Davidson's "Read Naturally" as an Illustration of the Explanatory Genre

In “Read Naturally”, Marcia R. Davidson addresses the issues regarding reading fluency and makes the connection between reading and comprehension by introducing Reading First, which is a component of the No Child Left Behind Act. Davidson predominantly discusses Read Naturally, a program to promote student learning through listening, writing, and repetition (Davidson 5).  She writes about reading fluency, what exactly fluency is, and the ways in which the Read Naturally program helps struggling students become fluent readers. The piece is organized by clear and concise headlines and the content is very straightforward. Davidson uses this straightforward language to construct her audience as individuals who are unfamiliar with the Read Naturally program and may be interested in implementing it.

Davidson’s piece, “Read Naturally,” can be justified as a citizen's explanatory genre. It is important to categorize and justify this paper as such in order to better our understanding of the author’s specific goals and intentions  and to round out our understanding of the paper’s actual content. In order to support this argument I will draw on ideas presented by Jeanne Fahnestock in her article “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts” and explore concepts found in Killingworth and Palmer’s Ecospeak, Chapter 4, “Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media”.

In “Accommodating Science,” Jeanne Fahnestock states that scientific papers are “to some extent epideictic and deliberative; they cannot ignore creating a reason for their reporting” (Fahnestock 278). In “Read Naturally”, Marcia R. Davidson clearly reports the influences of the Read Naturally program and provides the audience with a comprehensive understanding of the program’s effects. It can therefore be argued that one of the main purposes of Davidson’s piece is to explain the situation. That notion can be taken a step further, however, by using Fahnestock’s descriptions to analyze the deliberative and epideictic elements embedded within the piece. Such an analysis supports the piece’s classification as a citizen’s explanatory genre because it not only recognizes the piece as explanatory, but also acknowledges the piece’s appeal to the public through its discussion and debate of the situation and its implications on future action.

Both Fahnestock and Killingsworth and Palmer assert that popularized scientific writing almost always incorporates issues relating to human interest (Fahnestock 279; Killingsworth, Palmer 134). Davidson’s piece exemplifies that theory since it uses scientific data and explanatory language while simultaneously appealing to readers’ interests through anecdotal commentary. For example, Davidson introduces her argument with, “Many of us remember oral reading from our experiences with such practices as round robin—not pleasant memories for most of us! But reading out loud is an important indicator for reading proficiency even if the round robin reading technique—inspiring boredom in good readers and terror in struggling readers—is not an effective mechanism for improving fluency.” (Davidson 1) This method is employed throughout the paper and works to reflect the notion of a citizen’s genre by appealing to an average reader and explaining scientific research in plain language.

Fahnestock also discusses the importance of value in popular science writing by claiming that scientific writing must have societal implications in order to be popularized. Davidson’s paper addresses value almost exclusively. Her paper describes the practical application of scientific findings and how that application becomes valuable, especially to those who cannot read as fluently as they would like. By taking value into account, Davidson’s readers develop a very strong sense of the piece’s purpose. This is a clear example of how applying Fahnestock’s concepts to Davidson’s paper supports the genre classification, which furthers our understanding of authorial intention.

In their book, Ecospeak, Killingsworth and Palmer claim that scientific research articles aimed at the general public (read: articles that fall under a citizen’s explanatory genre) have an “action agenda” (Killingsworth, Palmer 158). In other words, a scientific study is usually presented to the public in order to change the audience’s actions in some way. This is certainly the case in “Read Naturally,” since Davidson informs the audience of the issue and the tenants of the Read Naturally program, and subsequently calls on the audience to utilize the program, or at least to accept its legitimacy. Davidson’s blatant attempt to influence her audience’s future actions serves as a straightforward example of Killingsworth and Palmer’s description, and thus functions as further proof for the genre classification. This is important because it shapes readers’ comprehension of the paper’s content, which promotes readers’ perception of authorial intention, which ultimately persuades readers to respond to Davidson’s desired call to action.

Similarly to how I am expounding on concepts found in Fahnestock’s and Killingsworth and Palmer’s works in order to argue my point, Davidson integrates ideas from outside sources into her white paper in order to created mediated discourse. For example, to promote her claim that children who struggle with reading skills give up quickly, Davidson integrates research by Stanovich who describes a phenomenon termed the “Matthew Effects,” after the biblical story where “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” (Davidson 4). This is an example of how “Read Naturally” works as mediated discourse by bringing together concepts and ideas from different sources and texts to form its central argument.

“Read Naturally” acts as explanatory through Davison’s deliberate use of rhetorical strategies, hard facts, and experimental data in convincing readers of the program’s success. Because this analysis is constrained by length, it merely scratches the surface of a complex argument exploring how the categorization, mediation, and organization of a text can influence the text’s interpretation and effect. Justification for “Read Naturally” as an explanatory genre can be seen through the exploration of concepts in pieces by Fahnestock and Killingsworth and Palmer and, as a result, it furthers our understanding of the piece’s content, intentions, and implications, both as an individual text and as an element of mediated discourse.