Read-Alouds: Upping the Ante

"There's no reason to feel...that we must always read aloud to little children from 'easy' books that they can 'understand.' If  we are reading something we like, with great expression and pleasure, a child may well like it, at least for a while, even if he doesn't understand all of it. After all, children like hearing adults talk, even though they can't understand much or most of it. Why not reading as well? Once, when teaching first-graders, I decided to try reading aloud to them something more difficult than the very simple stories they were used to. My choice was The Odyssey for Boys and Girls, by A.J. Church—a book I loved when small, but which many teachers would feel was much too advanced or difficult for first-graders. This class, however, liked it very much, and on subsequent days asked me to read more of it."

from How Children Learn, by John Holt (revised edition, Perseus Books, 1967, 1983)

When I read Holt's book last spring, the above quotation intrigued me.  On the one hand, it proves one of my pet theories: people are often talking about themselves, no matter what their ostensible subject. Holt's example just happens to be a favorite book from his childhood. The message seems to be that he, unlike those pedestrian other teachers, is willing to try something different. Ho-hum.

On the other hand, I think his idea has merit. First grade, for example, is all about learning to read, and much of the material does fall into Holt's "very simple story" category by necessity. That's why read-alouds by teachers, school librarians, and parents are so important. Audiobooks, too, can provide more advanced storytelling and vocabulary in a fun way. Some children will like to hear science books read aloud; even though they don't understand all the specifics, they may get excited about the overall ideas.

Comments

[:: Suzanne ::]

There's no reason to feel...that we must always read aloud to little children from 'easy' books that they can 'understand.' If we are reading something we like, with great expression and pleasure, a child may well like it, at least for a while, even if he doesn't understand all of it. After all, children like hearing adults talk, even though they can't understand much or most of it. Why not reading as well?

Thank you very much for giving me permission to do what I've been doing anyway, reading over their heads.

In language acquisition circles, this is called teaching to L + 1 (Level + 1): targeting the lessons so that they are a bit of a reach. I had extended this to my kids as I read to them, but had felt a bit uneasy. Your post was a blessing to me today.

Best,

Suzanne

[Susan]

I'm glad it was a help, Suzanne. That's the part of "How Children Learn" that I remember the most. I've done this a lot with science books and would like to add in some classic fiction. I had a friend whose family used to sit around and read plays at the kitchen table, and I've always loved that idea.

[Laura (Pinot and Prose)]

Fantastic post. I was reading "Emma" a couple years ago and my daughter asked me to read some to her - she was 4 at the time. I proceeded to read it to her. Granted, she didn't pay attention for long, but I saw the wheels turning as I read it. I have a problem with the "dumbing down" that is often a result of our focus on leveled reading.

So often in libraries, we get parents looking for books "I loved as a kid". That gets frustrating. Just because it was great 30 years ago doesn't mean it'll hold up today.

I'm glad you mentioned audiobooks. They so often get a bad rap from snobs who don't consider it "real" reading (reference a NYT article a couple months ago), but learning to listen to stories is an integral part of literacy.

Thanks for the great discussion material!

Laura

P.S. Apologies for not linking to the urban chicken NYT story last week!

[Susan]

Laura, that's interesting about Emma. I can see how a little girl might be intrigued. After all, an "Emma" might be someone who she would know. I love that. It was great that you followed through on reading a little bit to her.

I loved seeing the chickens in the Times. My poultry prediction: a loony Styles section article next. (The Styles section drives me crazy.)