The Role of Computer Technology in Teaching Critical Reading

Sally Rings, PhD                      
sally.rings@pvmail.maricopa.edu 
Paradise Valley Community College
February 25, 1994
This report is the result of a sabbatical project sponsored by the Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction (MCLI)

Contents

Download...

Go to software evaluations...

The Problem

Students entering college are expected to become a part of the academic community, entering into its discourse. Although there is no clear consensus regarding the definition of academic discourse, Flower (1989) suggests two practices that help define it: (1) "integrating information from sources with one's own knowledge and (2) interpreting one's reading/adapting one's writing for a purpose." Embedded in these practices is the ability to read critically, which involves questioning, looking for assumptions and intentions, analyzing, and synthesizing (Richardson, 1983).

However, many students enter college unable to meet these expectations of the academic community (Bartholomae & Petrosky, 1986). In fact, Orndorff (1987) states that the inability of many students to read critically may be the single most important problem in postsecondary education. Not only do students have difficulty selecting authors' major points and seeing how they have been developed into a coherent whole, but they also are unable to "synthesize and restructure" ideas, especially from complex text. Accompanying their lack of ability is a lack of interest in reading critically (Thistlethwaite, 1990). Anisfeld (in Kelley, 1989) paints an even bleaker picture in stating that graduate students are also unable to read empirical articles critically.

Orndorff (1987) further suggests that students' lack of ability in critical reading is related to the fact that it has not been widely taught. The reason it has not been emphasized may lie in the way that reading has been perceived for much of this century.

Conceptual Framework

A behavioristic approach to reading, grounded in a mechanistic world view, has dominated reading pedagogy. Basic concepts of this mechanistic world view include: Based in these concepts, the text to be read is perceived as static and as containing the "truth," reading is perceived as a hierarchy of isolated subskills, and the overall skill of reading may be learned by understanding and practicing each of the subskills (Neilsen, 1989). In the hierarchy of skills, critical reading has been considered "higher order"; therefore, many students enter college without instruction in critical reading since it is assumed that they are unable to read critically until they have mastered "lower order" skills, and they have been judged not ready for these "advanced" skills. However, a growing body of research in the last 15 years or so is demonstrating that reading is a much more integrated, wholistic process than this mechanistic view would permit (Thistlethwaite, 1990).

Much of this research has centered around the task of identifying the processes of good readers. In general, good readers enter the reading process with certain assumptions: that what they read will be connected into a coherent whole, that it will contain "layers of meaning," that the ideas being read are connected to other ideas they have previously encountered and are relevant to them personally (Harste, 1986). Before they begin, good readers inspect what they are to read, noting such aspects as the title, author, and chapters; then they place this reading into a category. As they read, they ask questions, note interesting features of the text, and draw on their experience as a reader (Orndorff, 1987). Additionally, they attend to author/reader relationships, monitor their reading processes, evaluate the significance of what they are reading, rethink past decisions, and hypothesize alternate interpretations. These processes used by good readers imply that much "reading" time is spent reflecting; in fact, in one study of graduate students (presumed to be good readers), they spent 69% of their "reading" time off-page (Harste, 1986).

These processes also don't fit the notion of reading as a specified set of isolated skills; rather, reading is seen as a complex, wholistic process during which the reader is interacting with the text to construct meaning. The meaning that the reader constructs is affected by not only what is printed but also by the reader's selective attention to different aspects of the text, prior knowledge about the topic, evaluation of the text, and purpose in reading it (Flower, 1989). Therefore, reading can be seen as an interaction between the reader, the author, and the text. Rosenblatt, a contemporary of John Dewey who acknowledges his influence upon her thinking, developed a transactional theory, in which she contends that reading involves a transformation of both the reader and the text. In the process of interacting, both are transformed to produce a new meaning that could not be arrived at individually. Rather than being viewed as isolated entities, human beings (and the texts they create) are seen as parts of a whole that work together to create meaning (Neilsen, 1989). Foundational to this theory is the assumption that critical reading is a form of critical thinking, which corresponds to the more general assumption that reading is thinking (Thorndike, 1917), a basic concept that cognitive scientists have returned to as the shortcomings of the mechanistic paradigm have become increasingly evident. Thorndike, as well as Dewey and others, were aware that reading is an interactive, wholistic process (Krueger, 1986).

Also embedded in this perception of reading is the reader's use of strategies in the course of constructing meaning. A strategy is a "cognitive choice" (such as visualizing, comparing, criticizing) that readers make as they monitor their comprehension and make decisions about how to proceed with the text (Harste, 1986). A growing body of research is demonstrating that effective readers attend closely to their reading processes and vary their strategies according to their purpose(s) for reading. They know how to use various strategies when their comprehension breaks down. Strategic reading is embodied in the term metacognition, which is defined as having an awareness of strategies as well as the ability to control the use of them (Collins & Smith, 1990).

A third concept implied in this view of reading is that of reading as a contextualized act. According to Richardson (1983), literacy is a "goal-directed, context-specific behavior." The reader uses reading in a transactional sense to reach a goal. Fish states (in Willey, 1988), ...communication occurs within situations and that to be in a situation is already to be in possession of (or to be possessed by) a structure of assumptions, of practices understood to be relevant in relation to purposes and goals that are already in place." In other words, reading does not take place in a vacuum. And critical reading is unlikely to take place in an artificially-contrived context created by a school that is irrelevant to students' contexts and the problems within them (Neilsen, 1989). Neilsen further states, "All thinking and all reading are critical when they are consequential for our successful functioning in the context(s) of the world. Thinking and reading that do not have consequences in terms of knowledge construction are at best information-gathering activities" (Neilsen, 1989). Thistlethwaite (1990) concurs and further states that all reading should be critical.

Therefore, the mechanistic paradigm which separates reading comprehension from critical reading does not fit with the research that indicates that reading is a complex, interrelated process in which constructing meaning is not really separate from evaluating ideas. A different paradigm is needed to explain the complex and interactive nature of the reading process. Neilsen (1989) labels the paradigm that is consistent with this view of reading an "organic world view" and describes its characteristics as follows:

Seen in the light of this perspective, reading is a wholistic process that cannot be divided into discrete units. Instead, the reader is seen as actively involved in constructing meaning through interacting with the text. And the meaning that the reader derives is affected by the context, i.e., the reader's purpose for reading and the situation in which the reading takes place. The conceptual framework for the process of reading that is embedded in this organic paradigm is known as constructivism. Constructivism is the theory that knowledge is constructed rather than transmitted in a pure form. In the reading process, readers interpret the text, and their interpretation is affected by many factors, including their prior knowledge, their experiences, their attitudes, and their understanding of the nature of the reading. Meaning does not reside in individual words, sentences, or passages; instead, readers use the language as a framework from which to build meaning. Thus, reading is an active, thinking process (Spiro, 1980).

The Pedagogical Implications of the Conceptual Framework

The above conceptual framework calls for a pedagogy which focuses on readers using a variety of strategies to think about the author's message, and doing so for a specific purpose. Therefore, helping college students to become critical readers includes the following approaches. All of these approaches are webbed and overlapping, not sequential or hierarchical.

Approaches to Teaching Reading Based in Constructivism

  1. Establishing a classroom environment where collegiality is encouraged and it is "safe" to acknowledge gaps in knowledge and lack of understanding; then providing opportunities for students to acquire relevant knowledge (Anisfeld, 1987).
  2. Using readings that are whole (not excerpts), "real" (not created for a reading text),varied, and related to students' purposes for reading.
  3. Approaching text as a medium for a transaction between reader and author, rather than as a static document of absolute meaning (Lewis, 1991).
  4. Teaching the following strategies and providing practice for using them in order that students will read more actively:
  5. Encouraging further thinking about readings through thoughtful instructor responses to students' writings
  6. Using all of the above to develop a "critical spirit" (Neilsen, 1989) among student readers.

The Use of Computer Technology in Teaching Critical Reading

As the use of computer technology in teaching and learning has expanded and as the importance of critical reading and thinking skills has become emphasized, many commercial software products are advertised as promoting critical reading and/or thinking. However, when viewed from a constructivist perspective, much of this software falls short of promoting critical reading. For example, rather than prompting students to formulate their own questions about what they have read, many programs ask their questions in a multiple-choice format and designate the correct answer.

Characteristics of Computer Applications That Promote Critical Reading

Applying the pedagogical approaches based in constructivism to the capabilities of computer technology reveals three underlying characteristics of computer applications that foster critical reading. The first of these characteristics is a high level of interactivity (Klinger & Connet, 1992), which means, in this context, that there is "two-way communication between the user and the computer" so that the learner is involved in the instructional process (Hannafin & Peck, 1988, 387). From a constructivist perspective, interactivity consists of more than students punching response keys; it consists of students generating questions, concept maps, summaries, etc. for which the software provides the prompts. Software can also help with explicit instruction for these kinds of tasks, followed by guided practice. Interactivity also extends beyond one student using one computer to many students using many computers, such as with electronic journals, which can be used for forums to discuss readings. A high level of interactivity encourages students to become more actively involved with what they are reading (Kubota, 1991).

A second characteristic of software that promotes critical reading is that it encourages the use of those strategies that research indicates are used by effective readers (See page 2.) (Goodrum & Knuth, 1991). For example, an electronic journal, in addition to providing a forum for students to discuss readings, may also be used to help students become more aware of the strategies they use (or don't use) by providing prompts pertaining to strategy use. The strategy of accessing one's prior knowledge about a topic of a reading can be fostered through prompts in the software that ask students to write what they already know about the topic of a reading. Such prompts might also ask student to analyze the sources of their prior knowledge. In addition, where there are gaps in prior knowledge, various forms of technology, such as interactive video, may be used to fill some of those gaps. For example, if students will be reading about Winston Churchill and some know little about him (One of my students once told me that he had been a president of the U.S.), they could access this knowledge on video. On-line tutorials can provide modeling of strategies (summary statements of portions of readings, for example) in addition to prompting to help students develop their strategy use. Programs developed using hypertext and hypermedia can also be used to support the processes of notetaking, indexing, and linking one idea to other ideas (although hypermedia and hypertext, which encourage browsing, can also result in passive and superficial learning) (Goodrum & Knuth, 1991).

A third characteristic of software that promotes critical reading is that it approximate a "real" context. One aspect of a real context is that the readings be available in print, in addition to or in place of on screen. Until computer technology provides higher resolution as well as larger screens so that larger "chunks" of text may be viewed at once, the initial reading of a selection is best done from paper copies (Haas & Hayes, 1986), with interaction with computer software following. Another aspect of a "real" context is that it involve interactions among persons, in other words, that it is a social environment, since the process of constructing meaning is often "negotiated through collaboration with others" (Goodrum & Knuth, 1991).

Critical Reading Processes That Computer Technology Can Support

Through the use of software that is interactive, that encourages the use of the strategies used by effective readers, and that approximates a "real" context, computer technology can support the following processes, grounded in constructivist theory, that promote critical reading:

An Example of Computer-Mediated Instruction

In a class titled "Critical Reading in the Content Areas" for education majors at Indiana University, students have been introduced to a networked electronic environment which uses process tools--technology that supports the processes listed above. The creators of this electronic environment understood the need to develop tools that would allow learners to construct their own representations of the content, to communicate with peers regarding their work, and to "support an authentic relationship between learners and experts" (Goodrum & Knuth, 1991). Therefore, to support students in the process of constructing the meaning of the content, they included typical hypertext applications for notetaking, bookmarking, copying and pasting, searching, indexing, and linking. They also included a tool that facilitates the generating of ideas for discussions on the topic being considered. To facilitate the analysis of ideas, an analyzer tool was developed which assisted with classification structure or the logical development of ideas. A paper-writing tool was included to help students construct reports and presentations, and an electronic journal was used to develop learners' awareness of their cognitive processes as they were encouraged to reflect on class tasks, individual and group strategies, etc. The final tool was electronic mail, where students could coordinate group activities and communicate with the instructor as well as other students. This electronic environment with its variety of tools was named Roundtable (Goodrum & Knuth, 1991).

Students participating in Roundtable came to class prepared to analyze a previously-assigned case study. In this particular situation, students used the computers synchronously although this arrangement can be altered so that students are working on the computers at various times. They worked both individually and collaboratively at the tasks of constructing the meaning of the case study, generating ideas about it, discussing their ideas with others, analyzing the case study, writing a report about it, and reflecting on their own learning processes as they went about these tasks (Goodrum & Knuth, 1991).

Evaluating the Available Software

Although process tools of the types used in Roundtable are available commercially, the creators of Roundtable developed their own in order to provide consistent interface and integration of information across tools. The total learning environment created by the integration of these tools is clearly and deliberately grounded in constructivist theory. In addition, process tools that are available commercially as stand-alone software, because they are process tools, can be used to support critical reading. However, many other software programs available commercially that are touted as promoting critical reading and/or fostering the use of strategies used in critical reading fall short when they are compared to the approaches to teaching critical reading that are grounded in constructivism. On the following pages are >reviews of commercially-produced software packages, as they are compared to pedagogical approaches for teaching critical reading framed in the constructivist paradigm.

References

Aldridge, M. (1989). Student questioning: A case for freshman academic empowerment. RTDE, 5(2), 17-24.

Anisfeld, M. (1987). A course to develop competence in critical reading of empirical research in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 14, 224-227.

Baker, L. & Brown, A. (1984). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding Reading Comprehension . Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Collins, N. & Smith, C. (1990). Role of metacognition in reading to learn. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 333 386)

Chamberlain, K. & Burrough, S. (1985). Techniques for teaching critical reading. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 213-215.

Crismore, A. & Wang, L. (1985). A computer-assisted reading component for reading reflectively and rhetorically in a college composition program.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 264 515)

Dahlberg, L.A. (1990). Teaching for the information age. Journal of Reading, 34, 12-18.

Erwin, R.W.,Jr. (1985). Research in critical reading instruction. RTDE , 1 (2), 49-54.

Flood, J. & Lapp, D. (1990). Reading comprehension instruction for at-risk students: Research- based practices that can make a difference. Journal of Reading, 34, 490-496.

Flower, L. (1989). Negotiating academic discourse (Tech. Rep. No. 29). Berkeley, CA & Pittsburgh, PA: Center for the Study of Writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 306 600)

Goodrum, D.A. & Knuth, R.A. (1991). Supporting learning with process tools: Theory and design issues. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 334 984)

Haas, C. & Hayes, J.R. (1986). What did I just say? Reading problems in writing with the machine. Research in the Teaching of English, 20 (1), 22-35.

Hannafin, M.J. & Peck, K.L. (1988). The design, development, and evaluation of instructional software. New York: Macmillan, 17-23, 387.

Harste, J.C. (1986). What it means to be strategic: Good readers as informants. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX, December 2-6, 1986. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 278 980)

Hayes, C.G. (1990). Using writing to promote reading to learn in college. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association, Atlanta, GA, May 6-11, 1990. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322 499)

Kantz, M. (1989). Shirley and the Battle of Agincourt: Why it is so hard for students to write persuasive researched analyses. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 312 669)

Kirby, K, et al. (1986). The reading journal: A bridge between reading and writing. Forum for Reading, 18 (1), 13-19.

Klinger, T.H. & Connet, M.R. (1993). Designing distance learning courses for critical thinking. T.H.E. Journal, 21 (2), 87-90.

Kubota, K. (1991). Applying a collaborative learning model to a course development project. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Comunications and Technology, Orlando, FL, February 13-17, 1991. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 331 490)

Krueger, S.R. (1986). Comprehension monitoring among community college developmental readers: The importance of prior knowledge. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2524A.

Lewis, J. (1991). Redefining critical reading for college critical thinking courses. Journal of Reading, 34, 420-424.

Mikulecky, L., Clark, E.S., & Adams, S.M. (1989). Teaching concept mapping and university level study strategies using computers. Journal of Reading, 33, 694-702

Neilsen, A.R. (1989). Critical thinking and reading: Empowering learners to think and act. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 306 543)

Orndorff, J. (1987). Using computers and original texts to teach critical reading and thinking. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Conference on Critical Thinking, Newport News, VA, April 9-12, 1987. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 137)

Richardson, R.C., Jr., Okun, M.A., & Fisk, E.C. (1983). Literacy in the open-access college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, G., & Debenham, J. Automating university teaching by the year 2000. T.H.E. Journal, 21 (2), 71-75.

Spires, H.A., Huntley-Johnston, L., & Huffman, L.E. (1993). Developing a critical stance toward text through reading, writing, and speaking. Journal of Reading, 37, 114-122.

Spiro, R.J. (1980). Constructive processes in prose comprehension and recall. In R.J. Spiro (Ed.). Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 245-278.

Thistlethwaite, L.L. (1990). Critical reading for at-risk students. Journal of Reading, 34, 586-593.

Thorndike, E.L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 323-332.

Willey, R.J. (1988). Audience awareness and critical essays on literature: Helping students become part of an interpretive community. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, St. Louis, MO, March 17-19, 1988. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 293 229)

The Role of Computer Technology in Teaching Critical Reading
©1994, Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction (MCLI)
Maricopa County Community College District, Arizona

The Internet Connection at MCLI is Alan Levine --}
Comments to alan.levine@domail.maricopa.edu