Abstract: It is incredible that Frank Smith would suggest that just reading children and turning them over authors will eliminate the nation's literacy problems, these authors charge. After a long election season, many issues still compete for the attention of the American public. Among the educational issues receiving considerable attention, the continuing debate over the teaching of reading never fails generate controversy. For many years, much of the dispute has revolved around the relative effectiveness of an instructional emphasis on decoding versus an instructional emphasis on meaning.[1] However, in the February 1992 Kappan Frank Smith shifted the debate a new arena. He would dismiss formal instruction entirely, reducing the role of the teacher reading children and turning them over authors.[2] In the Kappan article, Smith presents his views about what constitutes the view of learning, about how it should be changed, and about read. Because these are important issues, it is essential that readers be provided facts rather than fiction. Unfortunately, Smith has misrepresented the study of learning, misrepresented the facts about reading, and failed provide essential evidence support his conclusions. ON LEARNING Smith begins by asserting that there are two views of learning. He says that the prevailing view is that learning is usually difficult and takes place sporadically, in small amounts, as a result of solitary individual effort, and when properly organized and rewarded. He also claims that, according this view, is transient and that most of what is learned is likely be quickly forgotten unless 'rhearsed' or 'refreshed' -- especially before examinations and tests. He calls this the official view of learning. Smith contrasts this view with his own preferred view that learning is continuous, spontaneous, and effortless, requiring no particular attention, conscious motivation, or specific reinforcement; occurs in all kinds of situations and is not subject forgetting. He summarizes by saying, We learn from the company we keep. Yet Smith provides no research or theoretical evidence support these assertions. Indeed, we were reminded of a remark that Hans Eysenk once made in response an article that advanced sweeping indictments on the basis of no evidence. He characterized the method of proof as, Whatever I say three times is true. What we find most troubling are Smith's attempts undermine any systematic, scientific approach the study of learning. In its place he offers a theory of spontaneous in a social context. He likens read speak, the latter being an effortless process. There is no room for formal instruction -- only reading children and given them over authors. He fails mention that read is routinely contrasted (in undergraduate textbooks) with speak as an effortful process. Acquisition of spoken language, universal across all languages, is, because of its unique ease, often assumed be biologically prepared. Writing systems, on the other hand, are far from universal (many oral cultures remain) and are of recent historical vintage.[3] Smith's article is rife with misstatements and oversimplifications, and we discuss a small sample of them here. However, the serious reader is encouraged read a number of relevant introductory texts.[4] Smith illustrates the obvious -- that much of what we learn is learned informally -- without specific intent: This unconscious, continual, and effortless goes on throughout life. And it is achieved without a 'method' of instruction. However, he makes the remarkable claim that to try, through exhortation, change the way children talk or behave is try change their identities. Smith then falls into one of the common traps that ensnare those who take the Rousseauistic stance that read should be natural. …
Publication Year: 1993
Publication Date: 1993-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 55
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot