Tal vez temas como la motivación del alumno o la mejora del ambiente de trabajo sean relativamente sutiles, pero son extremadamente importantes. Si a la hora de plantear una reforma no les prestamos atención, si no trabajamos para mejorar el contexto en el que tiene lugar la enseñanza de la lectura, gran parte de nuestros conocimientos, técnicas, pruebas y tests acabarán por reforzar los viejos esquemas de comportamiento y, a largo plazo, todo seguirá igual.
Mejorar la enseñanza de la lectura no sólo incluye el empleo de nuevas técnicas pedagógicas, sino que es también necesario cambiar alguna de las aptitudes sobre la lectura. Para ello habrá que modificar tres aspectos del clima en que el proceso de enseñanza tiene lugar: cambiar la concepción reduccionista de la lectura, que reduce los objetivos de la instrucción lectora a metas sencillas y de medición poco costosa; la concepción de la lectura como actividad competitiva, que contribuye al desarrollo del fracaso pasivo; y el anquilosamiento de los profesores, convertidos a veces en meros administradores de material pedagógico, que puede llegar a mecanizar la enseñanza de la lectura.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonLINDA (1984). The Environment of Instruction: The Function of Seatwork in a Commercially Developed Curriculum. EnComprehension Instruction: Perspectives and Solutions, editado por GeraldDuffyRoehlerLauraMasonJana, 93–115. Longman, Nueva York.
2.
AndersonRICHARDHiebertELFRIEDAScottJUDITHWilkinsonIAN (1985). Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission of Reading, The National Institute of Education. Washington.
3.
AngelouMAYA (1969). I know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Bantam, Canadá.
4.
AppleMICHAEL (1982). Education and Power, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston.
5.
BrownAnn L.BransfordJohn D.FerraraRoberta A.ChampioneJOSEPH (1982). Learning, Remembering, and Understanding, Informe Técnico número 244. University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, Center for the Study of Reading.
6.
CanneyGEORGEWinograndPETER (1979). Schemata for Reading and Reading Comprehesion Performance. Informe Técnico número 129. University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. Center for the Study of Reading.
7.
CsikszentmihalyiMIHALYMccormackJANET (1986). The influence of Teachers.Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 415–19.
8.
DurkinDOLORES (1978–79). «What Classroom Observations Reveal about Reading Comprehension Instruction».Reading Research Quartely, 14(4), 481–533.
9.
FisherCHARLESBerlinerDAVIDFilbyNIKOLAMarliaveRICHARDCohenLEONARDDishawMARILYNMooreJEFFREY (1978). Theaching and Learning in Elementary School: A Summary of the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study, Far West Laboratory for Research and Development, San Francisco.
10.
Fiske EdwardB. (1986), Effort to Upgrade Schools Shifts Focus to Motivation Work Climate, Lexington Herald-Leader, 27 abril.
11.
FreedJohn C. (1986), Professionalism is Major Issue with Teachers, Lexington Herald-Leader, 27 abril.
12.
GoodmanELLEN (1986), Setting into College Can Be Cruel Rife, Lexington Herald-Leader, 12 abril.
13.
HarperRobert J.KilarrGARY (1978). Reading and the Law, International Reading Association, Newark.
14.
HenryJULES (1963). Culture against Man, Random House, Nueva York.
15.
JohnstonPETERWinogradPETER (1985). Passive Failure in Reading.Journal of Reading Behavior, 17(4), 279–301.
16.
NichollsJOHN (1983). Conceptions of Ability and Achievement: A Theory and Its Implications for Education. EnLearning and Motivation in the Clasroom, editado por ScottParisOlsonGaryStevensonHarold, 211–37. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Nueva York.
ParisSCOTTWinogradPETER(En prep.). Meatacognition in Academic Learning and Instruction. EnDimensions of Thinking: A Review of Research, editado por JonesBeau F., Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19.
PophamW. JAMES (1983). Task-teaching Versus Test-teaching, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2(4), 10–11.
20.
RosenblattLOUISE (1978). The Reader, the Text, The Poem: The Transactional Theory of Literary Work, Southern Illinois University Press, Illinois.
21.
RosenshineBARAK (1980). Skill Hierarchies in Reading Materials in American Elementary Schools. EnTheoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, publicado por Rand J., Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce y William F. Brewer, 535–54, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
ShannonPATRICK (1986). The use for Commercial Reading Materials in American Elementary School, Reading Research Quartely, 21(2), 20–35.
23.
ShannonPATRICK (1986). Mastery Learning in Reading and the Control of Teachers and Students, Language Arts, 61(5), 484–93.
24.
ShannonPATRICK (1986). Teacher's and Administrator's Thoughts on Changes in Reading Instruction within a Merit Pay Program Based on Test Scores.Reading Research Quartely, 21(2), 20–35.
25.
ShulmanLEE (1983). Autonomy and Obligation: the Remote Control of Teaching. EnHandbook of Teaching and Policy, publicado por Lee Schulman y Gary Skykes, 484–504. Longman, Nueva York.
26.
SmithFRANK (1985), A Metaphor for Literacy: Creatine Worlds or Shunting Information. En Literacy, Language, and Learning: The Nature and Consequences of Reading and Writing, editado por DavidOlsonTorranceNancyHildyardAngela, 195–213. Nueva York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27.
TannenDEBORAH (1985). Relative Focus on Involvement in Oral and Written Discourse. EnLiteracy, Language, and Learning: The Nature and Consequences of Reading and Writing, editado por DavidOlsonTorranceNancyHildyardAngela, 124–47. Nueva York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
