[Special Feature: New Theory of Reading] The Present State of Reading Theory: Reading in Education / Aya Yamanashi

2020/05/11

Every year, I give a lecture that historically examines the relationship between reading (though I define it more broadly as "reading" and "writing") and education, while slightly changing the content each time. At the start of the lecture, I always ask students to write about their reading experiences to date. A comment I often see is, "I loved reading until about middle school, but since I grew up, both the opportunities and time for reading have decreased." It seems that "entrance exams" are behind the decline in reading experiences as they grow, but what I want to question here is what students perceive as "reading." When I ask students about their purpose for reading, they often read as part of "assignments" for classes or graduation theses. There is also a marked tendency to view the fact that they do not read purely for hobbies, entertainment, or relaxation as a problem compared to their own past reading experiences. Behind the students' judgment that they have "few opportunities and little time for reading," there seems to be a kind of guilt toward the form of reading "while doing something else" and motivations for reading that lack purity. I do not think modern students hold a view of reading like, "...therefore, when reading, one should pay attention to external conditions that might hinder this concentration, namely the selection of a location and the tidiness of the study room*1." However, despite being born and raised in an environment where they can use convenient and diverse media such as smartphones and tablets, it is quite interesting to see students adhere to a view of reading that could be called classical, and sometimes show shame at being unable to practice it.

On the other hand, what is characteristic of modern students (and this includes myself) is the thoroughness of the idea that the act of reading is personal and individual in nature. They almost never engage in collaborative reading, such as talking with friends or seminar colleagues about the content of a book. Generationally, students have experienced movements like the "20-minute morning reading movement," but when examining the content, the format of reading individually while sharing time and space as a group—where "each person reads a book of their choice for a set time in the morning in class"—is overwhelming. I wonder if this experience has reinforced the view that "reading is something done alone under any circumstances."

Within the experience of school education, the "heavyweight" of summer vacation homework—the book report—has likely bound students to the act of reading semi-forcibly for a longer period than the "20-minute morning reading movement." Whether a common assigned book is specified or individuals choose their own, the basic format is a "closed" one where an individual's report is submitted to the teacher and that is it; there is almost no opportunity to share reading impressions with surrounding friends. There are cases where excellent book reports are presented in class or at contests, but there is a strong tendency for the skill of the writing to be highlighted more than the content, such as the depth of reading impressions or interpretations. As a result, reading experiences that hide diversity end up being hoarded as personal things. While there are ironic points that book reports promote a distancing from reading, it is also a problem that only the view of reading as an individual activity is reinforced, creating only solitary readers and unnecessarily raising the hurdles for reading.

Since when did the act of reading become nothing more than a solitary and closed activity? When unravelling the relationship between reading and education historically, it is revealed that not only personal/individual forms but also collective and sometimes collaborative forms played important roles. Factors for choosing such forms include the fact that books themselves were precious and were assets shared with others including through lending, and the fact that confirmation through "reading aloud" was necessary to accurately read the content of a book (due to issues with how the book was written or issues with the reader's literacy). The reasons for choosing collective and collaborative reading forms were not necessarily just a lack of literacy on the part of the reader; they were also utilized by academic groups with high literacy as a method to read the content of a text more accurately and deeply, and to deepen learning.

In early modern Japan, "sodoku" (rote reading) is known as a learning method for Chinese classics, but this was the most elementary and basic form of learning, gradually progressing to "koshaku" (oral interpretation of each passage of the classics) and then "kaidoku" (where people with similar academic ability who had finished sodoku gathered to discuss the chapters and phrases of a prescribed text). This learning method based on such reading forms has similarities to modern seminars, but what is interesting is the fact that this "kaidoku" was utilized not only for Chinese classics but also when learning new, unknown fields of study.

For example, the "Keio Gijuku Shachu no Yakusoku" (Agreement of the Keio Gijuku Community) from August 1872 (Meiji 5) contains the following mentions. *2

Category 4 and below: Duties of the Teaching Staff, Rules of Teaching

Article 1: For beginning students, "Readers" etc. shall be taught. In teaching reading, the main focus shall be not only on sodoku but on making them understand the principles (giri).

Article 2: After teaching 23 volumes of "Readers" or elementary geography, etc., and once they are able to understand the text every evening, they shall be placed in a higher grade upon examination and taught according to the curriculum table. (Omitted below)

In other words, in the "Reader" classes for beginning students, in addition to the traditional learning method of "sodoku," emphasis was placed on "making them understand the principles." Furthermore, the "Shachu no Yakusoku" revised in April 1876 (Meiji 9) contains the following description as the teaching rules for the main course.

...Thereafter, regardless of the order of subjects, the primary task shall be to read high-level books widely. The method is to invite three to five companions to read together (taidoku), but those who read privately outside the classroom run the risk of their interpretations becoming loose or superficial. Therefore, once a week, a leader (kaito) shall be appointed to hold a kaidoku session.

Here, even when finishing the "order of subjects" prescribed by the University Regulations and proceeding to the study of more "high-level books," kaidoku with a leader is encouraged to avoid the "risk of becoming loose or superficial." From these points, it can be seen that Keio University utilized traditional learning methods such as sodoku and kaidoku when studying modern scholarship. At the same time, it shows that the introduction of teaching based on a modern view of learning—which emphasizes the learner's understanding, i.e., "making them understand the principles" from the elementary stage rather than making sodoku the entirety of a beginner's learning—had begun. Traditional learning methods were connected with modern teaching methods while accepting modern scholarship. In this process, it is thought that the collaborative reading form seen in "kaidoku" was also inherited while changing its shape from the early modern to the modern era.

On the other hand, movements to organize collaborative reading can be seen outside the academic world as well. Currently, I am analyzing "Home Newsletters" (Katei Tsushin) that elementary schools began sending to parents from the late Meiji period onward. There were no legal constraints or regulations for the issuance of Home Newsletters, and their format, content, and frequency of issuance were diverse. However, their issuance (not only as standalone publications but also utilizing parts of village reports) became common by the early 1930s (early Showa period). Many elementary school teachers used these newsletters to carefully explain the aims of daily educational activities and the role of the home to parents, seeking to gain their understanding and cooperation for school education. In the Home Newsletters, teachers "taught" parents detailed advice on things like preparations before entering elementary school, how to spend summer vacations and New Year's, and deciding on career paths after graduation.

However, what is interesting here is that the teachers sought to use the Home Newsletters bi-directionally by soliciting opinions and questions from parents, as well as reports on the practice of guidance in each home. There was also a movement to organize "Mothers' Meetings" where parents (mainly mothers) gathered to discuss "educational issues" published in the Home Newsletters. In fact, many (mothers) parents inquired by letter about discrepancies between the teacher's ideals and practice at home, or reported their experiences regarding their children's exam information. It is clear that (mothers) parents read the Home Newsletters thoroughly as a kind of text, as seen from the fact that when unravelling Home Newsletters donated to elementary schools by bereaved families, markings with red pencils and the like can be found. At first glance, Home Newsletters are nothing more than "notices" from the school to the home, but in the pre-war period when educational information was limited, they played a role as a kind of "teaching material" for parents and sometimes connected to movements to link parents, who were the readers, with each other.

Partly because diverse educational opportunities and means were not as abundant as they are now, movements to understand new values and knowledge using "reading" as a guide were active even after World War II. Especially for mothers who were born and raised in pre-war education but had to raise their own children according to "New Education" policies, the most accessible sources of information were school teachers and the newsletters issued by teachers, as well as educational magazines issued independently by teachers or retired teachers in the local community, and local collective activities using these as teaching materials. What is noteworthy is the fact that the educators were not satisfied with just issuing these newsletters and educational magazines, but quite naturally called for the formation of reading circles using these as texts, and parents (mostly mothers) also accepted participation in such activities. Behind this, it is thought that there were geographical, class, and gender constraints on the act of reading itself, making it difficult for mothers to engage in it alone. In any case, it should be noted that mothers at that time clearly had a consciousness of wanting to learn together with other mothers in similar positions, rather than just deepening their personal understanding by reading a common text. For women in the mid-1960s, the act of reading was not necessarily a personal/individual activity, but was perceived as something containing commonality with the potential to connect with others through group efforts.

I believe that one role of the university is to convey the fact that the act of reading harbors the possibility of sometimes connecting solitary others (who do not necessarily exist in a realistic time and space), as well as its joy and thrilling aspects.