Reflections on Recent Reading Research

Reflections on Recent Reading Research

by Jay Howard

In the past year, two reports on reading warranted close attention when they appeared in my mailbox. Each examines a different aspect of literacy, and both may have some implications for reading instruction at the College.

The monograph from the National Endowment for the Arts, “Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America” appeared last June. The title echoes the 1983 report “A Nation at Risk” which called for a reform of our educational system to maintain economic superiority. For “Reading at Risk,” the NEA interviewed over 17,000 adults and presented the findings as what the chairman called “a detailed but bleak assessment of the decline of reading’s role in the nation’s culture” (vii). This evaluation was warranted since, according to the report, reading of literary works, such as novels short stories, plays, poems, has declined over the past few years. When the respondents were separated into groups based on education, those in the category “some college” showed the largest percentage of change in the past 20 years (1982-2002) (xi). (Community college students would be included in the “some college” category.) Only about half (51.1%) of the “some college” readers read novels or short stories, 14.3% read poetry, 3.9% read plays (17). The survey also asked about other ways to enjoy literature, and 9.7% of this group listened to novels or other books, 7.3% listened to poetry (18) and 9.1% did some creative writing (19).

While the overall status of literary reading was dismal, these data might give us some standards by which to assess our own outcomes and evaluate the selection of reading materials. It seems that plays are often selected as reading materials in English 089 and 099, but less poetry is read. If reading improvement courses use literary materials in class, should the courses favor the students’ predilections or should they challenge them? If one purpose of a reading development course is to expand the student’s awareness, then perhaps a play would accomplish that goal since so few readers indicated that they read plays on their own. More people admit to reading poetry; however, poetry seems to be taught very infrequently, despite its popularity. When reading the survey results more closely, listening to poetry was most popular among African Americans (18), but where does oral reading fit into a college course?

In “Postsecondary education and some dimensions of literacy development: An exploration of longitudinal evidence” from the fall issue of Reading Research Quarterly, Gayle Babbit Bray, Ernest T. Pascarella, and Christopher T. Pierson investigated over 1,000 students in 18 colleges and universities in order to identify “the individual characteristics and college experiences that were associated with students’ growth in reading comprehension and positive attitudes towards literacy activities” during three years of college (317). Even though community colleges were not included in the study, the plan of the study and an analysis of the outcomes might offer some insights worth considering.

The number of participants and the factors which the authors investigated produced an extensive list of variables affecting reading comprehension. Some of these variables were related to enrollment in college, and one that had a positive outcome was effective instruction. “Although students’ perception that they were receiving effective (clear and well-organized) instruction was a predictor of growth in comprehension…, it was an even more potent predictor for men and those who began college with low reading scores” (326). While it is not surprising that instruction affected reading, it could be significant that a population who is underachieving at community colleges—young males with low reading scores—benefited the most from having the best prepared and trained instructors. Good instruction is difficult to assess; however, the article listed some effective practices, including teaching study strategies and using content maps to show the relationships between ideas.

Not surprising, the amount of assigned reading improved the students reading comprehension. On the other hand, it was found that the amount of required writing did not necessarily improve reading for all students. “In our sample, amount of writing was related to growth in reading comprehension only for students who began college as above-average readers” (326). An explanation is not given, but perhaps the developmental student finds it difficult to work simultaneously on improving reading and improving writing. If this is true, do our clustered reading/writing courses help or hinder our students?

Both of these reports were based to a large extent on self-evaluations. Some of the questions and areas of interest could also be investigated at the College. It might be worthwhile to assess students’ attitudes towards reading and their reading habits both when they begin their studies and later, after they have completed courses.

References

Bray, G. B., E. T. Pascarella, & C. T Pierson. Postsecondary education and some dimensions of literacy development: An exploration of longitudinal evidence. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 3 July/August/September 2004, 306-311