An Example of Making Visible the Often Invisible

An Example of Making Visible the Often Invisible

Approaching a graduate class named Literacy and Written Instruction, I decided to slow the pace early in the course and discuss expectations I had of them as readers of relevant texts. I introduced them to the concept of reading texts as ethnographers, i.e., to approach texts as cultural artifacts linked to norms and expectations of a particular culture; to contrast texts and ideas; to take field notes on observations and questions raised through reading and interpretive processes. Furthermore, we discussed interpretive lenses we may already approach texts with and how these shape how we view the reading and interpretive process, and how we respond to texts. The first response I heard from one of the students was, “I think we already know this.”

I had never had a teacher or professor explicitly state expectations as readers and interpreters of course texts. Usually, instructors assigned texts and presumed that we would be prepared to critically discuss the texts and arrive at some classroom consensus for some purpose—usually unstated and ambiguous. Had this student, among the others, been more fortunate to have instructors explicitly describe how to read, interpret and respond to texts for specified purposes? If so, what were those purposes? She didn’t explain or provide examples. She just claimed to have known.

Isn’t the assumption she raised similar to ones that teachers often state? That is, secondary school and college teachers say that students should already know how to “read” and that, particularly at the college level, “we don’t teach reading.” But, what counts as reading? According to whom? Under what conditions? For what purposes? And for what outcomes? How are these questions answered? And how are students’ readings assessed?