The effects of reading strategies training on first year english major students reading comprehension at hung vuong university an experiment

In any contexts exam ined, research has indicated that if students are trained in the use o f reading strategies, they will get benefits in term s o f reading strategy use and reading co

M I N I S T R Y O F E D U C A T I O N A N D T R A I N I N G

H A N O I UNIVERSITY

THE EFFECTS OF READING STRATEGIES TRAINING ON FIRST YEAR ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION

AT HUNG VUONG UNIVERSITY:

AN EXPERIMENT

SUBM ITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLM ENT OF REQUIREM ENTS

FOR THE D EG REE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL.

SUPERVISOR: HOANG VAN HOAT, M.A

Hanoi December, 2008

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S I l l

A B S T R A C T IV

L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S V

L I S T O F F I G U R E S A N D T A B L E S VI

C H A P T E R 1: I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

1.1 B a c k g r o u n d t o t h e t h e s i s 1

1.2 A im s of t h e t h e s i s 3

1.3 O r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e t h e s i s 3

C H A P T E R 2: L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W 4

2.1 R e a d i n g 4

2.1.1 Definitions o f rea ding 4

2.1.2 Reading comprehension 5

2.2 R e a d i n g S t r a t e g i e s 8

2.2.1 D efinitions 8

2.2.2 Types o f Reading Strategies 9

2.3 R e a d i n g S t r a t e g y T r a i n i n g 11

2.3.1 Impact o f reading strategies training on reading comprehension 11

2.3.2 The goals o f reading strategies training 12

2.3.3 Models o f Instruction 13

2.3.4 Factors to be considered in reading strategy training 14

2.4 R e a d i n g S t r a t e g i e s R e l e v a n t t o t he C u r r e n t S t u d y : R e c ip r o c a l T e a c h i n g 15

2.4.1 Theoretical rationale fo r using Reciprocal teaching 15

2.4.2 What is Reciprocal teaching? 16

2.4.3 Reciprocal Teaching Training and related studies in different contexts 22

2.5 S u m m a r y 24

C H A P T E R 3: M E T H O D O L O G Y 2 6 3.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 26

3.2 R e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n 26

3.3 S u b j e c t s of t h e s t u d y 26

3.4 I n s t r u m e n t a i i o n s 2 7 3.5 M a t e r i a l s u s e d in s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n 28

3.6 D a t a A n a l y s i s 29

3.7 P r o c e d u r e s 2 9 C H A P T E R 4: R E S U L T S A N D D I S C U S S I O N 32

4 1 R e s u l t s 32

4.1.1 Comparison o f the Pretest and Posttest Results within each g ro u p 33

4.1.2 Comparison o f the Pretest and Posttest Results between Control and Experimental group 37

4.1.3 Sum mary 45

4 2 D i s c u s s i o n s 4 6 4 3 S u m m a r y 48

CHAPTER 5: SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 49

5.1 M a j o r F i n d i n g s 4 9 5.2 I m p l i c a t i o n s 50

5.3 L i m i t a t i o n s of t h e S t u d y a n d S u g g e s t i o n s for F u t u r e R e s e a r c h 53

R EFER EN C ES 55

APPENDIX 1 61

APPENDIX I I 71

APPENDIX 111: RECIPROCAL TEACHING 72

SAMPLE STUDENTTASK C A R D S 79

S a m p l e L e s s o n P l a n 82

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

I am ex trem ely indebted to Mr H oang V an H oat, M A , my su pervisor, for his valuable directio n s and his insightful com m ents on my paper His critical and careful reading o f m y thesis has saved m e from a lot o f errors W ithout his guidance and enco urag em en t, my thesis w ould have never com e out in the present form

M y sincere thanks go to M s N guyen Thai Ha, M E d., for her highly valuable guide in m aking the thesis proposal, in identifying research ap p roaches as w ell as

in taking steps relating to the investigation

I am grateful to the s ta ff o f the D epartm ent o f Post G rad uate S tudies for creating favorable co nd itio ns for m e to com plete this report

1 also w ish to thank m y colleagues and my students at the D ep artm ent o f F oreign

L anguages, H ung V uong U niversity, for their coo peratio n, sug gestio ns and support in m y con d u ctin g this thesis

Finally, I w ish to show m y gratitude to my fam ily for th eir love, encouragem ent, great help and care

T h e subjects in this study w ere 40 first - y ear E nglish m ajor students at

D ep artm ent o f F oreign S tudies, H ung V uong U niversity T hey are divided into

tw o groups, i.e the C ontrol group (N = 20) and the E xperim ental group (N = 20)

T he E x perim ental group received reciprocal teach in g instruction w hich includes the instructions and activities to train students in the uses o f four reading strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and su m m arizing T here w ere fourteen 90 - m in u te reciprocal teaching reading sections T he C ontrol group received reg ular read ing teaching lessons The data w as co llected from a reading

co m p reh en sio n test adm inistered to the subjects o f both group s before and after the treatm ent phase T he data w as analyzed using ind ep enden t t test o f SPSS

V ersion 15.0

T he results o f the study show ed that the E xperim ental group m ade gains o ver the

C ontrol g roups in the num bers o f students falling in d ifferen t score levels, in som e catego ries o f test item s and the overall results o f the posttest The

R eciprocal teach in g has positive effects on im prov ing stu d en ts’ reading sub - skills in m aking prediction, questioning, clarify in g and sum m arizin g H ow ever, the im pro vem en t did not occur equally F urtherm ore, the strategy train in g also help stud ents im prove their score ranking, esp ecially for w eak readers T he study

d em o n strates that the reading strategy training course has positiv e effects on

im prov in g stu d en ts’ reading com prehension It suggests im plications for the

E nglish teach in g and learning o f reading skill at H VU

H V U : H ung V uong U niversity

R T : Reciprocal Teaching

L I : First language

L2: English as a Second language

E F L : English as a F oreign L anguage

T able 1: N u m b ers o f students in score levels acco rd in g to pretest and posttest

results o f the C ontrol group

T able 2: M ean and S tandard D eviation o f pretest and posttest according to

categories o f test item s and overall results o f the C ontrol group

T ab le 3: N u m b ers o f students in score levels acco rd in g to pretest and posttest

results o f th e E x perim ental Group

T ab le 4: M ean and Standard D eviation o f pretest and p o sttest according to

categories o f test item s and overall results o f the E xp erim ental group

T ab le 5: N u m b ers o f students in score levels acco rd in g to pretest results o f the

C ontrol and E xp erim ental G roup

T ab le 6: M ean and S tandard D eviation o f pretest acco rd in g to categ o ries o f test

item s and overall results o f the C ontrol and E xperim ental group

T ab le 7: N u m b ers o f students in score levels acco rd in g to p o sttest results o f the

C ontrol and E x perim ental G roup

T ab le 8: M ean and S tandard D eviation o f posttest acco rd in g to categ o ries o f test

item s and overall results o f the C ontrol and E xperim ental group

T ab le 9: M ean and S tandard D eviations o f O verall Pretest and P osttest o f

C ontrol and E x perim ental group

F igure 1: G radual R elease o f R esponsibility.

1.1 B ackground to the thesis

For m any stu d en ts, reading is the m ost im portant skill to m aster, especially for those w ho learn E nglish as a second and foreign language T he key goal o f reading is read in g com prehension, w hich is to m ake m eaning from text

T h eoretically, read in g com prehension is the interaction o f differen t related factors Flam m adou (1991) points out:

R eading co m p reh en sio n is not ju s t u nd erstan d in g w ords,

sentences, o r even texts, but involves a co m plex integration o f

the re a d e r’s p rio r know ledge, language pro ficiency and their

learning strateg ies, (p.30)

A ccording to O x fo rd (1990), the em ploym ent o f ap pro priate learning strategies help learners im p ro v e their proficiency and self-confidence T hese lead to the assum ption that o n ce students are w ell-equipped w ith the strategies, their com p rehensibility can be im proved

R eading co m p re h en sio n strategies have been identified and researched in a num ber o f studies R esearch into reading strategies o f native E nglish speakers and ESL, E F L learn ers has been con centrated on the ap plicatio n o f reading strategies in read in g process, the relationship betw een read in g strategies use and reading pro ficien cy T h e tendency show s if students are aw are o f the strategy use and apply them ap p ro p riately , th eir com preh ensibility w ill be enhanced M ost o f the research call for the im plem entation o f a reading strategy train in g course, in

w hich specific strateg ies are instructed explicitly to stud en ts in term s o f w hat,

w here, w hen, w hy and how they should be used so as to facilitate reading com prehension

The effects o f read in g strategy training, have been m uch investigated by m any researchers (P alin sc ar & B row n, 1984; Lysynchuk, P ressley & V ye,1989; Song,

1998; F arrell, 2001; Pesa & Som ers, 2007; M cK ow n & B arnett, 2007; C ahoon, 2007) In any contexts exam ined, research has indicated that if students are trained in the use o f reading strategies, they will get benefits in term s o f reading strategy use and reading com prehension R esearch findings also agree that

co m preh en sio n strategy training approaches, such as R eciprocal teaching app roach, helps enhancing and m onitoring stu d en ts’ ability to read com p reh en siv ely It is on this ground the idea o f the present study evolved

F u rtherm ore, not m uch research on this m atter has been co n du cted in the E nglish language learning reality in V ietnam ese context; esp ecially none has been done

at H un g V uo ng U niversity (H V U )

In add ition to o th e r language skills such as listening, sp eaking, w riting, English

m ajors at H V U have to learn reading skill during their first tw o years at the university M ost o f the subjects in their study course are taug ht in English

T h erefo re, they are required to read a lot o f E n glish docum ents In reality, m any

E n glish m ajors face difficulties in the reading learning process T he activities they o ften do w hile reading are reading w ord by w ord, trying to translate the reading tex ts into V ietnam ese, then answ ering the com p reh en sio n questions given E ven w h en they understand all the w ords and stru ctures in the reading passages, they seem not to com e at the ‘right - p o in t’ o f the answ ers M any stud ents face d ifficu lties in m aking inferences from reading F urtherm ore, they can n o t su m m arize w hat they have read It takes them m uch tim e to read and

co m p reh en d not a very long text In several read in g tests, m any first year stud ents got unsatisfacto ry m arks O bservation also sho w s that the teaching read in g p rocess has paid m uch attention to p rov id ing students w ith reading passag es, asking them to read and an sw er the qu estion s, w hile not enough atten tion has been paid to instruct them how to read effectively

By review ing the previous studies and in vestigating the read in g and teaching reality at H V U , the research er can better understand the im po rtance o f reading strateg y training to the reading com prehension W ith this u nd erstanding, the

research er has been inspired to conduct this research w ith a view to investigating the effects o f read in g strategy training on the stu d en ts' reading com prehension.

1.2 A im s o f the thesis

T his research is conducted to pursue the follow ing aim s:

T o ex plore and ex perim ent w ith a reading strategy training course in an EFL context

1.3 O rgan ization o f the thesis

T he thesis con sists o f five chapters, appendices, and references

C h ap ter 1, Introduction, presents the background to the thesis, states the aim s and

the ou tline o f the thesis

C hap ter 2, Literature Review, provides the theoretical basis w hich underpins the study T his ch ap ter presents review o f related literature, including basic concepts abo ut readin g and reading com prehension, reading strategies, reading strategies training and the d iscussion o f the reading strategies that are relevant to the study

C h ap ter 3, M ethodology, describes the subjects, the m aterials, the data collecting

instru m en ts and the data analysis and the procedure o f the experim ent

C h ap ter 4, Results a n d Discussions, reports the results o f the pretest and posttest

o f the tw o g roups and discusses m ajor findings about the effects o f the reading strategies trainin g course on stu d en ts’ reading com prehension

C h ap ter 5, Im plications an d Conclusions, sum m arizes the m ajor findings o f the

research , prov ides im plications for the English reading lessons for English

m ajors at H V U , reco m m en ds som e suggestions for the future studies, and m akes

a final co nclusio n

Appendices include the reading com p rehension test, q uestio n classificatio n, and

the read in g strateg ies teaching sam ple lesson plans

This ch ap ter w ill rev ie w related literature to th e study S ectio n 2.1 o f this ch ap ter

w ill review th e o re tic al and p ractical asp ects o f read in g and reading

co m p reh en sio n rele v an t to this study S ection 2.2 w ill d iscu ss asp ects o f reading strategies: d efin itio n an d types o f readin g strategies T h e im p o rtan ce o f reading strategy train ing to read in g co m p re h en sio n , the g oal, th e m odel o f instruction

w ill he briefly ex a m in e d in section 2.3 S ectio n 2.4 w ill look at R eciprocal

T each in g , the relev an t read in g strateg ies o f the stu dy , and p rev io u s stu dies on read in g strategies w ill be review ed in sectio n 2.5 S u m m a ry o f th e ch a p te r w ill be seen in section 2.6

2.1 R eading

2 1.1 D efin itio n s o f rea d in g

As tim e passes, it has w itn e ssed great ch an g es in the v ie w s a b o u t read ing In the trad itio n al view , read in g w as co n sid ered to be a p assiv e p rocess N u n an (1991) rem ark s read in g in th is view as “ a m atter o f d eco d in g a series o f w ritten sy m bols into th eir aural e q u iv a le n t” (p.64) This view o f reading, however, had to face

m uch criticism since facts show th at a full tex t co m p re h e n sio n relies n ot o n ly on

th e w ords th em selv es but the ideas that the au th o r w an ts to co n v ey

O n the gro un d o f c o g n itiv e p sy ch o lo g y , in the 1970s, w ith th e in tro d u ctio n o f

th e p sy cho logical m od el o f read in g, G o o d m an (1 9 7 1 ) d efin e d read in g as “ a psy ch o lin g u istic p ro cess by w h ich the reader, a lan g u ag e user, reco n stru cts, as

b est as he can, a m essag e w hich has been e n co d e d by a w rite r as a grap hic

d isp la y ” (p 135) T h e p sy ch o lin g u istic p rocess, in his o p in io n , “ starts w ith a lin gu istic surface rep resen tatio n en co d e d by a w rite r an d en d s w ith the m ean in g

w h ich the reader c o n stru c ts” (G o o d m an , 1975, p 12) O n this c o g n itiv e research base, the goal o f read in g is to “co n stru ct m e an in g an d se lf-re g u la te le arn in g ” (K n u tt & Jones, 1991, p 2) an d the read in g p ro cess is th e tra n sm issio n from the

w rite r's idea to the re a d e rs ’ (D av ies & W hitney, 1989)

In short, read ing is a co m p lex process o f prob lem so lv in g in w h ich the read er

w orks to m ake sen se o f a text not ju s t from th e w ords and sen ten c es on the page but also from the ideas, m em ories, and k n o w led g e the au th o r w an ts to co n v ey through those w o rd s and sentences (S ch o en b ach et al., 1999) A s W illiam s (1983 p 177) claim ed:

A co m m u n ica tiv e ly co m p eten t read er is o n e w h o can u n d erstan d the text as the w rite r intended it to be u n derstoo d

2.1.2 R ea d in g co m p reh en sio n

2.1.2.1 D efin ition s o f read in g co m p reh en sio n

T he key goal in read in g is to m ake m ean in g from text T h at is, to c o m p re h en d the inform ation that is co n v ey ed in th e text S hifts in th e v iew ab o u t read in g have influenced the v iew ab o u t read in g co m p reh en sio n R e a d in g c o m p re h e n sio n is not only the prod uct o f lan g u ag e co m p re h en sio n sk ills and d e c o d in g skills M ean in g

is not in the w o rd on th e page It is co n stru cted by the read er (K n u tt & Jones, 1991)

F ull reading co m p re h en sio n , therefo re, m u st be th e p ro cess o f w o rk in g ou t the

m ean in g o f the read in g text In th is process, the read e rs h av e to try th e ir b est on the read in g p assage to “ex tra ct the req u ired in fo rm atio n from it as effic ien tly as

p o ssib le” (G rellet, 1981, p 3)

In sum m ary, read in g co m p re h en sio n is u n d erstan d in g a tex t th at is read, o r the process o f c o n stru ctin g m ean in g from a text T h e c o n stru ctio n p ro cess, read in g com preh ension , in v o lv es all o f the elem en ts o f th e read in g p ro c e ss w o rk in g

to g eth er as a text is read to create a rep resen tatio n o f th e te x t in th e read er's m ind (K ruiden ier, 2005)

2.1.2.2 R eading co m p reh en sio n process

R eading co m p reh en sio n is based on tw o approaches: d ecoding theory and schem a theory D eco d in g theory, as bottom -up processing, allow s students to use

th eir u n d erstan d in g o flin g u is tic s to com prehend the text T hey go from w ords or even sm aller un its o f w ords to understand sentences and then go from separated sen tences to u n d erstan d the paragraph R eaders m ove from g ram m ar points and

vo cab u lary to focu s on the m essage A s L andry (2002) states, bottom up strategies have the readers w ork from letters and m inim um units upw ard to

d ecip h er text

S ch em a theory, also know n as top - dow n processing, has stud en ts apply their kno w led g e o f the to p ic to take an overview to have a general idea o f th e reading text W hile bottom - up processing is evoked by the incom in g data, top - dow n

p ro cessin g “o ccu rs as the system m akes general p red ictio n s” (C arell and

E isterho ld , 1988, cited in N unan, 1989, p.258) It focuses learners on m acro­features o f text - the w riter’s purpose, the topic, the overall structure (N unan, 1991) T o p -d o w n p ro cessin g is, therefore, called “co n ce p tu ally -d riv en ” (C arell and E isterhold, 1988, cited in N unan, 1989, p.258)

In o rd er to acqu ire full understanding o f the reading text, ad van tages o f the tw o app ro ach es are ta k en and m ixed into an ap proach called ‘in teractiv e’ In the interactive ap pro ach , readers com bine their background, ex periential know ledge, and know led ge o f the language to d ecip her the text (S tainagel, 2005) A ccording

to N u n an (1989) read in g is an interactive process and the readers use both the bottom bo tto m -u p and top-dow n process

2.1.2.3 F actors a ffectin g reading com prehension

T h e co n cep t o f re a d in g com prehension has been discussed as the interaction

am on g d ifferent factors In fact, the co m p rehend in g ability can be d ecided by the internal and ex tern al factors T here have been existin g four m ain factors that

affect reading com prehension: the reader, the strategies the reader em ploys, the text, and th e con text in w hich reading takes place (K nutt & Jones, 1991;

A nderson, 2003: Put reading first, 2003; Sadeghi, 2007)

Reader plays a vital role in the act o f reading H is/her ow n background know ledge (schem ata), ability and affective state all co ntrib ute to the degree o f reading com p rehen sio n R eader is now considered an active participant in a reading activity in w hich he/she uses h is/her ow n background k now ledge to com prehend the text (S adeghi, 2007) R ead er’s backg rou nd know led ge includes the background kno w ledge o f the w orld (content schem a) and the background know ledge o f rhetorical structure and o rganization form s o f w ritten texts, the und erstand in g o f linguistics such as vocabulary, gram m ar, etc (C arrel, 1983)

O nce read er has broad background know ledge and know s how to activate them

w hile reading, they w ill obtain full un derstan ding o f the read ing text T his is closely related to re a d e r's cognitive ability and h is/h er affective state: read e r’s purposes, perspectives, m otivation, em otional m ood, etc., prior to reading

The strategies that reader em ploys during reading have been reported to have relationship w ith the reading com prehension In d iscu ssin g the characteristics o f poor and successful readers, K nutt & Jones (1991) point out that successful readers are good strategy users T hey have strategies and they know w hat strategies to use for different purposes R esearch into read in g strategies has shared this idea T he appropriate application o f strategies helps enhancing reading co m preh ensio n

A n oth er facto r that affects reading com p rehen sio n is the text, the m aterial being read N uttall (1982, p 15 as cited in Sadeghi, 2007, p.204) believes that the text is

“the core o f the reading p rocess” In discu ssin g the effects o f the te x t on reading

co m preh ension , Sadeghi (2007) m entions such sub-factors as the graphic, para- linguistic, linguistics, organizational characteristics o f a text, and text types In

his opinion, all these sub-factors can, m ore or less, have influence on the degree

o f reading co m preh ension

O f the four factors, the role o f context has not been paid enough attention (S adeghi, 2007) C ontext refers to som ething beyond the text itse lf and context variable refers to all reader-, w riter-, and tex t-extern al factors, such as env iron m ental and situational elem ents, and the larger socio-eco no m ic context,

w hich are generally called reading enviro nm en t (C h idam baram , 2005)

C om prehen sio n, therefore, be affected by the tim e o f reading, place o f reading, and so on

2.2 R ead in g Strategies

2.2.1 D efin itio n s

D ifferent w riters have defined reading strategies differently E m p h asizin g on the purpose o f read in g strategies use, co m prehension strateg ies are defined as the plans or actions that are used to get the full u nd erstan d in g o f the text (B arnett, 1988, as cited in Pani, 2006; Put reading first, 2003; C ahoon, 2007) The

w ay that B lock (1986, as cited in Farrel, 2001) looks at read ing strateg ies focuses

on w hat h appens w hen students use reading strategies T hey indicates how readers con ceiv e a task, w hat textual cues they attend to, how they m ake sense o f

w hat they read, and w hat they do w hen they do not un derstand a particu lar text

T he tw o term s: “ read in g skills” and “reading strateg ies” are som etim es used interchangeably H ow ever, there is a big differen ce b etw een these tw o term s

P aris at al (1991) show s their difference:

S kills refer to inform ation - pro cessing tech n iq u es that are autom atic, w h eth er at the level o f reco g n izin g grap hem e - phonem e

co rrespon den ce or sum m arizing a story A n em erging skill can becom e a strategy w hen it is used intentionally L ik ew ise a strategy can “ go undergro un d” and becom e a skill, (p 611 )

Skills therefore are "th e surface m anifestations o f the strategies that learners use”

w hile strategies are "the netw ork o f thousands o f decisio ns put into action, consciously o r sub co nsciou sly.” (M araco, 2001, p 18)

In the light o f these concepts, the term “reading strateg y" defined for the purpose

o f this study is that o f T ercanlioglu (2004, p 563) She suggests reading strategy

as specific actions consciously em ployed by the learner for the purpose o f reading

2.2.2 Types o f R ea d in g S trategies

In the literature, reading strategies can be classified into categ ories based on som e criteria o f w heth er they are m etacognitive or cogn itiv e strategies, w hat purpose they are used for, or w hen during the reading pro cess they are used - before reading, d urin g reading, or after reading

R eading strategies can be divided into tw o categories: m etacog nitiv e and cognitive strategies M etacognitive reading strateg ies are those that “ function to

m onitor or regulate co gn itiv e strategies” (O zek & C ivelek, 2006, p.2) A ccording

to B row n (1994, as cited in O zek & C ivelek, 2006), m etaco gn itiv e strategies include ch ecking the outcom e o f any attem pt to solve a problem , plann ing o n e ’s text m ove, m o nitoring the effectiveness o f any attem pted action, testing, revising, and evaluating o n e ’s strategies for learning Say differently, m etacognitive strategies are used to plan, m onitor and regulate the reading as it occurs The three aspects o f m etacogn ition include: D eclarative kn ow ledge, such as know ing

w hat the strategy is; P rocedural know ledge, such as k n ow ing how the strategy

w orks and C onditional know ledge: know ing w hy the strategy is used (L aw rence, 2007) By contrast, cognitive strategies d irectly “ operate on incom ing inform ation, m anipu latin g in its w ays that en hance learning ” ( O ’M alley &

C ham ot,1990, p.44) It involves the identification, m em ory, storage and use o f inform ation (O 'M a lle y & C ham ot,1990) O xford (1990) further describes them

such as note taking, sum m arizing, infereneing, using prior k now ledge, predicting,

an alyzing and using context clues

R eaders use reading strategies for different purposes P alinscar & B row n (1984) point out six purposes o f reading strategies use R eaders can apply reading strategies w hen they w ant to: first, activate relevant back gro un d know ledge,

second, understand the purpose o f reading, third, allo cate atten tio n so that

co ncentration can be focused on the m ajor content at the ex pense o f trivia, fourth,

critically evalu ate the content for internal consisten cy, and com patib ility w ith prior know led ge and com m on sense, fifth, m o nitor on go in g activities to see if

co m preh ension is o ccurring, and sixth, draw and test inferences o f m any kinds,

including in terpretations, predictions, and conclusions

The classificatio n o f reading strategies can also be based on the reading process

in w hich they are used - before reading, during reading, or after reading

V araprasad (1997) lists som e strategies used in the pre-read in g stage as pred icting /g uessin g (talking about the title an d /o r co m m en tin g on the illustrations), teaching new vocabulary, setting the scene In the d uring-reading stage, there are tw o ‘b ig ’ strategies that readers can apply: annotating (underlining, questio n in g and organizing inform ation to u nd erstand the text) and

an alyzing (an aly zin g argu m ents in the text, an alyzing characters, the setting, the focusing on the use o f w ords) P ost-reading stage em ploys sum m arizing, evaluating, syn th esizin g, com m enting, and reflecting to help read ers obtain full und erstand in g o f the reading text

In addition to individual com p rehension strategies, good readers co m bine several strategies (m ultiple strategy approach) to foster com preh ensio n For exam ple, students com bine fo ur com p rehension strategies w hich is called R eciprocal

T eaching A pproach (R T A ) (P alincsar & B row n, 1984) T he four reading strategies are predicting, questioning, sum m arizing, and clarifying A nother

m ultiple strategy app roach is C ollaborative S trategic R eading (C S R ) (P ut reading

first, 2003) In C SR , students use strategies for (a) p review in g the text (e.g., read the title and headings, predict w hat the text m ight be about), (b) m onitoring

co m preh ension w hile reading, (c) restating the m ost im portant ideas in the passage in a gist sum m ary, and (d) w rap-up activities to sum m arize w hat has been learned and generate questions on the m aterial that a teach er m ight ask on a test

2.3 R eading Strategy T raining

R esearchers use som e different term s to refer to the teach in g o f strategies to students S om e use the term ‘reading strategy in stru c tio n ’ (Z hang, 1993; Pesa &

S om ers,2007) The term ‘reading strategy train in g ’ is also used for the sam e concept (S ong, 1998; G ay, 2005) It is recom m ended that the tw o term s ‘reading strategy tra in in g ' and ‘reading strategy in stru ctio n ' are used interchangeably in this study

2.3.1 Im p a ct o f rea d in g strategies tra in in g on rea d in g com p reh en sio n

R esearch has found out that there are students w ho are capable o f reading the

w ords, but face m uch difficulty in expressing their com p reh en sio n o f the m ain ideas T hey rely on the reading text, try to u nderstand w ords and sentence structures o f th e paragraphs, and then translate the text In spite o f do in g so, they cannot reach th e satisfactory interpretation o f the text A cco rd in g to K ern (1989,

as cited in F arrell, 2001) it is because these students do not have reading strategies, they do not know how to read effectively A s a result, the stu d en ts’ reading proficien cy has not been im proved after a long tim e try in g to read

Reading strateg y train ing com es from the assum ptio n that successfu l readers usually use ap p ro p riate reading strategies w hile they read, then these strategies can be taug ht to poor readers and their reading proficien cy w ill be im proved (Farrel, 2001; D uke & Pearson, 2002)

In discussing w ays to developing text com prehension, researchers point out that text co m prehensio n can be im proved by instruction that helps readers use specific co m preh en sio n strategies R esearch studies suggested that reading teachers should include the teachin g o f reading strategies to p rom ote active and

m indful reading Lack o f reading strategies training m ay cause stu d en ts’ low level o f reading com prehension T eaching students how to use reading strategies helps students access to a full com prehension o f the reading text, thus enhance their reading com p rehension (P alin scar & B row n, 1984; Z hang, 1993; Song,

1998, Farrell, 2001; D uke & Pearson, 2002; C otterall, 2003; Pesa &

S om ers,2007; M cK ow n & B arnett, 2007; C ahoon, 2007) W hen students becom e m ore strategic learners, “they have strategies for w hat to do w hen they

do not know w hat to do ”, ‘they think strategically, plan, m on ito r their com prehension, and revise their strategies” (K nuth & Jones, 1991, p 3), then they will be able to read the text and have a better un derstan d in g o f the co n tex t m atter (C ahoon, 2 0 0 7 ).The read in g strategies training w ill help students facilitate their com prehension o f the reading texts as D uke and P earson (2002) claim students will benefit in term s o f strategy acquisition, text co m preh en sio n, or even standardized test achievem ent

2.3.2 The g o a ls o f rea d in g strategies tra in in g

The key goal in strategy instruction is to help readers “au to m atically and unconsciously use strategies, even to a point at w h ich they cann ot help but use them ” (Z w iers, 2004, as cited in C ahoon, 2007, p 31) S trategy train ing m ust include: (1) the training in using specific strategies; (2) train in g about the significant o f those strategies and their usefulness; and (3) self-reg u latin g the use

o f strategies (P adron, 1992)

In o rd er to obtain the successful reading strategy instruction, teachers have to

m ake sure students know w hat strategy to use and how , w hen, w here, and w hy to use it (R hoder, 2002) T hey should also provide students w ith op po rtunities to discuss and practice strategies (F arrel, 2001)

W inograd and H are (1988, as eiied in C arrell, 1998) proposed the five-elem ent goal o f teaching a strategy The five elem ents are w hat the strategy is, w hy the strategy should be learnt, how to use the strategy, w here and w hen the strategy should be used and finally how to evaluate the use o f the strategy In details, they point out that teacher should describe critical, know n features o f the strategy or provide a d efinitio n/description o f the strategy, tell students w hy they are learning abo ut the strategy H e/she should also exp lain each com po nen t o f the strategy as clearly and as articulately as possible and show the logical relationship am o ng the various com ponents, delineate app ro p riate circum stances under w hich the strategy m ay be em ployed, and show students how to evaluate their successful/un su ccessfu l use o f the strategy, inclu din g sug gestion s for fix-up strategies to resolve rem aining problem s.

2.3.3 M o d els o f In stru ction

In the ex istin g literature, there are a num ber o f m odels o f com prehension instruction that are recom m ended for teaching reading strategies Put reading first (2003), D uke and P earson (2002), C ham ot (1999), C otterall & R einders (2004) all describes m odels o f strategy instruction that have sim ilar nature T hese

m odels o f com p reh en sio n instruction are variations o f a fram ew ork called

E xplicit T each in g w hich is “a generic plan for dev elo p in g a w ide range o f strateg ies an ap propriate fram ew ork for teach in g stud en ts o f all ag es” (Tierney

et al., 1990, p 73 as cited in C ahoon, 2007, p.52)

C ham ot (1999) describes a five-phase fram ew ork for language learn in g strategies teaching It includes: introducing, teaching, p racticin g, ev alu atin g and applying learning strategies

Put reading first (2003) suggests the steps o f exp licit in struction including: direct explanation, m odeling, guided practice and application

The m odel o f com prehension instruction posited by D uke and Pearson (2002) includes instruction in specific com prehension strategies and o pp ortunities to read, w rite and discuss texts It is easy to use and d oes not w aste m uch time It has five co m po nen ts These include: An explicit descrip tio n o f the strategy and

w hen and how it should be used; T eacher and/or student m od eling o f the strategy

in action; C ollabo rative use o f strategy in action; G uided practice using the strategy w ith gradual release o f responsibility; and Ind ependen t use o f the strategy

The strategy instruction can also be m ade through co o p erativ e learning (and the closely related concept, collaborative learning) (Put reading first, 2003) Johnson, Johnson and H olubee (1994, p.4, as cited in G ay, 2005, p 29) defines cooperative learning as “ the instructional use o f sm all groups so that students

w ork to g eth er to m axim ize their ow n and each o th e r’s learn ing” C ooperative learning involves students w orking together as partners or in sm all groups on clearly defined tasks C ooperative learning instruction has been used successfully

to teach co m p reh en sio n strategies in co n ten t-area subjects S tudents w ork together to und erstan d content-area texts, helping each other learn and apply

co m prehensio n strategies T eachers help students learn to w ork in groups

T eachers also provide dem onstrations o f the co m p reh en sio n strategies and

m onitor the pro gress o f students

In short, the strategies instruction process w ill start from the teach er’s introduction o f the strategy, m odeling and then grad ually release to students uses

o f strategy them selves

2.3.4 F a cto rs to be c o n sid ered in rea d in g strategy tra in in g

R eading strategies instruction has been proved to im prove stu d en ts’ reading

co m prehension H ow ever, it will not bring back full effectiven ess unless related factors are paid relevant attention D uke and P earson (2 00 2) raise tw o factors that teacher should co n sid er w hen start a reading strategy train in g course

First, teach er should create a supportive classroom context w hich includes the follow ing:

- A great deal o f tim e spent actually reading

- E xperience reading real texts for real reasons

- E x perience reading the range o f text genres that w e w ish students tocom prehend

- A n en v iro n m en t rich in vocabulary and concept d ev elop m ent throughreading, experience, and above all, discu ssio n o f w ords and their

m eanings

- S ubstantial facility in the accurate and autom atic decod in g o f w ords

- Lots o f tim e spent w riting texts for others to com prehend

- A n en v iro n m en t rich in high-quality talk about text

(D uke and Pearson, 2002, pp 207-208)

Second, stud ent m otivation is an im portant factor that affects strategy instruction

I f students are not m otivated to learn the reading strategies and do not put in the effort needed to understand and use these strategies, then these students m ight not benefit from strategy instruction T herefore, teachers are advised to m ake com p reh en sion instruction as m otivating for students as possible

2.4 R eading Strategies R elevant to the C urrent Study: R eciprocal

T eaching

2.4.1 T h eo retica l ra tio n a le f o r u sin g R ecip ro ca l te a ch in g

In this study, R eciprocal teaching strategies p ackage has been used in the strategy instruction phase T he rationale for using R eciprocal teach in g is based on the theoretical ground In the area o f reading com p rehension interventions, reciprocal teaching has been proved to increase the reading co m p reh en sio n abilities o f students S tud ies on reciprocal teaching have provided research eviden ce o f the effectiveness o f reciprocal teaching on im proving read in g co m preh ension o f students facing w ith d ifficulties w hen reading The reciprocal teach in g strategies not only assist reading com prehension but also prov ide op p o rtu n ities for students

to m onitor th e ir ow n learning and thinking processes N ot only does the

reciprocal teach in g system benefit the slow learners, but also no rm ally achieving

or above av erag e students

Furtherm ore, it is im portant to note that reading strategies are not used independently o f one another G ood readers do not only use one strategy at a tim e; they use m ultiple strategies, use them in com b ination in o rd er to foster text com preh ension (D uke & Pearson, 2002) It leads to the tw o trends in reading strategy instruction: (1) com bination o f strategies is p referred than a single strategy and (2) readin g strategy instruction is integrated w ith cooperative learning ap proach (Z hang, 1993) M ultiple-strategy instru ctio n teaches students how to use strateg ies flexibly as they are needed to assist th eir com prehension In addition, co o p erativ e learning in R eciprocal teaching system requires all the students to p articip ate and foster healthy relatio nship s, and puts them in a position to respo nse and w ork on o th e rs’ thinking

2.4.2 W hat is R ecip ro ca l teach in g?

2.4.2.1 D efinition

O riginally d ev elop ed by P alincsar & B row n (1984), R eciprocal T eaching has been know n as an effective strategy teaching m odel In this app roach, the teacher and students w ork to g eth er so that the students learn four co m p rehension strategies: predictin g, questioning, clarifying and su m m arizing , and learn how to self-m on ito r th eir com p rehen sio n (M ow ey et al, 1995) P alincsar, D avid, and

B row n (1989, p 5 as cited in Sarasti, 2007, p.20) define reciprocal teaching as

an in structio nal procedure designed to en han ce stu d en ts’

co m p reh en sio n o f text The procedure is b est ch aracterized as a dialo gu e betw een teacher and students T he term "reciprocal’ describ es the nature o f interactions since one person acts in response

to another The dialogue is structured by the use o f four strategies:

qu estio n in g , sum m arizing, clarifying, and predicting T he teacher and stu dents take turns assum ing the role o f the leader

O czkus (2003, p.2) highlights the goals o f reciprocal teaching:

- To im prove stu d e n t's reading com p reh en sion using four

co m p reh en sio n strategies: predicting, question ing , clarifying, and sum m arizing

- To scaffold the four strategies by m odeling, guiding, and applying the strategies w hile reading

- To guide students to becom e m etacognitive and reflective in their strategies use

- To help students m onitor their reading com preh ension using the four strategies

- To use a social nature o f learning to im prove and scaffold reading

co m p rehension

- To streng th en instruction in a variety o f classro om settings - w hole class sessions, guided reading groups, and literature circles

A typical reciprocal teaching session begins w ith the prediction o f the text basing

on clues given T hen students read the first part o f the text silently and w ork in groups O ne student is assigned to be teacher-leader, ask one student to generate

a question ab o u t the paragraph, one to ask to clarify i f there is som e confusing

w ord or idea, and one to sum m arize the paragraph, and one to predict w hat will happen in the next paragraph (D uke & Pearson, 2002)

2.4.2.2 The four strategies o f R eciprocal teaching

A s m entioned above, R eciprocal T eaching involves the uses o f four

co m preh en sio n strategies: predicting, qu estioning, clarify in g and sum m arizing

F ollow ings are the b rie f descriptions o f these four strategies

P redicting

G ood readers have a purpose for reading O n e strategy for im proving

co m preh en sio n is predicting, w hich helps the read er set a purpo se for their reading T his strateg y requires students to hyp othesize w hat the au th o r is going to discuss next in the text T hen they have a purpose in m ind to read in o rder to confirm or d isp ro v e th eir hypotheses T his strategy also allow s for m ore student

interaction, w h ich increases stu den t interest and im p ro v es th e ir u n d erstan d in g o f the text (O czkus, 2003).

Sm ith (1994 as cited in D ebat, 2006) d efin es p red ic tio n as “the p rio r elim inatio n

o f unlikely a lte rn a tiv e s” (pp 19-20) P red ictio n s are q u estio n s th e read ers ask the

w orld and then read to find the an sw ers to th ose q u estio n s H e w rote:

Prediction is the core o f reading A ll o f o u r sch em es, scrip ts and scenario s— o u r p rio r k n o w led g e o f p laces an d situ a tio n s, o f w ritten discourse, gen res, and stories— en ab le us to p red ic t w h en w e read and thus to co m p reh en d , ex p erien ce, and en jo y w h at w e read (p 18)

Predicting can be based on the clues given W h en read in g a fictio n, O czkus (2003) sug gests that studen ts sh ou ld p rev iew th e b o o k 's co v ers, title, and illustrations to look for clu es ab o u t the setting, c h ara cters, p ro b lem s, and keys events that m ay a p p e a r on the text W ith a n o n fictio n , stu d en ts sh o u ld d iscu ss the

te x t’s h eadings, illu stratio n s, and o th e r features, such as m aps, cap tio n s, tab les to predict w hat w ill h ap p en next F u rth erm o re, stu d en ts can b ase on the text organization to p red ict w hat m ight o ccu r next

tw o parts o f th e sam e tex t, b etw een the text and life e x p erien ces, and b etw een the text and w orld ev en ts an d situatio ns T h ey also c o n c e n tra te on im p o rtan t inform ation o f th e te x t th at the au th o r w an ts to co n v ey T h is strateg y helps students u n d erstan d m ore clearly w h at they are read in g , an d th e re b y im pro ving their reading c o m p re h en sio n (O czku s, 2003)

U sing a techn ique called Q A R s (Q uestion - A n sw er - R elationship) Raphael (1986 as cited in C ahoon, 2007) explains that good qu estion s com e from tw o categories {In the Book and In m y Head) T hese tw o catego ries are prim ary

sources o f inform ation for answ ering questions A n sw ers to In the Book Q A R 's

can be classified as “ Right T here" or “T hink and S earch '’ questions “ R ight

T here” q uestion s are text explicit, and the an sw er is directly in the text and easy

to find “T hink and S earch” questions are text im plicit, m ean in g that the answ er

is in the text, but the student m ust put to geth er different parts o f the text to find it

In m y H ead Q A R ’s are script-im plicit and can be d efined as “A u thor and Y o u” and “O n M y O w n ” questions The student m ust think about w h at he or she already know s and co m bin e it w ith w hat the auth or has said to find the answ ers

to “A uthor an d Y ou “ questions A nsw ers to “O n M y O w n ” questions are not found in the book, and the student m ust use his o r her prio r know ledge and experience to an sw er them This technique, as R aphael describes, can help to enhance stu d en t ability to an sw er com p rehension question s since they can create questions by them selves

There are som e difficulties that students m ay experience w ith w hen learning to generate questions First, students do not have the skills to m ake questions (Z w iers, 2004) Second, they question ab ou t the u n im po rtant details (O czkus, 2003) F inally , they ask only literal or superficial questio ns, not asking any inferential q u estio n s (O czkus, 2003) To help students ov ercom e these difficulties, O czku s (2003) suggests trying the follow ing things: First, start from the literal q uestions, then m ove gradually into other types o f questions; second, continuously m odelin g higher - level questions that require using textual clues and prior k now ledge; third, provide question starters; fourth, asking students to read the m aterial and w rite several questions before m eeting w ith a group; fifth, asking p artn ers to alternate roles - one student reads aloud and the other ask a question; and last, h aving students first read the m aterial silently w hile hunting

for q uestions, then read the m aterial aloud before w riting q uestion s to answ er and discuss.

Clarifying

A nother strategy in reciprocal teaching approach is clarifying It is especially useful for th ose w ho have difficulties in co m preh end in g reading texts (O czkus, 2003) W hen stu d en ts do not understand a w ord or an idea, they w ill figure it out, find w ays to clarify it, and then they becom e m ore strategic and are able to

m onitor th eir co m p rehen sio n difficulties (O czkus, 2003)

T eachers can teach students to clarify d ifficult w ords or co n fu sin g ideas through

m odeling (F O R - PD , 2005) A difficult w ord can be figured out by identifying chunks w ithin the w ord, blending sounds o f the w ords, thin king an oth er w ord that is sim ilar to the co nfusing w ord, or using the co ntex t o f the w ord Students should use th e se fo u r follow ing strategies: L ook for little w ords inside big w ords, look for base for o r root w ords, prefixes, or suffixes, look for a com m a follow ing

an u nfam iliar w ord , (som etim es the auth or w ill give the defin itio n after the com m a) and keep reading to see if you can get a sense o f the definition

To figure o ut co n fu sin g ideas teach er m ay m odel how to reread the text, read on for m ore clu es, u sing background k now ledge o f the topic, or talk to a friend about the reading “ Fix - up strategies” (T ovani, 2000, as cited in F O R - PD, 2005) can be ta u g h t to help students w hen they d o n 't u nd erstan d ideas o f the reading text T h e “ fix-up strategies” include: Stop and think about w hat you have already read; R eread the m aterial; A djust y o u r read ing speed S low dow n if it

d o esn ’t m ake sense; M ake a connection to w hat you know , som ething y ou have read before, o r so m eth in g that has happened to y ou rself; V isualize: create a pictures in y o u r m ind; U se conventions o f print and N otice patterns in the text structure

T eaching stu den ts to sum m arize w hat they read is an other w ay to im prove their overall co m p reh en sio n o f text This strategy en ab les stu den ts to identify, paraphrase an d integrate the m ost im portant inform ation in the text S um m arizing acquires read ers to read, determ ine the im portant inform ation and put it in their

ow n w ords (P ut R eading First, 2003; M cK ow n & B arnett, 2007) In m ore details D ole et al (1991, as cited in D uke and P earson, 2002) described

redundant and unnecessary information, and rem em b er w hat they read So as to

have a good sum m ary o f w hat have read, students “ m ust recall and arrange in

o rder only the im portant events in a tex t” (O czkus, 2003, p 18)

T he su m m arizatio n should be based on the type o f the text: narrative or expository W hen sum m arizing a story, students should co n sid er the setting, characters, prob lem , events, and resolution W ith n on fiction text, they have to pick out m ain ideas and supporting details and use their w ord to explain these ideas in their ow n w ords

In sum m ary R eciprocal teach in g is an instructional strategy in w hich teachers and students tak e turns learning discu ssions about m eanin g o f a text The four reading strateg ies in the R eciprocal T eaching packag e are useful tools for

students T hese strategies help construct m eaning from text and m on itor their reading.

2.4.3 R e cip ro ca l T ea ch in g T rain in g a n d rela ted stu d ies in d ifferen t contexts.

O riginally develo ped by P alinscar and B ro w n ’s (1984), research into R T training has paid m uch attention to the effects o f the strategy in struction on reading

co m prehen sion Studies such as P alinscar and B ro w n 's (1984), L ysynchuk, Pressley & V y e (1989), and G ilroy & M oore (1998) have claim ed the positive effects o f R T on LI re a d e rs’ com prehension, especially po or readers

P alincsar and B row n (1984) introduced R eciprocal teach ing app roach to foster and m onitor reading com prehension T he subjects o f th eir study w ere 7th grade native speakers o f E nglish Each subject w as given individual train in g o f the four strategies A n aly zin g test results, they found that the readin g strategies training helped im proving stu d en ts’ reading ability

F ollow ing P alin csar and B row n (1984), there have been a n um b er o f studies

w hich replicate or m odify the R eciprocal teach in g app roach in o rd er to investigate its effectiveness on stu d en ts’ readin g ability A study by L ysynchuk,

P ressley & V y e (1989) investigated the relation ship b etw een reciprocal teaching and stan dardized reading com p rehen sio n p erfo rm an ce in po o r grade-school com p reh end ers The study w as conducted w ith the p articip atio n o f 72 English speaking C anad ian students (36 in fourth grade, 36 in seventh grade) A fter a 13- day - train in g course, findings draw n from com pariso n betw een pretest and posttest sh ow ed that students w ho w ere reciprocally trained got g reater increase

in the stan dard ized test scores than those w ho w ere not

In E nglish as a S econd L anguage (E SL ) settings, studies o f C asanav e (1998) and

M iller & P erkins (1990) proved the effects o f R T on secon d read e rs’ com prehension

C otterall (1990) replicated P alinscar and B ro w n 's (1984) study to analyze the effects o f strategy instruction on four Japanese and Iranian ESL learners The findings o f the study show ed that the learners ben efited from the strategy instruction.

In English as a F oreign Language (E FL ) settings, W isaijorn (2006) conducted a study to ex am in e the effects o f strategy training in sm all group situations in a university setting w ith a class o f Thai E nglish as a F oreign L anguage (EFL) students T he study show ed an im provem ent in the stu d en ts’ reading

co m preh en sio n perform ances and a positive reaction to the ben efits o f strategy training T he reading strategy training course w as believed to help im prove stu d en ts’ read in g com prehension

A nother study that investigates the effectiveness o f reciprocal teach in g in the English as a foreign language (E F L ) context w as con du cted by Song (1998)

M otivated by the reading strategy train in g approach o f B row n and P alincsar (1984), the research er intended to investigate w hether the strategy training enhance EFL co llege stu d en ts’ reading proficiency, if so, how the effectiveness

o f strategy training w as related to stu d en ts’ reading proficiency, and w hich types

o f reading co m p reh en sio n questions w ere influenced m ost by the teaching

m ethod S ubjects participated in this study w ere 68 non E n glish first-y ear tertiary students m ajo rin g in A rcheology, E sthetics, and R eligion at a university in Korea R esults show ed the reading strategy could be taug ht, w hich w ould help EFL tertiary students im prove their reading co m p reh en sio n ability, esp ecially for those d esig n ated as po o r readers

In an attem p t to exam in e how strategy instruction affects pre-interm ediate

T urkish EFL stu d e n ts’ reading strategies in T urkish in E nglish, S alataci & A kyel (2002) co n d u cted a study w ith 20 students The read in g strateg y instruction involves tw o m ethods: E xperience-T ext-R elatio nship and R eciprocal Teaching

T he results in dicated that strategy training had a positive effect on both Turkish and E nglish read in g strategies and reading co m prehension in English.

In order to in vestigate the effect o f reciprocal teaching G ay (2005) conducted a study on a g rou p o f Form 3 students in H ong Kong A pretest - posttest design

w as used to m easure the gains students m ade due to the reciprocal teaching instruction T h e results o f the study show ed that the E xp erim ental group m ade progress in som e categ ories o f test item s and the overall test perform ance It dem on strated that the reciprocal teaching instruction had positive effects on

im proving stu d e n ts’ reading com prehension S pecially, it helped im proving the ability to an sw er question in g and sum m arizing catego ries o f test items

A lthough m any studies have show ed the positive im pact o f R T on reading

co m p rehension, a study by A du nyaratitigun (1998) in T hai co ntex t is a contrary

He found that there w ere no differences betw een the readin g p erfo rm ances o f RT group and control reg ular group The lack o f strong skills in E nglish, how ever,

w as found to be the cause o f the indifferences

In sum m ary, som e com m ents on su b jects’ selection, data co llectin g m ethods and results are m ade based on the review o f previous studies on read ing strategy training S ubjects selected for these studies w ere d ifferent in term s o f English background: native, ESL, EFL W hat is m ore, they are at d ifferen t age level The data collectio n techn iqu e to m easure reading co m p reh en sio n w as reading tests

R esults from these studies in general co nfirm ed the strong effect o f reading strategy train in g on stu d en ts’ reading com p rehen sio n except the one by

A d un yaratitigu n (1998)

2.5 Sum m ary

In this chapter, the relevant literature w hich has helped from the th eoretical and conceptual fram ew o rk for the present study is presented

This chapter starts from the shifts in the view about reading: how reading w as defined in the traditional view and how people define it now b asing on the cognitive view The view changes have influenced the concept o f reading com prehension It is usually discussed as the integration o f factors related O f these factors, reading strategies have received m uch m ore atten tion since studies show their im portant role in im proving stu d en ts' reading ability.

Next is the d iscu ssio n o f the reading strategies and reading strategies instruction

It reports how readin g strategies are defined and classified M ore im portantly, the relationship betw een the strategy instruction and reading co m prehension is discussed B asing on findings from different studies on the issue, reading strategy instruction is said to help im proving stu d en ts’ reading com p reh en sion T he goals

o f teaching a read in g strategy and the m odels o f instruction are analyzed and evaluated

A large part o f the ch ap ter focuses on R eciprocal T eaching, w hich is the relevant strategy used in the present study

A num ber o f previous studies on reading strategy use and reading strategy training are rev iew ed and analyzed in o rder to d isco v er th eir strengths and

w eaknesses, w hich provide a firm background to the present study

C H A P T E R 3: M E T H O D O L O G Y

3.1 Introduction

This chapter begins by presenting the research question that is intended to be addressed in the study Then it describes the m ethod and procedu res utilized It contains: 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 R esearch question; 3.3 The description o f the subjects; 3 4 T he description o f data collectin g in strum en tatio n; 3.5 The description o f the m aterials used in the treatm ent phase; 3.6 T he description o f data analysis; and 3.7 The description o f the procedures

3.2 R esearch question

The purpose o f this study is to investigate the effects o f reading strategy training

on reading co m p reh en sio n o f the first y ear E nglish m ajor students at H ung

V uong U niversity It is aim ed at answ ering the follow ing question:

D oes the R eciprocal teaching strategy training affect the stu d en ts’ reading com prehensio n?

3.3 Subjects o f the study

Subjects in th is study w ere 40 first year students (38 fem ales and 2 m ales)

m ajoring in E n glish at H ung V uong U niversity, Phu T ho province T heir ages range b etw een 18 and 20 T hey com e from d ifferent parts o f P hu T ho province, and from o th er n orth ern m ountainous provinces such as Lao C ai, Y en B ai, T uyen

Q uang T hey w ere enrolled in the university in the 2007-2008 acad em ic year

R egarding E n g lish background, all subjects had studied E ng lish for seven years

in seco nd ary schools before entering university T hey also studied English

m ajorly at the university for one sem ester H ow ever, as m en tio ned above, m ost

o f students com e from areas reported w ith lots o f d ifficu lties; the English learning and teach in g got som e lim itations

A ccording to the objectives o f the course, after the first sem ester, these English

m ajors m ust be qualified to interm ediate level H ow ever, the results o f the first term reading test w ere discouraging M any students got bad m arks Therefore their English reading level w as estim ated to be low interm ediate level

In this study, subjects w ere coded and random ly d ivided into tw o groups: the experim ental gro up (N = 20) and the control group (N = 20) by using the

( http://vv\v\v.uraplipad.com /quickcalcs.) B oth groups took the pre- and p o st­reading co m p reh en sio n tests The experim ental group received a 14-week reading strategies train in g course w hile the control grou p received regular reading training

3.4 Instru m en tation s

As m entioned above, a reading com p rehension test w as used to elicit inform ation about reading com prehension F ollow ing are the detail d escriptio ns o f the instrum ent

S eliger & S hoh am y (1989) point out that a test can be used to collect inform ation about su b je c t’s ability and know ledge o f language proficiency B ereiter & B ird (1985, as cited in S ong, 1998) suggest th at readers apply reading strategies only

w hen they face troubles w ith the reading T herefore, the research er decided to use a reading test to m easure the su b jects’ reading co m prehension F urtherm ore, the texts used for the stu dy w ere five 300-350 w ord T O E F L texts, w h ich w ere a little m ore difficu lt than the su b jects’ current reading level H ow ever, they w ere selected regard in g the su b jects’ age-ap prop riaten ess, interest, and background

The test in this study con sists o f five passages; each p assage is follow ed by a set

o f m ultip le-ch o ice qu estio ns that focus m ainly o f testing sub-skills, including

m aking p redictio ns, literal com prehension, d raw in g inferences, interpreting

w ord-m eaning an d find in g m ain points (F or m ore details, see A p pen dix I) These questions are g ro u p ed into four categories that require students to em ploy the four p articu lar strategies o f reciprocal teach in g (predicting , questioning, clarifying and su m m arizin g ) in order to get the best readability T here are five questions that req u ire predicting strategy to predict w hat w ill be m entioned in the next or p rece d in g paragraphs; sixteen questions need clarifying: students to choose w ords th at can best replace the w ords given in the text; five require sum m arizing: stu d en ts choose the sentences that show the m ain idea o f the reading passag es Q u estio ning strategy can be accessed through 24 questions in

w hich students resp o n se by using factual inform ation o f the passage o r m aking inferences from the passage (D etails can be seen at A p p en d ix II)

In this study, o n ly one test is used for both pretest and posttest The rationale for using the sam e te st as suggested by Song (1998) w as: (1) It assu red the exact com parable test, thus h elp avoid the problem o f eq u atin g d ifferen t form o f pretest and posttest; (2) T h e 14 w eek interval betw een pretest and po sttest w as long enough to co n tro l sh ort-term m em ory effects; (3) S tudents w ere not given the answ er keys a fte r d o in g the test, so even if they rem em b ered how they had answ ered the first tim e, they did not know w h eth er th eir answ ers w ere correct or not; (4) A n y effects d u e to the test w ould be co m pared b etw een the tw o groups; and (5) It en su res test reliability

3.5 M aterials used in strategy instruction

At E n glish d e p artm en t, the m aterials used for reading lessons w as the reading textbook, R ead in g 3 (H aine, 1987) and other read in g texts o f the reading teach er’s choice T h e reading passages used d urin g the strateg y instruction w ere the ones ch o sen by the reading teacher group o f the E n glish departm ent These reading passag es have been used as the reading m aterials for first y e a r students at English d e p a rtm e n t sin ce 2005 T hese texts are adopted and adapted from different so urces T h ey are about one or tw o pages long, eith er narrative or

expository texts, follow ed by various kinds o f exercises to check com prehension (See A ppendix III)

3.6 Data A nalysis

All the data w ere entered into SPSS V ersion 15.0 for statistical analysis

D escriptive statistical procedure and further calcu lation s w ere carried out To see

w h eth er the instruction affected the stu d en ts’ reading com preh ension , descriptive analysis and the t-test w as com puted and analyzed T he p ercen tage o f students in difference score levels and m eans and standard d ev iatio ns w ere com pared to exam ine the real effects o f the reading strategies training course

3.7 Procedures

The study w as conducted in 14 w eeks from the b eg in n in g o f M arch to the beginning o f June S ubjects in both groups read the sam e texts The Control group received regu lar reading teaching m ethod w h ile the E x perim ental group

w as trained in the use o f reciprocal teaching once every w eek for 90 m inutes for

a period o f 14 w eeks

Prior to the treatm en t phase, the reading co m p rehen sio n test w as ad m in istered to all subjects T h ey did the test in 55 m inutes

D uring the treatm ent phase, experim ental group w as instructed in the use o f

R eciprocal T eaching First, the teacher and the students d iscu ssed about reading strategies: the benefits o f applying strategies in reading and the cu rren t strategy use o f the students T he discussion m ade students be aw are o f the im portance and value o f w h at they w ere doing so that they w ould take part in w ith high

m otivation

In the first tw o w eeks, the four reading strategies o f reciprocal teach ing w ere instructed separately to the students using T he D uke and P earson M odel o f Instruction (2002) F or each strategy, the instruction started w ith an explicit

description o f the strategy and an explanation o f w hen and how it should be used

N ext, the teach er and students w orked together to use the strategy S tudents w ere then given the oppo rtun ity to practice the strategy w ith the teach er giving guidance F inally, the students w ere required to use the strategy independently

In the next tw elv e w eeks, reciprocal teaching w as tran sferred and practiced The stages in recipro cal teach ing for each reading text w ere sim ilar to those in Song (1998) study and m odified basing on the m odel lesson plans o f D ade M oroe

T each er E ducation C enter:

1 The teach er conducted pre-reading activities to activate stu d en ts’ backg rou nd know ledge related to the topic and co n ten t o f the readingpassage

2 The teach er asked students to read silently the assign ed section o f the passage

3 The teach er used think aloud technique to m odel the strategy: ask students som e question s for clarifying co m prehensio n d ifficu lties, m ake questions, sum m arize and predict w hat happened in the next part O th er im portant strateg ies in co m prehend ing the text w ere som etim es m odeled w hen they

w ere relev an t to the passage

4 The class w as divided into group o f five E ach received a role card w hich show ed their roles in the group The teach er leader acted as th e role o f the teach er and the groups follow ed the procedure described F or each part o f the read in g text, students took turn o f d ifferent roles and the groups w ere asked to fill in the ‘R eciprocal T each in g G ro up W o rk ’ w orksheet

5 T he teach er ob served each group, ex plained about the procedure or strateg ies if necessary and encouraged students to take part in the activity

6 W hen the class finished one text the teach er ask students to do a sum m ary

w ritin g assig nm ent o r answ er the com p rehension questions

7 The ‘R eciprocal T eachin g G roup W o rk ’ w ork sh eet w as given to the students to encourage them to use the strategy in th eir reading hom ew ork

The C ontrol grou p subjects w orked in groups for the sam e period o f tim e, read passage silently The teacher gave assistance in ex p lain in g new vocabu lary w hen requested T hen subjects w ere asked to do a su m m ary w riting assignm ent or answ er the co m p reh en sio n questions as those assigned to the Experim ental group.

In the last w eek, the sam e reading test w as adm inistered again to both subject groups as the posttest in o rder to exam ine w h eth er the stu d en ts’ reading com preh ension increased or not

A s m entioned in ch ap ter 3, a reading com p rehension test w as adm in istered to the subjects o f E x p erim en tal group and C ontrol group before and after the treatm ent phase in o rder to investigate the effects o f reading strategy train in g on stu d en ts’ reading co m p reh en sion A null hypothesis w as form ed: there w as no difference

in the test scores betw een tw o groups To an aly ze the data, the descriptive statistic analy sis and the independent t test w as used; sig nifican ce level w as set at

< 05 So as to help getting full un derstanding o f the results, this section starts from the detail com parison o f pretest and posttest results w ith in each group Then

it will focus on the co m parison o f the pretest and po sttest results betw een the tw o groups T hus, this section consists o f these subsections: 4.1.1 C o m parison o f the Pretest and P osttest R esults w ithin each group; and 4.1.2 C o m parison o f the Pretest and P osttest R esults betw een C ontrol and E xp erim ental group

The test resu lts will be analyzed according to the fo llow ing criteria: the num bers

o f students fallin g in d ifferent score levels, the m ean and standard deviation o f question categ o ries and o f the overall test results S ubjects w ere divided into three d ifferent score levels: W eak level (under 25 co rrect answ ers); A verage level (from 25 to 34 correct answ ers); and F air level (those w ho can give 35 correct an sw ers or above) T he m ean and standard d eviatio n w ere analyzed according to four d ifferen t categories o f test item s: p redicting, questioning,