by P. Tim Rocafort, Pharm.D., Assistant Professor, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy
I still remember the days
when I impatiently waited for the end of the school year. I could hear the
summer sun knocking on the windowpane of my 7th period British
Literature class, while I struggled to keep up with my teacher’s ramblings
about Rudyard Kipling’s “The Jungle Book.”
All I could think about was escaping from that concrete forest called
high school and onto the sandy shores where homework was left far away. But
before I bolted out to freedom, I was shackled by the required reading list
distributed by the teacher. All I could
think was “so long sweet summer.” Yet,
to my surprise, by the first quarter of the next school year, I was passionately
participating in group discussions of the assigned books. What happened to
swayed me from being a literary antagonist into a Shakespearean fan? How has this revelation influenced my
perspective on required readings?
From summer readings to
manuscript about investigational studies, required readings to most students is
often a dreadful task that a learner “must” complete. The fact that reading is
labeled as “mandatory” or “assigned” may deter the learner from pursuing it and
often induces sleep when attempted. Even
worse, if students are dissuaded by the obligatory nature of the reading, they
may eventually develop apathy to reading as a whole. Some may argue that there
are three reasons why this happens: 1) learners can’t do it, 2) learners don’t
want to do it, and 3) learners just want to get through it.
Learners can’t do it. Poor
reading comprehension may explain why some students dread required readings. If
the selected readings are too difficult and beyond the reader’s level, they
will intimidate and deter rather than stimulate and encourage.1 The
learner’s educational background, which included reading exercises that varied
in quality and resulted in differences in analytical and critical thinking skills
when compared to peers, has a critical role in this problem.1
Information regarding past educational experiences is vital in analyzing the
learner’s baseline reading comprehension; however, this assessment is often
never done because educators are much too eager to overload learners with
materials that promote “independent learning”.2 Primary source text (like clinical trials) and
other forms of academic research, may be too difficult or confusing for
learners to grasp if introduced too early in their training. So they may simply just give up or not try at
all, despite their initial yearning to learn.2,3,4
Learners don’t want to do it. In today’s
world, where technology makes obtaining information easier and quicker, it is
challenging to find a “place” for required readings intended to provoke thought
and expand perspectives.5 In an
era when students expecte dynamic discussions, interactive videoconferencing,
and activities that promote “doing” or application rather than “passive”
undertakings, required readings are often poorly received by students.5, 6
Moreover, educators now rely heavily on these new “exciting” tools to replace traditional
instructional methods. Changing social-cultural influences and generational
perceptions are key contributors to the listless view of required readings by
students.5
Learners just want to get through it. Many
learners have a “just get through it” attitude when it comes to required
readings.6 This sentiment may
be exacerbated by educators who feel obligated to hand-hold or spoon-feed the
students to ensure delivery of the information.
Learners suffer from a lack of effort and fail to achieve deep and
long-lasting understanding. Instead,
they settle for rote memorization.
So, how was I converted
from being a reluctant follower to an enthusiastic supporter of required
readings? I owe much of my personal development to teachers who identified the
issues and addressed them with instruction.
From my teachers I learned
that required readings are a tool to establish one’s own thoughts regarding the
subject. They are not a be-all and
end-all fountain of wisdom. Using
therapeutic guidelines in a patient-centered care approach is a good example of
ensuring knowledge is taken beyond the fine print and into day-to-day clinical
practice. The educator must take the initiative to point out key facts and pose
significant questions that motivate learners to complete the assigned task in
an active, evaluative manner. Simply providing
a student a package insert to interpret drug information may not be the best
way to educate a student about patient-specific dosing and drug interactions.
Including case-based scenarios along with a series of Socratic questions may
effectively supplement this approach and allow for students to create more
patient-focused judgments about the meaning of the written materials. The educator
should also engage students in vibrant learning sessions by encouraging
students to share their thoughts and allowing the class to systematically analyze the material. Involving students in journal club discussions, pharmacotherapy
rounds sessions, and patient case presentations will help elevate their reading
comprehension and understanding of the subject. The educator must also
demonstrate proficiency of the subject by being prepared to discuss key issues from
the readings. With the educator’s facilitation and expertise, required readings
become a more effective exercise that involves active reading that improves the
analytical and critical thinking skills of learners.7
Instead of leading to a
dead end, required readings should direct learners to a more enlightened and
enriched path. At the end of the day, it
is up to the learner to take responsibility for completing required readings,
but it is up to the educator to set a positive tone and to use them wisely to
develop deeper insights.
References:
1. Ryan T.E. Motivating
novice students to read their textbooks.
Journal of
Instructional Psychology. 2006;
33(2), 135-140.
2. Linderholm
T., Wilde A. College
students' beliefs about comprehension when reading for different purposes. Journal of College Reading and Learning.
2010; 40(2), 7-19.
3. National
Endowment for the Art. To
read or not to read: A question of national consequence. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the
Arts. 2007
4. ConcepciĆ³n D.W. Reading
Philosophy with Background Knowledge and Metacognition. Teaching Philosophy. 2004; 27(4):
351-368.
6. Paulson
E.J. Self-selected
reading for enjoyment as a college developmental reading approach. Journal of College Reading and Learning.
2006; 36 (2), Spring, 51-58.
7. Wade S.E., Moje E.B. The
role of text in classroom learning: Beginning an online dialogue. Reading
Online, 2011; 5(4).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment to the Educational Theory and Practice blog. It will be submitted for review and approval. Only those comments that substantially enhance the value of the blog site will be released and posted.