1
Philosophy of Reading
Brittney Kraus
TEDU 561
2
My philosophy of reading is based mostly on the type of population I plan on
working with throughout my career. Because I will be teaching reading in the context of
Exceptional Education, my philosophy of reading involves providing my students with a
variety of instructional methods, assessing what works by collecting and analyzing data,
and tailoring individual instruction that includes whichever methods work best for each of
my individual students.
A number of theoretical models for reading acquisition are recognized in current
literature. A good theoretical model covers a considerable amount of information
discovered in the past, helps make sense of what is happening with reading instruction in
the present, and allows educators to make predictions about what may happen in the
future. There are four widely recognized models of reading instruction: Direct Instruction,
Cognitive Apprenticeship, Explicit Explanation, and Whole Language. Direct Instruction is a
teacher-directed model that breaks language down into parts taught in isolation. The
model assumes that reading can be taught in subskills by using a specified set of teacher
behaviors. Cognitive Apprenticeship occurs when teachers scaffold learning and withdraw
support as students are able to perform skills independently. Students observe the teacher
as they model, then gain responsibility little by little until it is the teacher watching the
student. I feel that both Direct Instruction and Cognitive Apprenticeship are models I would
attempt with a given student and continue to use if data exhibits student learning.
Explicit Explanation involves an explicit definition of the strategies used in reading.
The teacher must discuss these strategies, model how to use them, and provide
opportunities for students to practice them in context. This model involves a gradual
release of responsibility that ends with the student practicing the strategy independently.
3
This model involves more authentic reading than Direct Instruction. I believe that this
model fits into my philosophy of reading. Within Exceptional Education, teaching strategies
outright can be very helpful, especially for students who have trouble with information that
is framed implicitly.
The Whole Language model assumes that language is used for authentic purposes,
and thus promotes authentic reading and writing that uses a whole text. This method does
not include artificial tasks such as worksheets. It is child-centered, so students can direct
their own learning. The instruction in this model occurs in response to students’ needs as
they are using language to communicate. This model is known as more of a philosophy than
a method. I do not believe that the whole language model fits into my philosophy of
reading, in that my philosophy involves the use of many varied instructional methods in
order to discover a way of instruction that works best for an individual student. Because
whole language is a philosophy and not a method, it does not provide me with an option to
try with a struggling reader as the other models do. Also, the student-directed aspect of
whole language, though interesting to me personally, does not mesh with my philosophy of
reading as it relates to Exceptional Education. I believe struggling readers or students with
disabilities need targeted interventions and providing these interventions in a way that is
student-directed is difficult to conceptualize for me.
Much support for my philosophy can be found within common discourse on reading
instruction. Morrow & Gambrell (2011) write that for many students, the whole-group
instruction that frequently occurs in the General Education classroom may not be enough.
They write:
Thus another feature of exemplary intervention efforts is the useful and targeted
deployment of special support teachers and personnel who provide the intensive
4
and personalized instruction that those few children need in order to thrive in
school (p. 99).
Many students are in need of more targeted interventions when it comes to reading
acquisition. This is especially true for students with disabilities. This is why my philosophy
includes discovering an individualized approach to reading instruction. Mesmer & Mesmer
(2008) describe the Response to Intervention process that is frequently employed when
children exhibit issues with literacy: “RTI requires that progress-monitoring data are
continuously collected as students receive interventions” (p. 283). My philosophy involves
keeping data on the various instructional methods I practice for my students. I will base my
instructional decisions on this data in order to provide each individual student with the
instruction that works for them. Mesmer & Mesmer also state that an important step in the
Response to Intervention process is to provide students who continue to struggle with
“intense, targeted interventions” and “additional assessments” (p. 283). Evidence-based
assessment tools such as Words Their Way, text analysis tools that match readers to
appropriate text, and informal reading inventories such as Running Records can all serve as
forms of data that fit into my philosophy.
The role of language development in reading acquisition should be considered in
any and every philosophy of reading. In Special Education, it is not out of the question for a
teacher to come across students who are not typically developing in terms of language
skills. The Interactional, Personal, or Imaginative functions of language may prove
challenging for students on the Autism spectrum or with Intellectual Disability. Students
with processing issues may struggle with syntax. Impairments in these areas may
significantly impact reading and comprehension of text. Students who struggle with syntax
and pragmatics may develop issues with fluency. Processing issues can also affect syntax
5
and therefore comprehension of text. Students who have trouble conceptualizing the
Interactional, Personal, and Imaginative functions of language may also struggle with
comprehension, as they may find it difficult to understand a writer’s voice or intent.
Language development fits into my philosophy because I recognize that it may be
necessary to assess a student’s language development before being able to address his or
her reading needs. Language assessments are just another form of data that can help an
educator to cater interventions to the needs of an individual student. Language is complex,
as is language development. Disabilities can affect language development in a variety of
ways. My philosophy considers any impairments in language development and seeks to
address them via assessments and targeted instruction.
All of the components of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary and
background knowledge, fluency, comprehension strategies, motivation, and writing) are
integrated when one is reading fluently. In Special Education, teachers are encouraged to
think in terms of both strengths and weaknesses. This can be done by working on specific
interventions that target the components my students are struggling with while
encouraging them to continue to develop the skills that they already have. Our lectures
recommend a “diet” for the transitional reader that is composed of reading practice, word
study, reading instruction, writing, and read alouds. These instructional blocks combined
allow for a student to acquire all of the skills required for fluent reading. As an educator, I
can model and maintain all of the components by using the recommended “diet” as well as
conducting before, during, and after reading activities. What’s more, by providing my
students with exposure to a wide variety of instructional methods, I can offer a
6
comprehensive approach to reading that allows them to integrate each of the necessary
components for fluent reading.
It is important for educators to consider their own role within their philosophy of
reading instruction. As I consider this, I consider the fact that many students who are
receiving Special Education services in Language Arts have struggled with literacy for quite
some time. Because of this, many have negative feelings towards reading and writing. I
believe that one of my major roles in teaching reading will be to inspire students to enjoy
reading and writing. This role fits into my philosophy because I will do this by targeting a
student’s specific strengths and interests in order to create literary experiences that they
will enjoy. This further employs my philosophy of individualizing instruction.
My philosophy emphasizes the use of a multitude of instructional techniques in
order to discover what type of instruction works best for any given student. Because of this,
I am open to using a variety of instructional methods and I therefore recognize that my role
in instruction may change depending on the needs of my students. Because I can see Direct
Instruction, Cognitive Apprenticeship, and Explicit Explanation each fitting into my
philosophy, I could see myself filling the role that each of these models endorses. I am
willing to fulfill a teacher-centered role if Direct Instruction is the most appropriate method
for a student. Likewise, I may take on a “master” role with ample scaffolding if data shows
that a Cognitive Apprenticeship model works best for a student. Simply put, I am willing to
attempt any and all evidence-based practices of literacy instruction in order to discover
what type of instruction will work best for a given student. Undoubtedly, my philosophy of
reading will change throughout my career, but as I begin my teaching practice, I uphold my
7
philosophy of individualized reading instruction that meets specific needs of each and
every student on my caseload.
8
References
Mesmer, E. M. & Mesmer, H.A.E. (2008). Response to Intervention (RTI): What teachers of
reading need to know. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 280-290.
Morrow, L.M., Gambrell, L.B., & Pressley, M. (Eds.) (2011). Best practices in literacy
instruction (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.