A Response to Chapter One of Reading Ability: "Reading Ability: Cognitive and Psycholinguistic Perspectives," pp. 3-10.
in Charles A. Perfetti's Reading Ability. Oxford University Press, 1985 - Language Arts & Disciplines - 282 pages.
in Charles A. Perfetti's Reading Ability. Oxford University Press, 1985 - Language Arts & Disciplines - 282 pages.
My Reading Response
Summary
In
chapter one, Perfetti (1985) presents a picture of reading ability in terms of the
cognitive processes of reading. Lexical
access processes encompass the ability to identify words, and
comprehension, which is a multi-faceted
component of reading that allows the reader to construct a text model. Reading ability and language are related, and
comprehension processes and word recognition processes are affected by linguistic
processes because reading is a manipulation of linguistic objects, and
recognizing words involves the translation of objects into symbols. There are many similarities and differences
between written and oral language: in
print, verbal and physical cues are missing, memory demands are reduced because
the text is right there for further reference, the interaction is a solitary
one between reader and text, content is arbitrary and fixed by the writer, and
involves the mastery of a conventional coding system.
There are also syntactic differences between
written and oral languages—print includes more complex sentence
structures. However, both processes
depend on linguistic structures. Two
major obstacles in learning to read derive from the differences between print
and speech: a decoding obstacle and a
decontextualization obstacle. For some
young readers, “breaking the code” can be an almost insurmountable task. Others have a hard time figuring out meaning
based on written words rather than realia, intonation, and gesture.
Perfetti also explains that, although there
are many cues available to a skilled reader, and although some low-skilled
readers may guess using some of these cues, reading is not just a “linguistic
guessing game” as Goodman (1967) suggested.
Perfetti asserts that general cognitive development sets limits on
reading ability mainly in terms of how background knowledge affects the
reader’s understanding of a text, that being verbally efficient (developing
automaticity) is key, and that fluency can affect comprehension. Finally, Perfetti briefly explores
individual differences in reading ability, defining a skilled reader as one who
has high comprehension or high rate with the other factor above some minimum.
Response
I
found it interesting that, although reading is a solitary activity, we do
engage in social interactions about reading.
What role do these interactions play in the reading process? Do they affect comprehension, motivation, and
background knowledge? I can’t believe
the whole-language debate is still viable, but I know that despite research
findings, many parents still question the validity of teaching phonics. I also
noted that the syntactic differences between speech and print could explain why
students write in fragments (because that’s how they speak, and they haven’t
learned to code switch). In defining a
skilled reader, Perfetti asserts that, “We need only to assume that a reader
was not particularly slow, a condition often assured by time-limited standard
assessments” (p11). I took particular
issue with this statement because EC students get modifications on state tests,
like extended time, so that can skew reading ability as measured by EOCs and
EOGs. I think that these modifications
differentiate the assessment, but the instruction also needs to be
differentiated (i.e. intervention) even at the high school level. I feel like we just give up on these
students. Why does early intervention fail? Why do I get so many high school students
that read well below grade level? How
can these issues be addressed?
 |
| Babies are wired to learn to read; Perfetti (1985) explains those processes and what can go wrong. |