Over at Edspresso, there has been a very interesting debate about Whole Language method of teaching reading versus Direct Instruction method of teaching reading. One of the things that the Whole Lifers brought up was the idea that their method developed in children "a love of reading." While I don't necessarily agree that it does, I think that perhaps this is a touchy-feely way of looking at teaching kids to read.
I honestly do not believe that everyone has to enjoy reading to be a good reader. When we think of those of us who love to read (and I am definitely one of those folks) we are talking about people who generally love to read fiction for pleasure. I'm sorry, but I don't think that everyone who doesn't read for pleasure is necessarily a bad reader.
I maintain that reading, like anything else, is something that some of us enjoy, while others would rather be doing something else, such as painting, or playing sports, or fishing. This does not mean that they are a "non-reader" and are therefore on the same level as someone who cannot read.
To me, when we insist that all children should enjoy reading and that is our primary goal, we are insisting on something that may not hold true for every child. Afterall, when we teach mathematics, do we insist that all children must love math? Let take a look at a statement that ruby over at Edspresso said:
A child who can read but doesn't is a non-reader and a child who can't read is a non-reader. Same result
Now, let's take out the word "read" with the words "do math."
A child who can do math but doesn't is a non-mathematician and a child who can't do math is a non-mathematician. Same result.
Does anyone else not see how absurd this line of reasoning is? I am someone who "can do math" but doesn't because I've never enjoyed math. Am I, therefore equal, to someone who cannot "do math" at all?
Now, I'll give you a personal case-study involving that man I've been married to for almost 21 years. He doesn't like to read in the traditional sense of reading. That is, he doesn't like to read fiction because to him, it's a waste of time. However, give him a magazine on coins, or cars, or wine, and he'll devour it. I do not think that he would say that reading is one of this favorite things to do because for him it is simply a way to gather information on something that he is interested in and then he wants to move on. Simply put, he doesn't have a love for literature that Whole Lifers seem to want all children to develop.
Posts
3 comments:
It has taken me a while to realize that Sage does not enjoy fiction. Even doing the minimum 15 minutes of "reading homework" every night has been a struggle. He does, however, enjoy nonfiction. He was reading a book about ants to me and went on for a full 45 minutes, with none of the usual fidgiting and complaining. Now if I could only find more books like that one on a second grade level!
I agree with what you are saying about some people not liking to read. I think what people are required to read in school is part of the problem. If it is not relevant to student interests or lives, many will not care to do it. I am always amazed at how many kids at my school will read the police report section of the paper...even the supposed "nonreaders".
I think boys especially suffer with the reading choices assigned in school.
My son will devour a comic book, or a book on war, soldiers, sharks, etc...
I agree, many good readers just arent into fiction or at least the school choices. That's why I think every once in a while it is good to take a break from the direct instruction I do and read a fiction book that I choose based on this current class's interests to read together for enjoyment.
Post a Comment