Proposal view
| Proposal Type: | Individual Thematic Poster |
|---|---|
| Domain: | Learning and Cognitive Science |
| SIG: | Comprehension of Text and Graphics |
| Equipment |
Overhead projector |
| Paper Details |
|---|
| Title | The Reading Skill and Reading Strategy Definition Problem |
|---|---|
| Abstract | The terms “reading skill” and “reading strategy” are central to how we conceptualize and teach reading. Across the history of reading research and reading instruction (Huey, 1908; Snow, 2002; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1978) skill and strategy are key terms. Despite their importance, the terms are not well defined nor are they used consistently. The lack of consensus in understanding and using these terms may diminish the impact of research and practice aimed at helping children become better readers. This presentation describes the problem of lack of clarification of the terms skill and strategy, examines the history of use of the terms in published reading curriculum, and analyzes the development and use of the terms in reading research. Definitions for reading skill and reading strategy that clarify both their differences and their relations are proposed. |
| Summary | Aims This presentation examines the differences and relations between skill and strategy from three perspectives. First, current usage of the terms “skill” and “strategy” is examined in the professional discourse in reading research and instruction communities. Second, an historical analysis of reading instruction materials reveals changing foci on skill or strategy across the last century. The third section of the presentation provides a developmental synthesis of reading research that highlights the differences and similarities between skill and strategy. Based on these three perspectives, the presentation concludes with a proposal of definitions for “reading skill” and “reading strategy,” and clarification of their differences and relationships. Methodology The study uses several data gathering and analysis methods. First, we employ interviews and document analysis to determine how teachers, teacher educators, professional organizations, schools and national departments of education use the terms “skill” and “strategy.” Second, we examine reading curriculum over the last century and provide a history on how skill and strategy have been alternating foci of instruction. This analysis also demonstrates how skill and strategy are at times confounded in reading instruction materials. Third, we synthesize educational psychology research, and describe the different meanings that have been assigned skill and strategy. This research synthesis is also the basis for our proposed definitions of reading skill and reading strategy, and our description of their relationships. Findings Focus 1: The use of the terms “reading skill” and “reading strategy” in professional discourse The results of this survey are several. First, the terms are most frequently used without defining them, as if their meanings were universally agreed upon. Second, when definitions are provided, they vary considerably. Third, there are varied conceptualizations of the relationship between reading skills and strategies. They may be used interchangeably or considered unrelated. Fourth, while skill and strategy appear to have a developmental link, this connection is not often acknowledged or explained. Focus 2: An historical account of the use of “skill” and “strategy” in reading instruction This paper traces the evolution of the terms skill and strategy as they have been used in reading curriculum materials and reading pedagogy over the past 100 years. The paper compares uses of the terms skill and strategy as they have appeared in (a) reading instruction materials, (b) tests of reading, especially reading comprehension, (c) textbooks on teaching reading, and (d) the professional literature (e.g., research journals). The paper also reports on other terms that have been used as rough synonyms, such as processes, activities, and tools, to determine the breadth of the intrusion of these constructs into curriculum and pedagogy. This historical analysis yields several conclusions: (a) skills came long before strategies, (b) skills reached a major apex in the 1970s, abated in the 1980s through the early 1990s, then reached a secondary apex in recent times, (c) strategies emerged from the metalinguistic and metacognitive traditions exported from psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology in the 1960s and 1970s. Focus 3: “Reading skill” and “reading strategy:” An educational psychology perspective Within psychology, the terms skills and strategies had different theoretical and historical origins. One source of confusion between skills and strategies is the different uses of the terms across time and disciplines. “Skills” has been used for a hundred years in both psychology and education, but the term refers to many types of behaviors and cognitions. The term “skills” in psychology was used in behavioral learning theories and it had a history of reference to “motor skills”, routine habits, and activities that were less mindful and more automatic. The term “strategies” became popular in psychology with the advent of information processing models, where strategies, such as rehearsal, could be applied to information in short-term memory to preserve the information and move it into long-term memory (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). Whether the cognitive processes were deliberate or not was not important for memory researchers and “strategies” were not differentiated from “skills” for manipulating information mentally. Information processing models of memory described how memory improved as a function of age, intelligence, expertise, and other individual differences (e.g., Kail & Hagen, 1977) whereas educational researchers studied techniques that enhanced remembering, learning, and studying (Levin & Pressley, 1986). Concurrently, researchers examined children’s developing metacognition as children learned and applied strategies (Brown, 1975). In both types of research, the term “strategies” described the mental, and sometimes physical, actions that children used to improve memory and other cognitive functions. Thus, the use of “strategies” to describe children’s information processing tactics was embedded in the emerging information processing theories of the 1970s. However, the strategies were usually defined by examples, such as rehearsal, chunking, and imagery, rather than by explicit definitions of the scope, conscious use, or deliberate goal orientation of the actions. There was no account of the strategies that accomplished readers used or of the strategies that developing readers must learn. Thus, skills were rooted in behavioral descriptions of learning through practice, whereas strategies were rooted in constructive, self-controlled theories of information processing. Educational significance This presentation directly addresses the definition problem of the terms reading skill and reading strategy. This presentation defines skill and strategy and their relationships in the historical context of curricular materials, the research context of educational psychology and the social context of the terms’ contemporary usage. Reading strategies are deliberate, goal-directed attempts to control and modify the reader’s efforts to decode text, understand words, and construct meanings whereas reading skills are automatic actions that result in decoding and comprehension with speed, efficiency, and fluency, usually without awareness of the components or control involved. Thus, a reader’s actual behaviors and thoughts do not determine if an act is a skill or a strategy, but rather, the reader’s deliberate control, goal-directedness, and awareness define a strategic action. Control and working towards a goal characterize the strategic reader who selects a particular path to a reading goal, i.e., a specific means to a desired end. Consistent usage of these two terms should provide the field with a much-needed common language. |
| Keywords | Cognition Cognitive processes/development Reading |
| Appendices | |
| Authors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | Presenting | |
| Peter | Afflerbach | University of Maryland | United States | afflo@umd.edu | * | |
| P. David | Pearson | University of california | United States | ppearson@berkeley.edu | ||
| Scott | Paris | University of Michigan | United States | sparis@umich.edu | ||
