Based on the results obtained from students’ response questionnaire, several conclusions can be drawn. First, the instruction of text structure has been found to be effective in enhancing the participants’ awareness of text structure and in helping them perform well on the DS test. All the participants in this study were positive about the effect of the instruction of text structure, and all but one responded
positively about the value of the instruction in helping them perform well on the DS test. The participants’ responses also show that some useful reading strategies such as getting the main idea and guessing word meanings from the context have actually been reinforced by the instruction. The reinforcement of the strategy of getting the
main idea can be attributed to the emphasis of the concept of “paragraph unity” in the instruction, and the increase of word-guessing ability can be due to more awareness of lexical devices. The same result is also reflected in the questionnaire of matecognitive awareness showing that the participants’ general reading strategies have been
enhanced. In addition, some participants mentioned specific cohesive devices that they learned most about during the treatment. Among them, pronouns, a subcategory of references, have received the greatest attention. Two participants (Low 56, Low 59) even stated that before the instruction, they used to ignore the presence of pronouns in reading because they had no idea that pronouns could play an important role in the cohesion of text. As shown in Chen (2001), the common use of zero forms for a previously mentioned referent in Mandarin Chinese, which is never the case in English, can result in difficulty for Taiwanese students in reading and writing in English. Therefore, emphasis of the role that references, especially pronouns, play in English cohesion should be included in English classes in Taiwan.
Second, the instruction of text structure and cohesive ties is found to be helpful not only in promoting the participants’ reading comprehension but also in writing and in taking reading tests of different modes. Almost half of the participants stated that they benefited from the instruction in reading comprehension because they learned effective reading strategies. One-third of the participants expressed that they benefited from the instruction in their writing in English by becoming more aware of the
concept of unity and coherence. Also, about one-fifth of the participants were positive that they learned to do better on reading tests of different modes after the instruction.
This result indicates that the instruction of text structure can have far-reaching effect on high school students’ learning of English, and should be included in the curriculum.
The result also demonstrates that reading and writing are closely related like two sides of a coin, and teaching material intended for reading can be useful in the writing class
as well.
Third, think-aloud modeling has been found to be effective in enhancing most of the participants’ performance on the DS test and in helping them learn the
manifestation of text structure and cohesive devices. Unlike the instruction, which received unanimous recognition, think-aloud modeling got twelve negative responses.
Despite this, a majority of the participants (45 out of 69) stated that think-aloud modeling provided them with a concrete example of the thinking process, which is regarded as crucial by many researchers in enhancing reading comprehension and as especially meaningful to poor readers (Bereiter and Bird, 1985; Block, 1986; Davey, 1983; Duffy et al., 1988; Hsu, 2002). Among them, Davey (1983) maintains that teachers should provide a model of strategic reading for poor readers by verbalizing their own thoughts through think-alouds. Block (1986) suggests, “Teachers
themselves might model the behavior of a competent reader, so that learners could extend their resources” (p.488). Duffy, Roehler and Herrmann (1988) also claim that teachers should make explicit the invisible mental activity in reading through
think-aloud modeling so that poor readers can “see” the cognitive processes crucial for successful reading. By verbalizing how they make sense out of text, especially how they solve comprehension difficulties, teachers set an example of effective reading. In response to the effect of think-aloud modeling on their understanding and application of text structure and cohesive devices, twenty-nine participants
commented that the modeling enabled them to learn how cohesive devices really worked in text, and another thirty said they learned how to apply what they learned from the instruction to taking the DS test. The results of the present study show clearly that not only poor readers have learned from the modeling what strategic reading is like but proficient readers also have learned to be more flexible in utilizing reading strategies and more sophisticated with the cohesion mechanisms in English. A
high-proficiency participant (H18) even commented that the instruction of text structure alone helped her gain 80% understanding of the manifestation of text structure and cohesive devices, and that think-aloud modeling added the other 20%.
That is, the combination of explicit instruction and think-aloud modeling has made her fully understand the manifestation of text structure and cohesive devices. Two other participants (L62, L67) also exhibited a similar opinion that without the modeling, they would not readily capture the manifestation of text structure and cohesive devices from the instruction alone. These participants’ remarks lend further support to Bereiter and Bird’s (1985) and Baumann et al.’s (1992) results that an explicit instruction combined with teacher think-aloud modeling would achieve greater effect than instruction or modeling alone in enhancing students’
comprehension monitoring abilities. As to the twelve responses that displayed negative opinions, these participants rejected think-aloud modeling either because they felt it funny or because they were not used to it. This negative reaction also accounts for a portion of rejection to the think-aloud technique. One explanation for this negative feeling towards think-alouds is that students have their personal way of learning things. Some might reject verbalizing everything in their minds while reading, as Ericsson and Simon (1993) caution that the think-aloud technique involves
problem-solving skills and may not suit everyone because what involves the thinking process is very personal.
Fourth, the think-aloud technique is also considered effective by a majority of the participants in helping them perform well on the DS test. Fifty participants (72.5%) took a positive attitude toward this technique. Most of them felt think-aloud novel and interesting, and stated that in taking the DS test, thinking-aloud helped them
concentrate better and thus have a clear thinking to figure out the main idea of text, confirm answers, and guess the meanings of words. This result is in agreement with
that of previous studies indicating that think-alouds can enhance readers’
metacognitive awareness of the strategies they are using and thus consolidate their current strategy use as well as achieve better comprehension (Block, 1986; Hsu, 2002;
Irwin, 1991; Wilhelm, 2001). Wilhelm (2001) asserts that readers help themselves by saying aloud potential steps they can take and gradually approach the goal of
comprehension. Block (1985) also recommends think-aloud as a learning tool because it is learner-centered and can increase concentration, especially on what needs to be made clear. Besides, based on the participants’ responses, thinking-aloud also allowed them to be more aware of the problems they had toward comprehension and then able to struggle for a potentially effective strategy, especially as an attempt to apply what they newly learned from the instruction session. This is an indication that the think-aloud technique that accompanies strategy instruction would provide learners with opportunities of experiencing how and when to use a certain strategy now that they have learned what effective strategies are from the instruction. As Davey (1983) points out, poor readers don’t always monitor how well they are comprehending as they read along, and even when they know what effective reading strategies are, they are not always aware of how and when to use them. The think-aloud technique offers the readers hands-on experiences to try out using strategies in comprehending. Also, Bereiter and Bird (1985) hold that thinking-aloud is especially helpful in bringing the comprehension obstacle to the conscious level when automatic flow of reading breaks down, so that the brain can actively tackle the problem by consciously exploring better strategies.
Though considered effective by most participants, the think-aloud technique was not accepted as a learning tool by as many as twelve participants (17.4%) in this study.
As has often been thought of as a drawback of think-alouds (Bereiter & Bird, 1985;
Hayes & Flower, 1983; Hsu, 2002), the disruptive nature of think-aloud was also
mentioned by several of the participants as a reason for rejecting this technique. They commented that reading aloud and then saying what they were thinking about actually was a waste of time and their comprehension was slowed down because the flow of thinking was constantly interrupted by their own verbalization. Also, these
participants stated that they would pay too much attention to the pronunciation of every single word to focus on the meaning of the text, and that they were always conscious of the concern that they might bother someone with their thinking-aloud.
These negative comments are found to be contradictory to some positive ones like
“Think-aloud helped me concentrate better,” “Think-aloud increased my speed in taking the DS test,” and “Think-aloud helped me guess the meaning of words.” This conflict of the participants’ reactions to the think-aloud technique has reflected the fact that think-aloud involves problem-solving skills, which can be very personal.
That’s why the acceptance of think-aloud varies greatly. This individual difference in thinking has in fact been cautioned by Ericsson and Simon (1993) when implementing think-alouds. Therefore, teachers should be reminded to take into account the
individual difference in the problem-solving approach among their students when they implement think-alouds in their classrooms.
Finally, further exploration of the effect and application of the integrated treatment reveals the following results. First, fifty-seven participants (82.6%) have had more confidence in taking the DS test after all the training. Even before think-aloud practice session ended, two participants (H22, L60) showed their gratitude to the researcher in person, saying that the treatment was very helpful to them in taking the DS test, and that they were not afraid of such a test anymore. It is another proof of the success of a combination of instruction of text structure,
think-aloud modeling and think-aloud practice in improving performance on the DS test and therefore in enhancing overall self-assurance in taking such a test.
Nevertheless, three participants (H14, H21, M35) still did not think they gained more confidence in taking the DS test after the training. When their pre-test and post-test scores are compared, it is found that they improved by 4, 2, and 4 respectively. It could be that the two High participants were already good at taking the DS test since their pre-test scores (14,15) were higher than the average (12.8); as a result, the treatment did not seem to have effect on the amount of confidence they already had in taking the DS test. As for M35, she stated that she still did not capture the
manifestation of cohesive ties and suggested that she listen to more think-aloud modeling of different texts. This indicates that think-aloud modeling is significant for non-proficient readers, and that the amount of modeling needed may vary among readers of different proficiency levels. Second, according to the ranking the
participants gave to each of the individual sessions of treatment, it is found that the instruction of text structure has received the most recognition as the most effective among the three training sessions (65.2%), followed by think-aloud modeling (24.6%) and then think-aloud practice (13.1%). The means also show the same result, which corresponds to the results of the participants’ responses toward these three sessions of training and can be viewed as evidence that an explicit instruction of strategies is essential for target strategy acquisition and reading comprehension. This finding seems to echo Bereiter and Bird’s (1985) study that a treatment combining
think-aloud modeling and practice with instruction of target strategies achieved much greater advantages than think-aloud modeling alone. As Bereiter and Bird (1985) state,
“Direct instruction appears to be important for getting students to attend to what is relevant in cognitive modeling” (p.153). Learners need direct, explicit instruction to be able to benefit more from either think-aloud modeling or the think-aloud technique.
It is therefore suggested that, though think-aloud modeling and the think-aloud
technique are facilitative to reading comprehension (Block, 1986; Chern, 1993; Duffy
et al., 1988; Hsu, 2002), language teachers should teach strategies explicitly before think-aloud modeling and the think-aloud technique are implemented to achieve the best effect. Third, a majority of the participants (71%) were confident that they would benefit in taking the DS test if they listened to more passages of think-aloud modeling.
This demonstrates the participants’ positive attitude toward the value of think-aloud modeling in helping them acquire effective strategies for taking the DS test. As the protocols of four participants’ think-alouds show, a text would not include all
categories of cohesion. Therefore, it is suggested that passages of different text types be modeled with think-alouds to ensure most strategies to be covered in the modeling.
Fourth, as for the follow-up think-aloud activity, not as many participants, though still more than half, showed interest. Forty-eight participants (68.1%) were convinced that more practice of think-aloud technique would improve their performance on the DS test. Forty-three (62.3%) expressed willingness to practice think-aloud with their classmates, and only thirty-six (52.2%) would like to include think-aloud activity in their English class. These results seem to reflect the drawbacks of think-alouds such as being disruptive and time-consuming, and the nature of the think-aloud technique, that, as Ericsson and Simon (1993) states, has a lot to do with problem solving and can be very personal.