Why Reading Programmes Fail

Data from all over the world has consistently shown that students are not reading at grade level. Take the ASER 2018 data, which shows that "of all children enrolled in Std VIII in India, about 73% can read at least a Std II level text" (p. 41). While that's not reassuring at all, it's equally worrisome that we aren't setting our sights higher. Similarly, the NAEP 2017 data shows that a mere 36% of Grade 8 students in the USA "performed at or above Proficient" (p. 3) in reading.

These abysmal figures have prompted the growth of reading programmes all over the world, with the use of technology promising treasure troves of data to personalise reading instruction and track reading progress. But what exactly do these programmes personalise? And what exactly do they track?

Ask any starry-eyed employee responsible for marketing or selling or training teachers for such a programme, and they'll walk you through scores of levelled texts accompanied by data showing the progress of the student from Level 0 to Level 5 in just a matter of months, thanks to their programme. "That's reading fluency," you point out. "Yes, our programme has made them very fluent readers!" they boast. "No," you explain, "I mean that's just reading fluency. What about comprehension? How does your programme help them read with comprehension?" "Uhh... Yes, they're reading with comprehension." "But how do you know?" "Yes, yes, they're reading with comprehension, because they're reading the whole thing, see? And see how this kids changes his tone at certain words? He wouldn't be able to do that if he weren't comprehending!" (Based on an actual conversation with the marketing team of an award-winning, tech-based reading programme.)

"Okay, how do you define reading?" you ask. And that's the question that finally stumps them. What is reading? What are its components? What mental processes are at play when we read? How do these develop? What. Is. Reading? A reading programme that can't answer this (and most can't) will fail.

So let's break it down, and let's see what most reading programmes fail to consider.

First, let's define reading: Reading comprehension is an increasingly automatic process by which readers strive to construct a coherent mental representation of a text by way of extracting literal meaning from printed words and filling in gaps in understanding through inferences that are informed by socio-cultural factors and prior knowledge. (Lamba, 2018)

The 'literal meaning' of the text consists of:

1. decoding and word identification: CHECK
2. vocabulary: CHECK
3. syntactic knowledge: CHECK

all three of which are informed by socio-cultural factors XX and prior knowledge XX.

For 'filling in gaps in understanding', students must

1. monitor comprehension: XX
2. make inferences: XX

both of which are also informed greatly by socio-cultural factors XX and prior knowledge XX.

Most reading programmes focus on decoding, vocabulary, and grammar -- those are, after all, easy to teach and easier to track, especially with technology. But decoding, vocabulary, and grammar skills help students understand simply the literal meaning of text. Take, for example, the following sentences from a children's story: Neel was the world’s youngest detective. He had a hat and sunglasses to hide his face. Easy enough. The literal meaning is clear. Neel was a detective. He was very young. He had a hat. He had sunglasses. He hid his face.

But is it enough to simply understand the literal meaning? Are kids thinking about why Neel needed to hide his face? What would happen if he didn't hide his face? Is the student monitoring his comprehension here? Is he making inferences? Does his socio-cultural background and the knowledge he comes with allow him to fill in the gaps in his knowledge? If Neel lost his hat or broke his sunglasses, would the change in the events of the story make sense to the reader?

Let's take another example: The pommel was a hunk of pale stone weighted with lead to balance the long blade. It had been carved into the likeness of a snarling wolf's head, with chips of garnet set into the eyes. The grip was virgin leather, soft and black, as yet unstained by sweat or blood. The blade itself was a good half foot longer than those Jon was used to, tapered to thrust as well as slash, with three fullers deeply incised in the metal.

Read it again. Now, suggest a suitable title for the text.

This may be a bit tough. Okay, hint: Oxford Dictionary defines a pommel as a rounded knob on the end of the handle of a sword...

Now try again. Suggest a suitable title for the text.

The meaning of ONE word helped many of you to comprehend the entire text. And those of you who didn't need that help may be history buffs or Game of Thrones fans. (The text has been taken from Book 1 of the GoT series.)

So back to the main question: What are these reading programmes failing to do? They're failing to take the human aspect of readers into consideration, which leads to two things:

1) They're failing to respect differences in socio-cultural backgrounds and prior knowledge. 2) They're failing to let students converse and hear different opinions and watch how others think and process what they're reading.

Take, for example, the Reading Recovery programme, which basically identifies struggling readers and takes them out of the classroom for one-on-one instruction. Imagine a kid who has no idea of the context of the text-- perhaps a kid from India, recently shifted to England, reading Robert Louis Stevenson's poem Bed in Summer, which is about a kid having to go to bed when it's still light out, thanks to the latitudinal position of England. The Indian kid, having lived all his life in lower latitudes, has never had to experience this. The reading programme now takes him out of the classroom full of English kids, who will in most probability discuss their own summertime woes while reading the poem, and put him with a reading instructor who has no clue about the lack of prior knowledge and who pegs the kid as a struggling reader for not being able to explain why the child in the poem is sad. Had the kid stayed in class and participated in the conversation, heard his peers talking about how the sun doesn't set till very late, and asked a few questions about it, he would have benefited greatly -- not just in comprehending the poem but in seeing that texts do not always give you complete information, and it is important for you to seek out the information that will help you make complete sense of the text.

Reading programmes, please stop making reading a solitary activity. Let conversation be the crucial feature that makes your reading programme the first to show real gains in reading.