Article Reviews and Responses

Table of Contents

Abstract

Reading aloud to children: the past, the present and the future
Highlight:
Article Summary:
Critique:
Implementation Ideas:

Raising standards in reading and writing: Insights from England’s National Literacy Strategy
Highlight:
Article Summary:
Critique:
Implementation:

Assessing early literacy in young children
Highlight:
Article Summary:
Critique:
Implementation:

Phonological awareness: One key to the reading proficiency of deaf children
Highlight:
Article Summary:
Critique:
Implementation:

References

Abstract

This paper shall be a review and response to each of four articles discussing different issues concerning literacy. A quotation from each article shall be highlighted and discussed. An article summary, for each, will be presented. A critique will then be given. And, finally, ideas for implementing the author’s ideas into a kindergarten classroom will be described.

Article Reviews and Responses

Reading aloud to children: the past, the present and the future

Highlight:

Reading aloud to children as a method of reading instruction has been a tool used for centuries. In fact, Durkin noted “the descriptions of the earliest education in the United States indicated that beginning reading was once taught more often in a kitchen than in a classroom.” (as cited in Guofang, 2000)

However, for approximately five decades society turned away from this tried and true method of teaching, and it wasn’t until the late 1970’s that it once again resurfaced as an effective method in encouraging the development of literacy in children. Research began to be conducted noting the beneficial qualities of reading aloud to children, but as Teale (as cited in Guofang, 2000) noted and Guofang (2000) agreed, more naturalistic studies are needed to truly give a full analysis of the effects of children being read to.

By evaluating the efforts of storytelling to children in a non-clinical setting, researchers can not only discover what is most likely to be occurring in similar households that are not under study, but also can better develop new processes to help facilitate the learning. Experiences recorded in nonrealistic settings may not be what happens in real life, and new processes developed as such may not be practical or effective.

Article Summary:

Guofang’s (2000) article entitled Reading aloud to children: The past, present and future was a three-part article discussing the history behind the concept of reading to children, recent research supporting this concept, and what could be done in the future. By referring to a multitude of research Guofang makes the point that more naturalistic research needs to be done on this topic.

The article begins by acknowledging that reading to children is a centuries old concept utilized by parents, teachers, storytellers and charlatans. Huey “recognized the importance of parents reading aloud to children and wrote that the secret of it all lies in the parents' reading aloud to and with their children.” (as cited in Guofang, 2000)

The article also notes that for a period of approximately 50 years, this literacy tool was set aside. However, in the late 1970’s a resurgence of interest in reading aloud to children sparked debate and with research has once again become a valued tool that is encouraged for teachers and parents to utilize.

The research performed appears to be quite conclusive that there are educational and social benefits, both at home and at school, to reading aloud to children. To fully understand these benefits though, Guofang (2000) is in agreement with Teale’s (as cited in Guofang, 2000) assessment that additional research should be done in a more naturalistic approach.

Critique:

Guofang’s article Reading aloud to children: The past, the present and the future discusses three parts of the topic concerning the value of reading aloud to children as a means for increasing literacy. Historical perspectives of the use of reading aloud to children are given and the value society placed on this literacy tool, as well as how it was lost for nearly five decades prior to the late 1970’s. The article continues with the evaluation of late 20th century research confirming the value of this tool, and then finally concludes with the summary that research to date has shown how reading aloud to children can be beneficial, however, more research in a naturalistic setting is needed.

Although Guofang’s article covers much of the information necessary to begin to appreciate the importance of reading aloud to children, there are a couple of questions left unanswered. If these issues had been covered a bit more thoroughly, the reader would have garnered an even greater knowledge of the subject matter presented.

First, Guofang briefly mentioned that from the 1920’s through the 1960’s reading aloud to children was not used to promote emergent literacy. It was noted that story reading was thought to be irrelevant during this time period, and Durkin (as cited in Guofang, 2000) stated that during this time “the traditional objections about reading before a children enters school (included): preschool reading will be injurious to a child’s vision; parents are not trained to teach reading; preschool reading leads to problems of boredom or confusion when school instruction begins.” Although this statement allows the reader to get a very general overview of what the objections were, no supporting documentation as to why they were felt is included. Oftentimes, by fully understanding that which is contradictory to one’s own opinion one can better formulate and express their opinion. Detailing these objections and expressing why they were inaccurate would have only enhanced Guofang’s article.

Second, no discussion is given to why such a dramatic change was made in the 1970’s to revert back to valuing reading aloud to children to support literacy. Although Guofang notes research being done prior to and during this time to support the idea, and that in “the late 1970’s (…) a substantial and unified challenge to the traditional approach (had) arisen” (Guofang, 2000) he does not thoroughly explain why. Supporting research alone could not have been the only cause, as Guofang noted several examples dating 20 to more than 100 years earlier. Better understanding on exactly what sparked this dramatic change to return to reading aloud to children, again, would enhance the reader’s knowledge of the subject.

[...]