Should Students Be Allowed To Design Their Own Reading Lists?

Illustration for article titled Should Students Be Allowed To Design Their Own Reading Lists?

According to Motoko Rich of the New York Times, some teachers are moving toward a more open reading curriculum that would allow students to choose their own books, as opposed to titles from a school-issued reading list.

Advertisement

The objective is to engage students in workshop-like discussions by having the class choose a book to read, as opposed to a teacher assigning one to them. Supporters of the workshop format say that the open environment is more conducive to discussions, as students are more open to talking about books they choose on their own. Critics, however, claim that the students are missing out on more challenging materials, and that allowing them to essentially design their own curriculum allows them to breeze through the reading discussions without being challenged by more difficult texts. The trick, educators tell the Times, is to find a balance between the two.

"If what we're trying to get to is, everybody has read ‘Ethan Frome' and Henry James and Shakespeare, then the challenge for the teacher is how do you make that stuff accessible and interesting enough that kids will stick with it," Harvard Professor Catherine E. Snow tells the Times, "But if the goal is, how do you make kids lifelong readers, then it seems to me that there's a lot to be said for the choice approach."

Lorrie McNeill, who is pioneering the choice-based program in her middle school classroom in Georgia, says that allowing her students to choose what they read ensures that they develop a love of reading, instead of viewing books as a chore or a task: "I feel like almost every kid in my classroom is engaged in a novel that they're actually interacting with. Whereas when I do ‘To Kill a Mockingbird," I know that I have some kids that just don't get into it."

The best teachers I had in middle and high school were able to incorporate lighter fare and challenging classics into the curriculum, encouraging us to think critically about everything from nonsense like Louis Sachar's Sideways Stories to serious work like Toni Morrison's Beloved. I admire McNeil's approach, as she seems to understand that once you "assign" a book, you zap the reading pleasure right out of it (I've actually had to go back and read classics from high school simply for enjoyment purposes, as I read them solely to prepare for essay tests and class discussions when I was younger), and that allowing students to choose their own materials allows them to challenge themselves to perhaps take a more critical look at what some might consider "easier" reading. I don't think the classics should be tossed aside for the works of Stephanie Meyer, but I do think McNeil's approach is an interesting way of allowing students to develop of love of reading, classics or no. One hopes that that love of reading will push them toward more challenging fare, once the Twilights and Harry Potters of the world no longer hold their interest.

What say you, commenters? Should students have more of a say? Or are we being too easy on students by allowing them to potentially avoid classic literature? And which books would you choose, if you had the chance to design your own curriculum?

Reading Workshop Approach Lets Students Pick The Books [NYTimes]

DISCUSSION

blahblahblabbity
blahblahblabbity

When I was in school, we had a balance. There were the books in class (Lord of the Flies, Hamlet, Of Mice and Men, The Color Purple)...and there were the books you got to read at home. You had to pick a balance of books from different genres, they'd have a page count requirement...so if you wanted to read a little light 100 pager you needed to read 3 so it counted, etc. There was also a suggested list to choose from if you needed ideas.

This way kids got to read things they were interested in, were exposed to new books, and were versed in the classics in school.

I was also taught how important it was to analyze a work and back up my opinions. I didn't have to like something but I needed to show why. Consistently and clearly. Sometimes we just don't like a premise or a character. Sometimes it's execution, or plot holes, or whatever. But no matter what we should be able to articulate why we do or do not like something without relying on "just because" within an analytical setting.

I do think it's important to have grounded knowledge from established works known for their depth and nuance. Otherwise how would you know what to look for in lighter fare? Having that grounding didn't mean I never read crap like Piers Anthony...but it did mean I knew -why- I was reading it and what my problems with it were. I think that's equally important.

Just as I think it's important to understand the difference between what we may be choosing to read into a book, and what is actually supportable with examples and evidence.