DEVELOPING SPECIFIC TYPES OF MATERIAL

A. Materials for Developing Reading Skills

B. Materials for Developing Grammar Skills

With the topics discussed such as Materials for Developing Grammar Skills and Materials for Developing
Reading Skills, things seem to be all in harmony as regards the amount of time allotted for discussion,
analysis, focus, and attention given to reading and grammar. While the first discussant had 22 slides
presented and spent around 30 minutes reporting and discussing about the Materials for Developing
Grammar Skills, I used 83 slides for my presentation and consumed about an hour explaining and sharing
about my assigned topic. Likewise, our dear professor posed and posted more discussion questions
about reading. The materials we were assigned to read also revolved around reading: Identification and
Assessment to Prevent Reading Failure in Young Children and Learning Disabilities and Disorders.

These experiences struck me once more and made me brood over about a question that has been
lingering in my head time and again. Is reading and comprehension really more important than grammar,
given the fact that the former would always be given more focus and time for discussions like this?
Moreover, experts said that Focus on Meaning, rather than Focus on Form, should be given more
emphasis because it is believed that people of all ages learn languages best, not by treating languages
as an object of study, but by experiencing them as a medium of communication (Long &Robinson, 1998).
I am also reminded of a comment that a colleague, who has a specialization in reading, once stated; she
said that grammar does not matter as long as we are able to deliver the message. As I am more
comfortable teaching grammar than literature, I wanted to oppose her idea, but I was not confident as I
don’t have a master’s degree like her and I do not have a profound knowledge and mastery of the
different principles and theories of teaching, either of reading or of language. To a certain extent, I think I
am already prompted to believe that reading and comprehension is more important than grammar.

But I realized that I just needed to read a little further to convince myself that grammar is also important,
as important as reading comprehension especially to students in the upper elementary and those in the
higher levels. As students’ written and oral language skills become more complex, they will be required to
communicate effectively on a variety of topics. Their ability to understand what they are reading also
increases if they have the right building blocks, and grammar instruction provides that structure.
(Shanahan) Without knowing the grammar of a language, the students will not comprehend the essence
of a text when they read it. The Structural Deficit Hypothesis (SDH) attributes difficulties in the acquisition
of reading to syntactic processing deficiencies (Stein, Cairns & Zurif, 1984; Bowey, 1986a, 1986b; Bentin,
Deutsch and Liberman, 1990; Menyuk et al., 1991; Scarborough, 1991). The SDH claims that an absence
of grammatical knowledge or lack of processing ability interferes with higher level text comprehension. It
is also believed that syntactic awareness assists readers in accomplishing their reading comprehension
tasks effectively. Koda (2005) pointed out that all difficulties L2 readers experience are attributable to
inadequate linguistic knowledge.

I do not argue, however, that reading should really be given more weight and focus on teaching on a
stage when children are just starting to read. As early as their kindergarten level, the pupils with reading
problems should be identified by the teacher. The teacher then should address it if there is a sign of red
flags through early intervention. Primary and pre-primary grade reading teachers should be trained and
equipped with reading intervention strategies to ensure that help may be accorded to students who need
it. With the provision of the right kind and quality of instruction delivered with the right level of
intensity and duration to the right children at the right time, prevention of the continuous progress of
reading failure will be safeguarded.

Even though I once remarked that all reading teachers in the basic education curriculum should be very
good teachers, I absolutely agree with our professor, Dr. Dela Pena, that the best teachers should be in
the primary levels. They serve as catalysts who will avert the looming problem of poor readers. It
becomes harder for reading teachers in the upper grades to find very good solutions for students whose
reading comprehension problems have amplified and accumulated over time. Just recently, I sensed a
problem in one of my students in grade 5; her sentences don’t usually make sense and she would
misspell an easy word in several ways. I referred her to the guidance counsellor of the level so that she
will be the one to talk with the parent of the child and recommend her to a specialist for further evaluation.
I just felt so sad that it had not been detected in the past. I think it would be a good suggestion for
teachers to be given a webinar or a seminar on how to detect learning red flags or disabilities. Topics
such as reading intervention and remediation are also very appropriate.  

Apart from all these concerns of L2 teachers, parents have an equally crucial role in developing love for
reading among the young. Emilie Buchwald is very accurate at saying that children are made readers on
the laps of their parents. If only all parents would read to their babies and persist until at least that time
when their children would be with us, their teachers, we wouldn’t have too many poor readers under our
tutelage.