國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this chapter, on the basis of the results presented in the previous chapter, the major findings of the study are summarized and discussed. The major the findings of the study can be conceptualized in the model presented in Figure 5.0.1. Then, some pedagogical implications are proposed. Finally, limitations of the present study and suggestions for future research are provided.
Figure 5.0.1 Model of effects of CORI on intrinsic motivation and reading ability Concept-Oriented
Reading Instruction
Reading Ability (post-test)
Reading Ability (pretest)
Intrinsic Motivation
‧
Discussion of the Major Findings
In this study, CORI was implemented in the primary EFL remedial program, owing to its potential of enhancing learners’ intrinsic reading motivation as well as the improvement of reading abilities. The research aimed to explore the effects of using CORI in a remedial course. The main findings of the study in relation to three research questions are presented and discussed below.
Research Question One: To what extent does CORI enhance students’ intrinsic reading motivation in a primary EFL remedial program?
In the study, the researcher aimed to find out if the enhancement of intrinsic reading motivation occurred when conducting CORI in the three-month remedial program. To investigate the finding, intrinsic reading motivation was divided into three dimensions: self-efficacy, involvement, and willingness. The overall findings in the post-experiment questionnaire showed that students’ intrinsic reading motivation was enhanced. CORI had a particular effect on the aspect of reading involvement. Our findings were consistent with suggestions from previous studies regarding the
enhancement of reading involvement (Guthrie et al., 1999; Logan et al., 2011;
Wigfield et al., 2004).
However, as for the aspects in reading efficacy and reading willingness, the overall results indicated that although students agreed that CORI helped them deal with unknown vocabulary and made them more interested in reading English books, they were less confident in reading on their own and without guidance. The results showed that the participants had low willingness to read as an individual, which is
‧
inconsistent with the suggestions of previous studies (Guthrie et al., 2007; Guthrie et al., 2004; Guthrie et al., 2000; Guthrie, 1996). This might be the outcome of the students’ low learning ability as L2 readers. They lacked confidence to read because the students were afraid of incomprehension. However, the remedial students in the program replied with high willingness to read with others. They were more willing to read in English with teacher’s guidance and with their peers. One possible explanation is that the participants were all low achievers from the remedial program. They tended to be less confident in their own capacity as English readers.
Research Question Two: To what extent does CORI increase students’ reading ability in a primary EFL remedial program?
The study investigated on the improvement of the participants’ reading ability through the CORI instruction. Based on students’ performance on the pre- and post- GEPT-Kids reading tests, their overall reading ability was not improved before and after the CORI instruction. Students in general performed poorly on all subsets of the two reading tests including word recognition, grammar knowledge, and reading comprehension.
One possible explanation for the insignificance of students’ improvement on the pre- and post-reading test scores is that the three-month class instruction might not be sufficient enough for these students with low reading ability. The reading ability might be increased over a longer period of time, instead of a three-month session of CORI. This can be supported by Logan et al. (2011) that the learners with lower ability might be led to improvements in reading ability over time in CORI. As
low-‧
achievement learners might make extra efforts to their own learning even when they had higher intrinsic motivation. It is possible that the enhancement of the intrinsic motivation might lead greater probability to the improvement of reading ability in a long run.
Another possible reason to the insignificance of difference between the pre-and post- reading tests might have to do with the test instrument. The remedial students might not be able to show their progression on the test scores due to the GEPT-Kids Reading Test’s level of difficulty. The mean scores seemed to indicate that the test might be too difficult for these learners. The possibility of guessing was high and might not accurately assess these learners’ reading ability. In this case, the improvement could not be detected through the test instrument.
Finally, the progression of reading ability could be estimated in multiple ways rather than a reading test only. The growth of reading ability might need another measurement to reveal; however, only one measurement was utilized in this study to examine students’ reading ability.
Research Question Three: How do these students perceive the use of CORI in their English remedial class?
According to the responses that students provided in the open-ended questions of the questionnaire and the interviews, it was found that the students enjoyed the
reading materials provided in the program; they particularly liked the books such as
“Basketball,” ”All Kinds of Home,” and ”Food Truck”. They also expressed their willingness to do L2 reading under the teachers’ guidance. The finding regarding
‧
students’ enjoyment of reading materials provided in the CORI program was
supported by previous studies (Guthrie et al., 1999; Guthrie et al., 2004; Logan et al., 2011; Wigfield et al., 2004). In addition, the participants of this study also provided three reasons for their interest in the reading material. First, they thought the reading material could help improve their English proficiency. Second, the students desired to learn new things in the real world. Last, they experienced the pleasure of learning experience during the class instruction. The findings here were consistent with those from the previous studies regarding the development of intrinsic reading motivation through CORI, which provided an opportunity for students to interact and build relationships with the real world (Barbosa, 2008; Guthrie et al., 1999; Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012; Guthrie, 1996; Logan et al., 2011; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997;
Wigfield et al., 2004).
As for the finding related to students’ unwillingness to read on their own but willingness to read under the teacher’s guidance or with the class, one possible reason might be that the participants found the CORI learning environment friendly for them to learn. Moreover, the collaboration and self-expression building practices during the activities in CORI gave the participants a great chance to learn without avoidance (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Guthrie et al., 1999).
Pedagogical Implications
The results of the study indicate that, when learners were provided with
sufficient guidance through the principles of CORI, their intrinsic reading motivation can be greatly enhanced. The principles such as self-expression and collaboration
‧
helped students to involve better in different activities, leading to greater
understanding of reading materials (Guthrie et al., 1999; Logan et al., 2011; Wigfield et al., 2004). The reading involvement enhanced students’ activeness in activities of discussions of mind-maps and doing posters projects. Other principles could be implemented in the courses such as searching for meanings in the reading, providing students opportunities to build up strategy-using techniques in reading. Students were also found to better enjoy the task of reading with CORI. However, the study also showed that the participants often lacked confidence to read on their own. Therefore, teachers are encouraged to employ diverse teaching activities and tasks but also provide necessary language support when implementing CORI on students with learning difficulty. With enough teacher support and linguistic scaffolding, these students might become more confident and independent readers. In the long run, their reading ability might also be improved.
Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research
The present study provides teachers with an overview of how CORI can be implemented in a primary EFL remedial program and how it can help enhance students’ reading motivation. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the following limitations. First, only seven participants with limited English proficiency were recruited in the present study. Future studies may include students with different L2 reading proficiency levels so that the effectiveness of the teaching method can be further examined. Second, the amount of time used to employ CORI was short and probably not sufficient enough to show students’ significant
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
improvement of reading ability. Future researchers might increase the instructional time or conduct a longitudinal study to estimate the effectiveness of CORI on students’ reading ability. Third, the reading materials selected in this study were not typical CORI materials. Future studies are suggested to choose books originally from the CORI programs. Last, the analysis on students’ written responses in the
questionnaire and interviews was conducted by the researcher alone, which might be too subjective. To avoid the problem, it is suggested that future research involve other experienced teachers to help analyze the data.
‧
Akamatsu, N. (1999). The effects of first language orthographic features on word recognition processing in English as a second language. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 381-403.
Alhamdu (2016). Interest and reading motivation. PSIKIS-Jurnal Psikologi Islami Vol. 1 No. 1 (2015). 1-10.
Alleman, J., & Brophy, E. J. (1991). Reconceptualizing homework as out-of-the-school learning opportunities. Occasional Paper No. 135. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Institute for Research in Teaching.
Anderson, E. (1998). Motivation and Cognitive Influences on Conceptual
Knowledge: The Combination of Science Observation and Interesting Texts.
Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp.255-291).
New York: Longman.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive Skills and Reading. In P. D.
Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 353 - 394). New York: Longman.
Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of Children's Motivation for Reading and Their Relations to Reading Activity and Reading Achievement.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 646-622.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s
‧
ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. Curriculum
Inquiry. Vol. 18, No. 1 (Spring, 1988), pp. 113-121. New York: BasicBooks, Inc.
Berman, R. (1986). A crosslinguistic perspective: Morphology and syntax.
In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (Eds.), Language acquisition: Studies in first language development (2nd ed., pp. 429–447). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brophy, J., McMahon, S., & Prawat, R. (1991). Elementary social studies series:
Critique of a representative example by six experts. Social Eduation, 55, 155-160.
Carrell, P. &Eisterhold. J.C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy.
TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573.
Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning, 33, 183–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00534.x.
Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and Formal Schemata in ESL Reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 461.doi:10.2307/3586498
Carrell, P.L. (1988). Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL reading. In P.L. Carrell, J. Devine & D.E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approachesto second language reading. Cambridge: CUP.
Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121–134.
Carr, T. H., & Levy, B. A. (Eds.). (1990). Reading and its development: Component skills approaches. New York: Academic Press.
‧
Chapman, J. W. (1988). Learning Disabled Children's Self-Concepts. Review of Educational Research, 58, 347-37.
Chen, Ying-Hsiu (2004). Elementary and Junior High School English Teachers’
Perceptions and Implementation of Remedial Instruction for Underachievers (Master's thesis) National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Chow, B. W.-Y., McBride-Chang, C., & Burgess, S. (2005). Phonological processing skills and early reading abilities in Hong Kong Chinese kindergarteners learning to read English as a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 81-87.
Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language
Journal, 64, 203–209.
Devine, J. (1987). General language competence and adult second language reading.
In Devine, J.Carrell, P. L. & Eskey, D. E. (Eds.), Research in reading English as a second language (pp. 73–87). Washington, DC: Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. P. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of
Educational Research, 61, 239–264.
Eskey, D.E. (1986). Theoretical foundations. In F. Dublin, D.E. Eskey, W. Grabe (Eds.), Teaching second language reading for academic purposes. (pp. 3–
23). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Eskey, D.E. (1988). “Holding in the Bottom: An Interactive Approach to the
‧
Language Problems of Second Language Readers.” In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D.
Eskey (Eds.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading (pp. 93-100).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.
Eskey, D. E. (2002). Reading and the teaching of L2 reading. TESOL Journal, 11(1), 5-9.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Language Learning Motivation: The Student, the Teacher, and the Researcher. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 1–18.
Geva, E. & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skill in two languages. Reading and Writing: An.
Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 1-30.
Geva, E., Wade-Woolley, L., & Shany, M. (1997). The development of reading efficiency in a first and second language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 119–
144.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current Developments in Second Language Reading Research.
TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375-406.
Grabe, W. (2004). 3. Research on Teaching Reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24. doi:10.1017/s0267190504000030
Grabe, W. (2014). Key Issues in L2 Reading Development. In 4th CELC Symposium Proceedings, edited by Xudong Deng and Richard Seow, 8–18. National University of Singapore.
Graesser, A. C., Lang, K. L., & Roberts, R. M. (1991). Question answering in the context of stories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 254-277.
Guthrie, C. S. C. J. T. (2008). Teacher and Student Perceptions of Boys’ and Girls’
‧
Reading Motivation. Reading Psychology, 30, 225–249.
Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influence of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction on Strategy Use and Conceptual Learning from Text. Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 343–366.
Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Perencevich, K. C. (2006).
From Spark to Fire: Can Situational Reading Interest Lead to Long-term Reading Motivation? Reading Research and Instruction, 45, 91–117.
Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C. S., Klauda, S. L., Wigfield, A., & Barbosa, P. (2009). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction on diverse outcomes of low- and high-achieving readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 195-214.
Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction to Knowledge About Interventions for Motivations in Reading. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 237-250.
doi:10.1080/00461520701621087
Guthrie, J.T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A.D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C.C., et al. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 306–332.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M.
H., . . . Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403-423. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., &
‧
Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of Stimulating Tasks on Reading Motivation and Comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 232–245.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of Integrated Instruction on Motivation and Strategy Use in Reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331–341.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional Contexts for Engagement and Achievement in Reading. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 601-634).
Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Henk, W. A., and Melnick, S. A. (1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): a new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. Read.
Teach. 48, 470–477.
Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 Reading Comprehension and Its Correlates: A Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 64(1), 160–212.doi:10.1111/lang.12034 Keung, Y.-C., & Ho, C. S.-H. (2009). Transfer of reading-related cognitive skills in
learning to read Chinese (L1) and English (L2) among Chinese elementary school children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 103-112.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.11.001
Koda, K. (1988). Cognitive process in second language reading: Transfer of Ll reading skills and strategies. Second Language Research, 4(2), 133–156.
Koda, K. (1989a). Effects of Ll orthographic representation on L2 phonological coding strategies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(2), 201–222.
‧
Koda, K. (1989b). The effects of transferred vocabulary knowledge on the
development of L2 reading proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 22(6), 529–
540.
Koda, K. (1990a). Factors affecting second language text comprehension.
In Zutell, J. & McCormick, S. (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms [39th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference]
(pp. 419–427). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Koda, K. (1990b). The use of LI reading strategies in L2 reading: Effects of LI orthographic structures on L2 phonological recoding strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 393–410.
Koda, K. (1993). Transferred L1 strategies and L2 syntactic structure in L2 sentence comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 77, 490–500.
Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated Instruction: Inclusive Strategies for Standards-Based Learning that Benefit the Whole Class. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 34-62.
Lipson, M., Valencia, S., Wixson, K., & Peters, C. (1993). Integration and thematic teaching: Integration to improve teaching and learning. Language Arts, 70(4), 252-264.
Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N. (2011). The importance of intrinsic motivation for high and low ability readers' reading comprehension performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(1), 124-128. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.011 Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Scaffolding for Engagement in
Learning: An Observational Study of Elementary School Reading Instruction.
‧
Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 3–20.
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113-128.
McLaughlin, H.J. (1991). Reconciling care and control: Authority in classroom relationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 181-192.
Morgan, P. L. F., Douglas (2007). Is There a Bidirectional Relationship Between Children’s Reading Skills and Reading Motivation?Exceptional Children, 73(2), 166–183.
Oldfather, P. (1993a). What students say about motivating experiences in a whole language classroom. The Reading Teacher, 46(8), 672-681.
Oldfather, P. (1993b, April). Facilitating participation and ownership through
engaging students as co-researchers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Oldfather, P. (1992, December). Sharing theownershipofknowing: A constructivist concept of motivation for literacy learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Oldfather, P., & Thomas, S. (1991). Researcher, classroom teacher, and student co-researchers jointly present perspectives on a qualitative study of student motivation. In P. Dreyer (Ed.), The Claremont Reading Conference 55th
Yearbook (pp. 106-128). Claremont, CA; The Claremont Reading Conference.
Oldfather, P. (1991). Students' perceptions of their own reasons/purposes for being or not being involved in learning activities: A qualitative study of student
motivation (Doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate School, 1991).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 853A.
‧
Pate, E. P., McGinnis, K., and Homstead, E. (1995). Creating coherence through curriculum integration. In Beane, J. A. (ed.), Toward a coherent curriculum:
1995 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, pp. 62–70.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychologist, 25, 71-86.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and
application (pp. 281-303). New York: Plenum Press.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359-382.
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631-649). San Diego: Academic Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Modeling and self-efficacy influences on children's development of self-regulation. In K. Wentzel & J. Juvonen (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children's school adjustment (pp. 154-180).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Segalowitz, N., Poulsen, C., and Komoda, M. 1991: Lower level components of reading skill in higher level bilinguals: implications for reading instruction. AILA Review, 8, 15–30.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal
‧
Effects of Teacher Behavior and Student Engagement Across the School Year.
Educ. Psychol, 85, 571–81.
Stoller, Fredricka L. (2002). Teaching and Researching: Reading. 1-33.
Swaffar, J. K. (1988). Readers, texts, and second languages: The interactive processes. Modern Language Journal, 72, 123–149.
Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410–441.
Vongkrachang, S., & Chinwonno, A. (2015). CORI: Explicit Reading Instruction to Enhance Informational Text Comprehension and Reading Engagement for Thai EFL Students. PASAA, 49 (1), 67- 104.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of Children’s Motivation for Reading to the Amount and Breadth of Their Reading. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 420-432.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J., & McGough, K. (1996). A questionnaire measure of chil- dren’s motivations for reading. (Instructional Resource no 22). Athens, GA:
National Reading Research Centre.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children's Motivation for Reading: Domain Specificity and Instructional Influences. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 299-310.
Wang, M, Park, Y.-J., & Lee, K.-R. (2006). Korean-English biliteracy acquisition:
Crosslanguage phonological and orthographic transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 148-158.
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition:
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Crosslanguage and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97, 67–88.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). “Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive
perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation, eds M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 13–39.
‧
‧
Post-experiment Questionnaire (English Version)
Following are a number of statements with which some people agree and others disagree. Please circle one alternative below each statement according to the amount
Following are a number of statements with which some people agree and others disagree. Please circle one alternative below each statement according to the amount