Years ago, Steve Allen hosted and moderated a terrific television show titled Meeting of Minds
. Steve resurrected some of the greatest thinkers from different eras to discuss a wide range of ideas and issues. I thought I’d use this format to tackle the subject of independent reading in the classroom. I’m sure I’ve managed to set up a few straw men, but here goes…
: The subject of independent reading in the classroom certainly provokes passionate advocates, as well as assorted debunkers.
Yes, we can’t really see the subject as it is, but we can see it as a reflection of educators’ presuppositions regarding the purpose of education.
Right you are. Many are they who assume that teachers should be inculcators of knowledge and skills. Others are they who assume that teachers should be provokers of unfettered thought.
It’s time to get out of your cave and off your planet. It’s the how
, not the why
Okay, Jack. Let’s discuss the how
. Some teachers assign novels for independent reading; others insist upon free choice of reading materials. Some teachers assign written response and/or assign grades; others do not.
Yes, only in the act of freely choosing is one’s humanness truly affirmed. Any procedure designed to produce accountability, such as response journals or grades are counterproductive and coercive.
Scientology is the answer.
Um, okay... We are talking about empty vessels here. Students do not know what they do not know. It is the teacher’s job to manipulate what and how students should read. For example, The Republic
stimulates the mind far better than that trashy Twilight or that manga pulp. Most of our students are not philosopher-kings. They will simply stare at pages and live within their dreams, if the teacher does not demand accountability and guide them in their choices.
Accountability in class takes time away from exploration. If independent reading is the purpose, what better method is there than free-choice reading itself?
Balance is the answer. Of the force, two sides there are. Freedom and responsibility students must learn. Happy and motivated must they be.
It’s the have-to that turns students off to reading. If teachers were really being consistent in their educational philosophies, they would let students choose to read or choose not to read.
That would be anarchy-mob rule. We need good readers to maintain freedom and democracy. Force-feeding serves a utilitarian purpose. We are a connected community, not individual islands. If students practice reading the classics, they will learn to appreciate their value and be motivated to become life-long readers. Reading has intrinsic worth and attractiveness.
Certainly true from the perspective of an English teacher. However, many children and adults are happy without reading.
I am happy without reading. Happiness is Scientology.
Happiness is highly overrated. Who has a better life perspective, here—the teacher or the student? Even though most children hate vegetables, they should still eat them. Vegetables are important for future development. Students don’t have to like books to benefit from them. It’s the doing that is important. The present attitudes of children are largely irrelevant in the developmental scheme of things. Most children choose to eat the same vegetables as adults that they were forced to eat as children. Attitudes can and do change; impoverished reading skills rarely do so. Only one in six below-grade-level readers in middle school ever catch up to grade-level reading.
Books they don’t like and books they do like, students must read. Very important is teacher judgment, I see.
So, less than complete freedom now could produce more freedom later. The more reading skills that are mastered now, even at the expense of student choice, the more options will be available to free-choosing adults.
To view the rest of the debate, which includes the issues of teacher modeling and reading at home, see Meeting of the Minds