Introduction
The chapter first discusses the experimental results and then draws conclusions from the findings in the statistical analysis. The discussion that follows is presented according to the sequence of the hypotheses—from the effect of the integrated CRI reading instruction on reading comprehension and reading strategy use, to the effect of vocabulary memorization training. Suggestions for the improvement of this instruction and recommendations for future research are given at the end of this chapter.
Discussion Effect of the Vocabulary memorization instruction
Learning principles proposed by Christison (2004) consisted of five principles and all related to effective EFL instruction. The vocabulary instruction will comply with four of the major principles: capitalizing on primacy-recency effects, teaching for better retention, creating opportunities for effective practice, and using cooperative learning and higher order thinking.
Primacy-recency effect. Primacy-recency effect and retention of information (Sousa, 1998) explains the best method of retention for information on the two ends of a learning session, the beginning and the end, and the existence of prime time and down time. Prime time generates the best learning; the proportion of prime time within a learning session increases when the learning episode is shorter. Experimental results show that a 20-minute learning episode can create 90 percent prime time (Christison, 2004). Christison (2004) recommends that the better way is to divide a 50-minute class into 20-minute sessions with small breaks in between and use that prime time for important information to be instructed.
The PA-based vocabulary memorization instruction use the beginning and the end of each learning session for introducing and reviewing new words, and allocated 20 minutes for each learning activity, including the word guessing with the phonological information and word-sorting with the semantic mapping technique, for better
retention .
Teaching for better retention. The lecturing method elicits the least retention of information; about five percent is retained 24 hours within teaching, because it required the least amount of participation from the learner. Discussion and practice by “doing”
generates 50 and 75 percent retention respectively. The best retention results are exhibited when teachers use the information immediately in ways the students can engage it themselves with ninety-percent retention of the information (Christison, 2004).
The PA-based vocabulary memorization training creates an opportunity to derive the
new words from phonological information and identify the error. Every word is learned through self evaluation and the memorization work load is much lessened since only the mistaken part need to be memorized.
Creating opportunities for effective practice. Effective practices must generate improvement, instead of merely repeating an activity (Christison, 2004). Four principles must be followed to ensure any improvement. The instruction must model the process and facilitate enough knowledge and skills for learners to apply that new knowledge and skill (Christison, 2004). For PA-based vocabulary memorization instruction, the teacher must model the usage of guessing the new words with the known phonological
information and give words with similar sound-word patterns for reference. Students can actively immerge in the exploration for new words from their pronunciation. Each word is learned and then categorized to generate a semantic map. The memorization is accomplished through recognition, correction, induction, evaluation, and reflection.
Using cooperative learning and higher order thinking. It has been shown that good performance in language English learning results from cooperative learning where students are divided into small groups with cooperative objectives (Kagan, 1980; 1988;
McGroarty, 1992). The word guessing and semantic mapping activities are performed in group discussion. Higher order thinking corresponds to the three thinking skills:
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation; the higher level of educational goals developed by Bloom (1964). To analyze, synthesize, and evaluate, one must be able to tell the
difference and make appropriate classifications (Christison, 2004). PA-based vocabulary memorization instruction requires such processes to create the semantic maps through group cooperation. Therefore, the effective learning can be expected. Our experimental results echo with such expectation.
Effect of the Integrated CRI Reading Instruction on Reading Comprehension When one looks at the effect of the instructional methods on reading
comprehension, results reveal that both Integrated CRI instruction and TRI create an increase in reading comprehension scores for the students in their corresponding groups.
However, the increase in the reading comprehension score of the experimental group (i.e., the group exposed to the integrated CRI method) was significantly larger than that of the control group (refer to Table 2).
Once again, it should be remembered that traditional reading instruction places emphasis on translation and explication of grammatical structures. The focus is
primarily on the interpretation of each individual sentence. Reading strategies are used for comprehension only. In the current study, the classroom teacher modeled the
appropriate use of the strategies to be used and asked students to imitate and practice the strategies. She would then check for understanding of the text. The major class activities
in the TRI sample were teacher-led drilling exercises that included the translation of each sentence pattern for correctness, whereas the major activities in the integrated CRI instruction were teacher-assisted and student-centered interactive group activities and the idea learned from the passages were further organized with the semantic map.
Therefore, the information from text is evaluated, consumed, and reorganized.
Presumably, the learning will be deeper and the comprehension more complete.
Reading comprehension, as defined by Aarnoutse and Van Leeuwe (2000), is a person’s ability to interpret and construct meaning from written text. To interpret sentences in the text, knowledge of decoding words and sentences is indispensable. As Center (1952) points out grammatical knowledge is important to language competence.
Krashen (1982) proposed that native speakers who didn’t learn rules often ended up speaking fluently, while the second language learners who learned rules were not able to apply them effectively when they focused on linguistic forms, instead of their real language outputs. Learning rules do not always guarantee appropriate language
acquisition. Despite Krashen’s suggestion that conscious learning of grammatical rules may contribute little to language acquisition, Sharwood-Smith (1991) as well as Fotos and Ellis (1991) asserted the importance of drawing attention to grammatical form for L2 language acquisition.
Krashen (1982) did not deny the importance of comprehensible input for L2 language acquisition. However, he did note that input must be suitable to the learner’s capability. Schmidt (1994), on the other hand, pointed out that focusing on language input (e.g., being consciously aware of the language’s forms) was vital to L2
development. Grammatical instruction can serve as an effective way to increase a person’s focus on the input and the sentence patterns for language acquisition. Overall, grammatical instruction is important in L2 language acquisition.
Research done by O'Donnell (1961) and Sauer (1968) revealed that reading
comprehension was not significantly correlated with the knowledge of sentence patterns.
Grammatical instruction can support comprehension, but comprehension requires more than linguistic competence. According to Anderson (1999), as noted in a previous chapter, reading involves three different processes: bottom-up, top-down, and
interactive processes. Instruction on grammar and memorization of new words can be linked to the bottom-up process. The top-down process is more connected with the strategies used in comprehending the text, for example, making connections, checking for correct interpretation, using contextual clue to guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases, and making inference. The interactive process, according to Grabe (1991), involves linking the reader’s prior knowledge with the information presented by a writer in some meaningful way. Towards this end, according to Adams (1990), a learner can use contextual, syntactic, and lexical clues to compensate for any deficiency in
linguistic knowledge to extract meaning.
Many researchers point out that low proficiency readers generally do not possess good reading strategy skills, and they find it difficult to implement the top-down process for better comprehension (Bereiter & Bird, 1985; Carrell, 1985; Carrell, Pharis, &
Liberto, 1989; Cotterall, 1990; Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Comprehension requires more than just decoding of words and sentences. It also requires a fairly balanced knowledge base to enhance understanding as well as the command of good reading strategies to ensure correct interpretation (Anderson, 1999). A report from the National Reading Panel (2000) concluded that strategy training directed toward using the strategies and being consciously aware of one’s use of strategy in comprehending the text could improve comprehension. Carrell et al. (1989), Raymond (1993), and Song (1998) conducting similar research on strategy instruction in the L2 context also reached the same conclusion. Strategy instruction was suggested as a way to enhance
comprehension (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Pressley et al., 1992). Similarly, deBettencourt (1987) and Short (1991) specifically recommend that learning the strategies used by those characterized as good readers could substantially improve reading comprehension. Besides the traditional grammar-translation methods, just like the integrated CRI instruction, the TRI also incorporated the strategy training in its pedagogy to improve reading skills. The improvement in the performance of reading comprehension in both integrated CRI and TRI classes confirms that strategy instruction contributes to reading comprehension.
Rationales for the improved learning outcomes under integrated CRI can certainly be explored. From the researcher’s speculation, the advantage of integrated CRI over the TRI instruction might be attributed to some of the following factors: (a) grammar training, (b) prior knowledge, (c) strategy use, and (d) motivation.
Grammar training. Kumaravadivelu (1994) emphasized that output contributed to language acquisition. Research done by Nagata (2000) showed that instruction on grammar followed by production exercises led to better performances in language output than instruction on grammar followed by comprehension exercises. Swain (1985) speculated that language output directed one’s attention from semantic meaning to the syntactic structure of the language, which in turn can improve one’s grammatical
competence. The communicative interaction in the group activities of the integrated CRI may actually stimulate language output and insinuate a deeper processing of the
language.
During conversation, students need to explore the meaning from a text and then formulate the words and phrases into an interpretable form for presentation to other members in the group. The information they learned from the passages were further organized with the semantic maps. They have not only comprehended, but also
evaluated, consumed, and organized the information. According to Kumaravadivelu (1994), language learned through self-exploration resulted in better retention of the material studied. This process draws students’ attention to the sentence structures and allows them an opportunity to reflect on the mistakes they have made. Also through cooperative peer interactions a scaffolding process may emerge (Bruner, 1975; Cazden 1988), which can assist the less competent peers to make new practices and lead to improved language competence (Brooks 1992; Donato 1994; Ohta 1995); that is, if proper and timely assistance is provided to construct a zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978).
Prior knowledge. In the integrated CRI sample, each person in the various assigned groups was requested to play the role of a writer. Students were introduced to the genre and the rhetoric of the passages, and they were also trained to identify and practice writing the main ideas and supporting facts in the passages in order to appreciate how the original writers created their works. And semantic mapping practices enabled them to activate their prior knowledge to organize the passages and grasp the backbone of the particular text. Supposedly, such exercises create improved background knowledge in comprehending the text and more skillful use of strategies to enhance this
comprehension process. Findings by Carrell (1985) on the instruction of rhetorical organization support this conjecture.
Peer discussion in the experimental groups in this study provided an opportunity for students to exchange knowledge about the context of a text as well as share their own real life experiences. This expanded the interactions from between reader and text to between text and group members, and improved a student’s knowledge and/or contextual base, which seemed to enhance the interactive process and make comprehension of the text easier.
Strategy use. Asking students in the integrated CRI instruction groups to take turns role-playing a writer of the assigned texts is similar to the oral retelling instruction designed by Morrow (1986, 1988, 1996), which, according to Bemhardt (1983), can direct a reader’s focus to interaction with the text, initiate reconstruction of the text, and generate an effective way to assess comprehension in the L2 context (Morrow, 1986). In this study, it was hoped that Integrated CRI, utilizing communication-related interactive activities, would increase the student’s consciousness of comprehension.
Research findings have demonstrated that such interactions often stimulate the learning of metacognitive strategies among peers (Palincsar, David, Winn, & Stevens, 1991). Semantic mapping is a strategy for organizing different ideas. The semantic mapping technique helps to integrate the scattering information collected from
individual passage through strategic reading. More evidence suggests that encouraging students to utilize a broader number of strategies in the learning process (which
Integrated CRI does) can contribute to the development of a more effective inferential strategy process (Bruffee, 1993; Casazza, 1998; Englert, Tarrant, Mariage, & Oxer, 1994). The communicative interactions incorporated with strategy training and semantic mapping practices in the integrated CRI appear to facilitate reading comprehension and the use of more effective learning strategies in this area (Swanson, 1989).
Motivation. Reading creates a background from which to draw a topic for discussion. The motivation to engage in spontaneous dialogues is critical for serious engagement. In learning a new language, any conversation is hopefully initiated with an intention to pass on some information. This goal is very vital for any serious
conversation to occur. The goal must be self-initiated, or the motivation will be weak and the communication will be passive and short, just as is the case in most reading practices that demand a few answers to questions readers are passively invited to reflect upon in class.
The integrated CRI reading instruction tries to correct this dilemma by
transforming the reader’s role from a passive receptor into an active provider. When readers are put in the position of the writer, they are more likely to be forced to notice what the writer is trying to say; therefore, they might also have a reference from which to draw their own opinions. The students not only examine what the writer says and what conclusions are drawn but they advance into integrating, evaluating, and creating their own opinions, which can make reading become more purposeful.
In the integrated CRI, the reader needs to put more effort into the content of the text, and the interaction between the reader and the writer hopefully becomes deeper as a result. Readers are more prepared to start a communication process, and the
motivation to interact with others often becomes stronger. When readers are encouraged to take control of the conversation, spontaneous dialogues may become more possible.
The purpose of making an interaction more communicative is thus achieved.
An obvious phenomenon reflecting the effect of integrated CRI on the promotion of a more active role in the students’ learning process occurred when students tended to seek assistance from the teacher autonomously and when they actively participated in the discussion during the group activities as well. In addition, more questions were raised and more interactions between classmates and teacher took place in the integrated CRI class than in the TRI class. In contrast, students in the TRI class spent more time writing down translations and seldom asked questions.
Effect of the Integrated CRI on Reading Strategy Use
Results in Table 3 showed that the increase in the reading strategy use scores of the experimental group, taught with the integrated CRI method, was significantly larger than that of the control group.
Students in both groups were taught reading strategies because previous research
supports that strategy instruction as a way to improve reading comprehension. The statistical data generated from this study revealed an increase in both strategy use and reading comprehension, and the reading strategy use posttest scores were correlated with the reading comprehension posttest scores.
Swanson (1989) pointed out that good reading strategy instruction should include modeling a timely and task-oriented implementation of the specific strategy being taught, allowing enough practice to occur to facilitate the learning process. In addition, such strategies should provide sufficient feedback to students as well as activities to stimulate conscious comprehension.
In addition to the regular strategy instruction (e.g., teacher modeling, student practice, and full class activity evaluations), students in the integrated CRI also received training in composition, semantic mapping, and strategy instruction on how to play the role of the writer. The semantic mapping was used to organize the ideas in each
paragraph and to draw conclusions, which then will be used in the group activities to practice role-playing the writer to interact with the readers. Therefore, students in the integrated CRI received more instructions on strategy implementation and had more opportunities to practice and receive feedback from their group members as the “readers for reflection.” Since the lesson was more intensive, it was hoped that their strategy use might be more elaborate.
The lessons that students received under the integrated CRI method incorporated knowledge of both writing and reading in order to help them represent the writer more effectively. Students learned how the writer organized his ideas, supported his ideas with facts to construct the paragraphs, and structured the paragraphs to complete the articles. During the group activities, the teacher would model the writer to explicate the main ideas or intentions of the writer and the supporting facts she/he had used in the passages; the teacher would also make inferences about the writings as well as draw conclusions from the material. Then after the demonstration, the teacher would
encourage students to generate their own ideas by pretending that they were the writers.
The teacher then asked students to contemplate how they would present their articles and what kind of supporting facts from their own prior knowledge they might use to strengthen their claims.
In the integrated CRI, the learning of strategies used to extract meaning from the text by the contextual, syntactic, and lexical clues were more from the writer’s
perspective and self-initiated. The purpose of using such a strategy was more than reading to understand, but learning to construct and create one’s own passage using information from the semantic maps as a reference source. The strategy usage, therefore, became more interactive, goal-oriented and, hence, more frequent and elaborative.
Through discussions and peer interactions, students had time to examine their
understanding about the text; cognitive strategies were learned through implementation and reflection. Peer interactions offered an opportunity to negotiate meaning from the text and to compare and contrast strategy use. Learning involving these cognitive strategies appeared to be more efficient and effective. This seems consistent with previous research. That is, researchers acknowledge that interactions help to develop inferential strategy, and they seem to be more effective than the traditional strategy instruction method which only transfers the information about strategy without giving practice in strategy use (Bruffee, 1993; Casazza, 1998; Englert, Tarrant, Mariage, &
Oxer, 1994).
Peer interactions also appear to stimulate learning of metacognitive strategies (Palincsar, David, Winn, & Stevens, 1991). Habits of using metacognitive strategies
Peer interactions also appear to stimulate learning of metacognitive strategies (Palincsar, David, Winn, & Stevens, 1991). Habits of using metacognitive strategies