The Neglected Gen Ed Skill

Paul Musgrave tweeted 99 theses on higher ed this weekend; if you haven’t seen the thread, I highly recommend it. There’s plenty to work with, but two in particular jumped out at me:

• 25: Weak foundations in reading are the causes of many problems we blame on writing instruction.
• 26: We actually need “reading across the curriculum” instruction.

Yes, yes, yes. Also, yes.

Yet “reading” isn’t among our gen ed outcomes. Our only reading classes are developmental, and very few students take them.

At some level, I suppose that we assume as a matter of course that students develop adequate reading skills in the K-12 system. And it would be lovely if that were universally true. But it just isn’t.

Admittedly, a word like “reading” has multiple meanings.

For instance, basic literacy would entail being able to read a road sign or a “closed” sign on a shop door. If we define adequate reading skill as “not illiterate,” then yes, the overwhelming majority of students has adequate reading skill. But that’s too low a bar. At a college level, we tend to assume that students can read lengthy and relatively sophisticated writing and discern its argument, point of view and/or basic elements of structure. We assume that they can read two conflicting pieces on the same topic and be able to offer a reasonably accurate summary of what’s in dispute.

That kind of reading goes well beyond deciphering words. It involves reading for meaning. While it can absolutely be taught, it comes largely from extended practice over time. I’m concerned that that kind of practice -- routine engagement with extended and reasonably sophisticated writing -- is less common than it should be. I’m old enough to object to “kids today” arguments, though, because I remember people making those same arguments decades ago. Twentyish years ago, when I was teaching a writing class at DeVry and it wasn’t going well, I remember asking the students (in frustration) what they read on their own. Most looked at me quizzically, as if the idea of reading something that wasn’t assigned was absurd on its face. Two mentioned reading car magazines. The single best writer in the class mentioned occasionally reading articles about sports. This was years before social media.

When students’ reading skills are shaky (or unused), they tend to write poorly. Good writers tend to be heavy readers. Part of that comes from basic imitation, but I think much more of it comes from developing a feel for how the written word works. That takes time.

On my own campus, the IR office did a study several years ago and found that the placement test score that best predicted success in math wasn’t math; it was reading. If you understand that math is a language, that makes sense. Recently the psych department teamed up with the reading department to use the Intro to Psych book as the raw material for a reading class; students could take both and could use the reading class to help them make sense of the textbook. I’ll admit thinking it was one of the best ideas I’d heard in years.

Genres of reading may be different in different fields, but most professional jobs require the ability to get through some fairly complicated material independently and to make sense of it. That’s also true of advanced study. To the extent that “general education” is “general” because of broad applicability, reading certainly seems to fit the bill.

So thank you, Paul Musgrave, for encapsulating some long-simmering inchoate thoughts so elegantly. Reading is a gen ed skill, whether we call it one or not.