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?