This chapter consists of four sections. The first section summarizes the results and presents the discussion of these results. Pedagogical implications will be followed in the second part. The implications for future studies will be presented in the third part. Finally, conclusion of the study will be stated in the last section.
The present study was conducted to probe the effect of a reading instruction approach, Questioning the Author, on L2 students’ reading comprehension and motivation. Students’ perception about this approach was also investigated. The QtA lessons were implemented on a class of 29 EFL eighth graders for five consecutive weeks, with another class with 32 students served as control group. The participants’
reading comprehension was measured via recall and response writing, and their motivation was measured via a motivation of reading questionnaire (MRQ).
The answer to the first research question, “Will QtA reading instruction make a difference on reading comprehension as measured by retention in recall by junior high schools in Taiwan?” involves reading comprehension at three levels. First, at literal level, QtA lessons did not significantly boost students’ reading comprehension.
Second, at inference level, QtA did boost inference making in recall. Third, at response level, descriptive data show that QtA did enhance more intellectual responses in response writing, with an increase of 26.12%, than control group, at an increase at 6.52%, yielding a difference of 19.60%. On the other hand, QtA reduced units of meta-comments on language at 17.47%, 14.90 higher in percentage in decrease than the increase of 2.54% by control group. Still, it may not assist students in yielding more meta-comments on content or text-based response, for there’s not much difference between groups in these two regards.
The second research question “Will QtA reading instruction make a difference on reading motivations for junior high school students in Taiwan?” yielded negative results. The findings show that students with QtA training were motivated as much as control group after the treatment procedure.
The answer to the third research question “What are the students’ perceptions about QtA?” is as follows. First, most students stated that they made progress in their reading comprehension ability, and that their reading motivation was also increased.
They also found QtA was helpful in assisting them to figure out what the authors try to convey, and they became more willing to read and think between the lines.
Nevertheless, still a small portion of the students stated that they were not motivated in English learning.
Discussion
The findings in the present study were examined in terms of the recall of factual ideas, of the inferential thought units on the recall sheets, and the responses written by the participants on the response sheets. Besides, the result of the motivation questionnaire was discussed as well. In addition, a discussion on the perceptions of QtA was also included.
QtA and Reading Comprehension
The present study measures reading comprehension according to the participants’
recall on the texts as well as their written response to the reading. Hence, reading comprehension is discussed in terms of three levels: factual, inferential and responsive.
For responsive level, four dimensions were addressed: meta-comment on content, meta-comment on language, reader-based response, and text-based response.
For students in the QtA group, although they yielded a higher mean score of recalled units in the posttest than that in the pretest, the increase in recall score did not reach a significant level compared with the increase by control group, indicating that QtA does not enhance readers’ retention or retrieval of the text content. This result is not congruent with Sandora et al.’s (1999) findings that QtA lessons enhance readers in producing better and longer recalls. The inconsistency might result from a different condition in their study: the students, who are native English speakers, in Sandora et al.’s study were asked to do an oral recall instead of a written recall. It is likely that with the immediacy in oral production, less thinking and more details are generated in oral recall than written recall of the text. Moreover, compared to an oral recall, a written recall allows more time to think and put their ideas into writing. The result hence echoed to that of Liu and Chu’s study (2008), which found that students in QtA group did not perform better on text recall.
As for the inferential level of comprehension, the descriptive results show that in the pretest, control group produced higher mean inference units than QtA group, although not reaching significance level. However, after five weeks of QtA training, the mean inference units produced by QtA group were increased. On the contrary, the mean inference units obtained from control group decreased. This reversed trend from pretest to posttest led to a significant difference in the posttest between groups. Hence, QtA training has a positive impact on inference generation.
This impact may also be due to one feature of QtA—the promotion of active search for meaning. In the process of meaning building, QtA queries push students to read between lines to figure out the real ideas that the authors try to convey. Since the queries are categorized into the Initiative, Follow-up, and Narrative Queries, they were prompted by the teacher to lead the students to take more heed to the gist, characterization or judgment of the text (Beck et al. 1996, 1997). After constantly
exercising the discussion and answering of queries, the students’ ability of meaning construction might have been enhanced, and the ability to interpret the text might also have been improved. At the same time, with the teacher’s utilizing of the QtA’s discussion move, “re-voicing,” students learned to express the ideas using their own words. This in turn helps QtA students’ development of the ability to interpret the texts, and transfer the ability to posttest reading, as indicated in the significant increase in the production of inference units at posttest recall. The finding in this present study seems to be in line with the contention proposed by Beck et al. (1996, 1997) that QtA lessons may encourage readers to build up their own meaning for the text as well as present their own ideas.
The third level of reading comprehension, responsive, was revealed in students’
written response in terms of meta-comment on content, meta-comment on language, reader-based response, and text-based response. First, for reader-based response, QtA group’s excel over control group in the percentage increase from pretest to posttest may be due to two major activities in QtA lessons—queries and discussions. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, through three types of queries, Initiating, Follow-up and Narrative, students were encouraged to express their feelings or judgments about the plots or characters. They were then given more chances to think more deeply into the story lines, the plots, and the deeds of those characters, which inspires them to generate more intellectual thoughts based on personal knowledge.
Second, for the meta-comments on language, QtA group decreased a fair amount, while control group increased a few in the posttest. It is likely that QtA lessons, which direct students’ attention to the content, may draw students’ attention from a focus on language difficulty to the content. When content is being responded, directed, and possibly problems satisfactorily resolved, the need of solving language problem is lessen.
Third, both QtA group and control group showed a similar growth in percentage of meta-comment on content. It seems that QtA did not prompt students to generate more comments on the content than control group. The result shows that students in both groups think the treatment material is equally interesting. QtA queries that focus on the story content may not promote more meta-comment on content. When the content is interesting, whichever method: QtA or traditional, would yield response to content.
Last, for text-based response, both QtA group and control group yielded similar drop, which may be due to the increase of meta-comment on language by control group and the increase of reader-based response by QtA group. Although QtA is claimed to enhance the understanding of text, text-based response was not enhanced, as in Liu & Chu (2008). It is likely that the ability to achieve text-based understanding may already exist in these EFL students, as shown in the equal amount produced by both groups. The benefit of QtA may not lie in the promotion of text-based interpretation, but in the facilitation of reader-text interaction, as shown in the increase in reader-based response in writing.
The results of the response writing discussed in the previous paragraphs based on QtA may pose the most impact on reader-based response, since the percentage of the increased reader-based responses by QtA group exceeds that of control group in a large scale. Furthermore, while meta-comment on language made by control group increased in the posttest, QtA group seemed to have focused less on the language use, resulting in the decrease of meta-comment on language. It may be concluded that QtA training directs students’ attention from language to content.
QtA and Reading Motivation
Qualitative survey from the perception questionnaire reflects students’ perception
of QtA’s motivating effect. A majority of students say that they found themselves more motivated in English reading, since they enjoyed the storytelling process as well as the teachers’ way of instruction, including discussions of the queries. It is likely that QtA’s high student-engagement classroom activities are the prompting factor.
However, the result of MRQ obtained from posttest shows that QtA does not significantly increase students’ motivation in English reading. Although there is an increased mean score at posttest, the increase was not significant. Perhaps the objective measurement does not capture students’ subjective feeling of being motivated. Future studies should design more employ motivation measures that assess motivation aroused after treatment, rather than general reading motivation.
Students’ Perceptions of QtA Lessons
Data from the perception questionnaire shows that most of the QtA students think positively of QtA approach. The results can be discussed in the following three aspects mentioned in the previous chapter: (1) perception of QtA and its techniques, (2) perception of material, and (3) perception of outcome.
First, most QtA students reported their preference for QtA approach, with only several that do not prefer. They also think the difficult level of queries is appropriate.
To further explain, students mentioned queries and discussions triggered them to think.
This may justify the increase in students’ attention on content, which in turn produce more inferences and meta-comment on content. QtA also brought a relaxing learning atmosphere in the classroom. These reasons may lead to positive effect on learning (Helen et. al, 2002). However, students suggested that more and varied activities may be in need. Since in textbook instruction, the teacher used to plan a few interactive games or activities for the lessons, such as “information gap” or “class survey,”
students suggested these activities be included in QtA lessons as well.
Second, most of the students reported their favor of the treatment material. They provided their preference in terms of “how” they feel about the text and “why” they think the material is beneficial. For the former (how), a majority said that the material is interesting. For the latter (why), three reasons were given by QtA group: the stories trigger them to ponder on the authors’ intention, introduce them foreign culture, or enrich their lexicon. It seems that QtA approach may trigger the readers to look deeper into the values of the text rather than mere superficial literal understanding.
This may also explain the fact that QtA students produced increased reader-based response on the response writing instead of meta-comment on language.
Third, a majority of QtA students have perceived themselves to be more motivated, with only a few said they were not motivated. The students who said they were motivated found they were more willing to try English reading, for the interesting stories help them sustain. Another reason is that the teacher’s way of instruction is fun. Hence, both material and teaching approach in QtA motivated students in reading. However, the result of motivation on reading questionnaire (MRQ) does not show a significant increase in reading motivation, which may due to insufficient duration of the treatment.
Finally, QtA students perceived the positive impact of QtA on their reading comprehension. A large percentage of them expressed their feelings of their reading ability being improved a little; with only a small portion said they do not think their reading ability was improved. Students provided several reasons to explain their feeling of reading ability being improved. The reasons are: the teacher’s innovative instruction, learning to know how the author thinks, acquiring reading strategies, and the benefit from the reading comprehension sheet. Only a few students stated that the vocabulary hindered them from cultivating interest in English reading. To conclude, the effect of QtA’s impact on two comprehension levels, interpretive and responsive,
as reflected in recall and response writing data, can be supported by students’
perceptions of their increase in reading comprehension.
Pedagogical Implications
Based on the findings of the current study, we may draw a few implications for practice. First of all, it is suggested that QtA can be a supplementary choice for junior high school teachers to adopt in their teaching. Since in traditional language classrooms, a comparatively more teacher-centered condition is predominant, students tend to have less of their voiced heard. In order to encourage our students to take the initiative to learn, teachers need to adopt teaching methods that promote active learning. QtA approach provides an excellent atmosphere inviting students to voice their opinions as well as to construct meanings cooperatively. Specially, one of the QtA features, the fallibility of the authors, may help students to re-build their confidence in language learning by posing a challenging stance. When students have confidence in themselves, they will be more willing to learn new things. The process of meaning construction brings them the experience of success that is indispensable for the domain of education.
Secondly, since the cultivation of the ability to think is very crucial for junior high school curricula, it may be a good try to adopt QtA, so that students’ higher level of comprehension may be triggered. With the practice of critical thinking, students may have more opportunities to interact with the authors, so as to experience the transaction with the text and the writers (Rosenblatt, 1993).
Moreover, for students with lower English proficiency, QtA may offer them room to find out their own potential. Through QtA, more chances to participate in classroom discussions, especially during-reading discussions for construction of
meaning with peer may motivate slow learners. When these low-achievers find a place to make contributions to the class discussion, they will feel more comfortable with the lessons, through cooperative learning.
Furthermore, although this study and previous studies (Liu & Chu, 2008; Wu, 2013) used narrative stories to lead QtA lessons and discussions, diverse genres, which can be easily found in our school textbooks, can be applied as well. In addition to textbook material, QtA approach may be used in outside reading which may not be necessarily narrative.
Last but not least, QtA can be a response to the recent initiative on “the Flipped Classroom,” a pedagogical model that advocates the reversed classroom in which the typical lecture or homework elements are reduced (EDUCASE, 2012). QtA enables teachers to grant a chance to stop and do reflections upon what is being said, and attend to significant points, not having to make efforts to digest the teacher’s words.
With student-centered activities, errors that may reside in either the material or the lectures may be detected and resolved through collaborative queries and discussions, and social interaction (EDUCASE, 2012). QtA’s reversed teacher and student roles correspond to those in the flipped classroom, placing more responsibility for learning on the learners’ shoulders. Hence, adoption of QtA could be in line with this innovative teaching approach.
Limitations and Implications for Further Studies
The design and finding of present study inevitably behooved a few limitations that are negligible and should be taken into account in future studies on QtA.
On treatment duration
When implementing the QtA treatment, the researcher encountered a major limitation— the duration. Since the conduction of a study in a school needs to take into account many factors concerning school administration and effect on participants, we sometimes have no choice but to make compromises. The design of this present study lasted five weeks, which may not be long enough to see substantial effect the QtA approach can otherwise pose. For future studies, a longer-term treatment period might be worth conducting so as to examine whether the power of QtA can be enlarged in accordance with the duration. Future studies should lengthen the duration for at least a semester or a school year.
Implication for treatment material
The second limitation lies in the length of the treatment stories which should cater to the participants’ proficiency. Since the participants in this study were merely eighth graders in junior high school, they had, in fact, a quite limited lexicon. When I tried to look for treatment stories, I found that longer stories contain too much vocabulary far beyond my students’ knowledge. Therefore, I had to choose those shorter ones as my material. Since the stories were not very long, each segment in the stories were comparatively short, which in turn contained fewer ideas to think upon or to have more discussions on.
In addition to story length, in order to control text type as a controlled variable, I decided to choose narrative stories for all the five treatment stories. By doing this, I missed a chance to apply QtA to varied genres and see whether it would be more effective on different text type. Due to this factor, a few students mentioned that the plots of the five stories were too similar, and eventually they grew tired of them.
Because of the limitations mentioned here, future studies may try applying
longer stories with varied genres to see whether QtA may work better in different conditions.
On measurement
Finally, comprehension measures other than recall and response writing could be adopted. Sandora et al. (1999) used an oral recall to investigate the participants’
reading comprehension, yet the linguistic background of their study was set in an L1 condition. Studies done in L2 have yet utilized the oral recall method (Liu & Chu, 2013). To eliminate the possibility brought by the different formats of recall, researchers studying QtA in L2 may as well apply the oral recall. It may shed light on
reading comprehension, yet the linguistic background of their study was set in an L1 condition. Studies done in L2 have yet utilized the oral recall method (Liu & Chu, 2013). To eliminate the possibility brought by the different formats of recall, researchers studying QtA in L2 may as well apply the oral recall. It may shed light on