Literacy Matters - Winter 2020

The Three Myths Surrounding Content Area Reading Instruction

Lisa Midcalf

Reading Matters Commentary

This slogan has been interpreted through the years to mean that content teachers are also reading teachers. However, when the phrase is looked at more closely, it is not stating that content teachers are also reading teachers, but instead, content teachers are teachers of reading . So what is the difference? Reading teachers teach reading just as math teachers teach math and science teachers teach science. Reading teachers are generally seen as elementary teachers who teach the foundational skills of reading such as the alphabet, phonological awareness, phonics, decoding, and eventually comprehension (Joshi et al., 2009; Nelson, Ojose, & Waithaka, 2015). Content teachers see elementary teachers as reading teachers and rightfully so. On the other hand, a teacher of reading focuses on how to navigate through and comprehend informational text (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2013). Content teachers do not teach reading, but they teach navigation for the purpose of comprehension. This is the foundation of content area reading instruction (Nelson, Ojose, & Waithaka, 2015; Ness, 2016). Research has shown that many textbooks used in the upper grades are written at least two grade levels above the grade in which they are being used (Budiansky, 2001; Chall & Conard, 1991). According to the 2017 Nation’s Report Card put out by NAEP, only 35% of the nation’s public school 4th and 8th graders scored proficient on the reading assessment (The Nation’s Report Card, 2019). This means that 65% of the nation’s public-school students in 4th and 8th grades are reading at or below a basic level. When the textbook’s readability level is combined with the diverse reading abilities of middle school and high school students, teaching navigation and comprehension becomes a high priority in content classes. With the knowledge of content reading strategies, content teachers are able to model how to comprehend that difficult text to those students whose reading abilities may be lacking (Ness, 2016). They are not teaching the students to decode words (reading teacher), but instead, they are teaching students how to navigate the text through motivation, text features, illustrations, making connections, etc. (teacher of reading). Myth #2: Content Area Reading is a One Size Fits All Approach One of the most prominent arguments for disciplinary literacy is that it is content specific (Fang & Coatoam, 2013; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Only strategies used for that content area are addressed. It seems as if there is a belief that a content area reading course focuses only on general strategies that can be used in every content and that every strategy will benefit all students (Bean, Readance, & Baldwin, 2011; Fang & Coatoam, 2013; Fisher & Ivey, 2005; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2017). This could not be further from the truth. Another conference I had

ABSTRACT —Content area reading instruction can be a misunderstood topic by educators. Early childhood and elementary teachers see it as an area taught by middle school and high school teachers. Middle school and high school teachers balk at the idea that they are being told that they need to teach reading alongside their content. Before content area reading instruction can be effective, the myths surrounding the topic must be debunked. Only then can educators move forward with helping their students read informational text. The Three Myths Surrounding Content Area Reading Instruction “Content Area Reading is DEAD. Yes, you heard me correctly — DEAD.” I sat there in total disbelief. The plenary speaker’s words hung in the air, seemingly never to drop. This up-and-coming literacy author continued. “Content area reading is to be buried because disciplinary literacy has taken its place.” I now had a million thoughts crossing my mind. I am a content area reading professor, and I was being told that my area of expertise was dead? I intently listened to the speaker’s entire presentation and mulled over all of her points regarding the irrelevance of content area reading. After carefully considering her argument, I came to the conclusion that there are three myths regarding content area reading instruction that need to be addressed in the literacy community. Myth #1: Content Area Teachers are also Reading Teachers “I am a math teacher!”“I am a history teacher!”“I am a science teacher!”“I am NOT a reading teacher!”These are statements I have heard from students in every one of my content reading courses. According to Fisher and Ivey (2005), most content teachers have this reaction when they are told that they must now teach literacy to their students. They have found that “content teachers feel marginalized . . . and question their capacity to teach students to read” (p. 9). I begin my content reading course with this statement: “You are NOT a reading teacher.”This brings confused looks by the content teachers. “Then why are we taking this course?” is usually the question immediately asked. And so the journey begins to help broaden content teachers’ knowledge of what content reading instruction truly is. The slogan “Every teacher is a teacher of reading”was popularized by William S. Gray in the 1930s when his report for the National Committee on Reading proclaimed that “all teachers should include reading instruction as part of their curriculum” (Moore, Readance, & Rickelman, 1983, p. 425).

| 56 | Literacy Matters | Volume 20 • Winter 2020 | scira.org

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS