Currents in Literacy

Using Memorization to Promote Reading

By George Branigan

In March of 1976, Carol Chomsky contributed an article to a special edition of Language Arts devoted to psycholinguistics and reading. The phrase "psycholinguistics and reading" soon evaporated from the professional lexicon to re-emerge as "whole language" and the import of Chomsky's observations seems to have disappeared altogether. I would like to revive the core ideas of her article and suggest that it contains serious implications for the practice of literacy instruction. To further the argument, I will recount some very early tape recordings of "literate" behavior I made when my children were very young and link these to the interests of one of these children (now a parent) who is concerned about the fluency of his own son's reading performance. In a sense, this article extends my earlier suggestion that reading is facilitated when one learns to read like an actor and that the demands of performing texts contribute to learning to read texts. (See "Drama Literacy: Center Stage" in Currents in Literacy, Spring 1999.)

We know full well that the historical debates on reading include strong appeals to learning to decode texts as the core of reading ability and nobody would argue that competent readers are unaware of the phonic dimensions of written texts -- after all, our system of writing, unlike logographic systems, is centered around representing sound more directly than meaning. I will not review the debates but move directly to a problem.

The question Carol Chomsky asked in her 1976 article, "After Decoding, What?" refers to a common behavior of middle elementary school children (and I would argue, many older readers as well) who have learned the phonics rules which they were taught but nonetheless do not read fluently. These are the children who "know how to read" but perform with hesitation, slowly sounding out individual words and plodding through a text as if there was no overarching meanings which make it hang together. These are the successful "pronouncers" but the noticeably non-fluent readers. Chomsky's question was clear and unambiguous. What do teachers do after they have successfully taught children to decode, (to pass phonics exercises and to "pronounce" texts) when it is obvious that such children still lag behind on reading fluency? Such children often lag behind in reading comprehension and, too often, learn to detest reading. After decoding, what? What do we do then?

I ask a slightly different question. Can we avoid the problem altogether? Can we construct literacy engagements from the beginning of children's entry into the world of texts that maximize their chances of becoming both fluent and phonetically aware? I will argue that we can do this by using memorized texts much like an actor memorizes a script. The work of Carol Chomsky and the behaviors which I captured on tape converge on that point, the nexus of memory, because both alter the relation between the learner's mind and meanings.

Carol Chomsky had the problem put to her by a "third grade teacher friend" in a middle class school in Lexington, Massachusetts. Five of her students seemed to have hit a barrier in their reading progress: they were "...of normal intelligence...no apparent speech or language problems, but all were reading one to two years below grade level." Nothing the teacher tried resulted in progress. As Chomsky relates, they "...were not non-readers." After much effort, they could 'decode' but without "...even the beginnings of fluent reading" (p. 288). Something had to be done! But, what?

Chomsky and one of her graduate students decided that each child should memorize a text of their own choosing. They provided tape-recorded selections that the children set about memorizing by listening to the tape while simultaneously following along with a printed text. The children played and replayed the tape until the full text was fluently memorized and then performed their "stories" for the class. For many this was the first time they could fluently "read" an entire text. Chomsky reports that the experience seemed to "jump-start" the reading batteries of these children who subsequently tackled new texts with heightened confidence.

Chomsky hypothesized that the children needed a way to get their minds actively "...engaged in interacting with print" (p. 289). Memorization provided the immediate material that the children's minds needed for analysis. Later, she worked with the children on decoding and word identification activities and engaged the children in writing. The sum total of the activities, based on initial memorization of an entire, connected text, cleared the path for further progress toward fluent reading.

While the experiment may seem extreme and applicable only to special cases, I think there are substantial elements to this report which inform us about the development of fluent reading as a part of becoming fully literate. One is the role of memory, another is the knowledge of what reading is for, and a third is the relation of the reader's mind to meaning. Finally there is the command over the entire text that memorization and performance bring to the "reader/actor." I will try to show how these converge over the course of entering the world of literacy.

I began tape recording and analyzing the "literate" behaviors of one of my children as early as two years old. He had been read to while even younger and had begun to recognize and memorize texts at the same time that his oral language was developing. The texts, Goodnight Moon for example, were simply part of the world he explored, experienced, and talked about. Most of the reading was performed by the adults but after nap time, during diaper changing, we would hand him one or the other of his books and he would occupy his time by "reading/speaking" the text. When one listens to the tape of this twenty-three-month old's literate behavior, it is clear that the full context and his memory rather than the print is driving his performance. He names the book [Moon Night] before opening the pages. He turns the pages and speaks context appropriate bits of text as he progresses: for example, "young mouse," "goodnight mittens," "goodnight 'obody" and announces when he is finished: "aw done!" What makes this a part of growing literate behavior rather than just language development is the constraints imposed by the text: he didn't just name what he saw in the pictures; he spoke the text. Anyone who takes a child to a new picture book will recognize the difference in behaviors. Novel books elicit naming and questioning; familiar or memorized books elicit the printed text. Moreover, performance aspects were evident as well. Thus when he renders the "quiet old lady whispering hush" he did so with a whisper just as the adult model readers did! He not only memorized, he imitated dramatic reading.

Three things are evident: the young child knew separate books as separate texts; he knew that the story appropriate to each was contained in what the adults read/said not in the pictures; and he knew that the act of "reading" was an act that required the performance of the text. All of this through repeated readings and memory. Although the child could not read a single word of the print, he knew the meanings encoded by the print.

A year later I made another tape recording of our joint reading. I selected Goodnight Moon again to compare his performance over time and a book he had heard read frequently but which was too long for him to have completely memorized, Big Dog, Little Dog. At this time, Goodnight Moon was more fully in his memory bank and his language development had progressed to where he could produce more than two to three word phrases. His reading/speaking was much more thorough, sticking roughly to the story of the text rather than simply reciting phrases from the text. Also at this time he would ask the occasional question as he recited. For example, as he completed "goodnight mittens" he asked, "Where mittens?" and then proceeded. But just like the earlier reading/speaking at two years old, he recited fluently and he mimicked the dramatic style of reading which the adults used when they read to him. At "the quiet old lady whispering hush" he still lowered his voice into a whisper just as we did. As before, the pictures elicited the rendering. It is also evident that "reading" was not merely an act of speaking; it was closer to an act of performing which was controlled by the demands of the text. And this is a crucial insight needed for fluent literacy -- the text provides the springboard for the performance. The "words" are in the text but the interpretive "meaning" arises from the reader's mind in the performance of the text. Literacy in this sense is a collaborative act between a script and the mind of a reader.

With the second book I selected, we played a bit of a reading game. Big Dog, Little Dog is a book that features contrasts -- big/little, fast/slow, red/green, etc. -- as it tells a story of two friends, Fred and Ted. He had heard the book many times but had not memorized the full text, so on our first reading, I began to read and then left blanks for him to fill in with the constrastive words in an interactive reading. On the second reading, I cajoled him into "reading" in the lead role, leaving blanks for me to fill in. Gradually, however, over the reading, I stopped reciting in my turn and let him proceed with the complete reading unless he hesitated, in which case I would provide a participatory prompt. Like his rendering of Goodnight Moon, the pictures and his memory for the text drove his performance. And similarly, his "reading/speaking" was fluent and mirrored an adult dramatic performance. He added some flourishes of his own as well. On the page that contrasts their driving styles (Ted drove his car slowly. Fred drove his car fast.), he read: "Ted drove his car slooooowly" (elongating the vowel) and "Fred drove his car faster" (speeding up his voice). Occasionally, he had to make up a piece of text when he had forgotten the verbatim words on the page. But his attendance to the need for meaning became most evident at the end. The conflict for the two characters arises when they spend the night in a ski lodge and get the wrong room assignment. The little dog has a big bed and the big dog has a little bed. They spend a sleepless night and lament it the next day. A little bird solves their problem by sending them back to each other's rooms to make up for lost sleep. The text ends: "That was easy to fix. Big dogs need big beds and little dogs need little beds." Nick ended with this rendering: "Tha's easy to fix. Big dogs need beds and free dogs need beds. The End." Of course, this makes no sense. And, indeed, he followed his "reading" with the quizzical comment: "Free dogs?" He couldn't read a lick, but he knew that the "reading" must make sense.

The Next Generation

If we track this question of maintaining (or regaining) fluency as a child applies the more skills based components of reading to mid-elementary school, we can anecdotally see its contribution to deeper levels of literacy. My grandson is among those children who is a reluctant reader -- accomplished at "skills" but more of a pronouncer as he plods through texts. Recently his father, an actor, began reading him the first Harry Potter book. The story was gripping and the actor/reader supplied character voices and dramatic description. The sessions turned into shared readings. Matt was asked to invent voices and when he became a "halting" reader, he was encouraged to "just tell the story." That advice was enough. It steered his attention away from fixating on pronouncing and towards creating a meaning, a tone, a fluency of narration and dialogue. Matt has now taken the task under his control. He is reading the entire second book to his father.

Matt's father is planning to use a new pre-reading strategy for the longer narrative sections of text that lack the performance clues of dialogue. He is going to scan ahead, give Matt a gloss including any new words and then let Matt pre-read before he preforms the narration. They plan to co-read the third book, sharing and alternating narration, characterization, and dramatization.

My son recently reported, "Matt's progress was typically slow, and my wife and I had to watch over his shoulder to make sure that he didn't skip or substitute words. We would occasionally ask for summaries of paragraphs after he read them if we thought he had missed the meaning. When we reached the chapter in which the ghosts have their "deathday party," and the subsequent arrival of the headless hunting club, I asked Matt to emulate the voices of the ghosts. He was reluctant at first, but after a brief demonstration of what the brash, arrogant headless hunters sounded like, he played along. Immediately, his comprehension and clarity changed for the better. Whenever he was reading dialogue, I encouraged him to "play" the character. When he reads in an invented voice, the meaning behind the words is more important than the words themselves. When he reads the voices of Harry, Ron, and Hermoine (who he tells me are "just regular kids," and don't get "special" voices) he looks ahead to find the adverb, and then reads the quote with the appropriate emotion. That was his first instance of consciously reading ahead. Upon suggestion from my father, I asked Matthew to read whole paragraphs ahead, then aloud. This process takes forever, but when he finally reads the paragraphs aloud the meanings are all there. Now we read one sentence ahead at a time, and when he reaches a word I know he's going to have trouble with, I give him a synonym, and he usually figures it out right away."

Matt has also shown a new interest in writing. He writes in school and at home with heavy reliance on invented spelling. His teacher reports that for the last two marking periods, the home reading seems to have a positive effect on his school work, especially his willingness to "risk" reading. This is exactly the type of response parents and teachers gave Carol Chomsky in her study. The restoration of fluency and an interest in reading through command of "telling the story" or creating the meaning as an integrated gestalt. I think we can learn from these tales of fluency maintained and regained, and I propose interactive readings from early on in a child's journey into full literacy.

Certainly we start by reading to children. We can then take these familiar (or memorized) texts into shared reading. This co-reading gives both participants an opportunity to practice/model investing the text with interpretive meanings which lie beneath the actual words on the page. Next, as the child gains more experience with tests, I would recommend rehearsed reading with familiar texts. This is much like an actor preparing to sit through a read-through with the rest of the cast. The rehearsal is short of fully memorizing the text and provides an opportunity to experiment with different renderings which might shade meaning one way or another. There are ample children's literature texts nicely suited to these forms of rehearsal. For example, The Scroobious Pip, a nonsense poem by Edward Lear, repeats a single line in many versions whenever an animal asks what kind of creature the Scroobious Pip is (he is part bird, part mammal, part fish, and part insect). He always replies: "Chippety flip, flippety chip. My only name is the Scroobious Pip." However, he always responds in kind to the creature doing the asking. So when the birds ask, he responds in a "chirpy sound" and when the fish ask, he responds in a "glubbly sound." These stage directions invite rehearsal of variations in saying the same words in different manners and with different character voices.

Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll can be similarly used for rehearsed reading as children variously interpret the nonsense words:

'Twas Brillig and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogoves
And the mome raths outgrabe.

What tone is set by "brillig?" how would a "tove" speak if s/he is "mimsy?" How would you move if you had to act out the two verbs, "gyre" and "gimble?" How are you going to pronounce "gyre" and "gimble?" "Gyre" looks like it could come from gyroscope or gyrate, thus might have a "soft-g" and "gimble" should follow the pattern of taking a "hard-g" sound. But maybe you want to perform the text using alliteration. Can you make them both either "hard-g" or "soft-g?" If the children are working on their rehearsal and they also have the text of Through the Looking Glass where Alice discusses the poem with Humpty-Dumpty, they will find this exchange: "It's called a wabe because it goes a long way before it and a long way behind it..." This seems to make no sense unless one alters the pronounciation of "wabe" to waybee! As children prepare to perform a text, they encounter these points of decision and are drawn deeper into the world of fluency and literacy.

Even with narrative, nonfiction texts, rehearsed reading can provide an opportunity for more fluent reading because the meanings are re-oriented from existing only in the text to becoming fixed in the reader's mind. The "reading" then is not a search for meaning but a rendering of meaning.

I would add one more permutation on investing texts with variations of fluency as texts become practiced or memorized. Texts should be revisited. Actors, under the advice of directors do this all the time. Revisiting how a text is rendered often brings a freshness and new nuances of meaning to a routinized reading. A teacher or adult can focus children's attention on this by asking which word in a line of script (text) is the key word -- the one to receive the most stress. What happens if another word is chosen? For example, in a short play about Harriet Tubman designed for elementary school children, there is a line: "I am a slave owner." If a reader chooses "I" as the important word, the rendering focuses on the speaker. If "owner" is chosen, the emphasis shifts to the economics of the institution. If "slave" is chosen, attention is drawn to the horrors of the practice itself. None of the choices is right or wrong. They can be made by the reader as the reader makes decisions about the intended meaning. And, at the same time that they give options for fluent readings, they deepen a child's understanding of literacy as the social construction of meanings, which can be negotiated, contested, and varied.

I have argued that fluency need not be sacrificed when children first learn to decode. With assisted reading, co-reading, rehearsed reading, memorized reading, and re-visited reading, children can be shown that they are the vehicle that invests texts with meanings. And when they already know the meanings they want to make, they supply the dynamics of fluent reading which signal those meanings: tone, voice, characterization, speed, pausing, hitting key words. These means of supplying fluent renderings are the tools of the actor's trade. And actors converge on fluency as they rehearse, memorize, and revisit under the guidance of a director. Teachers are the directors for school children, and they can easily arrange for children's minds to engage texts with assistance as they move toward performance. After all, any reading out loud is nothing but a performance and performance always moves towards fluency.

References

Chomsky, Carol (1976) "After DeCoding: What?" Language Arts, v. 53, (3), 288-296, 314.

George Branigan earned an Ed.D. in Applied Psycholinguistics at Boston University. He formerly taught eighth grade English and currently teaches in the Education Department at Stonehill College.