I like this definition (from Ellin Keene, I think): Reading is thinking. At first blush, it seems so broad as to be useless. But then I think about the problems inherent in hitching reading too closely to decoding. For example, people who are blind can't see our written language, but they can use braille and screen readers to decode the text -- i.e., to "lift" if out of the darkness and bring it into the realm of sound, where they can think about it. Some LD students can benefit from screen readers as well -- different reasons, but same outcome. Another example: deaf people can see text, and they can think about it -- despite the fact that have no experience of sound. So my view is that it's the thinking that counts.
There is a good argument to be made that a growing awareness of "disabled" readers as "differently abled", as well as the spread of software tools such as screen readers, search tools, and navigation tools (which are great aids for skimming and scanning), have contributed to the shift in our conception of reading as decoding to reading as thinking. Of course, I would not want to overlook the impact that format has on thinking. Some might argue that thinking is thinking, regardless of where you are doing it. But that misses the role of perception -- that perception is, itself, thinking. Western culture has driven a wedge between perception and cognition, ignoring the first and elevating the second. This viewpoint has always been somewhat troubled; it is more troubled today, now that we have such a wide selection of formats from which to choose -- and thus such a wide range of "places" in which to think. So I really like Keene's definition (or was it Miller's or Tovani's....?). It's deceptively simple, welcoming to the fullest range of readers, and right on target when it comes to what is important about reading. Dave Middlebrook The Textmapping Project A resource for teachers improving reading comprehension skills instruction. www.textmapping.org | Please share this site with your colleagues! USA: (609) 771-1781 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill IVEY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 12:27 AM Subject: [LIT] redefining reading > Hi! > > Brenda Dyck - yet again! - has pointed me to an interesting article, this > one by David Booth. In it, he argues (among other things) that in this day > and age, we need to redefine what reading is. Well - do we? > > And more importantly, how would each of you define reading? > > And yes, I have more questions I may wonder about depending on our answers > to this one ;-) > > Take care, > Bill Ivey > Stoneleigh-Burnham School > > > _______________________________________________ > The Literacy Workshop ListServ http://www.literacyworkshop.org > > To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to > http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/lit_literacyworkshop.org. > > Search the LIT archives at http://snipurl.com/LITArchive > _______________________________________________ The Literacy Workshop ListServ http://www.literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/lit_literacyworkshop.org. Search the LIT archives at http://snipurl.com/LITArchive
