I’ve been thinking today about all the young and old minds that are heading back into our classrooms today. I don’t know about you, but droves of Americans heading back to school always makes me feel good inside, despite the twilight of summer and all of that. Just in time, Brainstorm has a post questioning the conventional wisdom of reading tests. Some scholars now posit that prior knowledge (or “domain knowledge”) of a reading topic will increase a student’s reading comprehension significantly. This casts doubt on whether a given passage can assess a student’s reading skills just as well as any other comparable passage on a different subject. The claim makes for an interesting debate. I am most inspired, however, by the final graph of this post, which imagines curricula blending reading comprehension and the learning of subjects into a single lesson:
If reading is not an abstract, transferable skill, if reading comprehension relies upon sufficiently broad knowledge of important cultural, political, scientific, historical, and artistic materials, then we run squarely into delicate Culture War questions of curriculum. The inevitable question arises, “Who’s to say which traditions and histories and literature and philosophies should be required in the classroom?”
I’ll take Hirsch/Pondiscio’s advice: “Rather than idle away precious hours on trivial stories or randomly chosen nonfiction, reading, writing, and listening instruction would be built into the study of ancient civilizations in first grade, for example, Greek mythology in second, or the human body in third. . . . Let’s say a state’s fourth-grade science standards include the circulatory system, atoms and molecules, electricity, and Earth’s geologic layers and weather; and social-studies standards include world geography, Europe in the Middle Ages, the American Revolution, and the U.S. Constitution, among other domains. The state’s reading tests should include not just fiction and poetry but nonfiction readings on those topics and others culled from those specific curriculum standards.”
I realize this isn’t exactly revolutionary — that this sometimes happens on its own anyway — but I’m still struck by the vision behind it: that reading should encompass all areas of interest; that students who “like to read” shouldn’t just study stories and poetry; and that reading forms the basis of most learning and that we need more of it, not less.
At moments like this I’m reminded of how lucky I am to have job where I get to read so often, not to mention one that gives me the time to still be a student in the off hours. Most days, of course, that is easier said than done. The struggle against mindless entertainment is harder now than it has ever been: In every brain in this country there rages a battle for finite time and attention, and the worthier pursuits do not always win. But to know that we’re at a watershed in the intellectual tradition, that fewer and fewer stand to carry the mantle into the future, surely makes each little triumph all the sweeter.
Somewhat related to this: while looking into the work of Tony Judt, the acclaimed historian who died a couple of weeks ago, I came across an interview with Charlie Rose wherein Judt discusses his book “Reappraisals: Reflections on the Forgotten Twentieth Century” and asserts that students today have lost their citizenship in the country of time. By this he means that although history in the classroom used to be rather boring it nonetheless prepared students to comprehend the important issues and events they would encounter in their lives — it gave them reference points from which to draw larger ideas about the world (and in this sense history encompasses not just politics but the whole array of endeavors and developments that have come before us). To go back to the terms of the reading study, history used to give us domain knowledge.
Despite Judt’s assessment, though, I take hope in another thing that the Brainstorm post mentioned: with regard to future comprehension, the gap between no knowledge on a topic and some is greater than the gap between some and much. Understanding, therefore, can grown from a meager basis, which means that a little effort every day remains a powerful thing.
2 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Andrew, from the mother of a teen son who criticized his 10th grade honors English teacher for ‘skimming through’ Beowulf and plead with me to buy him the full version… this blog is anything but rambling. (As the rambler of all ramblings… I should know ;-} )
If all of us were somehow able to be students for life, I think we would all be better people and better citizens. Unfortunately, for many in society, education comes with a cap. If we cannot or do not instill self education concepts in the youth (and old) of today, we, as human beings, are utterly screwed. (I’m sure there is a better word for that.)
Comment by trish August 30, 2010 @ 4:31 PMI agree with you and the piece, Andrew: very important to use well-written pieces (“classics,” if you will, from many disciplines and ethnicities) to teach reading/grammar. Interesting that many of the c.1900 “readers” I’ve bought (mostly down around Branson) do just that – e.g., the eighth-grade book uses passages from Twain and Shakespeare and Jefferson, among others, for reading and grammar exercises. Always important to read the best stuff, no matter what the precise learning goal one has!
Comment by Julie Ivers August 30, 2010 @ 5:53 PM