Читать книгу Teaching Children to Read - Paul Klapper - Страница 9

Table of Contents

Inner Speech in Reading.—We come now to a more complex problem, the psychology of reading, which studies how the visual impression of the word stimulates the auditory image, thus bringing about meaning and interpretations. Because there is an inseparable association between a word and its sound there is always a problem of inner speech. Just as soon as a visual image of a word is recognized in consciousness an auditory image of it arises, and these two prompt an instantaneous verbal-motor expression. Hence the conclusion of investigators is, “In visual reading the auditory and the motor centers work along” (Messmer). Purely visual reading is not normal. We have here, therefore, an explanation of the prevalent practice, in early reading, of lip movement. This method of reading is not acquired by the children; it is the result of the natural tendency to give expression to any idea in the mind. No sooner does the mind become conscious of the meaning of the symbol which it sees than the organs of speech give expression to it. Reading without lip reaction is an acquired art, a habit to be cultivated. But, even when there is no apparent lip movement, there is a muscular reaction going on in the throat, which can readily be detected by the trained observer and his instruments.

The preceding discussions concerned themselves with eye reading. In the present chapter we must turn our attention to a second form of reading—mental reading. These two forms of reading, eye reading and mind reading, must be differentiated very clearly. Because the child, who is learning to read, speaks and hears his native language, he has a feeling for its structure, form, and cadence. It follows, therefore, that most of the expression, the stops at sense pauses, the intonations, etc., in the child’s speech, are due to associations formed long ago. In reading “since he” the child naturally expects “he therefore”; likewise “not only” calls up “but also”; “as”—“as”; “neither—nor”; “if—then,” etc. The mind, therefore, makes a liberal contribution to what the eye brings; a reader perceives mentally more than the eye brings in any one sweep. Since this mental expectancy makes the mind a more rapid reader than the eye, it follows that one often has the meaning of a sentence before the eye has formed a retinal image of the end of it.

Relation of “Rate in Reading” to Thought Acquisition in Reading.—The practical teacher may now ask, “Why stop at the problems of inner speech in reading, and mental vs. visual reading?” These two questions are important, because they determine a most vital factor in reading as a process of thought-getting, viz., “Rate in Reading.” From actual observation we find that there are great discrepancies in the rate of reading among individuals; the variations show a usual ratio of 1:3, or even 1:4. In other words, it is usual to find among people of the same class, experience, and education individuals who read three or four times faster than others. Generally speaking, the rate in reading is determined by the rhythmical sweeps of the eye over a line; but the rate of rhythmic sweeps is, in its turn, modified by inner speech and mental grasp. The impatient teacher, confronted by actual problems in the teaching of reading, may insist: “What if there is such discrepancy—aside from the time consumed, what is its importance? After all, is it not more important to consider what we read and what we get out of it, than how much or how fast we read?”

The answer, surprisingly, is in the negative. Rapid readers are the more intelligent readers; they gain more intensive and more vivid impressions than slow readers. Those who indulge in lip movement, in auditory aids and the like are not only less extensive but also less intensive readers. Evidence to prove this contention is so great that we need argue the matter no further but examine the conclusions of various impartial observers:

“Experiments show that half-second exposure of a word is more advantageous than a whole second, and one second more advantageous than two.... When printed matter was exposed for a short time, about one one-hundredth of a second, more could be read or the same amount could be read more easily, than when the exposure was longer.”^[2] “Rapid readers remember more of the original thought, and the character of their reproductions is much higher, both generally and with reference to expression and logical content.”^[3]

“It might be supposed that greater rapidity was gained at the sacrifice of exactness or of intelligence. This supposition is negatived by an examination of the amount and quantity of the material reproduced. A comparison between the ten most rapid readers and the ten slowest shows that the rapid readers remember more of the original thoughts, and that the character of their reproduction is much higher, both generally and with reference to expression and logical content. In the auditory tests the ratio of slow to rapid readers is 14.8 per cent. to 20.7 per cent. in the number of thoughts. In quality the percentages are 47.8 for slow readers, 60.3 for fast. The same comparison in the visual tests results as follows: Percentage of thoughts reproduced by slow readers, 14.9; by rapid, 24.4. Quality: Slow, 48 per cent.; rapid, 73.3 per cent. The difference in favor of the ‘rapids’ is consequently much greater than in auditory tests, indicating again that rapid readers are, as a rule, of the visual type....

“To emphasize this relation a comparison of extremes might be shown as follows: The ten slowest readers show almost double the amount of lip movement that the ten most rapid do. Or, again, determining the rate by means of lip movement, we have: the ten most decided lip movers read 4.1 words per second; that is, they are between the classes ‘slow’ and ‘very slow’ and nearer to the latter; while the ten who show least movement of lips read 5.6 words per second, very close to an average rapid.”^[4]

Why the Slow Reader Is the Less Thoughtful One.—“Regarding language as an apparatus of symbols for the conveyance of thought, we may say that, as in a mechanical apparatus, the more simple and the better arranged are the parts, the greater will be the effect produced. In either case, whatever force is absorbed by the machine is deducted from the result. A reader or listener has at each moment but a limited amount of mental power available. To recognize and interpret the symbols presented to him requires part of this power; to arrange and combine the images suggested requires another part; and only that part that remains can be used for realizing the thought conveyed. Hence the more time it takes to receive and understand each sentence, the less time can be given to the contained idea, and the less vividly will the idea be conceived.”^[5]

Conclusions for Teaching.—The relation of rate of reading to intelligence of grasp implies important conclusions for methods of teaching in both early and later grades. The first inference that we can make is that a method of reading must start from the very beginning to teach instantaneous recognition of words, either as a whole or as part of larger language units, phrases or sentences. Any method which begins reading by teaching the child to examine each word, to analyze it into component phonograms, to sound each phonogram, to combine these sounds to get the word, places a premium on lip movement and unnecessary audible aids, and promotes slow, ponderous reading, which develops into habits that defy later efforts at correction. Our objection to synthetic methods, like the Pollard Method and the Emma K. Gordon Method is that they manifest these shortcomings. Methods like the Aldine, the McCloskey, the Progressive Road, and, in a minor way, the Ward Rational System, seek to avoid these dangers. The child must learn to read words in logical sequence, words as wholes, naturally and expressively. Only when proper and natural speed and expression are developed are the analytical and phonetical elements and processes taught.

A second conclusion that the observations of “rate in reading” teach is that, since the mind reads faster than the eye, the learner must be taught to neglect the word and the phrase and seek the thought; in other words, the word-symbols must be subordinated to the meaning. We must make the eye as sensitive and efficient a tool for thought-getting as the ear. In listening to a speaker, if there is nothing unusual about his choice of words or pronunciation, we are hardly conscious of the words; we busy ourselves with the thought. We have thus trained ourselves unconsciously in life, to neglect auditory words and seek meaning. In the same way, the method of reading in the elementary school must seek to make the eye so sensitive to meaning that in scanning a page it becomes as unconcerned with printed words as the ear is with auditory symbols. The child must learn that words are like our eye-glasses—they are of greatest service when we look through them, not at them. The printed page must ever be like a glass which we do not see, but through which we see thought.

The Fetish of Oral Reading.—If we grant this conclusion then we must change the relative emphasis on oral and silent reading, and give to the latter the prominent place accorded the former in present-day practice. Not only do we place too great an emphasis on oral reading, but we begin it too early in the school life of the child. The popular superstition is that plenty of drill in oral reading in the classroom prepares for efficiency in silent reading in the post-school days. Let us examine this contention psychologically. Efficiency in silent reading is determined by the development of a mental habit to associate instantaneously the visual image of the word with the thought. In all oral reading the visual image must associate itself with the auditory image; these, then, bring a recognition of the idea represented by the symbol. The final link in this long chain is the verbal-motor expression. Graphically, the associations in these two forms of reading may be expressed in the following symbols: Silent Reading: Visual Image—Thought. Oral Reading: Visual Image—Auditory Image—Idea—Verbal Motor Image. The brain centers that operate, and also the mental associations and stimulations, are different in the two forms of reading. An overemphasis on oral reading, therefore, trains the mind to make the long circuit, and thus unfits the individual for efficient reading in later life. The earlier we develop the short circuit habit of “visual image, thought,” in our children, the sooner are we making them efficient and intelligent readers. Many writers would go so far as to insist that oral reading should be the exception rather than the rule, and should be tolerated in the class only as an expression of a thought gained or sentiments enjoyed during the lesson. This is obviously an extreme attitude.

These educators justify their plea for a postponement of oral reading on the ground that the steps in oral reading are: (1) instantaneous recognition of symbols, (2) extraction of the thought, (3) expression of the thought. Hence no effective oral reading can take place unless the child has developed reliable ability and undoubted mastery of rapid symbol interpretation and thought extraction. This capability must necessarily come after long, laborious effort. It is because children are asked to read without guaranteeing this ability that real expression is not only impossible but is undermined permanently. The blame for the stiff, stilted, artificial oral reading of the elementary school must be laid at the door of premature oral reading.

A third lesson that this psychological study teaches us is that from the very beginning the work in primary reading must be conducted in such a way as to develop (1) speed, (2) accuracy, (3) direct association between printed symbol and idea, omitting the auditory image. Therefore, in asking children to read early blackboard exercises, the time during which the sentence or phrase or word is exposed should be limited. The subject-matter to be read is shown and then quickly erased or covered. Instead of reading the assigned sentence orally after this limited exposure, let the child give evidence of the possession of the thought in ways other than verbal. Thus the first rhyme of the Aldine Method, “Come, come away and play” is shown. Two children are called, “A” takes “B” by the hand and attempts to lead him away to play. “Have you a knife?” is the sentence given to another lad to read. He looks at it, “sees” the thought, and then says, “Yes, Miss ——, I have a knife.” “The soldiers are marching down the street,” is an assignment to the next pupil. Instead of reading it aloud, he gives evidence of the thought by marching down the aisle like a soldier. In all these exercises the endeavor is to train the child to omit the auditory image, to develop speed in reading and to read for thought. Such drills are a source of absorbing interest to the children and develop a basis of correct habits upon which the teacher can confidently build.