These three articles aimed to answer the above question. The authors used previous research as well as methods like surveys of their own to determine student teachers’ and teachers’ aptitude and affection for reading. All of the authors basically concluded that one can teach literacy without loving to read, just not effectively and passionately and in a way that motivates students to read on their own.
In the first article, Ann Powell suggests that reading is abandoned because life gets in the way: work, bills, family, sports/activities, and school are all time consuming and interfere with reading. Those teachers who love reading somehow make time and room in their schedule to continue reading despite life’s demands. Those teachers who don’t love to read don’t make time in their schedules. The author suggests that the teacher who doesn’t love to read or make time for reading should “fake it til you make it…You cannot be a good teacher of literacy if you don’t read” (Powell, 2004). I agree with her. I think a teacher must love to read in order to teach literacy. Those teachers who don’t love to read, in my opinion, are not effective literacy teachers. They lack the passion and the ache for a book that transforms their lives. As a result, these teachers teach literacy as just another subject to check off of the list of things in a day’s schedule. A teacher who loves to read is effective in teaching literacy and realizes and demonstrates the power of a book and its effects on their students, especially those who are skeptical or unsure about reading.
In the second article, Kimberly Gomez comments on Ann Powell’s article, agreeing with her point of view. In her article, Gomez investigates the role of pleasure reading and academic reading and teachers’ thoughts regarding each. All teachers generally did academic reading but all did not pleasure read. The common thread among the teachers who loved to read and those who didn’t was that they all valued literacy and saw the necessity of being able to read in order to lead a successful life. While I agree that people read for a variety of purposes such as for learning or fun, and while I also agree that teachers all value literacy, I am not impressed with this author’s comments; I thought her content uninspiring, and it didn’t open my eyes to any new information.
The third article, the authors look more in depth at the instructional styles of those teachers who are passionate about reading and those who are not. They conclude that those who love to read are effective teachers, and they teach in a way that appeals to the aesthetics, that is, with a belief that “readers become absorbed in the text and live through the experiences” (Applegate and Applegate, 2004). These teachers use techniques such as discussions and literature circles to get the students engaged and involved. The authors contrast these teachers to those teachers who do not read or do not like to read . They are referred to as efferent readers, those teach reading without seeing the “value in interaction and the exchange of ideas…to identify ideas that the author wishes to convey”. The authors also address the effect of relating personal experiences with reading and incorporating it into literacy instruction. Of all of the articles, this was my favorite because it was informative (researched based) and brought up ideas I have never considered or put into words (aesthetic stance vs. efferent stance). I also absolutely agree with the authors’ thoughts on the Peter Effect, the “condition characterizing those teachers who are charged with conveying to their students an enthusiasm for reading that they do not have” (Applegate and Applegate, 2004). Students have the ability to read body language and nonverbal cues and they are aware of their teachers likes and dislikes. Students are able to identify how much a teacher values reading as revealed through their teaching.
In my own experience, I have seen those who teachers who love to read and how they incorporate their reading experiences in the classroom. Their student s are engaged and motivated and feel connected. I believe I fall into this category as an enthusiastic reader who loves to teach reading and all things literacy. As I was thinking about this, I started to wonder if this question could apply to other subjects. For example, I am not a big fan of math, thinking mathematically, interpreting numbers, and so on. While I try very hard to act as though I am interested and love it, I think my students are aware that I am not that into it. I believe it is important and necessary, but I’m just a math teacher, not passionate and enthusiastic and motivational to my students. They learn math but they don’t develop a passion or a hunger for it.
Overall, I enjoyed the first and third articles because I agree with their statement that one can be a teacher of literacy if you don’t like to read/don’t read, just not an effective one that inspires, motivates, and fosters a love for reading in her students.
Laura's Blog 