Comparative essay regarding reading skills

According to: D. Brown – J. Harmer - S. Krashen

We live in a world where the variety of written texts is immense, ranking from a

simple advertisement to a complex academic speech. Even though we are not entirely

responsible for the texts we get exposed to, we are responsible for our success when

performing reading. The purpose of this essay is to compare three authors’ points of

view on reading. The aspects that will serve as a matter of comparison are the

connection between writing and reading, previous knowledge hypothesis, the affective

role, and finally extensive reading, being the last the only developed by Harmer.

Camila Opazo

Both Brown and Krashen have several similarities. Firstly, they highlight the

importance of reading. On one hand Brown notes the dependent relationship existent

between our society and the world of reading (Brown, 2007,pp.357), whilst Krashen

has asserted (2010) that reading is an ability that represents the source of most of our

vocabulary, and that in it lies our ability to deal with complex grammar aspects, along

with spelling and writing. Secondly, in “Teaching by Principles and Practical English

Language Teaching”, Brown (2007, pp.357) comments on the interrelationship of

reading and writing, as a way to better achieve students’ proficiency goals, in this aspect

Krashen (2004) additionallystates that reading provides the entry to the world of writing

and its chief components, what is more he notes that as long as we read, our writing

competence will perceive some improvement at some extent. Thirdly and regarding

background knowledge, Krashen’s input hypothesis (1984) claims we are able to

comprehend input for we make use and built a starting point from our knowledge of

language context, as well as knowledge of the world. Similarly, Brown (2007, pp.358)

agrees with the schemata theory, i.e. texts do not carry meaning by themselves,

declaring that when readers construct meaning, they bring into the text their own world

of knowledge.

CamilaOpazo

Further, both authors recognize the significant role played by affect on student’s

proficiency, Brown (2007, pp. 361) reports how it defines successful skill acquisition

process, suggesting that teaching needs to aim at this aspect, for having a motivated

learner is being a step closer to ESL learning success . Likewise, Krashen(1982) points

out thatinput penetration levels are determined by emotional aspects, resulting in a

direct influence on the language acquisition process.

CamilaOpazo

In regard to extensive reading, Brown (2007) notes it is carried to gain general

understanding, moreover; he believes extensive reading is the mean to voluntarily

approach to better world understanding and development of higher cognition processes.

CamilaOpazo

Regarding specifically Brown and Harmer’s thoughts on reading there come

many similarities and also differences that are important to mention. Firstly it necessary

to state that Brown (2007) and Harmer (2001) both claim that it is essential to consider

extensive and intensive reading as two great strategies for developing reading skills the

difference appear when naming the stages or the techniques both authors mention.

Longer texts do not mean real intervention on students learning (Brown, 2007).

It is necessary that students read the text only voluntary, the teacher cannot put pressure

on the students. Brown makes reference to “reading for pleasure” and explains that it is

related to not deeply reading, likewise the author expresses that both aspects are not

related with language proficiency (Brown, 2007). Harmer words are not different in

this aspect, the scholar also declares the importance of extensive reading but, for him it

is essential to consider that students should decide on what they read. He states that

accessible reading provides excellent outcomes due to the understanding that students

can own through readings they actually know and like (Harmer, 2001).

Both authors mention also that it is important to include extensive reading

programs in the curriculum. But just one of them, Harmer, provides guidelines to

conduct such process. Extensive reading programs should include libraries with books

coded for level and gender (Harmer, 2001). It will be easier for students to choose if the

books are labeled, besides the author proposes that teachers make students take part

during the process of accommodation of books, so they may feel more involved

(Harmer, 2001).

Intensive reading is no longer mention by Brown but, Harmer, does insist on

intensive reading and the problems that may exist when trying to develop it. There are

some ideas which are important to mention. Both authors refer to intensive reading as a

strategy to acquire more semantic details, the knowledge of discourse markers and more

literal meaning inferences. Likewise, when talking about vocabulary there are some

deep similarities found. Try to go for words students may know, then by using prefixes

and affixes form a wider world of words (Brown, 2007). This statement deals with what

Harmer points out when talking about vocabulary, the scholar states: “use vocabulary

inquiry and go through meaning consensus” (Harmer, 2001). It means that teachers may

not only to make students look for words they do not know but also, for words they

know and in this way they can create an extensive spectrum of vocabulary structures.

However, Brown does not make reference to word limit or phrase limit, which is

very relevant when providing feedback to the students, on the contrary the other author

compared in this essay does. When giving feedback, mind the words, if the phrases used

by students do not contain at least a reasonable number of words, the teacher should not

answer (Harmer, 2001). It will make students feel more motivates in a way because they

want their questions to be answered.

The final aspect that is important to mention is that both authors remark the

importance of the teacher during the reading process but, mostly during intensive

reading strategies. In both theories the teacher is seen as the one in charged of informing

the students about the benefits that reading will carry. The teacher must take into

account students goals and the must know what they are reading and why they are

reading (Brown, 2007. and Harmer, 2001.). The difference appears between the authors

due to the roles that Harmer makes available for the teacher are more specific that the

guidelines that Brown proposes. The teacher must be an Organizer (for time and

instructions) an Observer (who does not interrupt) a feedback supporter (students must

know if they are doing right) and finally a prompter (students can do everything by

themselves a little help is needed too) (Harmer, 2001).

Roberto Caceres

Consequently, it is possible to say that, at the eyes of these authors when readers

face a text, an intricate and paramount mental process for their communicative overall

proficiency will take place.

Camila Opazo

Both authors mention a series of advices for teachers to follow. However, these

are just guidelines which can or cannot be taken into account depending on the variety

of circumstances the teacher is. Brown (2007) is not that focused on extensive reading

but, all the recommendations he makes are in pro of the developing of reading through

different techniques, he has got a wider look of what reading is and on the contrary

Harmer (2001) focused his explanations only for extensive and intensive reading.

Which as it is said before, are one probably very complicated strategy that students need

to acquire. However, both scholars make an efficient analysis on what the teacher role

is. The steps they he or she must take and the way that must be followed to make

students understand than reading is important to gain knowledge.

Roberto Cáceres.

REFERENCES

Brown, Douglas. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy. San Francisco State University.New York: Pearson Longman.

Harmer, Jeremy (2001). The Practice of English language and Teaching. Harlow:

Longman

Krashen, Stephen D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language

Acquisition.University of Southern California, USA: Pergamon Press Inc.

Krashen, S. (2004, June 24). Free Voluntary reading: New Research, Applications, and

Controversies. Retrieved from:

http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/pac5/index.html

Krashen, S., Lee.S (2004) Competence in Foreign Language-Writing: Progress and

Lacunae. United States: University of Southern California. Retrieved from:

http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~lwen/publications/Competence_in_foreign.pdf

Krashen, S. (2010) The Goodman/Smith Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis, the

Comprehension Hypothesis, and the (Even Stronger) Case for Free Voluntary

Reading. In P. Anders (Ed.)Defying Convention, Inventing the Future in

Literacy Research and Practice: Essays in Tribute to Ken and Yetta Goodman

(pp.46-60). New York, USA: Routledge. Retrieved from

http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/ManyHypothesis.pdf