If kids don't/can't perform the behavior necessary to be successful in a class, teach them the behavior.
If kids aren't strong readers, they need more practice, not less.
I don't understand the author's problem with reading aloud books in class. If they've decided book discussions are of limited value and notice that students need to improve their vocabulary and fluency, having them reading aloud for thirty minutes every day sounds like a great use of time. There's even some research evidence that it is (The University of Sussex Faster Read studies). Besides, all the "hard"(?) reading and writing skills you want to teach kids to succeed on standardized tests are better taught within the consistent and rich semantic context of a novel, compared to rapidly changing excerpts and articles.
Of course, reading a lot of worthwhile informational texts is also important. Of course, memoir and essays have a place in English class. But if I was a history teacher I would be very confused why "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and Lincoln's inaugural are being stolen by my colleagues in the English department.
Agree with everything you wrote! (but I'm pretty sure the Sussex Faster Read study involved teachers reading aloud *to* their students, not the students themselves reading aloud).
Correction: Just learning more about it and sounds like the Faster Read approach can be a combo of teacher reading aloud, stronger student readers reading aloud and silent reading (of the same text). The key is that you go through 2 whole books back to back at a faster pace with the focus on comprehension, not analysis.
Yeah, that's been my experience with the various descriptions/studies of implementation. Not always clear who's reading, but it is definitely clear what the focus is.
Well, because they’re works of literature whose language is worth studying, that’s why.
I dearly wish the answer was “make them do their homework.” As I wrote, there are loads and loads of students who cannot be compelled to do their homework and who are perfectly fine settling for a D or C.
Why do you sneer at “hard” reading and writing skills? Effectively using a semi-colon is a “hard” writing skill, as is blending a source’s words with your own. Teachers teach these and students practice them. They don’t absorb them via osmosis.
I guess I'm not particularly surprised mediocre grades aren't reinforcing enough to change the behavior, especially when so many peers have mediocre grades that it's just a social norm. If a reinforcement doesn't work, change the reinforcement. If the class/school culture makes it normal to ignore the teacher's directions, change the culture.
I'm not sure about what exactly constitutes a "hard" skill or an easy (soft?) one, but I'm nevertheless uncertain how wise it is to prioritize instructional time for semicolon usage before the ability to independently read grade-level texts. Of course, it's not an either/or decision; that's just how you've framed it. Essentially: "We can't spend time reading books because the kids can't use semicolons."
Fundamentally, I guess I don't understand if your argument is that we don't teach novels because a) we can't get kids to read assigned chapters; b) it's not worth spending time reading in class; c) shorter texts are better for learning writing skills; or d) historical informational texts are better literature.
My hunch:
a) probably the real reason
b) false, but feels valid because it was in reaction to a)
c) false, but understandable given how Common Core has influenced teaching, especially in those years that you began teaching when there was still optimism behind it.
d) probably defensible but needs elaboration and logically leads to combined humanities curricula with coordination between departments
Regardless of how true the last three points end up being, the first, a mass refusal/inability to do assignments, desperately needs to be addressed.
I think the reason I am harsh on the thinking laid out in this article is that it very much comes off as offering pedagogical justifications for a behavior problem you do admit you capitulated to. You explain how you just quit teaching a book not for any reason other than kids not reading chapters of the long-ish book for homework. I think I found everything beyond this admission difficult to consider earnestly.
If we had perfect behavior, would we teach the same way? If the answer is no, let's fix the behavior before justifying the method of teaching as anything other than a temporary compromise.
Very interesting read. As a counterpoint, I am going to drop in this piece of recent research from the UK. It supports one of my pet theories that reading more books faster is good for comprehension especially for weaker readers. (Obviously, US and UK contexts are different in a number of ways).
This is interesting, Mark. Not being a smart ass here but this paper seems to say, “When teachers read books with poor readers, those poor readers become better readers.” Well, duh. The best way to improve as a reader is to read. A teacher simply reading books aloud in high school for periods at a time is a non-starter, but I do think administrators could take a radical approach and just schedule an extra period of reading - not “literacy” - for students. A DEAR (Drop Everything and Read) period but for high school kids.
Mark + Cafeteria Duty: that's exactly what my son's middle school has done--they have two English classes per day, one that's grammar/vocab/writing and one just for Lit. They read 6-8 books per year. It's a parochial school, so different set of circumstances there, but also need to say that my son's reading--esp in science and history btw--has improved so much from reading all those books he wouldn't have read otherwise. Seems important for schools to figure this out in some way. Thanks for the insightful comments to you both!
Holly, that's great that your son's reading has improved from all that reading! For some students, just regular time spent in a room with no distractions where reading is the only option would go very far. But, I don't think something like a DEAR period would necessarily help the weak readers in the same way that the Faster Read approach in the Sussex study seemed to. That involved a teacher led focus on comprehension, followed by some analysis after they read the whole book.
The school I teach literature at has solved one of these issues by separating Literature from Writing/Rhetoric. They’re taught as separate classes throughout, which is so helpful. We also use a block schedule, so fitting in group reading aloud, discussion, and often silent meditation/responsive writing usually isn’t too hard in a 100-minute class. (Granted, I may also be in your discounted group of teachers with students who would read HVAC manuals…not all my students reliably complete reading homework but a majority do.)
“Silent meditation” haha yes you are discounted. But in all seriousness I do think that’s probably the better approach: an actual LITERATURE class where kids read the good important shit about the human condition, and sad poets and all that, and then have a Writing and Rhetoric class. It doesn’t exactly solve the problem of getting the little shits to read at home, but I do think it would 1) signify to students (and teachers!) that novels are indispensable and 2) make room for them and 3) take some responsibility off that teacher to teach those hard literacy skills. Not enough time? Then get rid of PE. 😎
I agree! I loved teaching Of Mice and Men to my tenth graders--so short, so accessible, so deep.
Here's what Maryanne Wolf adds to the discussion (courtesy of ChatGPT):
Maryanne Wolf's central message in Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World is a call to preserve deep, reflective reading in an era dominated by digital media and screen-based consumption. Wolf emphasizes the cognitive, emotional, and social benefits of sustained, focused reading while expressing concern about how digital culture may erode these abilities.
Key Themes and Messages:
The Changing Reading Brain:
Wolf explains that the human brain is malleable and adapts to new technologies. With the rise of digital reading, the neural pathways that support deep reading may atrophy, leading to a decline in critical thinking, empathy, and the ability to engage with complex texts.
Deep Reading vs. Digital Skimming:
Deep reading involves immersive engagement, critical analysis, and emotional connection, which are essential for comprehension and personal growth. Digital skimming, characterized by rapid and superficial processing, is becoming the default mode of reading for many, limiting the benefits of deep reading.
Cognitive Trade-Offs:
While digital technologies offer speed, accessibility, and efficiency, they often demand sacrifices in focus, attention, and the ability to sustain intellectual engagement.
Empathy and Perspective-Taking:
Wolf argues that deep reading fosters empathy by allowing readers to inhabit the lives and perspectives of others, a skill that is crucial in a polarized and interconnected world.
The Need for Balance:
Wolf does not dismiss digital technologies outright but advocates for a balanced approach that combines the advantages of digital tools with the irreplaceable benefits of deep, reflective reading.
A Call to Action:
Reader, Come Home is a plea for readers, educators, and parents to cultivate and protect the capacity for deep reading, particularly in children, who are especially vulnerable to the effects of a screen-saturated culture.
Central Message:
Wolf's overarching message is that while digital media enriches our lives in many ways, we must intentionally preserve the practice of deep reading to ensure the development of critical thinking, empathy, and intellectual resilience. By doing so, we safeguard not only individual growth but also the broader fabric of society.
It is hilarious to me that you replied to my essay about the difficulty of getting kids to read in their English classes with an AI created synopsis of a book that argues how important it is for people to read books.
Right! I hadn't fully appreciated the irony--though I actually did read the book! You might appreciate this anecdote. A colleague was so frustrated trying to get his ninth graders to appreciate Romeo and Juliette that after Act II ended with their impending marriage, he slammed shut the book, slowly scanned the class, and said: And they lived happily ever after! (On to the next book the kids wouldn't read.)
Even worse: one of my students told me that she just tucks a AirPod in her ear during ELA reading time in order to more effectively ignore her teacher. So even if teachers read a whole book out loud, kids still aren't getting the story.
As a teacher in Ireland, found this interesting and depressing! We're still tackling full books, though of course are aware of how reading generally is in a challenging moment.
At the risk of sounding like a grouchy skeptic, how do you ensure all of your students ~actually~ read? Like, what system do you have in place? I’m curious.
I understand the scepticism! First of all, the context is an entire country (v much smaller than the US...) which has a uniform curriculum leading to state exams based on complete books all the way from 12 years to 18 years old. Naturally some teenagers are bound to take short-cuts in some cases, but often those will make it difficult to answer in an exam situation. Locally, I teach the complete texts using whatever tools I have to check for understanding, and can pretty easily see anyone who is shortchanging the system. We read our Shakespeare single text in whole in class. With a short novel like Claire Keegan's Small Things Like These we can do a complete 'cold read' in class first.
QtA is Questioning the Author. It's a discussion-based reading comprehension instructional approach that involves the teacher choosing pause points at which to pose 'queries' that help students monitor their comprehension, understand vocabulary, make connections across ideas in the text, and actively engage in a process as they read that leads to a coherent, strong mental model of the text. You can learn more about it in the book Robust Comprehension Instruction with Questioning the Author by Beck, McKeown and Sandora. This podcast interview with Margaret McKeown is also interesting: https://www.ollielovell.com/errr-047-margaret-mckeown-on-questioning-the-author-reading-comprehension/
I’m always baffled as to why more people aren’t talking about the fact that students don’t/won’t read what’s assigned to them and English teachers can’t do their jobs if their students don’t read.
Make them do their homework?
If kids don't/can't perform the behavior necessary to be successful in a class, teach them the behavior.
If kids aren't strong readers, they need more practice, not less.
I don't understand the author's problem with reading aloud books in class. If they've decided book discussions are of limited value and notice that students need to improve their vocabulary and fluency, having them reading aloud for thirty minutes every day sounds like a great use of time. There's even some research evidence that it is (The University of Sussex Faster Read studies). Besides, all the "hard"(?) reading and writing skills you want to teach kids to succeed on standardized tests are better taught within the consistent and rich semantic context of a novel, compared to rapidly changing excerpts and articles.
Of course, reading a lot of worthwhile informational texts is also important. Of course, memoir and essays have a place in English class. But if I was a history teacher I would be very confused why "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and Lincoln's inaugural are being stolen by my colleagues in the English department.
Agree with everything you wrote! (but I'm pretty sure the Sussex Faster Read study involved teachers reading aloud *to* their students, not the students themselves reading aloud).
Correction: Just learning more about it and sounds like the Faster Read approach can be a combo of teacher reading aloud, stronger student readers reading aloud and silent reading (of the same text). The key is that you go through 2 whole books back to back at a faster pace with the focus on comprehension, not analysis.
Yeah, that's been my experience with the various descriptions/studies of implementation. Not always clear who's reading, but it is definitely clear what the focus is.
Well, because they’re works of literature whose language is worth studying, that’s why.
I dearly wish the answer was “make them do their homework.” As I wrote, there are loads and loads of students who cannot be compelled to do their homework and who are perfectly fine settling for a D or C.
Why do you sneer at “hard” reading and writing skills? Effectively using a semi-colon is a “hard” writing skill, as is blending a source’s words with your own. Teachers teach these and students practice them. They don’t absorb them via osmosis.
I guess I'm not particularly surprised mediocre grades aren't reinforcing enough to change the behavior, especially when so many peers have mediocre grades that it's just a social norm. If a reinforcement doesn't work, change the reinforcement. If the class/school culture makes it normal to ignore the teacher's directions, change the culture.
I'm not sure about what exactly constitutes a "hard" skill or an easy (soft?) one, but I'm nevertheless uncertain how wise it is to prioritize instructional time for semicolon usage before the ability to independently read grade-level texts. Of course, it's not an either/or decision; that's just how you've framed it. Essentially: "We can't spend time reading books because the kids can't use semicolons."
Fundamentally, I guess I don't understand if your argument is that we don't teach novels because a) we can't get kids to read assigned chapters; b) it's not worth spending time reading in class; c) shorter texts are better for learning writing skills; or d) historical informational texts are better literature.
My hunch:
a) probably the real reason
b) false, but feels valid because it was in reaction to a)
c) false, but understandable given how Common Core has influenced teaching, especially in those years that you began teaching when there was still optimism behind it.
d) probably defensible but needs elaboration and logically leads to combined humanities curricula with coordination between departments
Regardless of how true the last three points end up being, the first, a mass refusal/inability to do assignments, desperately needs to be addressed.
I think the reason I am harsh on the thinking laid out in this article is that it very much comes off as offering pedagogical justifications for a behavior problem you do admit you capitulated to. You explain how you just quit teaching a book not for any reason other than kids not reading chapters of the long-ish book for homework. I think I found everything beyond this admission difficult to consider earnestly.
If we had perfect behavior, would we teach the same way? If the answer is no, let's fix the behavior before justifying the method of teaching as anything other than a temporary compromise.
Very interesting read. As a counterpoint, I am going to drop in this piece of recent research from the UK. It supports one of my pet theories that reading more books faster is good for comprehension especially for weaker readers. (Obviously, US and UK contexts are different in a number of ways).
https://sussex.figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/_Just_reading_the_impact_of_a_faster_pace_of_reading_narratives_on_the_comprehension_of_poorer_adolescent_readers_in_English_classrooms/23449943
This is interesting, Mark. Not being a smart ass here but this paper seems to say, “When teachers read books with poor readers, those poor readers become better readers.” Well, duh. The best way to improve as a reader is to read. A teacher simply reading books aloud in high school for periods at a time is a non-starter, but I do think administrators could take a radical approach and just schedule an extra period of reading - not “literacy” - for students. A DEAR (Drop Everything and Read) period but for high school kids.
Mark + Cafeteria Duty: that's exactly what my son's middle school has done--they have two English classes per day, one that's grammar/vocab/writing and one just for Lit. They read 6-8 books per year. It's a parochial school, so different set of circumstances there, but also need to say that my son's reading--esp in science and history btw--has improved so much from reading all those books he wouldn't have read otherwise. Seems important for schools to figure this out in some way. Thanks for the insightful comments to you both!
Holly, that's great that your son's reading has improved from all that reading! For some students, just regular time spent in a room with no distractions where reading is the only option would go very far. But, I don't think something like a DEAR period would necessarily help the weak readers in the same way that the Faster Read approach in the Sussex study seemed to. That involved a teacher led focus on comprehension, followed by some analysis after they read the whole book.
Cafeteria Duty, I'm curious to know why you think this approach would be a non-starter? Here's guidance on what it would look like: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/research/centres/centre-for-international-education/projects/fasterread/cpdforteachers
The school I teach literature at has solved one of these issues by separating Literature from Writing/Rhetoric. They’re taught as separate classes throughout, which is so helpful. We also use a block schedule, so fitting in group reading aloud, discussion, and often silent meditation/responsive writing usually isn’t too hard in a 100-minute class. (Granted, I may also be in your discounted group of teachers with students who would read HVAC manuals…not all my students reliably complete reading homework but a majority do.)
“Silent meditation” haha yes you are discounted. But in all seriousness I do think that’s probably the better approach: an actual LITERATURE class where kids read the good important shit about the human condition, and sad poets and all that, and then have a Writing and Rhetoric class. It doesn’t exactly solve the problem of getting the little shits to read at home, but I do think it would 1) signify to students (and teachers!) that novels are indispensable and 2) make room for them and 3) take some responsibility off that teacher to teach those hard literacy skills. Not enough time? Then get rid of PE. 😎
"It’s all downhill after Of Mice and Men."
I agree! I loved teaching Of Mice and Men to my tenth graders--so short, so accessible, so deep.
Here's what Maryanne Wolf adds to the discussion (courtesy of ChatGPT):
Maryanne Wolf's central message in Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World is a call to preserve deep, reflective reading in an era dominated by digital media and screen-based consumption. Wolf emphasizes the cognitive, emotional, and social benefits of sustained, focused reading while expressing concern about how digital culture may erode these abilities.
Key Themes and Messages:
The Changing Reading Brain:
Wolf explains that the human brain is malleable and adapts to new technologies. With the rise of digital reading, the neural pathways that support deep reading may atrophy, leading to a decline in critical thinking, empathy, and the ability to engage with complex texts.
Deep Reading vs. Digital Skimming:
Deep reading involves immersive engagement, critical analysis, and emotional connection, which are essential for comprehension and personal growth. Digital skimming, characterized by rapid and superficial processing, is becoming the default mode of reading for many, limiting the benefits of deep reading.
Cognitive Trade-Offs:
While digital technologies offer speed, accessibility, and efficiency, they often demand sacrifices in focus, attention, and the ability to sustain intellectual engagement.
Empathy and Perspective-Taking:
Wolf argues that deep reading fosters empathy by allowing readers to inhabit the lives and perspectives of others, a skill that is crucial in a polarized and interconnected world.
The Need for Balance:
Wolf does not dismiss digital technologies outright but advocates for a balanced approach that combines the advantages of digital tools with the irreplaceable benefits of deep, reflective reading.
A Call to Action:
Reader, Come Home is a plea for readers, educators, and parents to cultivate and protect the capacity for deep reading, particularly in children, who are especially vulnerable to the effects of a screen-saturated culture.
Central Message:
Wolf's overarching message is that while digital media enriches our lives in many ways, we must intentionally preserve the practice of deep reading to ensure the development of critical thinking, empathy, and intellectual resilience. By doing so, we safeguard not only individual growth but also the broader fabric of society.
I'm so glad you mentioned this book, it's one of my favorites.
It is hilarious to me that you replied to my essay about the difficulty of getting kids to read in their English classes with an AI created synopsis of a book that argues how important it is for people to read books.
Right! I hadn't fully appreciated the irony--though I actually did read the book! You might appreciate this anecdote. A colleague was so frustrated trying to get his ninth graders to appreciate Romeo and Juliette that after Act II ended with their impending marriage, he slammed shut the book, slowly scanned the class, and said: And they lived happily ever after! (On to the next book the kids wouldn't read.)
Yes to all of this!
Even worse: one of my students told me that she just tucks a AirPod in her ear during ELA reading time in order to more effectively ignore her teacher. So even if teachers read a whole book out loud, kids still aren't getting the story.
Sorry for being a bummer :(
sigh.
Why in the world does that teacher allow that student to wear AirPods!?
Presumably the teacher was unaware? I'm suspecting it was a clever case of hair arrangement to hide the AirPod(s).
Also: Why in the world would the student admit this to me, another teacher? !?
As a teacher in Ireland, found this interesting and depressing! We're still tackling full books, though of course are aware of how reading generally is in a challenging moment.
So happy to hear that! Do students do the assigned reading for homework, generally?
Well, I can't answer for every student in the country! But overall complete books are very much accepted as being what we do. Naturally some will take short-cuts. Some idea of what is prescribed is here: https://www.juliangirdham.com/blog/on-the-role-and-selection-of-prescribed-text-lists
At the risk of sounding like a grouchy skeptic, how do you ensure all of your students ~actually~ read? Like, what system do you have in place? I’m curious.
I understand the scepticism! First of all, the context is an entire country (v much smaller than the US...) which has a uniform curriculum leading to state exams based on complete books all the way from 12 years to 18 years old. Naturally some teenagers are bound to take short-cuts in some cases, but often those will make it difficult to answer in an exam situation. Locally, I teach the complete texts using whatever tools I have to check for understanding, and can pretty easily see anyone who is shortchanging the system. We read our Shakespeare single text in whole in class. With a short novel like Claire Keegan's Small Things Like These we can do a complete 'cold read' in class first.
We do key scenes, not every word of the booking, using a QTA style approach.
*book
What's QTA style approach?
Questioning the Author. Beck and McKeown. See also Reading Reconsidered
QtA is Questioning the Author. It's a discussion-based reading comprehension instructional approach that involves the teacher choosing pause points at which to pose 'queries' that help students monitor their comprehension, understand vocabulary, make connections across ideas in the text, and actively engage in a process as they read that leads to a coherent, strong mental model of the text. You can learn more about it in the book Robust Comprehension Instruction with Questioning the Author by Beck, McKeown and Sandora. This podcast interview with Margaret McKeown is also interesting: https://www.ollielovell.com/errr-047-margaret-mckeown-on-questioning-the-author-reading-comprehension/
Sounds like the Sophie’s Choice approach.
I’m always baffled as to why more people aren’t talking about the fact that students don’t/won’t read what’s assigned to them and English teachers can’t do their jobs if their students don’t read.
Thank you for this!
I’m not surprised “people” aren’t, but I am surprised more teachers don’t/won’t admit it.