Rethinking the Role of Reading

Linda Lee


When I ask EFL teachers why they have students read in class, their most common responses are: (a) to practice reading strategies; (b) to develop fluency in reading; and (c) to improve reading comprehension. These purposes for reading make sense for language learners who are preparing to tackle academic or professional texts and need the appropriate reading skills and strategies to do so. In these classrooms, the texts or reading materials become something that students do or practice or get through to become more proficient readers in the target language. Unfortunately, this model has become the standard approach to reading in the EFL classroom at all proficiency levels and has caused us to lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose for having beginning and intermediate EFL students read in class is to learn the language.

"Using" Readings for Language Input

What happens when we base our reasons for reading in beginning and intermediate EFL classrooms on the claims of current language acquisition theory? Current language acquisition theory claims that we acquire language in only one way, when we understand messages, that is, when we obtain "comprehensible input". Thus, we acquire when we understand what people tell us or what we read, when we are absorbed in the message. (Krashen, 1997, p.3)

In this model, reading (and listening) material is the fuel that drives the language acquisition process. Language learners use the meaning-bearing input we provide "to build a mental representation of the grammar that must eventually underlie their use of language." (VanPatten, 1996, p. 5) Without meaning-bearing input, language cannot be learned. Once we start thinking of written materials or texts primarily as sources of language input, we can then focus our attention on identifying the types of written material that best serve this purpose and on how to use them.

"Doing" Things with Texts

For written materials to serve as input for language acquisition, learners must attend to it, engage it, and understand it. It seems, then, that my job as a language teacher is to help students do just this: attend to, engage, and understand what they read. I no longer see myself as "teaching" language; rather, I see myself as helping students process input, that is, turn input into intake. To help students do this, I must get them to do things with the information in the text.

When I turn my attention from doing texts to doing things with texts, I am essentially changing from a text-based pedagogy to a student-based pedagogy. Rather than trying to get students to grasp the meaning of a text, I am now focusing on helping them interact with written input. For example, what happens if I take a rather dull paragraph that describes soccer and transform it into a simple chart like the one below?

 Soccer  

 ___

  is a team sport.

 ___

  is a slow-moving sport.

 ___

  is an Olympic sport.

 ___

  is a dangerous sport.

 ___

  is very popular here.

 ___

  is the most popular sport in the world.

 ___

  is fun to play.

 ___

  is fun to watch on TV.

 ___

  is usually played outdoors.

 ___

  is played on a hard surface.

While this is not a reading in the traditional sense, it is clearly input in written form, and it is input that students must do something with. (In this case, students must identify the phrases that describe soccer.) In order to do this task, students must understand some or much of the input, think, and make decisions. In this particular example, teacher and students work together, with the teacher adding oral input something like this: Let's see. Soccer is a team sport. Yes, that's right. It's a team sport. A slow-moving sport. Hmmm. No, it's not a slow-moving sport . . . Note that the teacher's oral input is in the form of a "think aloud" rather than in the form of an interrogation (What do you think, Yuko . . . Is soccer a team sport? Is it a slow-moving sport?) Here, the teacher thinks aloud, inviting students to join in the construction of a text describing soccer. Note also that some descriptors are opinion-based as in the case of "is fun to play" and "is dangerous," in order to encourage interaction and negotiation among students. Syntax may also be beyond students' previous experience, but in this context-rich environment, students are able to infer meaning.

I can continue to provide written input on sports in many different formats. For example, students and I could co-construct the chart below by adding the names of different sports to each category.

 is a dangerous sport
skiing

 isn't a dangerous sport
badminton

 players wear uniforms
soccer

 players don't wear uniforms
golf

Statements with interesting information could also be considered reading material for language input. In the example below, language learners read the statements and guess the name of the sport.

 

 

Learners could also read longer descriptions and guess the sport as in the example below:

No one knows for sure where this sport was invented, but it became so popular in Scotland in the 1400s that a law was passed prohibiting it. The object of the game is to hit a ball into a series of 18 small holes. A player is allowed to use a set of 14 clubs. What sport is this?

Unfortunately, the sample materials about sports above are likely to be regarded as simply activities or tasks that students do or practice or get through rather than as information-rich texts for students to interact with. I say this is unfortunate because the moment we think of a reading as an activity rather than as written input, the benefit of using that particular reading in the classroom -- to provide meaning-bearing input that students attend to and engage in order to acquire the language -- is lost. Unless we are willing to rethink the role of reading in the EFL classroom, one of our most valuable resources for teaching a language (providing meaning-bearing input) can't find a place in our language learning materials.

References

Krashen, S.D. (1997). Foreign language education the easy way. Culver City, California: Language Education Associates.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.