Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:47:02.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Guest Column—On “Learning to Read”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Extract

The theories and methodologies feature of this issue of PMLA contains a cluster of essays devoted to the subject of reading. At a time when many states in the United States are in the throes of a major public-education reform designed to prepare better-educated, more literate citizens for tomorrow's world, we collected these essays in the belief that scholars belonging to the MLA might be interested in reflecting on this effort in the light of their research. Hence our title, “Learning to Read,” and our appeal to our contributors to consider what they, with their scholarly expertise and pedagogical experience, might contribute to the charged debates about the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI)— debates that remind us of the high stakes involved in training good readers. We hope that PMLA readers will agree with us that the question of how the architects of the Common Core have defined the uses and measures of literacy education affects much of the MLA membership—professors, adjuncts, and graduate instructors alike.

For some years now, test results have indicated that American schoolchildren read more poorly than many of their peers abroad (Heitin). A distinctive feature of the Common Core (the shorthand title for an extraordinary effort to align educational requirements and standards nationwide) lies in its effort to devise a graduated progression in the standards for the English language arts (ELA) that is anchored in the skills of close reading. Given that the changes in teaching objectives defined and prescribed by the standards might transform the way children in America learn to make sense of the written word, it is only natural that our professional body would respond. The decisive, and some might say aggressive, manner in which the architects of the Common Core have recast the fundamentals of the ELA has provoked strong reactions, not only among K-12 teachers but also in higher education. Concerns were voiced early on in sessions at MLA conventions starting in 2013, and those conversations have continued on MLA Commons (e.g., Ferguson).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Ally, Mohamed. Introduction. Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training. Ed. Ally, . Edmonton: Athabasca U, 2009. 18. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. “The Closeness of Close Reading.” ADE Bulletin 149 (2010): 2025. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English Language Arts Standards.” Common Core State Standards Initiative. Common Core State Standards Initiative, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Margaret W.The MLA and the Common Core State Standards Initiative: Continuing the Conversation.” MLA Commons. MLA, 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.Google Scholar
Gang, Joshua. “Behaviorism and the Beginnings of Close Reading.” ELH 78 (2011): 125. Print.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guillory, John. “Close Reading: Prologue and Epilogue.” ADE Bulletin 149 (2010): 814. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, Geoffrey H.The Fate of Reading” and Other Essays. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1975. Print.Google Scholar
Heitin, Liana. “NAEP Scores Stall for Twelfth Graders in Reading, Math.” Education Week. Editorial Projects in Educ., 13 May 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.Google Scholar
Scarry, Elaine. Dreaming by the Book. New York: Farrar, 1999. Print.Google Scholar
Ward, Thomas B., and Kolomyts, Yuliya. “Cognition and Creativity.” The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Ed. Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. New York: Cambridge UP, 2010. 93112. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar