明新科技大學 校內專題研究計畫成果報告
整合語意構圖與策略訓練於閱讀教學
中文摘要
在今天的社會環境裡，理解並且能運用英文乃是不可或缺的技能，許多學生 仍然有困難理解英語教科書，更不用說具有用英語交流的能力。這種情形將嚴重 影響到他們的就業競爭力。因此，改進他們的英語能力是刻不容緩的。 閱讀是核心語言能力，本研究計畫主要的目標是要改善學生的閱讀能力。要 能夠流暢的閱讀，則學生必須要有豐富的字彙、句型結構、閱讀策略的知識。 字彙存量的多寡是閱讀文章能否有基本了解的重要關鍵。本研究計畫第一步 要探討如何擴充學生的字彙存量，以提升他們的閱讀信心。所要採用的單字建構 技巧是以音位感知訓練為基礎。此一訓練已被證實在改善學生的拼字能力方面是 有效的 (Bruck & Waters, 1988; Goswami, 2000)。閱讀策略已證實為良好閱讀者使用的重要技巧 (Nunan, 1990)。閱讀策略可以 被用來猜測單字文句的意思，或檢查各段落的了解程度以確保對整體文章的理 解。語意構圖教學可幫助學生掌握文章架構與大綱。閱讀策略與語意構圖教學都 對文章內容的了解有助益。 閱讀乃是一種互動的過程，本研究計畫提出一種整合閱讀與寫作的教學法以 使閱讀更具有互動溝通的特性。本教學法結合語意構圖技巧、閱讀策略訓練與溝 通式教學於閱讀教學中。 兩組學生分別施行前測及後測、閱讀理解能力測驗、單字存量以及閱讀策略 問卷以檢驗進步的情形。並且運用 SPSS 統計軟體分析資料。 教學實驗結果顯示學生的閱讀理解能力與閱讀策略運用都有提昇。字彙存量 也增加了。由於教學法溝通的特質，訓練過程中所有活動都會要求口述與寫作。 專案研究計劃結束時，大多數同學都能說流利的英語。溝通式閱讀可同時培養閱 讀、寫作、聽講、與口述能力。好的教學法應同時培養所有的語言技巧，並達成 學習語言最重要的目的，亦即溝通。 關鍵詞：
ABSTRACT
Though in today’s environment the ability to understand and apply English is an indispensable competence, many students have trouble comprehending English textbooks, not to mention the ability to communicate in English. This surely
jeopardizes their ability to compete in the job market. Therefore, it is urgent to improve their English language competency.
Since reading was the core language skill, this study mainly aimed to improve student’s reading capability. In order to read fluently, students must have good knowledge of vocabularies, sentence structures, and reading strategies.
The quantity of vocabulary inventory was critical to the basic understanding of the text. The first step of this study was to help students expand their vocabulary inventories and gain confidence toward reading. The word building technique applied in this research project was based on the PA (Phonemic Awareness) training, which had been claimed to be effective in improving student’s spelling ability (Bruck & Waters, 1988; Goswami, 2000).
Reading strategies were proved to be essential skills used by good readers (Nunan, 1990). Strategies can be used to guess the meaning of words and sentences to ensure correct understanding and to check the understanding of each paragraph as a whole. Semantic mapping instruction was used to help students grasp the framework and outlines of writing. Both strategy and semantic mapping contributed to the
comprehension of the text.
Since reading was an interactive process, a communicative reading pedagogy which intended to integrate reading with writing to make reading more communicative and interactive was proposed. This pedagogy incorporates semantic mapping technique, the reading strategy training, and communicative language teaching into the reading instruction.
Pretest and posttest were given to both control and experimental groups to examine their improvement in reading comprehension, vocabulary inventory, and a questionnaire for their reading strategy use. After the experiment was completed, t-test and ANCOVA were used to analyze the collected data.
Due to the communicative nature of this pedagogy, the activities within this training require both writing and speaking. Consequently, at the end of this study most students can speak English fluently and some even claimed they have never tried hard to speak before taking this course. Reading communicatively can insinuate reading, writing, listening, and speaking competency. A good pedagogy should cultivate all language skills and achieve the most important goal of learning a language to communicate.
Keywords
：Table of Contents Chapter
1. Introduction
Research Background ... 1
Statement of the Problem... 2
Purpose of the Study ... 3
Theoretical Foundation ... 3
Research Questions ... 8
Hypotheses ... 9
2. Review of the Literature ... 11
3. Research Methodology Participants... 19
Instruments... 19
Materials ... 21
Research Procedures ... 22
Variables and Data Analysis ... 22
4. Results of the Analysis of Data... 24
5. Discussion and Conclusion ... 31
References... 43
Appendix... 53
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Research Background
The globalization has manifested the importance of acquiring English language competency. The demand for better English competency has become more imminent than ever before. Among the four language skills, reading can be the most important one for a second language learner. Anderson (2006) advocated reading laid the foundation for learning listening, speaking, and writing skill.
Yet, most students in our school have difficulties reading and writing technical English due to their low vocabulary inventory. Laufer (1997) proposed a minimum vocabulary size of 3000 words for reading comprehension. Vocabulary memorization training is important to facilitate reading. Pronunciation was acknowledged by students as useful for learning vocabulary (Schmitt, 1997). Phonological awareness (PA) training was claimed to improve spelling and reading competency (Bruck & Waters, 1988). The letter-sound correspondence facilitates good information for spelling the letters in the words by their sounds. Based on the phonological awareness training, a vocabulary memorization technique is used to help students review their pronunciation and identify word patterns, and increase their vocabulary inventory.
Since reading and writing are interactive processes, learning how authors organize the text and expand on the main ideas will enhance both reading and writing
competence. Semantic mapping instruction can be used to help students grasp the framework and outlines of writing. Hence it was demonstrated to be effective for teaching reading and writing (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). Reading strategies had been proved to be effective in enhancing reading comprehension (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Carrell et al, 1989; Cotterall,1990; Song, 1998). Strategy training can insinuate learning from the interaction of the bottom-up (the fundamental linguistic skills) and top-down (active extraction of meaning) process. Presumably incorporating semantic mapping and strategy training into the reading instruction will improve the comprehension of the written text.
process. Besides incorporating skills in strategy and semantic mapping for better understanding, students should be taught to read communicatively; they should be able to ask the author what they want to know and find out what the author intends to say.
In addition, a communicative reading pedagogy should focus on problem-solving activities selected from material familiar to the students in order to increase students’ interest. Communicative reading instruction should not deny the importance of teaching vocabulary, grammar, and sentence translation. It only promotes the goal of language learning a step forward to address the importance of reading with the purpose of utilizing the knowledge in real life interactions
The main purpose of this project is to evaluate the effect of integrating the semantic mapping into communicative reading instruction to help students organize their content for better understanding of a reading text. This reading instruction will be called Integrated CRI Reading Instruction in the following text. Further more, in view of the deficiency of students in pronunciation and low vocabulary inventory, a
vocabulary memorization training based on phonemic awareness was used to lay a good foundation for reading. The textbook used in this project was also evaluated by students’ comments for future improvement and the result will be reported to the textbook
company as an academic cooperation between school and the book company.
Statement of the Problem
Traditional reading instruction teaches English with emphasis on vocabulary, grammar explanation, and text translation methods. The language is narrowed down to only a set of linguistic rules. Students learning under this traditional method may be diverted from the real usage of language, that is, to communicate as effectively as possible with other individuals. With a focus on linguistic rules versus real
communication, students’ motivation to learn English can be seriously impaired. The end result is that a number of students in Taiwan have problems speaking and writing in English. Some can be forced to recognize words and rules by rote memorization; others might just give up trying, but, in the end, they have little desire to communicate in English.
Will a nontraditional reading instruction approach incorporating the semantic mapping and strategy training and aiming at teaching students to read communicatively and strategically improve their motivation to learn English, develop better strategies toward reading, and produce visible improvements in reading comprehension? Although, some empirical studies identify the translation instruction method as stifling and
on communicative reading) on Taiwanese EFL learners’ reading comprehension levels, and metacognitive strategy use. This experimental study will contribute to provide empirical evidence in these domains.
Purpose of the Study
Communicative language teaching (CLT) pedagogy provides solid support for learning a language through the communications that surface in the performance of various pragmatic tasks. This study tried toimplement a non-traditional or
communicative reading pedagogy by combining the essence of the communicative pedagogy and strategic reading instruction with the semantic mapping to assist students to read communicatively and purposefully. Specifically, the effects of this new
pedagogy on students’ reading comprehension and metacognitive strategy use were investigated.
This research cross-examined the effect of incorporating, semantic mapping, and reading strategy instruction into communicative reading to promote student’s reading competence, and with the expectation that their writing skill can also be enhanced. The effect of PA based vocabulary training will also be investigated. And as a cooperation between academic and the commerce, the textbook will also be evaluated for future improvement.
Theoretical Foundation
Vocabulary is important to Readability (Chall, 1958; Klare, 1974-1975;) and academic achievement (Saville-Troike, 1984). Words are one of the core elements for learners (Akmajian, Demers, & Harnish, 1986). Expanding students’ vocabulary inventory is the foundation for training reading.
The first step to memorize a word is to know the letter sound correspondence. Wagstaff (1997) stress the importance of applying growing knowledge of letter-sound correspondences in meaningful reading and writing context. This implies an induction from a constructivist view. When learners see enough words, they should be able to compare, contrast, and find analogy between words, which in Templeton & Morris’s term (1999) is to derive the spelling of an unknown word by known words. Therefore, the analogy between letter patterns and sounds can be categorized and used to guess unknown words. The letter patterns and sound correspondence can be seen in different parts of a word. For example, the prefix, affix and suffix can all be put in this category.
Templeton, & Johnson, 2004; Bear & Templeton, 1998). Grouping can be done in many ways. Letter-sound correspondence can be used as one of the grouping arguments. And word sorting can be perceived as grouping with the argument of meaning.
Meaning facilitates more cues to organize words. The synonym and antonym are the obvious examples used to categorize words. The connection, relation, and sequence can all be used to group words together. The point is somehow to find a linkage between words to organize them so that one word can lead to another or even words. Semantic map can be a good tool to organize words with a central word according to their meaning (Holden, 1999). It can be used to help students memorize new words.
The word memorization training should include the following processes: 1. Learn the linkage between letters and pronunciations.
2. Group words with similar letter sound correspondence.
3. Use the letters sound correspondence as a hint to guess new words 4. Use meaning as a linkage to organize words into groups.
5. Use semantic map to group words with different arguments to strengthen learning.
The Communicative Reading Pedagogy
Three models, labeled bottom-up, top-down, and interactive characterize the interpretation of the processes involved in reading (Anderson, 1999). Traditional reading instruction puts emphasis on analyzing the vocabulary words and sentence patterns, which according to Segalowitz, Poulsen and Komoda (1991), stresses the linguistic knowledge, and the semantic, lexical, and phonological knowledge to form the basis for understanding the text and is an example of the bottom-up process. Language learning is converted to rote memorization of words and grammatical rules. Language teaching simply becomes a tool for translation, which, as some students claim, can easily be replicated with an electronic dictionary. As a result, learning may become boring and discouraging for a number of students.
The top-down model represents a more strategic processing, a much higher level of processing in comprehending the text (Segalowitz, Poulsen & Komoda, 1991). Readers use syntactic and semantic cues and accommodate other reading strategies to ensure an accurate comprehension of the text. The top-down model of reading is more strategy- oriented, with the assumption that the reader’s basic competency in the target language has been fulfilled. However, this is often not the case with the EFL (English as Foreign Language) learners (Nagao, 2002).
interaction between reader and text and the other between the reader’s bottom-up and top-down models.
Through strategic use of top-down and bottom-up models in the interactive model, the deficiency in linguistic knowledge can be compensated with skills used in the top-down model, which then enhance one’s lower-level processing capability for further inference in the top-down model. The author’s idea presented in the text must be fitted into the reader’s potential for understanding in order for it to be comprehended. The reader’s prior knowledge must interact with the text to produce a new schema for processing the new knowledge. Therefore, the interactive model can describe an effective reading process.
The interactive model focuses on the importance of incorporating the reader’s linguistic knowledge and background knowledge of the world with reading strategies and intention or purpose to understand what the author said in the text. Fillmore (1981) stated that ideal readers “see connection, create expectation, perform inference, and ask the question” (p. 252). Good readers use reading strategies to deduce, evaluate, and integrate the information provided in the text and link it with their prior knowledge and experience it to make the idea and concept meaningful.
How can reading be communicative? Real communication is a bilateral exchange of information. The interlocutor on each side of the discourse should be able to ask questions and give answers. To make reading communicative, readers should ask what they want to know and seek answers from the author (i.e., not only answers to their questions but which book will give them the answers they seek).
Both the top-down and interactive reading strategies can help one find the answer in the book, if it is the right book to provide the answer the reader seeks. Reading strategies help students correctly receive the information. But such strategies still produce a passive reception of knowledge; readers only passively accept the information.
Real communication starts from what the readers really want to know, not what writers intend to tell. Real communication involves an active pursuit for any
information desired. Communicative reading is reading with a purpose to get an answer or to accomplish a goal. Reading must be a reader self-initiated activity to become communicative reading. Because it is self-initiated, the motivation to learn can often be stronger. The researchers suggest that only when readers have a strong motivation to learn will reading strategy become meaningful (Van Lier, 1996).
reading to apply the knowledge for interaction (Nunan, 1999).
Reading with a Purpose to Communicate with the Author
To read with a purpose is to search for something in the text that is of personal interest for the reader (Knutson, 1998). As the readers engage the story, they are developing questions they would desire to ask of the writer. Since writers reveal
everything they intend to, readers do not have to follow the exact sequence of the text to collect the answers. That is, readers can skim through the material in order to gain a brief idea of what the author intends to say and to answer any questions that might have arisen from the reading of the text.
Students should be trained to read with a purpose—to explore the main idea and the conclusion. They should be encouraged to go deeper, seeking to obtain more meaning from the text. Newman (1985) stated that learning occurs when learners actively induce meaning and correlate language with experience. Wittrock (1983) reported an improvement in reading comprehension when students wrote about their experience as they related to information provided in the text.
According to the schema theory, a reader’s past knowledge and experience represents the content schema; comprehension will be better if a reader’s content schema relates to the topic in the text (James, 1987). That is, individuals must
understand the topic, the social context involved, and the author’s attitude in order to integrate content of the text with their prior knowledge and experiences (Kauchak & Eggen, 1998). The top-down processing relies on reader’s content schema to become functional (James, 1987). When individuals can link the material being read with their lives, the text may become easier to understand. This connection can also offer
opportunities to compare, discuss, infer, and evaluate the material of focus.
Since schema is so vital to the comprehension of a written text, reading with a purpose also implies searching for reference or background knowledge to strengthen one’s content schema for better understanding of the topic in the text. Semantic
mapping affords an opportunity to apply one’s schema in organizing the information for comparison, inference, and evaluation.
Reading Communicatively to Examine the Text
The writing styles generally found in a textbook can be classified into four types: (a) narrative, (b) descriptive, (c) persuasive, and (d) expository (Johnson, 1994). Each type has its own way of developing a paragraph. The genre type of the paragraph, in a communicative sense, represents the style the writer used to carry on his conversation. Paragraphs form the basis of an article. Learning how a paragraph is organized will help students understand the information presented in the text (Carrell, 1985).
interactive processes, learning how authors organize the text and expand on the main ideas will enhance both reading and writing competence. Student must have the competence to organize information effectively in order to generate ideas more fully. Semantic mapping instruction can be used to help students grasp the framework and outlines of writing. Hence it was demonstrated to be effective for teaching reading and writing (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996).
For communicative purposes, students must practice conveying their own ideas. Familiarity with paragraph organization is indispensable in grasping details strategically and developing communicative competence in applying knowledge. Reading instruction must facilitate by supplying the tools, and building the skills, such as a semantic
mapping technique, to help students organize their ideas learned from the text into appropriate words.
Reading Strategically to Ensure Understanding
Smith (2002) recommended five thinking strategies for good readers: (a) making predictions, (b) forming images, (c) drawing connections, (d) monitoring understanding, and (5) abridging the gaps in understanding.
Comprehending the content of the text is like listening to the words of the writer. Readers use their prior knowledge and experience about the context to guess what the writer might be talking about—a person forms images in his/her mind and draws
connections between the concepts discussed. This is a process used to relate the author’s ideas to one’s own ideas for better comprehension (Hayes & Tierney, 1982), an
application of the cognitive strategy of making predictions (Anderson, 1999). When readers have more knowledge or experiences in common with the writer, like two intimate friends do, they can better predict what might be presented in the text.
As listeners to the writer, readers can verbally repeat the words, or picture the events or situations to make sure correct information has been transferred. Think aloud strategy can be used to examine one’s understanding of the text (Israel & Massey, 2005).
During a conversation, listeners need to organize the facts the speaker articulates to perceive his or her intention. This requires listeners to see connections between the facts by activating their prior knowledge, which may include contextual or semantic clues and anything that will lead to a better understanding of the text, in order to integrate and organize their relationship with the author or speaker. Readers need to find connections if they are to grasp the meaning.
(1999) stressed, is to verify their reading strategies to ensure normal communication or correct interpretation.
Reading to Apply the Knowledge for Interaction
The final goal of learning is to apply knowledge in real life situations. Brown (1994) listed activities generally found in a communicative class to include group work, pragmatic interaction in real social context, and practical language input.
Communicative reading instruction does provide opportunities to interact with other learners (group work) in simulated social real-life contexts, utilizing practical interactive language exercises. That is, students in the same group exchange the information learned from the text, make comments, create summaries, and pose questions.
Research has demonstrated that a collaborative process between learners can
generate better performances in terms of learning outcomes (Brooks 1992; Donato 1994; Ohta 1995). This collaborative process is also called scaffolding (Bruner 1975; Cazden 1988). Scaffolding refers to the assistance given to others through learner to learner interaction. According to the theory of zone of proximal development (ZPD), learning will not be facilitated if the assistance given and the task being performed are not appropriate. Timely assistance or aid and the selection of suitable texts will often support the learning process in terms of the reading comprehension that occurs within groups.
Lightbown and Spada (1990), Lyster and Ranta (1997), as well as Doughty and Williams (1998) claimed that interaction affords an opportunity to use the language being learned and attend to the linguistic forms. Swain (1995) pointed out that language output demands more mental processes than language input and also increases learning. Interactions within the group construct a ZPD for mutual learning as well as provide an opportunity to negotiate meaning in the text and to practice the linguistic forms, thus forming an appropriate reflection on the reading process. Reading must end only after students have performed some communicative group tasks.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are as follows:
1. Does the integrated CRI instruction have an impact on a student’s reading comprehension level?
2. Does the integrated CRI instruction affect a student’s metacognitive strategy use? 3. Does the PA based vocabulary training have an impact on the size of a student’s
Hypotheses
The two general research questions above generated the following two research hypotheses:
1. The CRI-based integrated strategy and semantic mapping (integrated CRI) reading instruction will enhance students’ reading comprehension levels.
2. The CRI-based integrated strategy and semantic mapping reading instruction (integrated CRI) will increase students’ metacognitive strategy use.
3. The PA based vocabulary training will increase the size of a student’s vocabulary inventory?
Definition of Terms Communicative Competence
Communicative competence refers to the ability to use language effectively for communication purposes. Gaining such competence involves acquiring both
sociolinguistic and linguistic knowledge.
EFL
EFL is an acronym for English as a Foreign Language. It refers to the teaching or learning of English in non-English speaking countries.
GEPT
The Taiwan Ministry of Education commissioned the Language Training & Testing Center (LTTC) to develop a fair and reliable English test, called the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT), for English language learners at all levels of proficiency. The test is administered in five levels. Each level of the test is administered in two stages. Examinees must pass the first stage before proceeding to the second. The items and content design for each level is based on specific level criteria.
Language Acquisition
Krashen (1982) stated that language acquisition is contrasted with language learning; it is unconscious and spontaneous. Language learning, on the other hand, is conscious and developed through formal study.
Metacognitive Strategy
Cognitive and metacognitive strategies are the two most often used reading
strategies. Metacognitive strategies are defined as “thinking about thinking” (Anderson, 2002, p. 82). That is, a person uses a system of cognitive strategies to ensure better comprehension (Devine, 1993; Flavell, 1981). It is the product of constant reflection and evaluation of one’s thinking processes (Anderson, 2002)
CHAPTER 2 Review of the Literature
Introduction
This chapter reviews the research literature on traditional reading instruction (traditional grammar translation instruction), non-traditional reading instruction
(communicative reading instruction), reading strategies, semantic mapping, and reading theory.
Traditional Reading Instruction
The traditional grammar translation method has dominated language classes in Taiwan for decades. In this method, the teacher is often seen as a presenter of
knowledge rather than a facilitator (Warden & Lin, 2000). In order to enter a prestigious school, students must confront fierce competition. For the purpose of preparing students for the entrance examination, the teaching pedagogy in Taiwan remains teacher-centered and examination-oriented.
As a result, the nature of English teaching and learning is characterized as exam-driven. A concern for many educators is that lower achieving students are often neglected when placed in a mixed-ability class. By many students, English is merely considered another subject to be tested, and the importance of language as a
communication tool has often been ignored. It has been an historical issue that
Taiwanese students lack communicative competence in spite of their good performance on grammatical accuracy (Li, 2000). Most participants (EFL teachers) reported that grammar-translation methods and audio-lingual methods, or a combination of the two, characterized their teaching. Many non-native English teachers lacked confidence in oral English and sociolinguistic competence. This incompetence often drives them to choose the teacher-fronted grammar teaching pedagogy. In addition, the low language proficiency, low learning motivation, and passive learning attitude of students
discourages teachers from using more innovative and inventive teaching methods. Another important issue is the insufficient financial support for teaching resources from the school or government. Due to the massive amount of paper-pencil examinations to be graded for the large classes (an average of 40-50 students), most teachers are very occupied by their routine work and it becomes extremely difficult for them to even consider making changes from the traditional teaching pedagogy.
Much of the criticism about the use of translation in foreign language teaching has focused on the problem of interference between the two languages and not enough focus on critical thinking exercises in the foreign language (Leo Chan, 2000). Malmkjaer (1998) and James (1989) asserted that the arguments against the use of the translation method include these:
will describe exactly the same semantic meaning between the two languages. 2. It undermines the function of communication and misinterprets how language
acquisition is developed.
3. It requires competence in both languages, which seems to switch the role of translation in the learning process from a goal to a prerequisite.
Recent research on teaching pedagogy supports translation as a sound method in teaching a foreign language. For example, Scherer and Wertheimer (1964) at the
University of Colorado did an experiment with two groups of foreign language learners, one taught in the traditional (grammar-translation) method, and the other in the
audiolingual method. After a four-semester experiment, there was no substantial difference between the achievements of the two groups, except that “the audiolingual group was superior in the ‘active’ skill of speaking, and the traditional group in writing” (Hendrickx, 1972, p. 18).
Grammar Translation Approach
Grammar-translation methods were strongly entrenched in the Taiwan educational system from the 1840’s to 1950’s. A typical grammar-translation lesson began with a reading of the text, followed by the introduction of new words and an analysis of the sentence structure, and was completed with translation of the content of the text, sentence by sentence, and paragraph by paragraph from the target language to the first language (L1). The grammatical rules were to be memorized and practiced with translation exercises.
Translation remains the typical second language instruction and learning assessment method in Taiwan (Hsieh, 2000). The goal of grammar-translation instruction is to teach students to read and write in the target language. The teacher’s role is to focus on translating exercises instead of interactively communicating in the target language. Proficiency in communication was not the main purpose of teaching the target language (Brown, 1994; Larsen-Freeman, 1986; Richard-Amato, 1996; Richard & Rodgers, 1986). As a result, this approach does not encourage students to
communicate meaningfully or interactively in the target language (Chen, 2000).
Audiolingual Approach
information is, unfortunately, not often addressed (Hung & Zhang, 2002).
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
In view of the deficiency of the traditional grammar-translation approach in
cultivating the communicative competence, around 1970, an innovative approach called the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach, was proposed to address the problem. Krashen and Terrel (1988) claimed that minor grammatical errors should be tolerated in achieving language communication competency. A main theoretical concept in CLT is that language teaching should include contextual and social information, and language practice should go beyond grammar to stress the importance of discourse competence (Nunan, 1998).
According to psycholinguistic theory, effective learning will come from an intention to understand instead of an exclusive concentration on grammar-related accuracy (Corder, 1978b). In this theory it is felt that learning with an intention to communicate will excite the best performance. The communicative approach
emphasizes communicative competence. It stresses a language learning that must go beyond memorizing linguistic forms and escalate into usage in real life situations. As a result, the communicative approach may be a better approach to teach a second
language.
Canale (1983) stated that communicative competence should include (a)
“grammatical competence, (b) sociolinguistic competence, (c) discourse competence, and (d) strategic competence” (p. 18). Beale (2002) adds that grammatical competence ensures that the language patterns used are interpretable or in correct forms. Discourse competence enables one to organize and convert meaning and intention into sentences. Sociolinguistic competence stresses the appropriateness of language usage to suit the particular social occasion. Strategic competence can smooth the communication, accomplish bilateral information exchange, and make one’s attitudes and intentions clear to others.
Constructivist View of Reading
A constructivist view of the reading process is that reading is a reconstruction of mental images based on the information from the text (Anderson & Pearson, 1988; Lee, 1990, Smith, 1995). Reading allows a person an opportunity to combine his or her prior knowledge with what the author said (Maaroef, 1995). Meaning does not come from the text itself. Text has meaning potential, but its real meaning varies from person to person. Readers determine the meaning by integrating the knowledge into their schemata in the way most suitable to them, depending on prior knowledge and purpose (Widdowson, 1984).
different information to construct meaning. Semantic mapping contributes to training the ability to organize pieces of information from the text. Grabe (1991) further pointed out the interactive nature of reading that integrates prior knowledge, the context, and the written text presented by the author is important. Strategy training helps learners collect and analyze information, whereas Semantic mapping contributes to training the ability to organize pieces of information from the text for better comprehension.
In correspondence to the nature and skills in the reading process, researchers had categorized the reading processes with three models: bottom-up, top-down, and interactive (Goodman, 1973; Gough, 1985; Stanovich, 1980).
Bottom-up model. The bottom-up model corresponds to the fundamental linguistic
skills from recognizing the phonological and semantic features of letters and words to the syntactical rules of sentences (Carrell, 1988b). Bottom-up approaches emphasize the skills required to decode the words and interpret sentences for meaning as they are presented in the text. Readers are expected to understand letters and words, their
grapheme-phoneme correspondence, the association of forms to their semantic meaning, and analyze the combination of words into different sentence patterns with different tenses to extract the facial meaning presented in the written text (Segalowitz, Poulsen, & Komoda, 1991). In this sense, reading becomes merely mapping the linguistic knowledge in the text with one’s language inventory for meaning. The problem is that this completely ignores the importance of a reader’s perspective and the cultural and contextual information required for inducing the meaning. It implies that readers with equal level of language proficiency will derive the same meaning from the text.
Top-down model. The top-down model incorporates the reader’s perspective and
his/her prior knowledge in extracting meaning from the text. Reading is not a passive transference of messages into one’s knowledge inventory, but an active engagement in interpreting meaning by making use of strategy to clear up any ambiguities and ensure correct comprehension, integrating prior knowledge to enhance understanding, and selectively collecting information to meet one’s current demands (Segalowitz et al., 1991).
Readers take control of the information transfusion and discriminate the message to determine what they receive. Readers no longer rely wholly on linguistic knowledge to comprehend the text as in the bottom-up model. In addition, readers have
incorporated syntactical information, prior knowledge, and their personal strategies in comprehending the text. To the reader, the knowledge of the content of the text is more important than the linguistic knowledge of the text, and one’s prior knowledge related to the text contributes more to the meaning of the text than the meaning that emerges from the text in and of itself.
finds a wide acceptance (Anderson, 1999). Grabe (1991) stresses that two interactions work together to enhance comprehension; one is the interaction between reader and text, and the other is the interaction between bottom-up and top-down processes. Both
language competency and prior knowledge about the content of the text contribute to comprehension in the interactive process (Milkulecky, 1990). What is more important is that bottom-up and top-down processes will compensate for the deficiency in each other and enhance comprehension (Stanovich, 1980). Good readers constantly switch between the two modes of processing, the bottom-up decoding and top-down interpreting
(Anderson, 1999).
The interactive model stresses the importance of both linguistic and prior
knowledge as well as strategic use of this knowledge by incorporating it with contextual and syntactical knowledge to enhance comprehension. Reading needs to integrate different skills and knowledge, and the process itself demands strategy. It is not a simple process (Anderson, 1999). In short, reading is a purposeful, interactive, strategic process, in which readers induce meaning from the text based on their linguistic, syntactical, and contextual knowledge.
Reading Strategy
Palincsar and Brown (1984) conducted an experiment called “reciprocal teaching,” which is to teach students four reading strategies, with the result revealing that learning strategy does improve reading competence. Carrell et al. (1989) trained L2 students to use both metacognitive and cognitive strategies as well as incorporate semantic or experience-text relationships. By the conclusion of the experiment, students’ reading comprehension made significant improvement. Cotterall (1990) studied the effects of metacognitive strategy and found that strategy instruction enhances a student’s reading comprehension. Similar research done by Song (1998) as well as Auerbach and Paxton (1997) also reach the same conclusion that strategy teaching improves students’ reading competence. Nunan (1999) claims that learners who are more adaptive in using their learning strategies make better progress in their learning. Unfortunately, many EFL students do not realize the advantages of using strategies to accelerate one’s learning.
Learning strategies are defined as “specific actions, behaviors, steps, or
techniques—such as seeking out conversation partners or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult language task—used by students to enhance their own learning” (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992, p. 63). The definition of strategy by different researchers is diversified. All the following terms: “learning behaviors, cognitive process,
problem-solving activities, and thinking skills are considered as strategy. There is no agreed-upon taxonomy for strategy” (Anderson, 2004, p. 4).
many actions. Strategy represents a learner’s active participation in their learning process. It can be observable or mental. Any efforts learners use to improve their learning are classified as a strategy. Using strategies to improve one’s reading is
strategic reading (Anderson 2004). Good strategy fits one’s learning style, suits the task, and orchestrates with other strategies in achieving learning goals (Oxfords, 1990).
Oxford (1990) classified six major groups of EFL learning strategies: “cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, memory-related strategies, compensatory strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies” (p.37). Memory related strategies help one to remember and retrieve information by linking sound, image, body movement, or any other media with the concept or language items but does not necessarily enhance understanding. Compensatory strategies are used to compensate for the lost message through guessing or deducing from any available hints within the context. Affective strategies help one to maintain a good spirit or attitude toward learning. Acknowledging one’s effort and rewarding one’s learning are typical affective strategies. Social
strategies enable one to use social resources to solve problems. Asking questions and seeking help from more knowledgeable learners are possible strategies that one can use (Dreyer & Oxford, 1996).
Cognitive and metacognitive strategies are the two most often used reading
strategies. Metacognitive strategies are defined as “thinking about thinking” (Anderson, 2002, p. 82). That is, a person uses a system of cognitive strategies to ensure better comprehension (Devine, 1993; Flavell, 1981). It is the product of constant reflection and evaluation of one’s thinking processes (Anderson, 2002). Metacognitive strategies make for a better reading process, are timely and effective strategy, which coordinates different strategies, monitors the outcome, evaluates and makes correction for strategy use (Anderson, 2002). Metacognitive strategies are not implemented sequentially. Rather, they intertwine and constantly evolve to search for better results.
Semantic mapping and Reading
Researches have found that knowledge of the text-structure improves reading comprehension (Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Raphael & Kirschner, 1985; Taylor & Beach, 1984). Semantic maps provide a visual graph to help sequence and organize the text. Semantic mapping can be used in prereading to get a broad idea or the structure of the text, and the details can be added after postreading so the content and context can be completely grasped. The whole process helps readers to align their prior knowledge for better understanding, and consume the knowledge for better retention. Therefore, semantic mapping contributes to both comprehension and retention (Kuo, 2003; Sturm & Rankin-Erickson, 2002).
reading competence. Semantic mapping technique can be applied with strategy instruction to organize the main ideas, seek relations between paragraphs, draw conclusions, and even to find the implication within the text.
Strategy training helps readers exploit meaning from the text. Semantic mapping structuralized the scattering main ideas into an integrated organism, so the whole text becomes vivid and crystal clear. Therefore, strategy training integrated with semantic mapping can become a good reading instruction.
The Integrated CRI Reading Instruction
The preparation phase. This phase introduces the cognitive and metacognitive
strategies generally used by readers. To start, a teacher should conduct a group discussion on strategies that should be used by the students. Secondly, he/she should teach the paragraph development process which is generally applied in constructing an essay by giving examples and guiding students to practice these techniques. Thirdly, he/she should instruct students to pre-read and skim to identify the main idea, the topic sentences and genre, and find any new vocabulary or sentence patterns. Finally he/she should explain new words and sentence structures to students to facilitate
comprehension of the text. A rough draft of the idea map to show the title of the text and main ideas of each paragraph must be created.
Reading execution phase. Group brainstorming is used to form different
perspectives and relate one’s prior knowledge to the topic. Cognitive instruction and metacognitive instruction are used to correctly retrieve information from the author’s writing. The author’s opinion or idea is written down and attached to a reader’s own opinion for comparison and contrast. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies must be applied all the way through the reading process. In the end, readers construct an essay of their own with the author’s opinion to support and contrast their own ideas. At this moment, reading communicatively or interacting and communicating with the author are completed.
Semantic mapping phase. Readers add details to elements of the map, examine the
accuracy of each main idea, check the cohesion, and draw conclusion to the whole text. The complete text becomes clear and the presentation of the ideas are tied together
Communicative reading phase. In the final step of the reading strategy instruction,
CHAPTER 3 Research Methodology
Introduction
This research will investigate the influence of the integrated CRI reading
instruction on reading comprehension and metacognitive strategy use. In addition, the students’ vocabulary inventory after receiving PA based vocabulary memorization training was also investigated.
Two classes of students, forty students each, participated in this experiment and were assigned to different groups. The experimental group was instructed with integrated CRI, and the control group was given TRI (traditional reading instruction). The experimental group was divided into smaller groups to perform communicative tasks, whereas the control group was taught with teacher lecture to the class as a whole. In the beginning both groups received vocabulary memorization training fro two weeks. The instruction was conducted for twelve weeks, at three hours per week.
The research is a quasi-experimental design, which includes pretest-posttest of vocabulary, reading comprehension and metacognitive strategy use. The vocabulary test used the materials from textbooks. The pretest and posttest of reading comprehension utilized the materials from the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) administered by the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC), a government-consigned
institution. Pretest and posttest on the metacognitive strategy use utilized the survey of reading strategies (SORS).
Participants
In this experiment, two instructional styles were utilized (integrated CRI and TRI). This experiment was implemented during a twelve-week session, twice a week for three hours per week and each time consisted of fifty minutes of instruction.
The subjects in the experimental group were further classified into three language competency levels according to their reading comprehension pretest score and randomly assigned one from each level into groups.
Instruments The Reading Comprehension Test
of achievement.
The reading comprehension test for this research was retrieved from the reading comprehension proficiency test of the elementary-intermediate level of GEPT. This test was a criterion-referenced test and each level had a specific proficiency standard. The reading test is a traditional linear test. The examinee can always go back to correct an answer or skip any question. The subjects of experimental and control groups were asked to take the pretest and posttest reading comprehension tests (see Appendix). The time was limited to forty minutes. GEPT’s concurrent validity report performed by LTTC confirmed the validity of its test materials and the results showed that the correlation coefficient with the CBT (computer-based testing) and TOEFL in the reading comprehension part was 0.65 with a significance level of 0.001.
Questionnaire for Reading Strategies Use
The Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) developed by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002), was one of the main instruments for this research. The SORS emphasized the measure on the metacognitive reading strategies use of L2 readers in the content of reading academic materials. Mokhtari designed the SORS for university students, both native and nonnative English speakers. The SORS investigated three kinds of reading strategies: global reading strategies (13 items), problem-solving strategies (8 items), and support reading strategies (9 items). Mokhtari and Sheorey never reported the reliability for the SORS. However, another researcher, Anderson (2004) examined the reliability of the instrument.
Anderson (2004) calculated the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the total SORS as well as its three subscales: Global Reading Strategies, Problem-Solving Strategies, and Support Reading Strategies. Coefficients ranged from .64 to .85. The Cronbach’s alpha for the overall SORS in English reading strategies was .85. The reported reliability for each subsection was Global Reading Strategies, .74; Problem-Solving Strategies, .64; and Support Reading Strategies, .67. These data helped to establish that the SORS is a reliable instrument for assessing the metacognitive reading strategies of L2 readers (p. 10).
Materials Teaching Materials
Two books, the textbook and the workbook, were used for both the experimental and control groups. The book, Active Skills for Reading: Book 2, written by Neil J. Anderson, was used as the main textbook. The book, Comprehension Skills level B, written by Beech, McCarthy, and Townsend was used as workbook for practicing and evaluating reading strategies. The experimental group used one more book, Paragraph
Development, written by Arnaudet and Barrett. This book was used as a reference book
for teaching students in the experimental group how to identify the main points and supporting facts structure and the enumeration of a paragraph.
The textbook and the workbook were selected for the following reasons: (a) the level of difficulty matched student’s English proficiency, (b) the topic of the content material was interesting and suitable for developing communicative tasks, and (c) the book was designed to teach reading strategies. The sequence of the lesson did not follow the sequence in the book. Instead, it was ordered according to the goals of the lesson and both the experimental and control groups were taught with the same pace and lesson but with different class activities. The control group spent more time in grammar, translation, and drills, whereas the experimental group concentrated on practicing reading strategies and performing communicative tasks.
Basically the design of the lesson supported the ability to comprehend the written text. Students had enough linguistic knowledge, knew enough words and sentence patterns, and they also needed to learn reading strategy to become more skillful readers. Both experimental and control groups were taught how to memorize new words and sentence patterns generally used in the reading for the low and intermediate level readers, and both were also given strategy instruction.
For the control group, the grammar was taught with traditional reading instruction, and the purpose of the grammar instruction was to identify and understand the meaning of the correct sentence patterns. For the experimental group, grammar was taught with communicative instruction. Here the purpose was to prepare students to take the role of the writer and facilitate the capability to communicate with sentence patterns.
For the control group, the lesson plans consisted of three major parts: how to memorize the new words, grammar instruction, and strategy training. Besides training in these three areas, the experimental group also received instruction on how to
the control group was taught the same material but with the traditional translation methods.
Research Procedures
A vocabulary pretest was administered to all the students before the regular class began and the posttest was given after two week’s memorization training. At third week, a pretest on the reading comprehension and another pretest on metacognitive strategy use were administered to all the students before the regular reading class began. During the first week of the reading class, both groups were given formal reading strategy instructions and the sentence patterns needed to comprehend the text. The experimental group was taught with the integrated CRI approach and the control group with the TRI approach. The same instructor taught both groups.
At the beginning of each lesson, students were required to skim through the text; the instructor taught both groups the new words and sentence patterns but with different approachs. The control group focused on the text with each sentence translated into L1 language, Chinese, for comprehension, whereas the experimental group spent more time practicing reading strategies, discussing the topic in the text, and performing
communicative tasks. The experimental group was taught the enumeration of the text and the semantic mapping technique. For the experimental group, the comprehension was more self-directed and autonomous; the teacher’s role was to guide and monitor the process and to make sure that the interactions within the subgroups went smoothly.
The experimental group was further divided into subgroups. After reading using reading strategies and completing their learning by drawing a group semantic map members in each subgroup took turns replacing the author to present and discuss the text with the other members of their group. The student who represented the author hosted the brainstorming, wrote down the perspectives of other members, and
introduced what they learned with their own opinion using a semantic map to assist with comprehension. The communicative tasks were initiated by the student actor (writer) who interacted with the other members to comprehend the text and discuss each of their perspectives on the topic. At the end of the class, one member from each group shared the group conclusions with the whole class. To enable the students to carry on the discussion, the teacher facilitated sentence pattern construction for students to refer to and imitate and intervened to give instruction or translation whenever students had trouble communicating.
After the twelve-week experimental instruction period, students from both groups were given a posttest on the reading comprehension and another posttest on their metacognitive strategy use.
Variables and Data Analysis
improve the student’s vocabulary inventory. The vocabulary memorization was the independent variables; vocabulary pretest and posttest scores were the dependent variables. A t-test was used to analyze the difference in the vocabulary pretest and posttest scores.
Second, the hypothesis was examined to see if the integrated CRI would improve the student’s reading comprehension. The integrated CRI and traditional instruction were the independent variables; pretest and posttest of reading comprehension scores were the dependent variables. ANCOVA was used to analyze the difference in the pretest and posttest reading comprehension scores.
CHAPTER 4
Results of the Analysis of Data
Introduction
This study investigated the effects of the integrated CRI reading instruction on student’s reading comprehension and reading strategy use. As a preliminary process, the vocabulary memorization instruction was given to both groups and the result of this instruction was examined. The overall reading strategy was subdivided into three components: global reading, problem solving, and support reading strategies. Please note that the term reading strategy represented the overall reading strategy used by the student.
In the beginning of the 12-week experiment, two classes, each with 40 students were assigned to be the experimental and control groups. One student from each group dropped out; consequently the number of participants for both groups is 39.
The results presented in this chapter consisted of three parts. In the first part, data collected from the vocabulary pretest and posttest was used to examine the hypothesis that vocabulary memorization training can improve students’ vocabulary inventory. In the second part, data collected from the pretests and the posttests of reading
comprehension and strategy were used to examine the hypothesis that the integrated CRI reading instruction improved students’ reading comprehension and reading strategy use. And finally, data collected from the students’ opinions about the textbook used for this project is evaluated.
Research Findings on the Effect of the Integrated CRI
Two hypotheses were formulated to evaluate the effect of the integrated CRI reading instruction on students’ reading comprehension and strategy use and one hypothesis to evaluate the effect of PA based vocabulary training:
Hypothesis 1: Integrated CRI instruction has an impact on students’ reading comprehension levels.
Hypothesis 2: Integrated CRI instruction will also produce a positive impact upon students’ reading strategy use.
Hypothesis 3: PA based vocabulary training has an impact on the size of a student’s vocabulary inventory?
Both hypotheses one and two were examined with an analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA), and a comparison of the effects of integrated CRI and TRI on the reading comprehension and strategy use was made. T test will be used to examine the effect of PA based vocabulary training.
The differences between vocabulary pretest and posttest scores were analyzed with the analysis of t test for both control (the translation group) and experimental (the integrated CRI instruction) groups. The total score of the vocabulary test is 100. Both showed significant differences with t = -4.10, p<0.001 for the control group and t = -3.04, p<0.01 for the experimental group. As shown in table 1, both groups showed increases in their vocabulary test scores, from a pretest score of mean 53.46 to a posttest score of mean 62.89 for the control group and from 54.69 to 66.94 for the experimental group. The results showed that our vocabulary memorization training improved student’s vocabulary inventory.
Table 1
t Test Results for Vocabulary test scores in Each Instruction Method
PA vocabulary Pretest Posttest
instruction N M SD M SD t
control 39 53.46 21.88 62.89 22.73 -4.10***
experimental 39 54.69 24.28 66.94 24.69 -3.04**
Note. The t value of -4.10 is equivalent to a p value of .000. The t value of -3.04 is
equivalent to a p value of .004.
***p<.001 ** p<.01
Effect of Integrated CRI Reading Instruction on Student’s Reading Comprehension
The difference in reading comprehension posttest scores between the two groups was analyzed with ANCOVA using the reading comprehension pretest score as a covariate. The result in Table 1 showed that the reading comprehension pretest scores and the reading comprehension posttest scores were significantly correlated, F(1,75) = 125.77, p<0.001, and the difference in the reading comprehension posttest scores between the two groups after taking the pretest comprehension score as a covariate was significant with F(1,75) = 7.27, p<0.05. The result demonstrated that the integrated CRI reading instruction (M = 13.89, SD = 3.56) was better than the traditional translation instruction (M = 12.95, SD = 4.21) in improving students’ reading comprehension abilities. Integrated CRI reading instruction was significantly more effective than the traditional reading instruction in improving students’ reading comprehension
Table 2
ANCOVA for Reading Comprehension Scores as a Function of Instruction Method
Source df SS MS F
RC pretest 1 723.83 723.83 125.77**
Instruction 1 41.82 41.82 7.27*
Error 75 431.66 5.76
Total 77 1173.04
Note: RC = Reading Comprehension. *p < .05; **p < .001
Effect of Integrated CRI Instruction on Student’s Reading Strategy Use
The difference in reading strategy use posttest scores between the two groups was analyzed with ANCOVA using the reading strategy pretest score as a covariate. The result in Table 3 showed that the reading strategy pretest scores and the reading strategy posttest scores were significantly correlated, F(1,75) = 48.05, p<0.001, and the
difference in the reading strategy posttest scores between the two groups after taking the pretest comprehension score as a covariate was significant with F(1,75) = 8.13, p<0.05. The result demonstrated that the integrated CRI reading instruction (M = 3.45, SD = 0.51) was better than the traditional translation instruction (M = 3.20, SD = .54) in improving students’ reading strategy use.
Table 3
ANCOVA for Reading Strategy use Scores as a Function of Instruction Method
Source df SS MS F
RS pretest 1 8.14 8.14 48.05**
Instruction 1 1.38 1.38 8.13*
Error 75 12.71 .17
Total 77 22.03
More analyses were conducted on three general reading strategies: global reading, problem solving, and support strategies. ANCOVA was applied to further analyze the differences in reading strategy posttest scores between control (the Traditional reading instruction) and experimental (the Integrated CRI instruction) groups. After controlling the pretest scores as a covariate, the result in Table 4 showed significant difference between the two groups, F = 8.13, p<0.05, and the pretest test scores were strongly correlated with the posttest scores, F = 53.67, p<0.001. The result revealed that the integrated CRI reading instruction (M = 3.40, SD = 0.54) was better than the traditional translation instruction (M = 3.19, SD = .56) in improving students’ use of global reading strategies.
Table 4
ANCOVA Results for Global Reading Strategy use Scores
Source df SS MS F
RS pretest 1 9.58 9.58 53.67**
Instruction 1 1.45 1.45 8.13*
Error 75 13.39 .18
Total 77 23.84
Note: RS = Reading Strategy. *p < .05; **p < .001
Table 5
ANCOVA Results for Problem solving Strategy use Scores
Source df SS MS F
RS pretest 1 10.86 10.86 42.85**
Instruction 1 1.34 1.34 5.28*
Error 75 19.03 .25
Total 77 31.17
Note: RS = Reading Strategy. *p < .05; **p < .001
Finally, ANCOVA analyses were applied to analyze the support strategy scores. The ANCOVA analysis with the pretest support strategy scores as a covariate shown in Table 6 reassured that there was a significant difference in posttest support strategy scores between the two groups, F = 6.68, p<0.05, and the pretest scores were also strongly correlated with the posttest scores, F = 32.93, p<0.001. The result confirmed that (M = 3.35, SD = .48) Integrated CRI improved students’ use of support reading strategies and resulted in more text comprehension than a traditional reading instruction (TRI) method (M = 3.06, SD = .60).
Table 6
ANCOVA Results for Support Reading Strategy Use Scores
Source df SS MS F
Supprot RS pretest 1 6.84 6.84 32.93**
Instruction Method 1 1.39 1.39 6.68*
Error 75 15.58 .21
Total 76 24.03
Effect of Instruction Method on Reading Comprehension in relation to reading strategy
The result of posttest reading comprehension score had been proved to be
significantly related to the pretest reading comprehension score and instruction method. More analysis was done to cross-examine the possible effect of reading strategy use on the posttest reading comprehension score using pretest reading strategy use score and posttest reading strategy use score as another covariate.
When Pretest strategy use scores were used as another covariate in the ANCOVA analysis, the difference in posttest reading comprehension score between the
experimental and control group was significant with F(1,74) = 7.21, p<.05, and the strategy use pretest scores were not significantly correlated with the posttest reading comprehension score; F(1,74) = .30, p>.05 (refer to Table 7).
Table 7
ANCOVA Results for Reading Comprehension Scores as a Function of Instruction in
Relation to Reading Strategy Use Pretest Scores
Source df SS MS F RC pretest 1 630.44 630.44 108.51*** RS pretest 1 1.71 1.71 .30 Instruction Method 1 41.88 41.88 7.21* Error 74 429.94 5.81 Total 77 1173.04
Note. RC = Reading Comprehension. RS = Reading Strategy.
The F value of 108.51 is equivalent to a p value of .000, the F value of .30, a p value
of .589, and the F value of 7.21, a p value of .009.
*p<.05. ***p<.001
comprehension posttest score, F(1,74) = 13.7, p<.001 (refer to Table 8).
Table 8
ANCOVA Results for Reading Comprehension Scores as a Function of Instruction in
Relation to Reading Strategy Use Posttest Scores
Source df SS MS F RC pretest 1 695.98 695.98 141.40*** RS posttest 1 67.42 67.42 13.70*** Instruction Method 1 18.90 18.90 3.84* Error 74 364.24 4.92 Total 77 1173.04
Note. RC = Reading Comprehension. RS = Reading Strategy.
The F value of 141.40 is equivalent to a p value of .000, the F value of 13.70, a p value
of .000. and the F value of 3.84, a p value of .049.
*p<.05. ***p<.001
CHAPTER 5 Discussion and Conclusion
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
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
