Consulting the Experts: Martha and Alex Talk about Books and Reading

Alex and Martha sit excited in the kitchen. They have willingly agreed to talk with me about reading and books, though they have a vague idea that I might be “doing experiments” on them and they are surprised that we have not retreated to some underground bunker. They are a little tired after a full day at school and then swimming club for Martha and a friend round for tea for Alex has taken its toll on these five-year-olds, but they are keen to take part and particularly keen that their responses should be recorded on video.

The aim of the session is to find out something about their views on reading, but also to give them a chance to explore some current literature and enjoy it. I want to listen to what they say, as I firmly believe that by listening intently to children as they describe their ideas and feelings there is much to be learnt, in this case about the process of engaging with and enjoying books. This is not a new idea; the sentiment is echoed by Margaret Meek Spencer, Evelyn Arizpe and Morag Styles, and Michael Benton in their work on reader response and understanding children’s reading. It seems so obvious, yet in a content-packed curriculum focused on breaking down the essence of reading into the “grain size” of phonemes (Goswami); this voice could be left unheard in a study of reading. The preoccupation with phonics as the key to reading development in English schools has been evident since the controversial importance placed on the Clackmannanshire report about reading pedagogy (as cited by Dombey). Since then, national policy, even with a change of government, has consistently focused on the decoding of words as the keystone of reading. There is a solid research base to suggest otherwise (Dombey), but the concern is most eloquently summed up by Teresa Cremin in her plea for an alternative “simple view” of reading: “the early reading curriculum should focus first and foremost on enabling children to develop a range of strategies in order to become competent and enthusiastic readers who can and do choose to read for pleasure and enjoyment” (184).

That there has been a decline in British children’s pursuit of reading for pleasure is well documented in The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) (Twist, Schagen and Hodgson) and even led to The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) publishing a report entitled “Reading for Purpose and Pleasure.” Sadly, other than in the titles repeated on each page, the word “pleasure” only actually features three times in the document: once to quote the PIRLS data, then to identity that “few schools successfully engage the interest of those who, though competent readers did not read for pleasure” (4) and that “few schools identified reluctance to read for pleasure and enjoyment as a problem” (14).

I consult with my early reading experts, Alex and Martha. What is this tricky thing called reading I ask them. Martha is definite in her response: not a challenge at all it seems, she even puts up her hand, recognizing this as a “school type” question:

FM:

What is reading?

M:

You practice to read.

FM:

How do you do that?

M:

By sounding out the letters and how it sounds. Like “a.”

FM:

Is it just about letters and words? Is there anything else?

A:

No, you don’t really know the words because you are a bit little, as you start to get older it’s like you don’t really know.

FM:

So you get better at it?

M:

I need to tell you something! If you get good at your reading you get a different book and you read that one!

I asked the children if they read away from school:

M:

You can read at home to practice.

FM:

Just to practice or because you like it?

M:

Read it to practice the book.

FM:

So, if you didn’t have to, would you go and choose a book?

M...