[Xmca-l] Re: A Question about Reading and Motivation

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Bill --

For a different critique of the Whole Language approach of earlier decades
in which the authors
were not smitten with bottom up phonics approaches either, see
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf
mike


On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Bill Kerr <billkerr@gmail.com> wrote:

> The evidence suggests that whole language or "balanced" teaching of early
> reading does not work very well (for many, not all) and that "direct,
> intensive, systematic, early, and comprehensive (DISEC) instruction, of a
> prearranged hierarchy of discrete reading skills (particularly, how to
> apply phonics information to recognize written words), is the most
> effective beginning reading tuition".
>
> See
> http://www.nrrf.org/review_moats_5-01.htm (Groff reviewing Moats)
> and
> http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED449465.pdf (Moats)
>
> Patrick Groff (from the first reference):
>
> Moats implies that a large number of educators were besmitten by
> progressive education ideals before the appearance of WL in the 1970s. Why
> else was it that educators since the 1970s have "rushed to embrace" WL? It
> is "a set of [scientifically] unfounded ideas and practices, without any
> evidence [on hand] that children would learn to read better, earlier, or in
> greater numbers" through it than before. In their "love affair with whole
> language," progressive educators unsurprisingly "were easily persuaded"
> that scientific data "had little to offer them" regarding reading
> instruction. As a result, reading "skill building and skill instruction"
> were readily cast aside by progressive-minded teachers as "boring,
> isolated, meaningless, and dreadful" practices.
>
> It appears Moats suggests that teachers, education professors, school
> officials, and state departments of education largely remain progressive in
> their outlook on reading instruction, i.e., are opposed ideologically to
> DISEC reading teaching.
>
>
> Similar arguments have been advanced by Australian educators who have
> worked many years with poor readers, eg. Kevin and Robyn Wheldall and their
> MULTILIT programme.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:09 PM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > In thinking about the relationship between socialization and identity, I
> > find it useful to distinguish between two distinct notions of
> > socialization: spontaneous enculturation into a unitary cultural milieu,
> > and deliberate acculturation into a subculture whose practices are
> > distinctive among a range of other subcultures'.
> >
> > The social psychology of personal space, or proxemics (Hall, 1966; Li,
> > 2001), provides a clear example of the former. Proxemics is the tendency
> > for members of a national culture to draw specific perimeters around
> their
> > physical bodies for various social purposes. For example, natives of
> France
> > tend to prefer closer physical proximity for conversation than do
> Americans
> > (Remland, Jones, & Brinkman, 1991). What is interesting about proxemic
> > practices (and enculturation, more generally) is that they are acquired
> > without volition or conscious awareness through enmeshment in a cultural
> > environment (Parsons, 1951). Indeed, as Omar (2010) explains, for
> cultural
> > norms to be "normative" they have to be unconscious:
> >
> > "Parsons defined 'internalization' as 'unconscious introjection' which
> > meant that if an actor was socialized into a norm, then the actor was
> > unconscious of how that norm determined her conduct. In essence, the
> > Parsonian socialized actor cannot take norms as an object of reflexive
> > consideration and strategization, for if that were the case then the norm
> > would lose its status as 'normative' and would become just another
> > instrumental resource for action."
> >
> > The counterpart to spontaneous processes of enculturation into an
> > enveloping culture, is an individual's deliberate adaptation to a
> > subculture through emulation of its distinctive practices. For obvious
> > reasons, acculturation is the more salient process, and historically was
> > identified much earlier (Powell, 1883). Indeed, we might not be aware of
> > proxemic practices at all, if not for crosscultural experience and
> > scholarship. But by the same token, we probably should assume that
> > enculturation is a ubiquitous aspect of cultural participation. Even in
> > cases when one actively seeks membership in a subculture through
> > acculturationist strategies, enculturation is the more basic processes; a
> > culture is comprised of innumerable cultural practices of which only a
> > limited number can be addressed through conscious strategies of
> > acculturation.
> >
> > For a practice like reading, it can be difficult to parse where
> > enculturation leaves off and acculturation begins. Literacy, obviously,
> is
> > an important subcultural marker of certain social classes. As such,
> > practices of reading can be undertaken as a strategy of acculturation.
> Even
> > within a household, a child may see literacy as a means of projecting
> > oneself into the subculture of adulthood over one's current identity as a
> > child (am I pushing the notion of subculture too far?). On the other
> hand,
> > at a more fine-grained level of analysis, there may be a wide variety of
> > culturally specific manners of reading that are not consciously
> recognized
> > as subcultural markers, and hence absorbed spontaneously through
> > enculturation.
> >
> > David
> >
> > Hall, E. T. (1966) The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
> >
> > Li, S. (2001). How close is too close?: A comparison of proxemic
> reactions
> > of Singaporean Chinese to male intruders of four ethnicities. Perceptual
> > and Motor Skills, 93, 124-126.
> >
> > Omar (2010, January 16). Is your (institutional) theory "Parsonian"? A
> > technical criterion. Orgtheory.net.
> >
> > Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
> >
> > Powell, J. W. (1883). Human evolution: Annual address of the President,
> J.
> > W. Powell, Delivered November 6, 1883. Transactions of the
> Anthropological
> > Society of Washington, 2, 176-208.
> >
> > Remland, M.S., Jones, T. S., & Brinkman, H. (1991). Proxemic and haptic
> > behavior in three European countries. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
> 15(4),
> > 215-232.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:41 PM
> > To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A Question about Reading and Motivation
> >
> > Andy,
> >
> > I have wondered if in a culture where hunting with bows and arrows is
> > valued, the child grows ups motivated to be skilled with using a bow. Is
> > the motivation *learning to read* the identification of wanting to be
> like
> > the others who participate in your world.
> > In our culture, [especially within schools], if reading is the way people
> > participate in sharing narrative than this MODE of communication is
> valued.
> > Is identification with doing what others are doing a motivation?
> >
> > Beginning reading activity is a form of collaboration. As you mentioned,
> > collaboration may be master/slave, producer/consumer, or collaboration
> per
> > se. However, the activity *learning to read* can be displayed in all
> three
> > types of collaboration. The motivation is identification WITH ...??? in
> all
> > 3 types of collaboration.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> > > So what this leads to is that my earlier formulation of motivations
> > > for reading which can create the conditions for someone to "learn to
> > > read" has to be generalised. And I guess that different "interests" or
> > > "pleasures" to be had from reading can be used to make an effective
> > motive for reading.
> > > But I am trying to put my finger on the differene between offering a
> > > "reward" for reading and the object which turns out to be attainable
> > > essentially only through reading, be that the satisfaction of solving
> > > an integral equation, or the joy of entering Jane Austen's world or
> > > simply being able to read what everyone is talking about. Does this
> > > mean that the teacher's task is to somehow allow the learner, with
> > > assistance, to get a taste of that object, whichever it is that turns
> on
> > this reader?
> > >
> > >
> > > Andy
> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> > > ------------
> > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > >
> > >
> > > mike cole wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yes, once one learns to read for meaning in Dewey's sense, and mine,
> > >> marvelous things may result.
> > >>
> > >> The acquisition of reading, however, is not governed by phylogenetic
> > >> constraints in the same way that the acquisition of oral/sign language
> > is.
> > >> It is a cultural-historically developed mode of mediated meaning
> making.
> > >> With few exceptions, it requires literate others to arrange for it to
> > >> happen.
> > >>
> > >> Consequently, getting there through the meat grinder of modern
> > >> schooling, is a continuing issue. As is the notion of the violence of
> > >> literacy.
> > >>
> > >> mike
> > >> (The Dickens freak)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:
> > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>     Thank you Michael! It is always such a wonderful thing when
> > >>     someone reveals to you what was before your eyes but you didn't
> > >>     see! I had to put down a novel to read your message. I think I
> > >>     take "the world" to be inclusive of imaginative world evoked by a
> > >>     text, and suddenly, yes, I can see that youngsters generally read
> > >>     lots of fiction and if they enjoy it, that is a royal road to
> > >>     becoming a reader - even though, in a sense, the printed words
> > >>     disappear under their gaze as they evoke that imaginary world. I
> > >>     also think the social motivations are broadly covered by my
> > >>     initial very 'utilitarian' view of the object of reading. But what
> > >>     you describe as "the intellectual pleasure of figuring something
> > >>     out," which I guess is one of the things that used to motivate me
> > >>     at school with maths, and that is something else! Thank you. The
> > >>     world is always richer than what one at first thought, isn't it?
> > >>     Andy
> > >>     ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> > >> ------------
> > >>     *Andy Blunden*
> > >>     http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/**>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>     MICHAEL W SMITH wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>         A colleague and I just completed a study of the nature and
> > >>         variety of pleasure adolescents take from their out-of-school
> > >>         reading that draws on Dewey's delineation of four kinds of
> > >>         educative interest in /Interest and Effort in Education.  /One
> > >>         kind of pleasure we identified is what we call work pleasure
> > >>         in which readers use a text as a tool to accomplish some other
> > >>         end. That's the kind of pleasure that Andy seems to be talking
> > >>         about when he writes about someone's struggling to read a
> > >>         philosophical text to get something out of it that could then
> > >>         be usefully employed in some other context. But there are
> > >>         other kinds of pleasure.  As Dewey explains "There are cases
> > >>         where action is direct and immediate. It puts itself forth
> > >>         with no thought of anything beyond. It satisfies in and of
> > >>         itself. The end is the present activity, and so there is no
> > >>         gap in the mind between means and end. All play is of this
> > >>         immediate character."  Readers experience the pleasure of play
> > >>         when they read narratives to immerse themselves in a story
> > >>         world.  What matters to them is the pleasure they get from
> > >>         living through the experiences of characters in the here and
> > >>         now not what they can accomplish as a consequence of their
> > >>         reading at some future time. Another kind of pleasure is
> > >>         intellectual pleasure.  Dewey explains that "instead of
> > >>         thinking things out and discovering them for the sake of the
> > >>         successful achievement of an activity (work pleasure)," we may
> > >>         institute an activity for the intellectual pleasure of
> > >>         figuring something out.  An example would be reading to
> > >>         unravel the complexities of poem as an end in itself.  Finally
> > >>         there are social pleasures in reading.  People read to
> > >>         affiliate with others.  That seems to me to be a kind of
> > >>         pleasure people on this listserv take.  Or people read to mark
> > >>         their place in the world.  They do a kind of identity work by
> > >>         using their reading to assert their difference from others.
> > >>          One of the informants in our study avoided reading the books
> > >>         that were most popular among her friends and instead read what
> > >>         she called dark fiction. That reading was an important part of
> > >>         how she understood herself.  As she said "I'm weird in the way
> > >>         that [I don't have] inhibitions like most people. I can read
> > >>         dark fiction and not be disturbed by it."  I'd argue that
> > >>         teachers are most likely to foster motivation to read by
> > >>         creating contexts in which students can experience all four
> > >>         kinds of pleasure.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>         On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:43 AM, rjsp2
> > >>         <r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk
> > >> <mailto:r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.**uk<r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk>
> > >> >
> > >>         <mailto:r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.**uk <r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk>
> > >>
> > >>         <mailto:r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.**uk
> > >> <r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk>>>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>             The first thing I thought on reading "assistance is given
> > >>         to kids to
> > >>
> > >>             read in order to find out something they want to know
> > >>         about the world"
> > >>             was "This is basic Freire".  Adult literacy had the same
> > >>         problem of
> > >>             meaningless texts till Freire came along and started
> > >>         teaching them
> > >>             about
> > >>             things that mattered to them. It also made me reflect on
> > >>         the idea of
> > >>             motive, whihc has for a long time been a question I have
> > been
> > >>             intending
> > >>             to examine "when I have time".  When I met the activity
> > >>         triangle,
> > >>             one of
> > >>             the most obvious issues about it was that it contains no
> > >>         separate
> > >>             place
> > >>             for motive. After a while that seemed logical because the
> > >>         motive
> > >>             was in
> > >>             the object, and maybe one of our difficulties is that we
> > >>         separate
> > >>             motive
> > >>             out from object in order to understand it better, and then
> > >>         forget
> > >>             to put
> > >>             it back in again.
> > >>
> > >>             Children are just like people, they do need a reason to do
> > >>         things.
> > >>             I've
> > >>             always been puzzled by the idea of andragogy, the
> > >>         suggestion that
> > >>             adults
> > >>             learn differently from children. Proponents usually list
> > >>         several
> > >>             reasons
> > >>             which usually make no sense to me. One of the reasons
> > >>         usually given is
> > >>             that adults need to know why they are doing something, the
> > >>         unspoken
> > >>             contrast being presumably that children happily do what
> > >>         they're told.
> > >>             The kind of research you refer to here, Andy, suggests
> that
> > >>             children do
> > >>             need to know why they are doing something, but lack the
> > >>         power to
> > >>             say so.
> > >>             Hence, I think, a lot of the problems evident in our UK
> > >>         schooling
> > >>             system
> > >>             (lots of great schools, in my opinion, dreadful
> > >>         educational policies
> > >>             dictate that children are machined through exams in order
> > >>         to maintain
> > >>             the school's place in the league table. So there is a
> > >>         reason why the
> > >>             children do what they do, it is just not relevant to the
> > >>         child.)
> > >>
> > >>             Rob
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>             On 28/08/2013 08:27, Andy Blunden wrote:
> > >>
> > >>                 Re: Peg Griffin -
> > >>                        http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/**
> > >> xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00530.**html<
> > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00530.html>
> > >>                 and Peg and Mike et al:
> > >>
> > >> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/**NEWTECHN.pdf<http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Peopl
> > >> e/NEWTECHN.pdf>
> > >>
> > >>                 The first article sets up a scenario in 5thD where
> kids
> > >>                 "sneak" a look
> > >>                 at piece of writing in order to find an answer to a
> > >>         current
> > >>                 affairs
> > >>                 question. As opposed to telling the kids to read a
> > >>         text and
> > >>                 then (for
> > >>                 example) testing them on it.
> > >>                 The second talks about "reading for meaning" where
> > >>         assistance
> > >>                 is given
> > >>                 to kids to read in order to find out something they
> > >>         want to
> > >>                 know about
> > >>                 the world. As opposed to decoding "Jack and Jill"
> > stories
> > >>                 containing
> > >>                 nothing of interest to them at all (and actually
> > >>         humiliating).
> > >>
> > >>                 I am trying to get my head around the issue of the
> > >>         motivation
> > >>                 which
> > >>                 the teachers are trying to engender in the child which
> > >>         facilitates
> > >>                 learning to read.
> > >>
> > >>                 Following A N Leontyev, Peg talks about the "merely
> > >>                 understood" motive
> > >>                 for the child "to be a productive, informed, literate
> > >>         citizen"
> > >>                 which
> > >>                 is what the education system is supposed to be doing.
> > >>         Peg says
> > >>                 this
> > >>                 motive was "in the social interactions and ready to
> > >>         replace the
> > >>                 'really effective' motives that got the kid to come
> > >>         to/put up
> > >>                 with our
> > >>                 reading group." ... *in the social interactions*!
> > >>
> > >>                 Generally speaking I think there is no doubt that the
> > >>         distinction
> > >>                 between "really effective" and "merely understood"
> > >>         motives is
> > >>                 valid,
> > >>                 and that in general children who have difficulty in
> > >>         reading,
> > >>                 read only
> > >>                 for "effective" but "external" motives which do not
> > >>         succeed in
> > >>                 them
> > >>                 learning to read effectively. Further, the task of the
> > >>         teacher
> > >>                 may be
> > >>                 or may be supposed to be to get the child to learn to
> > >>         read so
> > >>                 as "to
> > >>                 be a productive, informed, literate citizen." This
> > >>         objective is
> > >>                 somewhere in the complex of motives underlying a
> > teacher's
> > >>                 motives,
> > >>                 certainly in 5thD, but I suspect often a "merely
> > >>         understood"
> > >>                 motive
> > >>                 for many teachers, alongside earning a wage for their
> > >>         own family,
> > >>                 having a quiet day and the kids getting good test
> > >>         scores, etc.
> > >>
> > >>                 But I question whether it is *ever* the child's motive
> > >>         "to be a
> > >>                 productive, informed, literate citizen." This may be
> > >>         an "internal
> > >>                 reward" for learning to read, but not for learning to
> > >>         read any
> > >>                 particular text or even a particular type of text.
> > >>
> > >>                 Would this explanation make sense: Learning to read is
> > >>         like
> > >>                 happiness.
> > >>                 It does not generally arise through being the
> > >>         motivation of the
> > >>                 activity which produces it. People learn to read as a
> > >>         byproduct of
> > >>                 struggling to get something they want out of
> > >>         particular texts. And
> > >>                 this applies to adults as much as children. I think
> > >>         people can
> > >>                 only
> > >>                 learn to read philosophy if they are struggling to get
> > >>                 something out
> > >>                 of a book on philosophy (other than pass the exam or
> > >>         acquire
> > >>                 an air of
> > >>                 erudition). In Peg's email message we learn that the
> > kids
> > >>                 jumped on
> > >>                 the newspaper article to extract information they
> > >>         wanted in
> > >>                 (what they
> > >>                 took to be) /another/ task. In the QAR story, adults
> > >>         mediate kids'
> > >>                 relation to a text which is in turn mediating their
> > >>         real and
> > >>                 meaningful relation to the world. (I think if a kid is
> > >>                 strongly enough
> > >>                 motivated to pass a reading test, and assisted, they
> > >>         will usually
> > >>                 manage to learn to read, but it is for those for whom
> > >>         this doesn't
> > >>                 work that the issue arises, isn't it?)
> > >>
> > >>                 But in general I think it is neither necessary nor
> > >>         likely that
> > >>                 a child
> > >>                 has their eye on becoming a literate citizen when they
> > >>                 struggle with a
> > >>                 text and learn to read in the process. Isn't it always
> > >>         more
> > >>                 proximate
> > >>                 motives? The "internal" reward in reading a particular
> > >>         text is the
> > >>                 particular content of that text, not actually anything
> > >>         to do with
> > >>                 books, or texts, or reading or citizenship.
> > >>
> > >>                 I know there are dozens of experts in literacy
> > >>         education out
> > >>                 there, so
> > >>                 please help me.
> > >>
> > >>                 Andy
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>             -- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter
> (RC
> > >>             000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a
> charity
> > >>             registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>         --         Michael W. Smith
> > >>         Professor and Chair
> > >>         Department of Teaching and Learning
> > >>         Temple University
> > >>         College of Education
> > >>         351 Ritter Hall
> > >>         1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue
> > >>         Philadelphia, PA 19122
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>