Profile of a Reading Teacher

EDR 101

I.

Introduction To attain the objectives of acquiring a deeper understanding of the

views and theories of the reading process, and of gaining clear perspective and appreciation of the reading teacher, an elementary reading teacher had been chosen as a subject for this study. Through having the teacher answer a survey, interviewing the teacher and observing her class in action, I will attempt to analyze the teachers views, theories and beliefs regarding the reading process and identify which of the three alternative views of the Reading process (bottom-up, top-down and interactive) the teacher adheres to. Overview of the Three Views of the Reading Process These three reading processes basically have two components: the reader and the text that will be read. The difference between the three lies in the interaction of the two components-how the reader uses the text to derive meaning. The bottom-up model of the reading process proposes that when in reading a written text, the reader starts with seeing and comprehending the symbols or letters on the page. These letters are then put together into words, and these words into sentences, until meaning is obtained. Basically, proponents of this model see reading as a process wherein the reader starts with the smallest units in language (letters), and works up to larger units (sentences, overall meaning.) The top-down model, on the other hand, sees reading as starting from the prior knowledge of the reader rather than from the written text. Instead of being driven by the letter-to-word-to-meaning process, proponents of this model state that the reader first samples information found on the text and then makes inferences as to its meaning based on his prior knowledge. In effect, it can be said that the text is not actually read word-per-word but by idea-to-idea or concept-to-concept. The interactive model tries to reconcile the two former models of the reading process by claiming that when we read, both bottom-up and top-down processes occur simultaneously and even interact with one another. The Bottom-up model for reading

The main proponents for the Bottom-up (also known as the part-towhole) reading model are Philip Gough and David LaBerge and S. Jay Samuels. Gough and LaBerge and Samuels both proposed separate detailed models for the reading process, models that attempted to show exactly what happens in a persons head as he reads a text. Both models basically follow these steps: 1. The reader sees and comprehends the symbols (lines, curves, spaces) on the page and identifies them as letters 2. These letters are converted into their phonic (sound) equivalents, then are transformed into phonemic strings, and then into syllables or spelling patterns. 3. 4. These syllables are connected and converted into words. These words are put together based on the knowledge of the reader on syntax and semantics. 5. The reader derives meaning from the phrases or sentences that are formed. Firstly, the basic principle behind this model is that written text is hierarchically organized (i.e., on the grapho-phonic, phonemic, syllabic, morphemic, word, and sentence levels) and that the reader first processes the smallest linguistic unit, gradually compiling the smaller units to decipher and comprehend the higher units (e.g., sentence syntax). (Dechant, 1991) It assumes that all written text is first comprehended through letter features and text comprehension proceeds upwards based on the hierarchical organization. In this sense, reading is seen as a strictly serial process. There is a specific sequence to follow and one level should be completed before moving on to the next. This means that whatever conclusion the reader arrives at by the end of the level will only affect the level that immediately follows. For example, if a set of letter features is identified as the letters e-a-t-s-o-m-e-f-o-o-d, before the reader even reaches the conclusion that the letter features must mean the verb phrase eat some food, he first goes through the process of identifying the spelling patterns e-a, a-t, s-o, m-e, f-o-o, then putting these spelling patterns together into words, then identifying the meaning of the individual words, then putting them together based on knowledge of syntax and semantics. We can see that

knowledge of lexicon, are applied not to the words or text themselves but to the phonemic strings or spelling patterns. Other assumptions and implications of this model are that once the code is broken, the reader is expected to automatically arrive at the meaning of the text (McCormick, T. 1988) and written text serve merely as a device for recording speech (Bloomfield and Barnhart 1961.) The practical applications of this model in teaching reading can be seen in the idea of teaching children letter-to sound correspondence first. This is also known as the phonic approach to reading. To improve the reading of the children, these decoding skills should be developed to the level of automaticity. (Hermosa, 2002) The Top-down model for reading The known proponents for this model of the reading process are Kenneth Goodman and Frank Smith. The top-down reading model is also known as the concept-driven model or the whole-to-part model. It basically views reading as a process almost completely opposite to the bottom-up process in that instead of being print-driven, it is more memory-driven and meaning-based. When a reader sets his eyes on a page, he does not identify and comprehend every letter that he sees. Rather, he skims through the page, samples some bits and pieces of information and relates this information to any prior knowledge he might have. The reader then proceeds to make inferences as to the meaning and content of the rest of the text based on this. As he continues reading, some of his predictions of the content are confirmed. From this, we can see that the top-down process of reading can be described as the readers using the strategies of initiating and sampling, predicting and confirming. (Hermosa, 2002) However, this does not mean that the reader completely ignores or disregards the letters and words in the text. Instead of deriving meaning solely from the text, the reader uses these letters and words to confirm whatever inferences he might have. And in cases where in the reader does not have any prior knowledge about the text he is reading, he might seek the help of other sources of information or he may resort to the bottom-up process to aid his understanding.

The basic principle behind the top-down model for reading is that comprehension is the basis for decoding skills and not the result, and the reader brings meaning to print, he does not derive it from the print. (Boothe and Walter, 1999) For example, a child who is just starting to learn a word goes about it with the meaning of the word already in his prior knowledge. When a pre-school child first learns how to read the word dog, he probably already knows what a dog is. When the child encounters the written representation of the word and is told that those letters signify dog, he gives those letters meaning derived from his prior knowledge. Since meaning is inferred by the reader, this model involves a lot of guesswork on the part of the reader. It is up to the rea ders knowledge of syntax and semantics to arrive at the meaning intended by the writer. Another important feature of this model is that readers can understand the meaning of the text without necessarily knowing and decoding every single word of it. This is especially the case with fluent readers. Their large amount of prior knowledge allows them to skip large portions of the text without losing any of the meaning. The implications of this view of the reading process can be seen in the whole-word or whole-language approach to reading education. This approach requires the use of meaning activities rather than the mastery of a series of wordrecognition skills for instruction and the primary focus of instruction should be the reading of sentences, paragraphs and whole selections. (Gove 1983) The Interactive model for Reading David Rumelharts proposal for viewing reading as an Interactive process is an attempt to combine the bottom-up and the top-down models for reading. It shows that when we read, we draw meaning from the print (bottom-up) and from our prior knowledge (top-down) simultaneously. Like the bottom-up model, Rumelharts interactive model also starts with graphic input or with the text. This is worked on by a feature extraction device which sends its results to the pattern synthesizer or the message center. It is here that the difference lies. In the pattern synthesizer, the information is worked on simultaneously by six sources of knowledge stored as schemata: semantic, syntactic, lexical, letter cluster, letter and letter feature knowledge. (Hermosa, 2002) Analysis of

the words can start from any of these six sources of knowledge and can even be worked on by several sources of knowledge at once. For example, seeing the word heartbeat, the reader who finds the word unfamiliar may start with analyzing the components of the word by letter clusters to arrive at an interpretation or the reader can proceed immediately to the meaning because it is already stored in his semantic knowledge. Once all possible meanings of the text are derived in the pattern synthesizer, it can be said that the reader has arrived at the most probable interpretation. To Goodman (Goodman, 1981), an interactive model uses print as input and has meaning as output. However, the reader provides some input too in interacting with the text. Rumelhart (Rumelhart, 1985) also pointed out another key feature of his interactive model: reading is both a perceptual and a cognitive process. And because there are several sources of knowledge working on the text at once, these sources will interact in countless complex ways while the text is being read.

II. Methodology The first subject I had chosen was Mrs. Bernardita Magbitang, my Reading teacher when I was in Grade 2 and 3 in St. Marys Aca demy- Pasay City. She had previously agreed to participate in the study but later declined because she no longer had time to accommodate it. Thankfully, the principal of a nearby school, Mrs. Myrna Teves, agreed to allow me to conduct the study in their sc hool, the Philippine Army Officers Ladies Foundation School (PAOLFS) on such short notice. Upon receiving the approval of the board, and with the help of Mrs. Teves, a meeting was arranged between me and any of their elementary Reading teachers on Aug. 26, 2009. The ideal procedure for conducting the study was to have the teacher answer the survey first, analyze their answers, conduct an interview to confirm their answers and then to observe a class in order to see if the teacher does in fact adhere to the view of reading specified by the interview and the survey. However, due to the lack of available time of the teacher, there was a slight deviation in the procedure. We

were forced to hold the class observation first before handing over the survey and conducting the interview. However, this did not seem to have an effect on the goal of the study of observing whether the teacher put into practice the theory she believed in. The reasons for these will be explained in the Findings and Discussions.

III. Findings and Discussions Basic Information about the Reading teacher Mrs. Erlinda O. Turreda is the reading teacher for Grades 4, 5 and 6 at the Philippine Army Officers Ladies Foundation School (PAOLFS) located at Bayani Road, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City. She graduated from Philippine Normal College (now PNU) with a degree in guidance counseling. However, when she started working in a public elementary school, she was also asked to teach elementary English. She would continue to teach English for the next 20 years. The last school she taught at was Kalayaan Elementary School in Pasay City before she retired from the teaching profession. However, around four years ago, she was asked to continue teaching at a small private school in the Army base in Fort Bonifacio. With two of her other colleagues from Kalayaan Elementary School, she resumed teaching and has now become fairly indispensable to PAOLFS as one of the most experienced teachers. Observation I observed Mrs. Turredas Grade 5 English class. Section Bonifa cio had 30 students, with their seats arranged in four rows with two rows each lining the left and right walls. The students on both sides faced each other and the space in the middle was vacant. I later learned during the interview that those four rows were arranged by ranking in class. The honor students occupied the inner rows while the students who were lagging behind sat in the outer rows. According to Mrs. Turreda, the chairs were rearranged every now and again to change the ambiance of the room but the students were always grouped by class ranking. She claims that with this seating arrangement, it becomes the goal of the students who are lagging to move from row 4 to the first row.

The class started with a spelling exercise of a few random words. The teacher supplies the meanings of the words that may be unfamiliar to the students. This is then checked and the number of students who got wrong answers are taken. This is then followed by a submission of homework based on a reading text read during their last class. Some of the works were displayed and praised Afterwards, the teacher provides a heading for the lesson proper: Differences and Similarities. The text is entitled Children around the World and enumerates the differences and similarities of children from different countries. The teacher asks the pupils to share about any foreign children they might know to introduce the story. Before the story is read, there is an activity entitled unlocking of difficulties wherein some words in the story that may be unfamiliar to the students are described or discussed. For the unlocking of difficulties activity and for the rest of the reading recitations of the class, the teacher goes around the class to give each child the opportunity to talk. If the child stumbles with a word, he or she is corrected by the teacher or the teacher asks the class to help their classmate. Guide questions or motive questions are then given to the students and read aloud. There are a few minutes of silent reading of the text and they are allowed to read at their own pace. Afterwards, the text is read by a few students orally. To measure comprehension of the story, multiple choice questions in the textbook are answered. Again, all students are given the chance to answer. Most students manage to answer comprehension questions although some have difficulty with them. The comprehension questions the students could not answer easily are answered and explained by the teacher. Topics previously discussed in class are related to the new lesson to increase their understanding. More practice drills are done, this time aiming to improve their vocabulary by having them classify details into headings (for example: apple, banana, mango=fruits; Pluto, Neptune, Earth=planets of the solar system) The evaluation for the lesson is practically the same activity but harder. The 5 item evaluation proves successful as 25 students out of 30 get a high score. The 5 students who didnt meet the standard of 4 or higher are questioned by the teacher to see what they did not understand.

Survey Based on the total weight of all the items in the survey, Mrs. Turreda views reading as a bottom-up process (refer to Appendix B) This is further reinforced by the summary of the proportions of the actual weight and the overall weight of the three classifications of items (bottom-up, top-down, acceptable to both.) The Bottomup items had the highest proportion with 0.56 compared to 0.23 of the Top-down and 0.001 of the Acceptable to both (or Interactive.) However, there were a few questions in the survey in which it can be seen that Mrs. Turreda entertains a few of the ideas of the Top-down processing model. These were items 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, and 26. In particular, items 6 and 8 were rated as Strongly Agree, meaning that she agrees with the top-down model principles that 1) frequent exposure to books ensures the development of reading comprehension and that 2) expert readers have plenty of sight words. Interview From observing the class, I could see that in actuality she did adhere to the ideas of the Bottom-up model of the reading process. And after scanning her basic information and her answers on the survey, I had already formed the hypothesis that she truly completely believed in the bottom-up process. So for the interview, I planned to thoroughly test my hypothesis by asking her if she believed in some of the principles of the bottom-up model and by asking her if she even as much as considered a few of the ideas about top-down processing. Here are a few of my questions that directly asked about her beliefs in teaching reading and her answers to them:
Q: What special instruction do you give? A: Every reading activity we have comes with a set of questions for comprehension to be asked afterwardsThere are also separate initial practice drills at the start of the class as preliminary activities. The thing with teaching English is that there are several of these preliminary activities like spelling, drills, reviews, word of the day, etc Q: So you believe in the need for learning and mastering vocabulary and spelling first before the text is understood? A: Yes. The unlocking of difficulties is needed for every reading text.

Q: Are there any special constraints that interfere with teaching reading and writing? A: There are different ways of handling the different subjects In reading, there are the deductive and inductive methods of discussing a text. I use the inductive method, starting from the exercises and the lesson before I generalize

Here she explicitly says that she believes in learning and mastering the so-called subskills like vocabulary and spelling before moving on to meaning -based instruction. Further on, she also says
..its a little harder to teach reading than just grammar since there are so many steps to it. And its hierarchically arranged so you have to know how to go about it

I attempted to question her about her opinion on some ideas about the top-down model of the reading process and this is what she said:

Q: But do you believe that reading can be taught comprehension first before the lower skills in the hierarchy? A: No, you have to really read the text first, then of course theres the motivation. If they dont want to read they cant answer your questions. After reading the text orally, there is silent reading and then we have the comprehension questions. Sometimes we even read texts by paragraph and then do comprehension before moving on to the next paragraph. Few children can actually understand the texts in one go. Weve already discussed how to analyze texts by asking who, what, where, when and why, so today we discussed how to classify ideas. Then tomorrow we will talk about getting the key sentence in texts.

Meaning Mrs. Turreda started teaching a long time ago and has been teaching since then and oftentimes, teachers who get accustomed to certain teaching styles and philosophies have difficulty accommodating news styles and ideas. And the traditional view of reading is the bottom-up process wherein the students are taught letters to words to sentences to paragraphs to meaning. When I asked her in the

interview about the innovations she had made in her teaching of reading over the years, she admitted that there were few, if any. She says that she usually prefers to adapt to the teaching style prevalent in the school she is in and most schools have a prevalently bottom-up view of reading. I have not actually seen a reading class taught in view of the top-down model of the reading process. Another possibility for the reason why she is consistent in believing in the bottom-up process is because she prefers tradition since it is tried and tested. When asked about her opinion about the use of the vernacular in teaching reading, she replied that she did not agree to it and she firmly believes that reading should be taught in English because that was the way they were taught when they were young and they turned out great compared to todays generation. There is also a sense of her preference for tradition in how she manages her class. She provides the children with a reading protocol or the proper position to hold and read a book either when sitting or standing. In both the class observation and the survey and interview, Mrs. Turreda showed consistently that she adheres to the bottom-up model of the reading process. She has viewed reading in this way from the start and until now still believes in it. I feel that had I been able to follow the procedure, the same results would emerge for the survey, interview and observation: the Bottom-Up process.

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions From the results of the survey, interview and the class observation, it can be seen that Mrs. Turreda adheres to the more traditional Bottom-up view of the reading process. Her teaching style and her philosophy on reading both involve stepby-step processes that follow a hierarchical order. In teaching reading, she strongly agrees with the bottom-up principle in that it should first be taught by learning letters and their equivalent sounds. In her actual instruction, she still follows the same hierarchically determined step-by-step process, starting first with spelling drills, then word meaning, before the actual reading and comprehending of the text. There are only a few points of top-down processing to which she agrees but she generally rejects its main ideas that comprehension comes first before decoding, whole words are learned first before

letter sounds, and that the reader does not need to comprehend all parts of the text to derive its meaning. Recommendations In beginning this project, the student should choose at least two or three reading teachers to contact in case the teacher initially chosen becomes unavailable. The principal of the school should also be contacted once the teacher confirms that he or she will be available. Getting their permission shows respect for the school authorities and for the proper procedures in the school. All of the preparations should be done well in advance so that the completion of the survey, the interview and the class observation may be properly scheduled with ample time in between each activity. It is especially important that there is at least a day or two in between the teachers completion of the survey and the interview. This will enable the student to thoroughly analyze the results of the survey and carefully probe into the teachers philosophy when it comes to reading. In the case of this project, there was not enough time to item-analyze the survey before the interview was conducted. The reasons for the answers the teacher gave in the survey were not clearly explained.

V. References The Reading Process. Retrieved on Aug. 26, 2009 from http://www.sarasota.k12.fl.us/sarasota/rdgprocess.htm Boothe, Ken and Leah Walter. What is an Interactive reading model? Retrieved on Aug. 26, 2009 from http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/ReferenceMaterials/GlossaryOf LiteracyTerms/WhatIsAnInteractiveReadingMode.htm Boothe, Ken and Leah Walter. What is a bottom-up reading model? Retrieved on Aug. 26, 2009 from http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/ReferenceMaterials/GlossaryOf LiteracyTerms/WhatIsABottomUpReadingModel.htm Boothe, Ken and Leah Walter. What is a top-down reading model? Retrieved on Aug. 26, 2009 from http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/ReferenceMaterials/GlossaryOf LiteracyTerms/WhatIsATopDownReadingModel.htm Dechant, Emerald. 1991.Understanding and teaching reading: An interactive model. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gough, Philip B. 1985. "One second of reading." In Singer and Ruddell 1985. Interest level: specialist. LaBerge, David, and S. Jay Samuels. 1985. "Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading." McCormick, Thomas W. 1988.Theories of reading in dialogue: An interdisciplinary study. New York: University Press of America. Bloomfield, Leonard, and C. L. Barnhart. 1961. Let's read: A linguistic approach. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Goodman, Kenneth S. 1985. "Unity in reading." Smith, Frank. 1994.Understanding reading 5th edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gove, M. K. 1983. "Clarifying teacher's beliefs about reading." The Reading Teacher. Goodman, Kenneth S. 1981. "Letter to the editors." Reading Research Quarterly. Hermosa, Nemah. 2002. The Psychology of Reading. Quezon City: UP Open University.

VI. Appendix A. Survey (attached)

B. Item Analysis of the Survey Table 1. Table of Specifications View Number of Items Item numbers Weights for the rating Strongly Agree 5pts Agree 4pts Neither 3pts Disagree 2pts Strongly Disagree 1pt Strongly Agree 1pt Agree 2pts Neither 3pts Disagree 4pts Strongly Disagree 5pts Strongly Agree 5pts Agree 4pts Neither 3pts Disagree 2pts Strongly Disagree 1pt

BottomUp View

13

1,2,7,10,11,12,15,16,19,20, 21,22,24

Top-Down View

11

4,5,6,8,9,13,18,23,25,26,27

Acceptable 3 to both

3,14,17

Table 2. Guide for Weighting each statement BottomUp Items 1 2 7 10 11 12 15 16 19 20 21 22 24 Total Weight 5 5 2 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 52 TopDown Items 4 5 6 8 9 13 18 23 25 26 27 Weight 4 4 1 1 2 4 2 4 4 2 4 Acceptable Items 3 14 17 Weight No answer 4 4 Overall Weight

Total

32

Total

92

Table 3. Guide to Interpreting the Score Range of Scores Possible Interpretation

130-135 All items reflect the reading process; does not distinguish between top-

down and bottom-up 101-129 Views reading as an interactive process and feels very strongly about it 80-100 Views reading as a bottom-up process 50-79 Views reading as an interactive process. Also tries to view reading 27-49 Views reading as a top-down process

Table 4. Summary of Scores and Proportions Classification of Items Bottom-up items Top-down items Acceptable to both Overall No. of Items 13 11 3 27 Max Weight (proportion) Actual Weight Actual Proportion

65 (0.48) 55 (0.41) 15 (0.11) 135 (1.00)

52 (0.56) 32 (0.23) 8 (0.001) 92