Theory and Reading: Instruction in EFL settings 23 October - 29 October

Driven to read: Enthusiastic Readers in a Japanese high school’s extensive reading program

by Patrick B. Judge

Key Points: This is ER in an ideal setting: small class sizes, enthusiastic students, and high English proficiency. Through interviews with Japanese students in an international school, readers of this study learn what is going through the minds of highly motivated students in an ER program. Judge talks about the importance of 'flow' which is when educational settings are ideal and students reach a state of mind in which learning becomes enthralling. We also learn the importance of the students' perceived ideal future self and how reading is an important factor in this.

My Interaction With the Article:

1. One could say that this article is an argument for why ER is great for settings with high level students, progressive schools, and small class sizes, but not for more 'typical' settings with large classes and high pressure for exam preparation.
2. Is it safe to say that extensive reading may not work if students do not have a strong desire to read for pleasure in their L1?

Two Types of Input Modification and EFL Reading Comprehension: Simplification Versus Elaboration

by Sun-young Oh

Key Points: Modification of reading materials to make them easier to understand for English learners can be done in two ways, simplification and elaboration. This paper argues that elaboration is better than simplification because it prepares the students for the ultimate goal of reading of authentic texts. Simplification means making sentences less complex by reducing clauses and simplifying vocabulary by replacing less commonly used words with commonly used synonyms. Elaboration adds to reading by inserting into the reading explanations of uncommon words and restating ideas in different words. The experiment, which compared groups six groups of Korean high school girls, high and low reading proficiency groups for each reading type, unmodified, simplified, and elaborated, showed that students performed better with modified texts, but there wasn't a significant difference between the performances of the simplified and elaborated text groups. Oh concludes that elaborated texts are better choice because they expose students to the authentic text without reducing their reading proficiency.

My Interaction With the Article:

1. It seems to me that the elaborated texts are a mixture of the simplified and unmodified texts. Meaning that if you take the simplified texts and inserted them into the unmodified texts you would get the elaborated texts. Could this be why the test results were were similar? Becuase the only difference between the two modified texts was that the elaborated text contained text that the readers did not understand and possibly ignored.
2. The difference that Oh was trying to show between the two modified texts may have been better shown through interviews than multiple choice tests. I would like to know which type the students preferred and how their approaches varied between the types of texts.
3. When I'm selecting texts for my classes will it be clear which type of text it is? Which type of modified text is most common?
4. How do texts that were written specifically for English Learners factor into this study? Is there a clear distinction between these texts and texts that were modified?

Investigating Teacher Attitudes to Extensive Reading Practices in Higher Education: Why isn't Everyone Doing It?

by John Macalister

Key Points: Research has shown that there are benefits to teaching reading through extensive reading in EFL settings. This research seeks to understand why ER is not more prevalent by using phone interviews with university teachers in EFL programs. Specifically, the interviews sought to answer two questions 1) What do such teachers know about extensive reading? 2) How do such teachers incorporate reading into their programs? Macalster explains teacher cognition, which is the effect in which factors such as background knowledge, experiences, training, beliefs, and context, influence what the teacher does in the classroom. The results of the ten question survey showed the that teachers surveyed felt positively toward the concept of extensive reading but they were unsure how to implement it into their classrooms. Some problems cited were, lack of books and institutional support, time constrains, and difficulty with assessment.

My Interaction With the Article:

1. I think we can see from this article that ER requires a lot of institutional support and it seems that only researchers and teachers can see the benefits of extensive reading and not students or school officials. I think it would benefit teachers and researchers to show a connection between ER and improved writing and speaking skills because time spent on ER will cut-in on time focused on those disciplines.
2. I think that we also learn from this survey that teachers rely heavily on their surroundings. This is an approach to reading that relies heavily on resources and time.
3. So far, I haven't read much about the variance in benefits ER may have from age group to age group. Is the an ideal age for ER.

Theory and Reading: Skills and strategies (intensive reading) 16 October - 22 October

Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: ... – L. J. Zhang

Key Points: this paper loos at a study conducted in Singapore. The participants were Chinese students about to enter university in Singapore. Before entering they had to take English courses in preparation. These students were learning English for academic purposes which meant reading was of utmost importance as well meta-cognitive skills to ensure success in an English setting. The study compared an experimental group that received instruction in reading strategies and a control group that did not. The strategies included: prediction, scanning to look for main topics, connecting the reading to past experiences, etc. The results of the study showed that the students in the experimental had a positive attitude toward learning reading strategies. The experimental group also showed improved reading skills.

My interaction with the paper:

1. I felt that this researcher made many unfair comments about the Chinese students in the study. He made many generalizations about Chinese education, such as the influence of Confucianism in the classroom.
2. The author was potentially offensive to Chinese educators when he said that perhaps their only previous instruction in reading strategies was the proverb that a good reader reads ten lines at one glance.
3. The author commented that the control group would receive the reading strategy instruction after the experiment was finished. This is something I wondered about control groups. Isn't it unfair for the control group if the result of the study favor the experimental group. Also, what if the research showed in favor of the control group? Would the reading strategy instruction still be offered to the control group?
4. Wouldn't it be more effective to teach reading strategies in the students' L1?
5. Perhaps the students had previously received reading strategy instruction but weren't familiar with the English terms used to describe the strategies.
6. The post-test results showed that the experimental group was successfully taught how to pass a test on reading strategies.

Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading - P. L. Carrell, L. Gajdusek, & T. Wise

Key Points: this paper first looks at many other studies of reading strategy and meta-cognition instruction and then gives a preview of a study the authors are currently conducting. By looking at previous studies the reader learns that there are five main components to meta-cognition learning. They include learning: 1) what is the strategy 2) how to use it 3) why use it 4) when to use 5) determining if its use was effective. The authors points out only one previous study tested all of these steps in meta-cognition instruction and that their new study would test all of these steps.

My interaction with the paper:

1. The paper give a really good overview of meta-cognition and reading strategies that was left out of the previous paper in this week's reading.
2. The focus on reading strategies in the past two weeks has affected the way I've been reading the weekly required reading. And, after reading this particular paper, I've been especially focused on the fifth step of meta-cognition, the evaluation of my own reading strategies.
3. The author mentioned SQ3R and this jogged my memory. I've learned this strategy. This made me wonder which strategies I use when I read. The authors of this article mention that the goal of teaching these reading strategies may be hopes that the students do them automatically, without directing specific attention to the strategies. Is it possible that I'm at this point in meta-cognitive skills?

A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use ... - A. Phakiti

Key Points: This is a study that looked at the use of meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies used in a reading test. The test subjects were 384 Thai students studying English in Thailand. The data was gathered by giving the students a questionnaire after they took the test that used a Likart scale. To triangulate the data, eight students were interviewed. This paper also provides some background information on the significance of tests and studies concerned with testing. It also sheds light on the difficult to define terms of cognition and meta-cognition, especially with regards to strategy 'use' (a strategy consciously chosen by the test taker for a particular problem) and strategy 'traits' (strategies that stay in the background and are used for all tests). The findings of this study state that higher achieving students used more meta-cognitive strategies than lower achieving students.

My interaction with the paper:

1. This paper brought up something that I didn't think of as a subject for research and that is the study of testing. Until now I had thought of testing as a nasty byproduct of education.
2. Why does this paper go into such great detail with regards to its data collection and analysis and the Zhyang paper did not? Were these papers written for different reasons or intended readers?

We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis by Stephan Krashen (1994)

Key Points: This paper argues vocabulary and spelling are best learned by independent reading as oppose to learning through teacher instruction or by production. Three hypotheses are compared in this paper: the Input Hypothesis, learning through reading, the Output Hypothesis, learning by writing and speaking, and the Skill Building Hypothesis, learning through rules and drills. This paper looks at studies that prove the Input Hypothesis is the better than the other two.

            Krashen concludes that vocabulary in context is better remembered. Also, vocabulary is complicated and one word can have many meanings depending on contexts. Studying vocabulary lists doesn’t help the student learn vocabulary use. As for spelling, direct instruction has not been proven effective therefore reading is a more efficient way to learn spelling.

My Interaction with the Paper:

1.     On page 442 Krashen compares the preschoolers to all other language students. The preschoolers do not have to produce output but they still learn. This proves that output is not necessary. But comparing preschoolers to all other language learners is a weak argument.

2.     It can be said that SSR does include instruction. The teacher is placing importance on reading and the lesson to the students is that reading is important. The teacher is also emphasizing self-learning.

3.     The Goodman and Goodman study cited by Krashen, in which Goodman and Goodman’s daughter was the test subject, seems like a weak or inappropriate study to cite.

4.     What exactly is spelling instruction? And, is it really taught in middle school? It’s my opinion that spelling is an acquired skill and cannot be taught.

5.     I do not feel that Krashen effectively argues that OH is a better than IH in learning spelling.

6.     On page 448 Krashen says in reference to test subjects who were assigned self-reading, “they also received regular, brief conferences with teachers to discuss their reading and deal with problems.” Is this that much different from traditional reading classes?

7.     On page 552, Krashen states that in his paper that all things said applying to first language learning can apply to second language learning. I disagree because age is an important factor when supplying language input to students. First language learning happens at a young age but second language learning can happen at any age. Krashen uses the term “good reading” as in, good reading is better than vocabulary lists, but good reading for a preschooler may be different than good reading to an adult.

Extensive Reading: Why? and How? by Timothy Bell

Key Points: this paper outlines a program for adult students in a Yemen university, in which Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading was used. This program put together a library of graded readers with the student’s interests in mind and had students read on their own without the pressure of tests. This model was based on Krashen’s theory that, “comprehensible input will lead to language acquisition.”

My Interaction with the Paper:

1.     I would have appreciated it if this article supplied a definition of ‘extensive reading.’

2.     On pare 4 Bell suggests written work to go along with the reading, but this may put added pressure on the students which is something that should be avoided. The next suggestion on the page says to avoid tests. I would prefer a multiple-choice test to a writing assignment.

3.      Bell discourages the use of dictionaries because they could make the reading less enjoyable, but couldn’t confusion over meaning take away from enjoyment? And, what do you tell the student who says that they can’t find a book that is easy enough?

4.     Bell mentions that the “modest sacrifices,” necessary to put together this program are worth it. But the sacrifices do not seem that modest: multimedia sources to promote books including video, audio, CD ROM, and film, a card file system to keep track of the books, 141 graded readers selected to motivate the students to read, institutional support.

Extensive Reading in English as a Foreign Language by Beniko Mason and Stephan Krashen

Key Points: the three studies described in this paper prove that extensive reading classes are more effective than traditional reading classes. The studies showed that the extensive reading classes offered increased motivation as well as the ability to work with low-level students. It may be assumed by teachers of low-level students that extensive reading requires a high-level of motivation and reading level, but Mason and Krasen prove otherwise.

My Interaction with the Paper:

1.     This paper offered a good definition of the term extensive reading. I had partially formed my own definition after reading the first two papers, but I had not realized that an important component to extensive reading is giving the students their choice of reading material.

2.     It appeared to me that in all these studies there was a lot of support for the extensive reading class. The teachers seemed to be highly motivated; in fact, I think Mason was a teacher in one of the experiments.  There must have been institutional support. Could the special support for these classes have accounted for some of the success in these classes. Krashen mentioned in one of his paper, We Acquire vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis, that one experiment did not yield good results in favor of extensive reading because of a lack of teacher support. However, it seems that supporters of extensive reading down play the teacher’s role in extensive reading. How much of the students’ motivation to read is coming from the teachers in these experiments?

Amos Paran: Reading in EFL: Facts and Fiction

Key Points: This paper describes how the psycholinguistic model L2 reading, examining reading as a series of processes taking place in the brain, that was the basis of early research into L2 reading has maintained a foothold in L2 reading instruction via teacher methodology books despite the fact that modern research no longer upholds these principles.

            Amos dismantles the concept of top-down reading that was previously believed to be the way L1 and L2 readers comprehend texts. Top-down reading means using context, predictions, and assumptions while reading. Bottom-up reading, on the other hand describes the way a reader’s eyes goes from one word to the next in a linear fashion, all the while decoding each word. Amos believes, despite the fact that many researchers believe high-level L2 readers use top-down strategies while reading and that encouraging low-level readers to do the same, the ultimate goal for L2 readers is to become proficient bottom-up readers. Moreover, top-down reading is a way for low-level readers to make-up for their lexical shortcomings.

My interaction with the text:

1.     Grellet is telling me how I am reading but as I pay attention to how I read, it seems that he is incorrect. I am in fact reading word to word in order. I also can hear a voice in my head say the words that I am reading. (Oh no, did that make me sound crazy?) How could the voice be possible if I were skipping around and making hypotheses? p. 26

2.     I can relate to the part about reading in chunks, however those chunks are no more than 2 to three words. p. 26

3.     I was relieved to read this article. It answered many of my questions from the other readings this week as well as reading from previous weeks that talked about local processes and global processes. I hadn’t fully understood what was meant by these concepts and part of my confusion may have been from my yet undiscovered disagreement with them. I side with Paran.

4.     In my classroom, I will encourage my students to read as many level appropriate texts as they can. This is something I believed in before I read this article and I feel that this article supports my belief.

Cindy Brantmeier: Second Language Reading Strategy Research at the Secondary and University Levels: Variation, Disparities and Genralizability

Key Points: By looking at many studies on the use of reading strategies of L2 readers, Brantmeier demonstrates the variety found in studies of this field, such as data gathering methods, testing samples, and testing situations, and how this variety makes making generalizations about the way L2 readers use strategies and the effectiveness of these strategies.  Generalizations would potentially benefit L2 reading instructors as they could teach their students effective strategies for greater comprehension.

            Brantmeier determines, despite the fact that generalizations are not easily made when looking at studies that are so different from each other, that a common conclusion among the studies is that top-down approaches to reading are characteristic of good readers and bottom-up approaches are common among lower achieving readers. And, she recommends that future researchers consider repeating tests with different testing samples and settings then making generalizations based on the results from those test.

My interaction with the paper:

1.     I can sympathize with the researchers who avoid testing the effects of instruction with the use of an experimental group who receives instruction and a control group that does not receive instruction. It means deliberately with holding potentially beneficial instruction from a group of students. p. 7

2.     Are researchers surprised that low-level students use bottom up strategies? How does a reader expected to make assumptions about the broader picture of a text without first understanding some of its parts? Maybe, I don’t have a clear conceptualization of reading strategies in action.

3.     I believe there is a point of lexical competence beginning readers need to reach before any comparisons can be made be between their reading strategies and those of higher level students. Any conclusions that are made through comparisons must take this into account.  I would like to see a study that compared students of high-level L1 reading skill and low-level L2 reading skill to students of high-level L2 reading skills.

4.     The numbers mentioned in the studies we have been reading about are hard to digest because it seems that they don’t represent anything. For example, Brantmeier uses the number, “mean score of males=4.7, mean scale of females=3.7.” on page 10. What do these number represent? 4.7 what?

5.     Could it be possible that the strategies that are revealed in these studies to be used high-level readers are not learned, but acquired through exposure and practice? Even in the case of the studies that look at the effectiveness of instruction with the use of control groups, the experimental groups get exposure and practice along with the instruction so it can not be determined that improvements come solely from the instruction.

Slavin and Cheung, Synthesis of Research on Language of Reading Instruction for English language Learners

Key Points: This paper used the ‘best evidence synthesis’ method to look at many different studies on the benefits of bilingual reading instruction over English immersion instruction. Its purpose was to help policy makers decide the best way for children in America who speak a language other than English in their house to reach a level playing field with native English speaking students. According to this paper, students learning to speak English may be prone to failure if they are asked to simultaneously learn to read in English and that bilingual instruction will help preserve their native language.

            This paper was highly critical of Christine Rossell and Keith Baker’s study analysis that found in favor of immersion. According to Slavin and Cheung, Rossell and Baker’s study included research studies that were flawed and that taking a second look at studies that were adequate actually showed support for bilingual instruction. Slavin and Cheung listed many problems that make previous research difficult to interpret including biased pretests, bias based on the reasons children are put into one program over another, and difference in instructional contexts that make one study difficult to compare to another.

            Slavin and Cheung state in their conclusion that research has shown that bilingual reading instruction is beneficial, however more research is required to learn what model of bilingual instruction is best, transitional, which uses their native language in the beginning and then transitions to English only instruction, or paired instruction in which students receive a native language lesson along side an English reading lesson.

My interaction with the paper:

1.     The research in this field is not convincing, as stated in the paper, a proper study would take four years of more and would be very expensive, so why not write to convince policy makers that policy decisions can not be made on a national level. This paper demonstrated to me that varying percentages of ELL’s per school, student achievement levels and varying qualities of instruction are the most important factors when deciding the appropriate method of instruction.

2.     This study only looked at the test results to determine the effectiveness of instructions methods, however there are many other factors that need consideration. First, how do students feel when they are separated from classmates? What is the financial burden on the schools to provide bilingual classes? And, when should the bilingual lessons take place? Are they replacing other lessons thereby putting the ELL’s at a further disadvantage?

3.     It is strange that the parents of the students in the Sante Fe, New Mexico study on page 268 preferred that their children be put in bilingual classes when two other studies cited in this paper mentioned that the parents preferred the immersion programs.

4.     Spanish is overwhelmingly the native language of most ELL’s in America. This proves that bilingual education is beneficial, but that means that the bilingual classes will be conducted in Spanish. Isn’t this unfair non-Spanish speaking ELL’s?

5.     Is the Morgan study on page 270 saying that studying French actually benefitted the students’ English reading? Maybe this is because high achieving students were attracted to the program.

6.     Some opponents to bilingual education may say that funding special instruction for ELL’s is unfair to native speakers. However, why not offer bilingual instruction to native English speakers? Slavin and Cheung state that bilingualism, “comes with economic and social value in the world today.”