The major
difference between a skills approach to literacy and a comprehensive approach
to literacy is the priorities set within each approach.
From what I
read, it seems that in a skills approach, the top priority is just identifying
out the letters and words. What are the letters? What are the sounds of each of
these letters? What do they sound like when I put them together? The book
states that the ‘skills approach starts with the smallest pieces of language
and works “upward.”’ Constructing meaning comes last in this kind of approach
to literacy. It is important for a child to simply identify a letter or group
of letters. As far as writing, teachers focus on the accuracy of the letters
and words a child is writing. Neatness and correct spelling should be mastered
before moving on to larger words or actual sentences.
In a
comprehensive approach, constructing meaning is the top priority. It is
important for a child to attach meaning to a word rather than just identifying
it. They should constantly be attaching meaning to letters and words as they
learn them, in this particular approach. Teachers will use age appropriate
books and texts for children in this approach in order for them to gain meaning
from the books and texts. As the child learns more, the texts will require more
knowledge to pull from. As long as a child can pull meaning from something they
have written, it is okay. A child does not necessarily have to spell a word
correctly in order for this approach to “work.” Constructing meaning is the
ultimate goal of this approach.
I found
this chapter to be very interesting because I had never really thought of how
you approach reading. It was just a natural process that I learned years ago
and enjoy doing today. I’m not sure if there is a right or wrong approach or if
there can be a happy medium. I would like to think that I go for the more
comprehensive approach. I say this because when I am reading, I sometimes have
to read a sentence or paragraph more than a few times in order to truly
understand what the author is trying to say.
Callan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about there not being a right or wrong process to approach reading. I think all approaches are proved to be effective, but I think we should evaluate the learning styles of our students. For example, the comprehensive approach may work better if they have developed certain schemas prior to reading, then they could break it up to the bits and pieces to aid in the reading process.
I also believe in surrounding children with a broad reading spectrum. I think that providing them with different genres they may discover on their own what peaks his or her own interests. By finding books that peak their interests they will also become involved in the reading process, and will soon become avid readers. I think that it is our job as teachers to teach our students the skills to read, but also skills good readers have in order to pick out the ideal read for themselves.
I agree with your thoughts about a comprehensive approach. I too have to re-read or reflect on a certain part of a story at times to really understand the meaning. I think reflection and re-reading is a valuable skill to teach students that they can use in many different subjects. I found this reading interesting as well because you realize the many different methods of teaching and as a recent graduate like myself, it is hard to know which method is the best. However, I feel as though if you are helping the children become interested in the story, teaching them valuable skills to become a fluent reader, then as a teacher you are doing your job.
ReplyDeleteI like how you structured your response around the concept of priority. When viewing the difference between the two approaches like this, it almost seems silly to utilize strictly a skills approach. When comparing the priority of identifying letters and words as opposed to making meaning out of the text, it seems clear that the latter is the better choice.
ReplyDeleteI think the shift from a skills approach to a comprehensive approach really exemplifies how the research pendulum swings over the decades. I have no doubt that at the height of popularity of the skills approach, researchers and practitioners were looking back on what had dominated the field before it and wondering how they ever supported any theory/process/approach besides the skills approach. This seems to be the same today with the comprehensive approach. It really makes me wonder what will dominate the field in thirty, twenty, or even ten years?
I also agree with your statement that the idea of really articulating how we learn to read is a foreign concept. I think this ultimately stems from the fact that we both had positive experiences with reading and you probably had a supportive environment and family to encourage you. Sometimes I think we only really think about specific concepts discretely when we struggle with them; but when we’re comfortable with the content or skills along the way, we brush over the little details that struggling readers have to deal with every day. Maybe a comprehensive approach will give struggling readers more confidence, though, since it is concerned less with discrete elements of reading and more with the overall meaning gained from the text.