking motions. I understand the point the text was making and I agree that demonstration is an important step in learning reading strategies, but I think I better example could have been used.
ReplyDelete