THEORIES OF READING INSTRUCTION

Just like teaching methodology, reading theories have had their shifts and
transitions. Starting from the traditional view which focused on the printed form
of a text and moving to the cognitive view that enhanced the role of background
knowledge in addition to what appeared on the printed page, they ultimately
culminated in the metacognitive view which is now in vogue.

WHY TEACH THEORY

GUTKNECHT and KEENAN (1978)

- stated that “competent reading instructors were able to do more than just
follow explicit directions in reading materials.”

THORNDIKE (1920)

- postulated that reading is reasoning.

WILLIAM S. GRAY (1939)

- believed that reading consisted of four hierarchical steps or skills.

VIEWING READING AS DEVELOPMENTAL:

 Word perception
 Comprehension
 Reaction
 Synthesis

GOODMAN and SMITH (1978)

- reported on research being conducted that had as its foundation on the

observation of children as they learned language and reading.
-

GRAYS’ MODEL OF THE READING PROCESS

- Gray’s model also called a process model for its attempt to explain what
goes on in the reader’s head while reading.
PSYCHOLINGUISTIC READING MODEL

- The Psycholinguistic Model of Reading is the marriage of two disciplines;

psychology and linguistic.

FRANK SMITH (1973)

- stated that reading as a process of communication transfers information

from a “transmitter” to a receiver.

DURKIN (1992)

- calls the common sense approach to teaching reading and defining reading
as an interactive activity.
-

PRINCIPLES OF READING INSTRUCTION:

- Reading and writing are language processes.

- Early in the reading process, the learner must acquire ways of recognizing
words independently.
- Motivation contributes to the development of literacy.
- The key to successful literacy instruction is the teacher not the material or
the technique
- Teacher must provide for the needs of exceptional children in regular
classroom literacy instruction.
- Teacher must be able to create, manage, and maintain an environment
conducive to learning.
- Teachers of literacy must forge partnerships with the home and
community to promote reading growth.

PSYCHOLOGY OF READING

DECHANT and SMITH (1977)

- stated that there were certain principles of psychology of reading that

teachers need to be aware of and use when planning and implementing
reading instruction.

The following is a summary of those findings:

- Reading is a sensory process.

- Reading is a perceptual process.
- Reading is a response.
 - Reading is a learned process.
- Reading is a growth process.

READING MODELS

- A reading model is a graphic attempt “to depict how individual perceives a

word, processes a clause, and comprehend a text”.

KIND OF READING MODELS:

TOP-DOWN

- It emphasizes what the reader brings to the text, such as prior knowledge
and experiences.

BOTTOM-UP.

- Emphasizes the written or printed text. Comprehension begins by

processing the smallest linguistic unit (phoneme), and working toward
larger units (syllables, words, phrases, sentences.)

BOTH INTERACTIVE AND WHOLE LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS ARE

BASED ON A READING THEORY THAT SAY THE FOLLOWING:

- Prior knowledge
- Experience
- Print
- Context

THEORETICAL INFORMATION SOME MATERIALS NEEDED FOR AN INTERACTIVE

INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM:

- Plenty of interesting text which people are highly motivated to read. These
can be reprinted or student generated, or both
- A phonics or syllable-based primer with lessons linked to meaningful texts.
- A teacher guide listing the sounds or syllables to be taught.
Dechant, Emerald and Smith, Henry P. (1977) Psvchologv in Teaching Reading.

Goodman, K., "Behind the Eye: What Happens in Reading," In H.Singer and R. Ruddell (eds.),
Theoretical Models and Processes in Reading, IRA, Newark, DE, 1976, pp. 470-496.

Smith, L. A. (2006). Think-aloud mysteries: using structured, sentence by senctence text

passages to teach comprehension strategies. [Electronic version]. The Reading
Teacher, 59(8), 764-773.

Thorndike, Edward L. 1920. “A Constant Error in Psychological Rating.” Journal of Applied

Psychology 4 (1): 25–29.