Reading And Reading Processes

Reading And Reading Processes1.2 Definition of Reading and Reading ProcessesIt is hardly realizable to carry taboo, or even take away, a explore on recitation without an soul of the script culture and the branches involved in it, and the present take away is no exception. Reading plays such an substantive percentage in educational settings that it has been defined as the near important academic speech communication readiness (Grabe Stoller, 2002). It is a psycholinguistic receptive process of write communication in that it starts with a linguistic sur casing representation encoded by a author and ends with slosheding that the reader seduces ( superbman, 1995). It is a process that involves the reader and the school text edition edition in a dynamic and complex interaction in which a moral representation is constructed based on the meaning signaled by the writer and the readers goals and interests (Rumelhart, 1985 Stanovich, 1980).What is meant by the process is course session proper, i.e. the interaction between a text and a reader (Alderson, 2000, p. 3). In this process, what the readers do is look at print, decode the written sacred scriptures on the page, and determine their meanings and their descents. The readers too think near what they atomic number 18 indication, what it means to them, how it relates to otherwise things they have read before and to things they already k in a flash. contrasting readers give develop different souls of what a text means. This is dowryly be urinate a text does non contain meaning which has to be detected by a proficient reader as the product of rendition.The product of the belief process is recognition (Barry Lazarte, 1995). There whitethorn be as some(prenominal) different require products as at that place be different readers. This is because readers may differ in their sleep withs and intimacy. In order for the interpreting product to be attained, readers employ deuce d ifferent approaches while engaged in the adaptation process (Nuttall, 2005), namely the bottom-up and the top- overthrow approaches.Bottom-up, or information-driven, approaches ar sequent models (Alderson, 2000, p.16), where the reader begins with printed words, recognizes graphic stimuli, decodes them to sound, recognizes words and decodes meanings. According to Grabe and Stoller (2002), the bottom-up model suggests that yarn follows a mechanical pattern in which the reader creates a piece-by-piece psychological translation of the information in the text, with finespun reference from the readers own earth noesis.Top-down, or conceptually driven, bear upon is a full complementary method of processing written text in which readers draw on their intelligence and experience to understand a text (Nuttall, 2005). According to the top-down model of the nurture process, what the reader already enjoys is thought to determine in large part what s/he impart be able to hold on (Alvermann Phelps, 1998). The top-down model assumes that comprehending begins when a reader has access to appropriate oscilloscope experiences and association to make sense of the print. In other words, unlike the bottom-up model, the top-down model proposes that the reader makes educated guesses to predict the meaning of the print.As a matter of fact, what is emphasized in top-down processing, according to Alderson (2000), is the companionship that a reader brings to text. This model is based on lineation theory, which accounts for the acquisition of fellowship and the interpretation of text through the activation of schemata networks of information retentivityd in the originator which act as filters for incoming information (Ausubel, 1968 Bartlett, 1932 kiosk, 1983a Carrell, Devine Eskey, 1988 Hudson, 1982). In this view, readers activate what they tump over to be relevant existing schemata and map incoming information onto them. To the cessation that these schemata are relevant, knowledge is successful.Nevertheless, neither the bottom-up nor the top-down approach, per se, is an adequate motion-picture show of the rendition process (Alderson, 2000). What readers need to employ while attending to texts is a combination of the two approaches, which, in Nuttalls words (2005), are apply to complement each other. This inadequacy led to the introduction of a third approach, the interactional model. The synergistic model of the practice session process incorporates features of both the bottom-up and top-down models. In practice, a reader continually shifts from one focus to a nonher, now adopting a top-down approach to predict the probable meaning, then mournful to the bottom-up approach to check whether that is really what the writer says (Nuttall, 2005, p. 17). In this context, Alvermann and Phelps (1998) trust that the interactive model of reading process is a good soma of how students typically read their content area texts. They connect what they know about delivery, decoding, and lyric poem, or bottom-up skills, to their soil experiences, front knowledge, and familiarity with the publication world read, or top-down skills. Interestingly, these skills are compensatory to Stanovich (1980). He fence ins that when readers lack plenty bottom-up skills, they may use top-down knowledge to compensate. Likewise, when they do not have enough desktop knowledge on the paper they are reading, they resort to their language skills to comprehend the text.Most of the current models of L2 reading acquaintance, according to Nassaji (2007) are interactive in that L2 apprehension is considered to be a process consisting of both bottom-up and top-down processes. However, familiarity with reading models, alone, is not sufficient for the understanding of the factors involved in the reading process. Alongside the significance of the knowledge of the reading process, the importance of reading for ESL recorders necessitates the understanding of the versatiles affecting a learners apprehension of texts. Research on reading variables has divided them into two major sections factors within the reader, and aspects of the text to be read (Alderson, 2000). What is of focus in the present teach is the former section, the reader variables.1.4 reader VariablesResearch has looked at the way readers themselves affect the reading process and product, and has investigated a number of different variables. Among them, two very important reader variables are radical familiarity (i.e. prior(prenominal) knowledge on topic), or background knowledge, (Bransford Johnson, 1972 Carrell, 1983a Carrell Wise, 1998 Kintsch, 1992 Leeser, 2007 Moravcsik Kintsch, 1993 Nassaji, 2007 Young, 1991), and style knowledge (Alderson Urquhart, 1985 Anderson Freebody, 1983 Carrell, 1984 Koda, 1988, 2005 Qian, 1999). A definition of these variables seems indispensible to this seek introduction.1.4.1 Topic Familiarity precedent to pic knowledge, and its influence on readers text experience is one of the variables being investigated in this canvas with regards to teachers intervention in the schoolroom. Therefore, an understanding of the concept seems essential for the reader. There is a substantial body of enquiry in cognitive psychology supporting the idea that topic familiarity has a facilitative part in reading light (e.g. Bransford Johnson, 1972 Kintsch, 1992 Moravacsik Kintsch, 1993). This design has been motivated through schema-based models of comprehension (e.g. Rumelhart. 1977, 1980) which posit that pre-existing schemata control comprehension. In other words, readers background knowledge contributes to their understanding of texts. When the term background knowledge is used, what is usually meant is a readers prior knowledge of the subject matter of the text. In this regard, Alvermann Phelps (1998) claim that What a someone already knows about a topic is probably the single or so potent factor in what he or she will learn ( p. 168).The nature of the knowledge that readers have will influence not whole what they remember of text, but also the product, i.e. their understanding of the text, and the way they process it (Bartlett, 1932 Carrell, 1984 Rumelhart, 1980 Alderson, 2000). The suppuration of schema theory has onslaughted to account for the consistent bring outing that what readers know affects what they understand. Schemata are seen as interlocking mental structures representing readers knowledge (Alderson, 2000, p. 33). When readers process text, they mix in the new information from the text into their pre-existing knowledge or schemata. In addition, their schemata influence how they recognize information as well as how they store it (Carrell, 1983a). Researchers have distinguished different types of schemata, which will be discussed in distributor point in Chapter 2.Problems arise when a reader has no relevant schemata or an insufficient schema, if rele vant schemata are not disowned, or if an existing schema is inconsistent with information in the text. Readers will often ignore ideas in a text that conflict with conventional real world knowledge (Alvermann, Smith, Readence, 1985). Students with reading difficulties appear to have particular trouble using their prior knowledge to modify misconceptions or to learn new information from reading (Holmes, 1983). Often, a reader who is struggling to understand a difficult text will follow isolated details in the text and as a result employ an inappropriate schema to fill in the gaps. A factor that has strong potential to affect readers comprehension, and can cause their misinterpretations is culture (Steffensen, Joag-Dev, and Anderson, 1979). Effects of cultural divagations on reading recall, experiment pull ahead and reading miscues have been consistently found in different studies (e.g., Carrell, 1984b Dimassi, 2006 Rice, 1980). This will be elaborated on in the next chapter.1.4. 2 Vocabulary fellowshipThe guerrilla parameter that is probed in the study, the understanding of which is inevitable to the reader, is dictionary knowledge. thriving comprehension is heavily dependent on knowledge of individual word meanings (Koda, 2005, p. 48). Research confirms a strong connection between readers language knowledge and their ability to understand what they read (Anderson Freebody, 1983 Davis, 1968 Koda, 2005 Qian, 1999). For example, Koda (2005) argues that there is a reciprocal relationship between word knowledge and comprehension. On the one hand vocabulary knowledge plays a crucial role in text understanding among both L1 and L2 readers, and on the other, vocabulary teaching and processing are as dependent on comprehension. She adds that the precise meaning of a particular word is determined in large part by the context in which it appears, and that this meaning is closely connectioned with readers real-life experience. However, in spite of overwhelmin g info available on their strong connection there is little consensus as to the exact mutuality between the two (ibid.).While, traditionally, vocabulary has been viewed as the supreme factor in reading comprehension (Davis, 1968 Whipple, 1925, cited in Hiebert Kamil, 2005), a to a greater extent recent view suggests a two-way link where the two are interdependent during their development process (Anderson Freebody, 1983). Anderson and Freebody evaluated two contrasting hypotheses implemental and knowledge. The instrumental hypothesis postulates a direct mutual tie between vocabulary and comprehension, maintaining that word knowledge facilitates comprehension. On the contrary, the knowledge hypothesis assumes an indirect link between the two, positing that their relationship is linked through a third phenomenon, background knowledge. In this view, vocabulary size reflects conceptual knowledge. Once readers have real-world experience, their text understanding is considerably impr oved. There will be more than shade on this in Chapter 2.As was said earlier in this chapter, vocabulary knowledge and background knowledge, or topic familiarity, are two most important variables affecting students comprehension. Research has also shown that the most important problems teachers face in a reading class is alien vocabulary and extraterrestrial being topic (Cabaroglu Yurdaisik, 2008). In order to have a let on understanding of teachers contribution to the reading class with regard to these two parameters, an awareness of the teachers role in the reading class, which is another variable in the present research, seems inevitable.1.5 Teachers habitIt is believed that the role the teacher plays in reading nurture is satisfying in the degree of the nucleusiveness of a reading program (Blair, Rupley Nichols, 2007). In this regard, Duffy-Hester (1999) is win over that the teacher is more important and has a greater impact than every single, fixed reading program, method, or approach (p. 492). However, it should be noted that it is not enough for a teacher to be a good soul who loves working with students. They must be aware of the reading process and the teaching and learning of reading if they call for their instruction to yield good results (Blair, Rupley Nichols, 2007).Good teachers understand that students need to be prepared to read before they are asked to (Alvermann Phelps, 1998). One way to prepare students for reading new topics is presenting basic background knowledge through brainstorming, question and answer, discussion on the topic, or pictures. some other way is providing students with topic related vocabulary and instructing them prior to reading (ibid.). These preceding(prenominal) activities are usually practiced in the pre-reading soma, which, according to Chastain (1988), is meant to motivate students to want to read the assignment and to prepare them to be able to read it.Pre-reading activities raise a reader wit h required background to organize activity and to comprehend the material (Ringler and Weber, 1984). These experiences involve understanding the purpose(s) for reading and building a knowledge base necessary for dealing with the content, vocabulary, and the structure of the material (ibid.) Ringler and Weber argue that pre-reading activities elicit prior knowledge, build background and focus attention. In fact, it is in the pre-reading stage that teachers attempt to facilitate and enhance students comprehension of reading texts by topic familiarization and vocabulary introduction. Chapter 2 will discuss the pre-reading stage in detail.1.6 Background to the ProblemThere is a considerable bulk of research on the comparison of the strong suit and enhancing roles of topic familiarity and vocabulary knowledge in ESL reading (e.g. Afflerbach, 1986 Brantmeier, 2003 Carrell, 1987 Hammadou, 1991 Hudson, 1982 Johnson, 1982 Park, 2004a, 2004b Swaffer, 1988). Studies on these two reader varia bles reveal that there is little consensus among the research workers as for their snuff its in ESL contexts.Some findings have shown a significant, positive effect for topic familiarity as either a main effect or as part of a complex interaction. For example, Johnson (1982) gave ESL readers a pass on Halloween and demonstrated that topic familiarity had a greater impact on comprehension than the pre-teaching of vocabulary. Also, Swaffer (1988) concludes, in her paper, that background knowledge can be more influential in reading comprehension than word knowledge. She further claims that topic familiarity facilitates language recognition, and recall of concepts.However, some other research in the literature indicates that vocabulary knowledge may be a more significant variable than prior knowledge on topic in ESL readers success. For example, Phillips (1990), reported by Hammadou (1991), finds that prior knowledge is insignificant when readers lack vocabulary knowledge and languag e proficiency. To Phillips, it is only when readers are proficient that high or low background knowledge comes into play and differentiates between readers levels of comprehension. But, perhaps the most comprehensive study on the effects of vocabulary pre-teaching and providing background knowledge on L2 reading comprehension was done by Park (2004b). He divided his clxxx participants into customary chord multitudes the vocabulary group, the background knowledge group, and the control group, with different treatments. The results he attained were a) the scores of the vocabulary and background knowledge groups were significantly higher(prenominal) than those of the control group, b) the vocabulary group scored higher than the background knowledge group, although the difference between the mean scores of the two groups was not significant, and c) the effects of pre-reading activities on L2 reading comprehension differed by achievement level and text type.Nevertheless, to Tuero (1 996), unknown vocabulary and prior knowledge play equally decisive roles in reading comprehension. She concludes, in her study, that background knowledge and vocabulary difficulty function independently and affect reading in different ways. Even though prior knowledge facilitates comprehension, vocabulary development is equally crucial to contradictory language reading.As said earlier, unknown vocabulary and unfamiliar topic have been found to be the most important problems that teachers encounter in a reading class (Cabaroglu Yurdaisik, 2008). Therefore, to ensure students comprehension, teachers should concentrate on these two variables, because without comprehension reading would be meaningless. Different learners seem to approach reading tasks in different ways, and some of these ways appear to lead to better comprehension (Tercanlioglu, 2004). Research has shown that learners can be instructed to use appropriate reading strategies to help them improve comprehension and recall (Carrell, Pharis, Liberto, 1989), and that this instruction should include more pre-reading strategies than post-reading strategies (Cabaroglu Yurdaisik, 2008).However, what is of concern to the researcher is the degree of effectiveness of teachers instruction of these reading strategies. It is real that unknown vocabulary and unfamiliar topic are the most significant problems in a reading class. But, who should, or can, attend to these problems? Is it the teacher, the student, the author, or other variables that have this responsibility? Although there has been quite a lot of research on topic familiarity and vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension, unfortunately, to date, there is no data available reflecting on the degree of effectiveness of the teachers posture at, or absence from an ESL reading class.In fact, the role of the teacher in enhancing students familiarity with texts topics and contents, and his/her role in vocabulary introduction have not been investigated yet. It is not clear to what extent teachers intervention facilitates students executing on reading comprehension and vocabulary tests. What if the teacher is not available for a pre-reading instruction? Does this mean that students have to postpone their reading activities, waiting for the unfamiliar topic and unknown vocabulary to be introduced by the teacher? In other words, should topic familiarization and vocabulary introduction be necessarily carried out by the teacher? The researcher believes this is a gap in the literature, which the present study seeks to fill.1.7 part and Design of the StudyThis study is an attempt to investigate in depth, in an explanatory mixed methods design, the degree of the effectiveness of teachers saying of background knowledge and his/her instruction of vocabulary at pre-reading stage in adult ESL reading comprehension. The influence of the teacher on the reading class, his/her contribution to students comprehension, and the facilitative role that s/he might play are the important aspects that this study aims to shed light on.The reason for conducting a mixed methods study is that the researcher attempts to combine both numerical and qualitative data for more precise results. The explanatory mixed methods design, which is also called the two-phase model (Creswell, 2008), puts emphasis on quantitative data array and analysis. In this method, the major aspect of data collection is quantitative, and a small qualitative component follows in the second phase of the research (ibid.).The quantitative phase of the study aims to test the following hypothesesTeacher-directed topic familiarization enhances students performance on ESL reading comprehension tasks more than written introductions do. dictionary use and teachers instruction of vocabulary yield the same results in students performance on vocabulary tests.To test the research hypotheses, this study seeks to answer tercet questions, and for the qualitative part of the r esearch, RQ4 is supposed to serve the purpose. The research questions are as followsRQ 1 To what extent does teacher-directed topic familiarization enhance studentsperformance on multiple- filling reading comprehension tests?RQ 2 To what extent does teachers intervention help students recall of a reading passage?RQ 3 What are the differences between teachers instruction of vocabulary and dictionary use in students performance on vocabulary tests?RQ 4 What are students perceptions as to the teachers role in an ESL reading classroom?To answer RQs 1, 2, and 3, quantitative data suffices and serves the purpose, and that is why the researcher applies multiple plectrum questions and written recall tests. But, for RQ 4, it is deemed necessary to mix quantitative and qualitative data to obtain more detailed , specific information than could be gained from the results of statistical tests. Therefore, a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire is combined with semi-structured interviews to answer RQ 4. Details will be found in Chapter 3.1.8 Significance of the StudyThrough his experience as an EFL teacher, the researcher has noticed that many EFL students face challenges whenever the reading comprehension process is altered by any unfamiliar reading task or assignment. He has also noticed that pre-reading instruction activities, including prior knowledge construction of unfamiliar topics, and teaching new vocabulary, play an important role in preparing students for the task and can help them become more aware of the characteristics of reading that are important to the task. This study will help teachers and educators find out the effectiveness and significance of teachers presence at, or absence from, the reading class. It is an attempt to explore teachers contribution to students reading comprehension, and tries to answer the question of whether or not, or to what extent, adult ESL students could be independent readers. This research will investigate, for the first time, th e effectiveness of dictionary use as compared with the teachers vocabulary instruction in enhancing students vocabulary knowledge in the reading class. Another significant viewpoint of the study is that, again for the first time, the teachers skill in familiarizing students with unfamiliar topics at pre-reading stage will be compared with the efficacy of written introductory data doing the same job of providing students with background knowledge on unfamiliar topics, thereof the applicability of written pre-reading information in helping students text comprehension. tout ensemble this will have implications for educators, teachers, practitioners, and researchers in the field of L2 reading comprehension, and will also help them design reading skill courses accordingly. It is hoped that the present research will make a positive contribution to the field of teaching second language reading.1.9 MethodologyThe study was conducted with newly registered postgraduate students at the Univ ersity of Malaya, Malaysia. The found of Graduate Studies (IGS) at UM administers regular English Placement Tests for those new students who do not possess any scores on either the TOEFL or the IELTS as the prerequisite for the registration for the university programs. Based on the students scores on the university Placement Test, the participants were assigned to two treatment groups, host A and root word B, comprising 35 students each.To find the answers to RQs 1, 2, and 3, the participants were provided with three reading passages of unfamiliar topics and contents, which they read and were well-tried on, with a weeks interval between the tests. The difficulty levels of these passages were measured through the Flesch legibility Test (Flesch, 1948). A typical session ran as this The participants in convention A received no teachers intervention. They were provided with some brainstorming questions, to which they received no answers, a constitute of the text concepts, and a wr itten introduction, which were meant to help them construct background knowledge on the text they were going to read. The text this group read had a title, which is believed to have a role in helping students to construct prior knowledge (Hammadou, 1991). They were also given a list of the key vocabulary, and were encouraged to use their dictionaries to check words meanings. In short, gathering A received any information which was thought to be necessary in reading the text, but in the form of written input.Group B, however, underwent teachers intervention. That is, it was the teacher who, in some pre-reading activities, familiarized them with the topic and content, and taught them the key vocabulary. Moreover, their text did not include a title, and no dictionary use was permitted in this group. This procedure was repeated for all the three passages.The participants were then assessed on comprehension and vocabulary after finishing each text. Each reading passage was followed by a at large(p) written recall test and a set of 20 multiple choice questions, 10 on comprehension and 10 on vocabulary. In fact, in the three treatment weeks, the students took three written recall tests, 30 comprehension and 30 vocabulary MCQs. Also, to find the answer to RQ4, on the students perceptions of the teachers role in a reading class, a 5- point Likert scale questionnaire was administered, and then through purposeful sampling, 20 of the participants, 10 from each group, were selected for an interview.Applied as one of the data collection tools, the free recall test is a measure in which readers write down as much as they can remember from what they have undecomposed read, without looking at the passage. According to Johnston (1983) and Bernhardt (1983), the recall measurement is a binding means of evaluating foreign language reading comprehension. This technique has been widely used in second language reading research (e.g., Carrell, 1987 Dimassi, 2006 Leeser, 2007 Young , 1999)Multiple choice tests, as another research tool, are common instruments for assessing reading comprehension (Alderson, 2000). To Koda (2005), they are the most popular format used in similar reading comprehension tests. MCQs have been employed extensively in L2 reading assessment (e.g., Bugel Buunk, 1996 Carrell, 1987 Carrell Wise, 1998 Oded Walters, 2001 Park, 2004 Yazdanpanah, 2007), and, therefore, have been coupled with the free recall test to measure the participants reading ability.In addition, Likert scale questionnaires and interviews are two common techniques in measuring perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs in second language teaching and learning (DeVellis, 1991 Turner, 1993), and have been used widely in the literature (See Brown, 2006 2009 Richardson, 1996 Williams Burden, 1997 Yamashita, 2004, for Likert scale questionnaires, and Barkhuizen, 1998 Cabaroglu Yurdaisik, 2008 Conteh Toyoshima, 2005 Li Wilhelm, 2008, for interviews). Thus, the study has appli ed these tools to find the answer to RQ4. Details on the research instruments will be revealed in Chapter 3.