Personal Philosophy: Reading Development
My philosophy of reading development is grounded in the recognition that reading is a complex, strategic process in which readers actively interact with text, employ a range of strategies during interaction, and draw on prior knowledge and understanding of the world in order to (co-)construct meaning. Reading is not only a decoding activity but also a meaning-making process in which learners interact with texts, apply strategies, engage in critical thinking, and are able to apply what they read in meaningful contexts.
My approach to reading development is informed by the Science of Reading, including Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) Simple View of Reading and Scarborough’s (2001) Reading Rope, which emphasize that reading comprehension emerges through the interaction between decoding skills and language comprehension. While my instructional context primarily involves English language learners (ELLs) and secondary-level readers who often demonstrate adequate decoding skills, the Queen’s AQ Reading Part I course has reinforced the importance of explicit, systematic instruction across all components of reading when gaps are present, regardless of learner age.
I believe that equitable reading instruction requires a reading educator’s intentional attention to the foundational skills of reading, including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing connections, supported by evidence-based practices. The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s (2022) Right to Read Inquiry Report has further shaped my philosophy by highlighting reading as a human right and reinforcing the need for reading instruction that is inclusive, evidence-informed, and responsive to learner diversity.
Culturally responsive pedagogy plays a pivotal role in my reading instruction. I believe literacy learning must honour learners’ identities, home languages, and lived experiences while also ensuring access to the skills required for academic success. Integrating Indigenous perspectives, diverse texts, and opportunities for critical thinking and reflective practice supports learner engagement, as well as reconciliation, while maintaining alignment with structured literacy practices.
Assessment is integral to instruction and must be multi-pronged, transparent, and equitable. As scholars have suggested, I value triangulating assessment evidence through observations, conversations, and products, while ensuring that formal evaluation remains aligned with learning goals and success criteria. Scaffolded tasks, assistive technology, differentiated instruction (DI) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles provide learners with multiple pathways to access learning, engage meaningfully, and demonstrate reading achievement without lowering expectations.
In brief, my goal as a reading educator is not simply to develop fluent decoders, but to support learners in becoming strategic, self-directed readers who use literacy to think critically and participate responsibly in their communities, with a commitment to equity, ethical responsibility, and social justice. I aim to nurture reflective readers and emerging leaders who are community-oriented and committed to using literacy as a tool for informed participation, service, and positive change.
Culminating Tasks: Two of the six culminating tasks (SMART Goals, Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Presentation, Foundational Skills Resource for Caregivers, Reading Block Weekly Plan, Community Reading Engagement Event, Assessment Tools) that I developed during the course:
Excerpts from the Journal: Three to five excerpts from my journal to connect and contextualize my learning between the lesson plans and culminating tasks:
Excerpt 1: Equity, UDL, and Differentiated Instruction
“My instructional practice has been grounded in principles of equity, diversity, inclusion, and access, and use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and differentiated instruction (DI) since 2011 when I completed Queen’s University’s Special Education Part I. Engaging with Modules five and six this time strengthened the importance of designing learning experiences that anticipate learner variability rather than responding to it retroactively. The readings and resources reinforced the value of proactive planning: clarifying learning goals and success criteria, offering multiple ways or entry points to content, and providing flexible ways for students to demonstrate learning. This reflection strengthened my commitment to intentional, asset-based instructional design that ensures equitable access to literacy learning while maintaining high expectations for every student.”
Excerpt 2: Culturally Responsive Reading and Identity
“Literacy learning must honour learners’ identities, home languages, and lived experiences while also ensuring access to the skills required for academic success. Integrating Indigenous perspectives, diverse texts, and opportunities for critical thinking and reflective practice supports learner engagement and reconciliation.”
Excerpt 3: Explicit Instruction and Equity
“Explicit instruction offers clarity by naming the strategy, modelling the strategy-use process, and demonstrating how to apply it. Making instruction explicit ensures that strategic reading behaviours and essential knowledge about how language works are taught to all students, rather than benefiting only those who already have them.”
Excerpt 4: Reading as a Meaning-Making Process
“As I learned from these readings, good readers utilize comprehension monitoring strategies while reading text in order to ensure that what they are reading makes sense. Strategy instruction must be explicit, interactive, and sustained, not taught in isolation, but applied meaningfully to the texts students are reading.”
Excerpt 5: Literacy Beyond the Classroom
“Reading support can take many forms, regardless of students’ language backgrounds or prior experiences, including explicit strategy instruction, guided reading and small-group instruction, scaffolded discussion, vocabulary and language support, multimodal texts, and opportunities for collaborative reading… Scholars argue that literacy is most powerful when it is shared, supported, and connected to real-world contexts.”
References
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2022). Right to Read Inquiry Report: Public inquiry into human rights issues affecting students with reading disabilities. Government of Ontario. https://www3.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/FINAL%20R2R%20REPORT%20DESIGNED%20April%2012.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 11 and 12. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/english1112currb.pdf
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.
Raj Khatri, PhD 