Theoretical orientations that affect the teaching of reading and writing

influence instructional approaches that teachers use (Chatry-Komarek 2003; Cziko et al. 2000; Guthrie 2004; Tompkins 2003; Williams 2007; Yang and Wilson 2006). The theoretical orientation to reading that a teacher has, determines the goals the teacher sets for the classroom reading lesson and what is perceived as good reading behaviour. For instance, early theories of reading assumed reading to be passive and bottom-up (Dechant 1991; Gough 1972). Reading was viewed as a decoding process of recognizing the printed letters and words, building up meaning for a text from the smallest textual units at the bottom (letters and words) to larger units at the top (phrases and clauses) (Dechant 1991). Through this theory the reader was viewed as passive. For instance, when a child was able to decode a text it was believed that the

meaning and understanding would follow. The text contained the message/meaning of the text and through decoding the text the child /reader discovered what that message was (Hirsch 2006). Stanovich and Stanovich (1999) said that the ability to decode text by knowing how sound is represented in print is very important for success in learning to read. In the classroom learners are taught the alphabetic principle and how to manipulate phonemes in words. Problems of reading in a second language situation were viewed as decoding problems (Wray 1994).

The bottom-up view of reading however, had some limitations. One limitation was that of viewing reading as a linear process. According to Gough (1972) during reading, comprehension took place in a linear order of processing from individual letters to words, phrases to sentences and comprehending the message conveyed by the writer through the text. The theory viewed reading as a passive process of reconstructing meaning of the text. The meaning of the text was supposed to come naturally as the code was broken. Reading was considered a sequential process moving from parts to whole. In reading the emphasis was on decoding, meaning was secondary. In addition the theories do not recognize the contribution of the reader. For the reader to comprehend the text it requires the reader’s knowledge of the language and how the language works, previous reader’s experience and knowledge.

The second group of theorists viewed reading as a top-down process. The theory emphasized what the reader brought to the text. Theorists in this group held the view that comprehension begins in the mind of the reader who already has some ideas about the meaning of the text (Carrell et al. 1992) and proceeded from whole to part. Reading was seen as an active process of constructing meaning. The meaning of the text was dependent upon the background knowledge and understanding that the reader brought. If a reader had background knowledge about a topic, the reader was likely to form a hypothesis about what the text meant and relied on fewer clues in the text. So meaning was brought to print and not derived from print. The reader formed hypotheses and made predictions and sampled the text to confirm or reject predictions (Carrell et al. 1992; Pressley 2000).

Kenneth Goodman contributed much to the meaning-based approach although he claimed not to be the founder (Goodman 1992). Goodman described reading as a ‘psycholinguistic guessing game’, in which the reader reconstructed … a message which has been encoded by a writer as a graphic display” (1967: 126-35). Through an analysis of children’s reading errors (which Goodman called miscues) he and his colleagues produced evidence that supported the contention that children instinctively tried to make sense of what they were doing when they read.

According to Goodman there were three cues that helped a good reader to decode words in a text. These were; semantics, syntax and the graphic-phonemic cues. The most important of these three was semantics while as the least important was the graphic-phonemic cue. This theory viewed reading as an active process in which there was interaction between the author and the reader. For instance, when a reader was reading a text and came across a word that was difficult to read, he tried to guess what the word was, based on the context first. The reader could then try to guess what the word was, based on syntax. If these two cueing systems failed to provide an appropriate word, the reader would now focus on the letters of the word and try to pronounce it. In this process, the reader was to interpret the text (Carrell et al. 1992; Wray 1994). In his theory Goodman asserted that good readers depended on context for word recognition and that they made less use of letter information than poor readers.

Smith (1994) agreed with Goodman. He defined reading as essentially a meaning- making process. In order for a reader to receive the printed message, the reader must perceive, interpret, hypothesize, and evaluate. The reader also used his background knowledge and the clues in the text provided by the writer (Carrell et al. 1992; Wray 1994).

Some researchers on reading such as Stanovich (1986) and Adams (1990) have challenged Goodman’s theory of reading as a result of his inadequate account of word recognition. Stanovich and Adams pointed out that although Goodman asserted that good readers depended on context for word recognition and that they (readers) made

less use of letter information than poor readers, it was the good readers who did not need to use context in order to decide upon a word. It was difficult for poor readers to recognize a word straight away. They needed context to help in word recognition. Poor readers used a lot of valuable processing capacity to recognize a word. When poor readers did this very little processing capacity was left for comprehension. This is because individuals possessed limited amount of processing space, and the more space devoted to word identification the less space there is available for comprehension.

Empirical studies have falsified the top-down theories. Studies have shown that good readers do not sample portions of the text. Instead they process the entire text rapidly and automatically. The top-down theories do not apply well to second language learners. Readers reading topics which are completely new and foreign and have no background knowledge may find it difficult to predict ahead (make hypothesis) and may need to rely heavily on processing information on the printed page.

The view of the top-down theory on background knowledge gives a misleading notion to second language teachers. It assumes that once learners are provided with background knowledge and are allowed to use that knowledge then learners will be able to decode and comprehend text. Studies have shown that it is not only background knowledge which is required in reading but also oral proficiency in the target language. Well developed second language oral proficiency is associated with well-developed reading comprehension skills (August and Shanahan 2006).

Other people have also questioned the role of schema theory as a research theory. They noted that it is difficult to know exactly how prior knowledge is called upon and used during reading (Grabe 1991).

The third group of theorists, whose ideas were widely adopted, viewed reading as an interaction of bottom-up and top-down processes simultaneously throughout the reading process (Stanovich 1980). These theorists assumed reading to be interactive in a number of ways. First they argued that there is interaction between the reader and

the text. As a reader reads, many skills work together simultaneously in the process. Good readers allocate less processing capacity for word recognition and hence freeing more capacity for comprehension. If there are problems with word recognition more capacity is created for this (word recognition) at the expense of comprehension.

Secondly, when reading a reader derived meaning from within the text s/he read through decoding the individual words, sentences to paragraphs, and by bringing what s/he knew to the text. The more background knowledge or prior knowledge a reader had about the subject matter of a particular reading text, the more understanding of the text the reader would have.

Research findings in cognitive science clearly suggest that reading comprehension requires a learner to possess a lot of background knowledge and vocabulary (American Educator 2006). If a reader is not able to make sense of a text, it is caused by lack of appropriate schemata that can fit with the content of the text (Brown 2001). Park (2004) investigated the roles of linguistic knowledge and background knowledge, and question types in both second language (L2) listening and reading. Findings showed that second language readers processed factual information more easily than inferential information, but the reverse was true for second language listening. The data revealed that linguistic knowledge plays a significant role on both skills. However, background knowledge played a significant role for listening but not reading. Other people have also found background knowledge to be important in comprehension. They say the richer the background knowledge a reader has the richer the comprehension (Hirsch (Jr.) 2006; Pressley 2000).

One crucial thing is being acknowledged in all the three different groups of theorists on reading although the three groups emphasize different components involved in the reading process. They all underscore the importance of reading to get meaning. They all agree that the ultimate goal or reason for one to read is to get meaning.

The implication of the interactive theory in the classroom situation is that it is the pupils who have to do the reading and the writing. They need to read and to work out the meanings of words. The role of the teacher in the classroom is to make the process of reading words from a text effortless and automatic so that the mind is free to reflect on meaning (IRA and NAEYC 1998; Snow et al. 1998). It is important for the teacher to help in activating knowledge about a topic for the second language readers. The teacher should help learners to focus on features of the text that can facilitate building a scaffold for what learners will read. Features of the text such as titles, illustrations and the actual structure of the text can be used.