Defining Reading

The following "brief," included in our LINCS Resource Collection, was published by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education in 2012, and was, thankfully, licensed as an open resource. So help yourself to the findings. 
 
Title: What Is Evidence-Based Reading Instruction and How Do You Know It When You See It? by Kit Bell & Stephen Dolainski,Los Angeles Unified School District (2012): "Implementing EBRI (Evidence Based Reading Instruction) requires fundamental change both in perceptions of what constitutes adult reading instruction and how adult education programs deliver that instruction. This brief reflects the experience of the LAUSD’s ABE Program as it has worked to bring about these fundamental changes. "
 
As I reflect through the findings in this 13-page report, several question come up for me. I'll post a couple of them below and add more as our dialogue continues. What do you think of some of your findings in the brief? Please take a minute to drop into what I hope is a lively discussion on this topic.
 
The report states, "The Partnership for Reading (National Institute for  literacy, 2005) defines reading as a complex system of deriving meaning from print. It requires:
  1. an understanding of how phonemes, or speech sounds, are connected to print
  2. the ability to decode unfamiliar words
  3. the ability to read fluently
  4. sufficient background information and vocabulary to foster reading comprehension
  5. the development of appropriate active strategies to construct meaning from print
  6. the development and maintenance of a motivation to read (Reading Excellence Act;
  7. retrieved Oct. 9, 2011; http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OESE/REA/reading_act.pdf)"

Questions:

  • In an earlier shared LINCS discussion, participating members agreed that listening to digitally-shared books on tape constitute a form of reading. The Partnership for Reading definition would refute that conclusion, wouldn't it?
  • The last requirement in the definition implies that motivation is part of the definition for the reading "system." Is it possible that many good readers don't maintain a motivation to read?
What do you think? Are we trying to define reading too precisely. If so, why? Leecy (Two more questions.)

Comments

I know at least two good readers who choose not to read. I think the term is "aliterate". The say that reading is boring and puts them to sleep, or that they don't remember what they've read. Personally I look at the motivation piece as being most important when helping struggling readers. We have to help folks want to do something that is really hard and often frustrating for them. Anyone else know people who are aliterate? Or have stories/research about how motivation affects reading?

Hello Leecy, Di, and all, When it comes to the definition as well as the act of reading, the landscape has changed a great deal in the past decades. Some people who have access to technology, in some ways, read and write a lot more than they used to. Think of how often people are sending and receiving text messages and all the ways people use various social media platforms. However, I wonder how habits may have changed with regard to reading longer texts.

I'm inspired by the work of high school teacher and author, Kelly Gallagher, who takes a strong stance on the importance of engaging learners in reading a lot and reading longer pieces. Gallagher is a high school teacher. Engaging learners in reading longer texts is more difficult in adult literacy settings.

I'm wondering if teachers who engage students in book clubs, for example, can share their wisdom with us here.

Cheers, Susan Finn Miller

Moderator, English Language Acquisition and Teaching & Learning CoPs

To share an anecdote from my own family, we have one sister who always said she didn't like reading, which was shocking to the rest of us, like she must have been a foundling or something.  Then I introduced her to Dean Koontz:  not my favorite, but I thought she might like it.  That introduction into a new genre was life-changing for her.  She's now an avid reader of all sorts of material.  I think motivation is so often dependent on prior positive reading experiences, and too many people haven't read anything except what has been required of them in school, most of which probably doesn't address their interests at all.  So to me, the key is always to help struggling readers find something super high interest, even if in the moment it doesn't seem like it's particularly relevant to your course.  Just my two cents. 

Jana et al, indeed, our learners need to be motivated to read (and write), but we know that no one can motivate another. Our learners must be enticed to read something that engages them emotionally or otherwise. Koontz did it for your sister, Jana. Fairy tales and comic books did it for me.    I wonder what we could do more to hook our learners? Certainly, as Susan mentioned, digital communication in social environments often does some of the job, but the motivation there is not reading but communication with peers. There is no hook attached there to promote reading longer passages online, for example.    What could we do better to find the key to having our learners transition from being "aliterate," as Di mentioned, to becoming more and more passionate or at least to buy in more and more to the rewards that good reading offers? How do we find the key or the potential in each case? Leecy

This discussion reminded me of an online reading program a few of our ABE and ESL instructors are piloting. The beauty of the program is that it uses an initial assessment to gauge student's reading level and interests. As they progress they are presented with reading passages that are personalized and relevant. You can read more about the pilot from the instructor here: Improving Reading Levels with Reading Plus.

I think one of the aspects we need to consider in this regard is the purpose of reading. Is the purpose to gather information? To be entertained? To coordinate information in an attempt to communicate with others?

I have a friend, now retired, who struggled with a learning disorder throughout his successful career as a businessman. I remember the day he discovered audiobooks. He was delighted to find that books need not be a chore to be gotten through, but an effortless means to gain information. When I last spoke to him, he was not only "reading" popular literature, but the classics he had missed in his early years.

Is this not what the authors intended? Do they not mean to express meaning, emotion, information, encouragement in whatever medium is available? Is the only way we can appreciate Mark Twain by reading his words from the pages?

Why should we not encourage struggling learners by augmenting their efforts with other media?

 

 

Laurie and others,

Whether we want to call listening to text that is read out loud "reading" or "auding", and whether auding is best is for those who are blind, who have specific reading disabilities, who read well in traditional ways but who sometimes prefer to have text read out loud, or for those who use software to aud text faster and without loss of comprehension than they can read it in traditional ways, digital technology offers us new ways to "get meaning from text."

In  the "Technology for Innovation and Change in Basic Skills Education" chapter written by my colleague Jennifer Vanek and me, in the book Turning Point: Recent Trends in Adult Basic Literacy, Numeracy, and Language Education  (fall, 2017 Jossey-Bass) we wrote:

"For adults with severe reading disabilities who may not be improving their skills through reading in a traditional way, technology offers a means to get information from digital text through “auding.” This term, first used by researcher Don Brown (Brown, 1950), refers to having written text read out loud, often now by an automated text reader. Available free or inexpensively, these digital tools allow text to be read out loud to listeners, often who “aud” at speeds that untrained listeners couldn’t comprehend (Teitell, 2015); adults who practice listening at these speeds may be able to aud text as fast as good readers can read text in the traditional way. Although some may not regard auding as reading, if those who aud can get meaning from text as quickly as expert traditional readers, then we may need to accept a broader definition of reading that includes auding as well as decoding written text. Auding has long been an acceptable practice for those with sight disabilities; perhaps it is time to accept this practice for those who have severe reading disabilities."

David J. Rosen, Moderator

LINCS CoP Integrating Technology group

 

David, thanks for sharing the quote and chapter from "Technology for Innovation and Change in Basic Skills Education." At least among our LINCS discussions, when circumstances point to the need to do so, I believe that we do need to broaden our definition of literacy to include auding, extending  Bell & Stephen's criteria.  As Laurie suggested, perhaps the purpose of reading needs for be established before any definitions apply.    How do others here regard that suggestion? Is there any resistance to that proposal? What do you think?   For those of us who support auding as a reading activity, what might a new definition state? Reading is ...    Let's throw out some definitions to consider as a group. Leecy

Hi! In response to the post, 'Broader Definition?', I feel very conflicted on whether I favour a broader definition, and I wonder if actually the purpose for defining reading needs to be established as much as the purpose for reading

For the purposes of research, and understanding what and how best to teach and learn, we need to distinguish different ways of interacting with text. At times we need to be clear about whether we are talking about (or teaching, or learning, or researching) 'reading' in the traditional sense, or 'auding'. I'm inclined to think there's also something like 'audio-assisted reading' (which I don't think is the same as auding), where the individual does not ignore the written text but tries to read it and uses text-to-speech not to listen to all of it but to help with parts that are difficult.   So sometimes we need precise, narrow terms. Perhaps it's helpful, for clarity, if reading means 'in the traditional sense'.

But sometimes we are talking about extracting meaning from text. If I ask another parent from my child's school 'did you read the letter that came home yesterday?'  I don't need to know whether they read it with some technological or other help or whether they read it independently - I just want to know that we have a shared understanding of the content of the letter.   If I ask you whether you have read The Jungle Book, I may want to know that you are familiar with a version of the book rather than a movie, but I don't need to know whether you had it read to you. To work towards a society where all people can take part fully in a literate society, we should be focusing on harnessing technologies and techniques that enable people to interact with text through whatever means they are most comfortable with. But if we define reading too narrowly, then we perpetuate the view that you are only properly reading if you are decoding print for yourself, and we can't combat the stigma and disadvantage that comes with not being able to do so.

I feel like, for everyday purposes, I want reading to be an inclusive term that allows an individual to proudly state that they read something whether they decoded print for themselves or listened to it being read by another human or by technology.   Maybe we just have to accept that 'reading' can mean different things in different contexts and be ready to clarify what we mean when we use the term? 

 

We read (primarily) to get information.  Any means of getting information from print accomplishes the same purpose of reading and therefore should "count" as reading.  Each individual should figure out what mixtures of tools and approaches to text help them get meaning most efficiently.  For this reason, especially those learners who struggle with traditional reading should be introduced and allowed to experiment with tools that can convert text into audio.

However, the advantages of traditional reading over listening to others or a device, "auding", are numerous and all make gathering information easier and more efficient.  These are the reasons why traditional reading is such a worthwhile skill to learn.  Chief among them are:

  • Portability and convenience: It is compatible with all text formats and doesn't require any extra devices. 
  • Control over text: You control the speed of reading.  You can skip from place to place on the page or within a book effortlessly compared to trying to locate a specific section in a recording.

Of note, both of these advantages have narrowed dramatically in the last 5-10 years and in another 10 years "auding" will be an even closer analog to traditional reading.

Josh, I appreciate your bringing out that there are advantages to traditional reading over just "auding" although, as you say, things are changing very quickly.

Since I asked for suggestions for how we might define reading here,  I'll take a stab at it, from the top of my head:

Reading is a skill that engages many parts of the brain that function to gain meaning or information from text. There are two types of reading, depending on the reader's intent and ability.    Visual reading: Reading that requires a recognition that letters represent phonemes, which are then organized into phonetic groupings. This type of reading is closely connected to writing, the medium used to produce text. Decoding the "sounds" of words from their visual interpretation can then be used to convey meaningful "speech." That process develops over time as skills increase. Those can be categorized into four groups: alphabetics, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. It is the type of reading taught in schools and required by most workplace environments.   Aural reading, also called "auding:" Reading that occurs by listening to text that is read aloud by another physically-present reader or digitally produced segments available in different formats.    Most people use both types of reading, depending on their purpose for reading. Some people, however, require "auding" if they have no access to works in braille or if they have a condition that keeps them from reading visually.

 

Thank you to those who commented on my questions regarding reading versus auding (a term previously unfamiliar to me). I do have some comments regarding the "books are better" view. Most of our literacy students are with us because of some sort of processing disorder. Their previous education, for a multiplicity of reasons, was unable to address their needs. For these people, reading is such a chore (something that we work hard to alleviate) that Josh's statements of "books are more portable and convenient" and "skipping from place to place is effortless" do not necessarily apply. These people have access to audio materials vie their (nearly ubiquitous and certainly portable) cell phones. They find searching indices or tables of contents arduous and time-consuming. It is true that audio applications are increasingly available for material ranging from recreational reading to interpreting grocery store signs to the use of college texts. It is becoming much easier to localize specific material. Consequently, the student receives the information necessary to the task without the frustration and glacial pace that reading a book would require. 

One of my students (our tutor/student relationship goes back some 15 years) is presently attending community college. She is unable at times to extract meaning from the text provided, but processes the information infinitely better when we discuss the material, allowing her to make connections and extract meaning. This is definitely education. Is it reading?

How much of our attitudes toward alternative information access is due to our personal love for books? How do our own attitudes affect our view of what is "necessary" for those who struggle?

 

Laurie, I liked the emphasis in your post better than mine.  The only thing I really care about for my learners is just what you said 'access to information'.  The point I was trying to make is that we're at the point with a lot of these tools where it's worth trying them out with learners to see if they make accessing information easier.  Though I believe strongly that for most learners Reading is worth investing in, tools for Auding are getting better and better to the point where more and more learners might benefit from investing more in learning and using these tools alongside or even instead of reading.  The thing is, it's all individual.  If you have severe dyslexia, you should at least try out auding tools to see how well they work for you.  You can always come back later and fill in gaps where you feel like you need reading. 

As a concrete example of how we attack this in my program.  Lesson instructions in our reading curriculum are accessible via a screenreader built into our website (Browsealoud).  This gives learners easier access to the instructions so that they can focus their reading practice on developing the skills they need not burning themselves out just trying to review the instructions.

On a philosophical note, An old book called Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman provides an excellent analysis of the advantages of print over video/audio. I've recommended it on LINCS before but I can't help doing so again. 

Thank you, Josh. Gaining information is, I think, the end and goal of reading. My points of view stem partially from the fact that my husband has been extremely active in the field of Assistive Technology for several decades now. You can't be that close to assistive technology without trying to find an answer to everyone's needs. Our small literacy program has very little funding for technology, so we have to be creative in providing whatever tools we can beg, borrow, steal, or manufacture to assist our students to attain their personal goals. We emphasize that the student's goal is what is important, whatever the route we take to get there. 

So. We teach reading. If possible, we teach computer skills (internet access here is spotty at best). We use our private laptops to bring alternative methods to the students. When I train tutors, I emphasize creativity in devising low- or high-tech methods of making the material accessible to the student, no matter the original disorder. As with all instructors, it requires patience, skill, innovation, and time. Every June, we celebrate the students' accomplishments and efforts of the past 12 months. And all of them agree, they are learning to read.

Hi Leecy

Sorry for the delayed contribution - I was reading this discussion with interest on my phone while on holiday but wanted to get back to the convenience of my laptop to contribute! 

I want to pick up on your mention of Braille in your post 'A stab at a new definition'. You mention Braille only in relation to why people may need to aud. Where does it fit in your typology? It's not (only) visual (though it can be read visually by sighted people) but when used as a purely tactile system it also 'requires a recognition that letters represent phonemes, which are then organized into phonetic groupings'.  Is that a third 'type' of reading because it is not visual? Or does the 'visual' label need to change to include 'tactile reading' because it requires a similar decoding process to 'visual reading' that is absent from auding/ aural reading?'   

Jo :-)

You make an excellent point, Jo. I did a little more digging after reading your comments and found a possible solution for labeling three types of reading: Eye Reading, Ear Reading, and Finger Reading.

A dyslexic young lady talks about these three types of reading in a 48-second YouTube clip

In "AT for Reading: Ear Reading for Everyone," David Winters comments, "Foss (2013) has pointed out that an individual can learn textual information through any of these three types of reading. Although one of the types of reading will emerge generally as the most efficient for the learner, the type that works best may vary depending on the purpose of reading. For the majority of readers, the most efficient type of reading is eye reading. However, for a person with a severe visual impairment, both finger reading and ear reading would probably be more efficient than eye reading. For a person with dyslexia, ear reading might be the most efficient approach to learning, even when that person’s eye reading has improved. More importantly, the person’s ear reading may be significantly better for learning new content and concepts—which, of course, remains a vital instructional priority.

How about restating our earlier definitions as follows?

  1. Eye Reading: Reading that requires a recognition that written letters represent phonemes, which are then organized into phonetic groupings. This type of reading is closely connected to writing, the medium used to produce text. Decoding the "sounds" of words from their visual interpretation can then be used to convey meaningful "speech." That process develops over time as skills increase. Those can be categorized into four groups: alphabetics, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. It is the type of reading taught in schools and required by most workplace environments. 
  2. Ear Reading (also called "auding""): Reading that occurs by listening to text that is read aloud by another physically-present reader or digitally produced segments available in different formats. 
  3. Finger Reading: Reading based on braille. It is used by people who are visually impaired although it can also be read through the eyes by some. It is traditionally written with embossed paper and read through the touch. However, braille users can now read computer screens and other electronic supports thanks to refreshable braille displays, which   provide access to information on a computer screen by electronically raising and lowering different combinations of pins in braille cells. Finger reading requires the development of the same decoding skills as described in eye reading, leading to proficiency in the same four groups.  

Your comments are invited and encouraged. What would you add or change in our new definition? Leecy

Hi Leecy and others,

I like these definitions of reading that seem to address the question, "How do people read, if reading is defined as getting meaning from text?" I like that they significantly broaden eye reading to include ear and finger reading. They are liberating.  Of course, they do not answer other important questions about reading such as "For what purposes do people read?" "Why do some people read more than others?" Why are some people able to (eye, ear or finger) read faster than others? Why do people who can (eye, ear or finger) read not read, or not read much? "What are the reasons people who have been taught to read haven't learned to read?" and others.

I am  both eye- and ear-reading a book right now about a young reading and writing teacher who taught in an impoverished community on the Arkansas side of the Mississippi Delta. I have a digital version on my smartphone, read out loud by the author, as well as a hard copy book. I am not sure what my purpose is in reading it. It was recommended by a friend who said I had to read it. I am finding it engaging, well-written, and informative. One observation, perhaps relevant to this discussion, is that I prefer the hard copy book, because this author writes well but when she reads it out loud, it's just a reading, not not an interpretation or a good performance. It does not provide additional insights. Some books, especially fiction, are better when read out loud by an excellent reader, often an actor. Some, such as a reading on a CD I once heard, of the Gilgamesh Epic, for the first time brought the poem to life. Some, read by their authors who can interpret their own work well, are also better in the audio versions. Some, like this one, may need to be read from hard copy or digital text in the reader's head, not read out loud by the author, or anyone. The experience of reading may, like paintings, or some films, take place between the art object (the painting, book, film) and the reader or viewer. That experience is not the reading or viewing itself, but an interpretative act. My observations may have taken us far afield from the original question of defining reading, but seem to be relevant when we are talking about another kind of reading, one that is not getting information from text but instead getting an experience from text. This is the realm of literature, where some of the reading definitions, and questions about reading, must be different from those concerned with getting meaning from text, ones that are more concerned with feelings, being moved, or possibly being changed.

David J. Rosen

 

 

David, your purpose in reading the book you referenced appears to be simple curiosity inspired by the recommendation from someone you trusted to know your interests.    When I read just for entertainment, I prefer auding if the reader, as you noted, is a good actor as well. Otherwise, as you said, authors can make boring readers. When I "aud (new term?)," my mind wanders but allows me to catch up or retrace. When I read for knowledge, I tend to prefer text, either on hard pages or digital ones. Again, the purpose for me changes my preferences.   David, you said, " they [our definitions here] do not answer other important questions about reading such as "For what purposes do people read?" "Why do some people read more than others?" Why are some people able to (eye, ear or finger) read faster than others? Why do people who can (eye, ear or finger) read not read, or not read much? "What are the reasons people who have been taught to read haven't learned to read?" and others." Would knowing the answer to those contribute to teaching in some way? I would love to hear thoughts on those questions. There are fast answers to each of those. Should we dig deeper?    I know that there is a lot of new resistance to the idea that people have learning preferences. I totally disagree with the reasoning behind most of those arguments. Perhaps, people are just resisting the traditional categorization of those preferences. In my view, some of the answers to the questions posed here simply relate to preferences or abilities. What think? Leecy

Leecy, as a retired critical care nurse, I know that we are all neurologically "wired" differently. An informal summary of the late readers who come to our program finds that most of them have some sort of processing disorder, whether visual (dyslexia, etc.), auditory, or (rarely) tactile. All of these processing disorders can limit efforts to learn to read in the "traditional" manner, whether the disorder is innate or acquired. We therefore use multiple tactics to find the most efficient way for these people to "catch up" by (possibly) using other means of accessing knowledge. We do try to teach them traditional reading, if only to show them that a certain amount of progress can be made in that direction. But it does not mean that the student is not wired to more easily access knowledge by other methods.

Vive la différence, n'est pas, Laurie? :) Your comments provide excellent examples of differentiation, a critical element in teaching! We are, indeed, "wired" differently and we also experience huge differences in our learning preferences that relate to our cultural and emotional  backgrounds.

It sounds like we are all agreeing on a more expanded definition of reading in this discussion. It is certainly a less punitive and much supportive way to regard our instruction than our initial framework allowed! 

I wonder if others here want to take a stab at addressing David's questions. Would we benefit from going further, beyond defining the skill to defining other variables in teaching reading and writing to adults? Leecy

 

Note from Tom Sticht, retired International Consultant in Adult Education and longtime supporter of adult learners all over the world:

Leecy: Regarding the discussion of auding and reading, colleagues and I first introduced the concept of auding into the adult literacy education literature in a 1974 book entitled: "Auding and Reading: A Developmental Model". It defines auding as D. P. Brown coined it in his doctoral dissertation as a parallel term to reading. It presents an extensive review of research testing four hypotheses derived from the perspective of a model of auding and reading as interactive processes. The model proposes four major sets of processes in a developmental sequence to describe the development of auding and reading: (a) the basic adaptive processes (BAPs-seeing, hearing, cognitive, motor movement), (b) the languaging precursors (listening and looking), (c) the oracy languaging processes (auding and speaking), and (d) the literacy languaging processes (reading and writing). The BAPs of seeing and hearing are considered as mechanical or automatic operations that occur as simple physiological responses to structural environmental information; no active, mediating cognitive processing is involved in extracting and registering this information. Listening and looking, conversely, are information-processing activities that involve an active or intentional selection, manipulation, and utilization of information. Auding and reading are specialized listening and looking activities; they entail the extraction and conceptualization of information from a system of conventionalized signs. Within the model's structure, languaging and conceptualizing are major competencies which undergird the auding and reading processes. The book includes recommendations for further research and the development of tests and instructional programs to promote the oracy-to-literacy transfer. 

To access the  free book online at: http://en.copian.ca/library/research/sticht/aar/aar.pdf

More grist for this mill? Leecy 

This discussion about the definition of reading has been fascinating. Re: the calls for attending to purpose in reading, I want to offer the definition of literacy (defined for operational purposes as "reading") used by PIAAC, the latest international assessment of adult reading. Here's the relevant part of the definition:

Literacy [reading] is defined as the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential.

Literacy encompasses a range of skills from the decoding of written words and sentences to the comprehension, interpretation, and evaluation of complex texts...

There are three aspects of this definition I find interesting:

1) The purposes for which adults read: to participate in society, to achieve one's goals, and to develop one's knowledge and potential. These purposes seem to capture the role that reading plays in community membership, in work, and at the personal level. They say to me that if we can read workbooks and tests but not prescriptions, labels, brochures, letters, online articles, websites, poetry, information books, and novels to do what we need to do as adults, we are not considered proficient readers.

2) The verbs capturing what people can do with texts: understand, evaluate, use, and engage. These verbs are important because they emphasize that reading isn't just comprehending/understanding (the usual focus of adult reading instruction). Instead, reading also requires making judgements about the text in order to use it for particular purposes (including enjoyment).

3) Reading encompasses (I love that word choice) what we think of in the reading world as the "reading components." Reading involves such things as decoding individual words, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension strategies (and a host of other sub-skills/strategies that don't get a whole lot of attention right now), BUT it is not defined as our ability to do those things. Reading is defined as the ability to interact with written text *in order to* achieve communal and individual purposes.

Using this definition, I struggle with counting "auding" as reading. I'm just still ambivalent about that. To build on what someone said earlier, it's an easy fit for me to include it if auding is used as a strategy for problem-solving when engaged with the written text. So, if I don't know a word on the screen and I use a tool that reads it aloud for me, that counts as part of "reading."

What I'm less sure about is listening to a book on tape. Just to play devil's advocate: How is that different from watching a Shakespeare play (or any play or movie)? The actors are saying words that are on a page. However, the set, the lighting, the emotion, the intonations, the audience reaction--all provide an interpretation of the text that is separate from the individual audience members. Those individuals then have to construct an interpretation of that first interpretation. ThIs is a step-removed from what reading seems to be. Although viewing a play (or listening to a book read aloud) is an experience with text, I wouldn't qualify it as "reading" because of that significant separation of the person from the written text.

That said, such things as listening to books on tape and watching a play/movie are wonderfully valid experiences. "Reading" is not better than "auding" or "viewing"; it's just a different experience and involves a different, though overlapping, set of sub-skills. At least that's how it seems to me at this point.

Thanks for the discussion. I look forward to hearing more thoughts about this!

Amy

 

Hello Amy,

You wrote:

Using this definition, I struggle with counting "auding" as reading. I'm just still ambivalent about that. To build on what someone said earlier, it's an easy fit for me to include it if auding is used as a strategy for problem-solving when engaged with the written text. So, if I don't know a word on the screen and I use a tool that reads it aloud for me, that counts as part of "reading."

To explore this a bit, suppose you were approached by a severely dyslexic adult learner who had tried for several years, with well-trained tutors, to learn to read well but who still read very slowly. Suppose she said she wanted to learn about software that could read web-based text out loud to her, that she had been offered a job promotion that required a lot of online reading, and she knew she couldn't read fast enough (in the traditional way) to be successful in the new job.  Assuming you knew how to use these text-to-speech software options, would you help her to learn how to use them? If she asked you what this way of reading was called, what would you say? "It's a type of reading" or "it's auding" or "it's listening to text read out loud" or something else?

More important is not what we or what learners call it, but that teachers and tutors of reading to adults acknowledge that this is a legitimate way to get meaning from text, that we teach adult learners who need this option how to use the software, especially if because of their severe specific reading disabilities, they will probably not in traditional ways learn to read well or quickly. Some people in the disabilities accommodations advocacy community argue that it is our legal obligation to tell struggling adult readers about this software option, and to help them to use it to get critical information that they need for themselves and their families such as voting, health and employment information. The availability of this liberating technology, I would argue, is not the same as audio books for reading pleasure, although that may be important, too. When an individual's or her family's livelihood depends on getting information from text quickly, when s/he is in a work situation where relying on co-workers or a family member to read the written text out loud is not possible, but that work-related reading is made possible by using this software, shouldn't reading teachers know about and be trained to help adult learners to use it?  Was this what you had in mind by auding "used as a strategy for problem solving when engaged with the written text"?

Thanks for your thoughts about this.

David J. Rosen, Moderator

LINCS CoP Integrating Technology group

 

 

Hi, David--yes, definitely. In the way I'm thinking about this, the example you gave (of a woman using assistive technology to read online at work) would "count" as reading. I assume the woman would pull the text up on her screen and be looking at it while it was read out loud. So, yes, as you say, auding is being used here "as a strategy for problem solving when engaged with the written text."  The key to me, simply put, is the proximity of the individual to the text. Audiobooks, plays, and movies do not (necessarily) situate the person in proximity to the actual printed text; the individual is one step removed (at least) from the original text. To emphasize, I do *not* think there is a thing wrong with that. It's just not "reading." (Now, if someone were following along with the text while listening to an audiobook, I would count that as "reading.")

I absolutely agree that we all need to be familiar with assistive technology and help adult learners obtain and use these as needed. I think the focus, as you suggest, should be on accessing information. Equipped for the Future (EFF) identified Access Information as one of the four key purposes adults have in pursuing literacy. Based on this initial work, EFF went on to identify 16 skills that fall under their definition of "literacy." The communication set includes Read With Understanding, Observe Critically, and Listen Actively (plus others-https://eff.clee.utk.edu/fundamentals/default.htm). There are tasks we do that call on all of these at the same time in pursuit of accessing information--and the more of these we involve, the richer our learning will be. However, they do involve distinct (but overlapping) skill sets.

I think the teacher's role in the scenario you present, David, is to focus on the task of accessing information. The word "reading" doesn't need to come up.

And I agree--again. The word we use for what's going on in any particular circumstance does not matter. What does matter is making sure that students who need assistive technology know about it, know how to use it, and don't feel "less than" when they do.

Amy

 

Amy, I appreciate the views you've shared here! I was hoping for a "devil's advocate" among us! :)))    You said, "Reading is defined as the ability to interact with written text *in order to* achieve communal and individual purposes." Since the type of interaction is not stated, perhaps auding and even watching plays created from written sources could, if we stretch it a bit, fall into that definition, as others have done in this thread.   Going back to your comments in #1, the purpose aspect, which you mentioned and which David raised, causes me to pause and reflect. Perhaps the term "reading" needs to be defined according to its purpose. As such, it has many definitions.   I'll take a stab: Reading, like swimming, perhaps, is a skill that is acquired at many different levels and for many different purposes. Essentially, reading is the ability to interact with written text in some form, whether visually, auditorily, or through touch, just as swimming is the ability to interact in different ways with water while being immersed.    Would it be helpful for us and for our student to define different purposes in our programs? Following are a few that come to mind, but I'm not sure that they don't overlap a lot:   Academic reading... (eye and touch only?) Reading for entertainment... (eye, ear, touch) Reading for specific knowledge... (eye, ear, touch) Reading to function to meet immediate demands... (eye and touch only?) Occupational reading...(eye, ear, touch)   And then we could start talking about writing... Hmmmmmm...   Leecy

Hi All,

This is a great opportunity to look at how we develop our own working definitions and the tension between our own experiences (and expertise) and the expertise of others. One source of expertise is derived from testing projects, like PIAAC and the EBRI report referenced at the beginning of the conversation. We have to consider these sources with a great deal of caution. Both the PIAAC definition and the six point definition above are derived from testing reading. Test derived definitions reflect test models, and test models are always limited in what they can tell us about any phenomenon, especially literacy.

I’ll look at the PIAAC definition a little more closely as an example. While the PIAAC definition may indeed include some familiar and seemingly broad concepts such as “understand, evaluate, use and engage” it also contains two book-end concepts that start to impose limitations: “ability” and “written texts.” David has provided a compelling example of the problem with imposing limitations on our definition of reading when we limit that definition to written texts.

In addition, the term ability can also create limitations in our understanding, as it suggests that ability is a more stable and static phenomenon. It is something that is demonstrated and then evaluated. (You can see why this term is important in a testing project.) In comparison, educators are just as interested (or even more interested) in capabilities, indicating that there is potential---a phenomenon to be developed.

The second part of the definition is where the alignments with the PIAAC model of literacy (limited, as mentioned, to reading text) become a bit more apparent. First, reading written texts is now reduced to “a range of skills,” not strategies, concepts, actions, etc. The reference to “decoding written words and sentences” is a reference to the series of component tests used for those designated “below Level 1.” The reference to “comprehension, interpretation, and evaluation of complex texts...” is a direct reference to the five stage model developed for testing and the notion of increasing complexity developed for the scoring system.

These are the apparent limitations in the definition. There are many more limitations in what is not stated and not so apparent. The main one, already acknowledged, is that PIAAC ignores writing. Also not considered are concepts and understandings of literacy as a social and cultural phenomenon that changes over time and place and among various groups, that is dynamic, malleable, multi-modal, etc.

While PIAAC does provide insights into macro understandings of people’s abilities to perform complex textual manoeuvers under pressure, and how that particular performance relates to a variety of socio-economic indicators, it is intentionally limited by design in its ability to provide useful pedagogical insights.

When we make direct and explicit connections between pedagogy and test design, we carry the limits of testing projects into teaching and learning practice, which means we also impose artificial limits on learning opportunities. It’s important to ground our working definitions in our own experience and expertise as educators, and conversations like these, and not be too taken up with test-derived definitions.

I concur with much of what you say. All definitions set boundaries, and those developed for testing purposes for a very limited purpose. This is why, as you say, writing is not included in PIAAC's definition of literacy. Leaders of international assessments of this sort have not quite figured out how to measure (cost-effectively) writing across different languages and cultures, so writing wasn't addressed at all in the assessment. Its exclusion does not mean that writing wasn't valued as a type of literacy; it was left out only because it couldn't be measured. So, the PIAAC definition for literacy only includes reading. We would indeed have to understand that before anyone would "adopt" PIAAC's definition of literacy--we have to know it's just about reading. This very narrow definition of literacy differs from Equipped for the Future's, which included 16 skills (including math and advocacy). There were reasons EFF went broad and PIAAC went narrow, so these reasons need to be considered before discerning how to incorporate one or the other (or any outside definition) into our own thinking on the matter.

But back to reading: What I appreciate about the PIAAC definition for reading (let's just call it that since, operationally, that's what is is) is that it actually expands the way many adult educators think of reading. We (broadly speaking--please forgive me) tend to think in narrow, academic terms instead of purposes for reading outside the classroom. We tend to think of teaching reading to pass a test and make educational gains. We tend to think of reading only in terms of sub-skills related to alphabetics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. PIAAC at least grounds its definition in an orientation of reading that looks at the end game--why we're reading. It identifies types of texts that are adult-oriented and used for adult purposes. It also identifies cognitive strategies that adults draw on to read those texts for specific purposes. The main assessment did not even look at the reading components (alphabetics, etc.). Those were assessed, separately, only with certain low-performing readers. That said, PIAAC does have a "use" focus, which doesn't seem to make room for literature and all the reasons we read short stories, poetry, novels. The "engage" part makes room for those purposes, in my mind, but they certainly aren't assessed.

For what it's worth: The NRC (2012) review of the literature attempts to re-orient the field away from (just) a components approach to understanding reading and seems more compatible with a sociocultural approach--where we think of "reading practices" instead of skills and sub-skills. Both are metaphors for what's going on, so I'm comfortable moving between both, as needed, when talking with the field at large. The PIAAC definiton and conceptual framework tools offer a means of bridging the two, it seems to me, if a contextualized approach to reading instruction is employed. I've also found Print Literacy Development: Uniting Cognitive and Social Practice Theories (Purcell-Gates, Jacobson, & Degener, 2004) helpful in integrating the two perspectives.

Amy

Hi, Leecy--Thanks for playing this out. I don't think eye, ear, touch matters by purpose. It seems to me all can be used to help interact with print in the moment. To be clear, I'm thinking of "academic reading" as reading content (social studies, science, math, career materials) to learn that content.

I tried using "learning to read" to see if anything changed, and I'm not sure it does. Part of learning to read is learning to problem-solve and apply necessary strategies to comprehend and use (or appreciate) the text. For some people, auding is a necessary strategy.

Those are my initial thoughts, anyway!

Amy

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something... but why would you want to define the ways of interacting with text (ear, eye, touch) by purpose? I see them as options - choices to be made by individuals to suit their context and their preferences/strengths.  I think context is maybe even more important than purpose. Maybe I want to read a book for pleasure, and if I'm in a cosy armchair in a quiet home, I choose to read, but if I'm driving and want to continue the story, I listen so that I can keep driving safely. The purpose for reading remains the same.

Purpose may be relevant to some individuals' choices but the only time I can see purpose being relevant to defining or dictating how someone should interact with text is in order to be clear about what we're teaching, learning or assessing.  Should someone who does not read in the traditional sense be able to pass a reading assessment on the basis of using audio to support their reading or auding instead of reading?  Passing the assessment indicates to employers and others that the individual can read in the traditional sense when they may not be able to.  I'm inclined to think that we need reading to mean 'using your eyes to decode print' (or we need another term that means that) unless otherwise specified (e.g. reading Braille).

If the skill or knowledge being taught, learnt or assessed is not reading, then it should be possible for all ways of engaging with text to be accepted. So, for example, in the UK there is a theory test component to gaining a driving licence. To pass this, the learner driver has to answer multiple choice questions displayed on a screen. However, they can choose to listen to the questions and answer options, if they wish to, so they do not have to be able to read them to prove they understand driving theory.

Maybe this is more problematic at higher levels - but maybe only because of our historical relationship with text, our historical ways of educating...   So, to pick up on the idea of 'academic reading' as reading to learn different academic subjects: shouldn't it be acceptable to learn and to demonstrate your expertise in any subject without being required to do this through a particular way of engaging with text?   On the other hand, if you have achieved a degree level qualification, is it reasonable to assume that you can read pretty well?  Does your qualification imply that? Should it... or not?   Haha, more questions but not answers! :-)

 

To continue with the swimming analogy, if a certification scheme requires a swimmer to demonstrate that they can use breaststroke and front crawl then they must demonstrate those at the appropriate time to pass the assessment. Otherwise, they use whichever stroke they feel is best for them in a given situation, and if they're only really comfortable using one stroke, or even something that doesn't look quite like the 'real' strokes that swimming assessments assess, as long as they can stay afloat and move through the water, they could still claim to be able to swim. However, they may not be able to achieve certain certificates for swimming.