Approaches to developing reading skills of learner 2 - Английский язык - Дипломные работы

Approaches to developing reading skills of learner 2

Загружено в:

26.09.2019

Скачано:

0

Размер:

177.5 KB

Approaches to developing reading skills of learners of English Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………... Chapter 1. Reading is conscious thinking process…………………………. 1.1. An approach to develop reading skills……………………………….. 1.2. Theories of reading comprehension………………………………... 1.3. Techniques for beginning reading skill development……………… Chapter 2. What learners need to know to read English………………... 2.1. The importance of phonological processing in reading…………… 2.2. The relationship between syntactic processing and reading……… 2.3. The role of background knowledge in enhancing reading skills…. Conclusion………………………………………………………………….. Bibliography………………………………………………………………..

Introduction Today while implementing the third phrase of National program (Kadrlar tayyorlash milliy dasturi. 1997. 29- avgust) of preparing cadres, all new specialists undergoing the higher educational system are required to know one or several foreign languages. In connection with this, huge tasks are set before teachers of English language; teachers became one of the main subjects of educational reforms. Therefore, if a teacher is open to welcome new pedagogical innovations he can provide goal-oriented introduction of innovative ideas into educational process. Lately, range of significant official acts was issued on accelerating and developing the foreign languages teaching ; they define the state policy towards teaching foreign languages 1 After gaining independence, Uzbekistan has advanced in culture, economy, scientific and technical innovations. Innovation factor has become one of the peculiarities of modern educational system. Today, the process of innovative improving of educational system activity continues; its modernization based on modern requirements as well. Therefore, this phase is called modernization era of educational system. our educational system was rebuilt during independence years. Its essence and significance form and methods were changed. On May 8, 2013 Cabinet of Ministers issued Resolution ‘On approving state educational standard on foreign languages of continuous educational system’ 2 In compliance with the implementation of complex of activities on enhancement and development of new teaching methods in higher educational establishments, a number of researches have been carried out. According to state educational standards, for continuous education on foreign languages state educational standards define the following: goals and tasks of the subjects; essence of teaching and learning foreign languages; requirements to levels of graduates’ compulsory preparation in all levels of education. All requirements are elaborated wider and deeper for 1 Xalq so’zi, 11.12.2012, 240 (5660)-son 2 O’zbekiston Respublikasi qonun hujjatlari to’plami, 2013

those whose specialty is foreign languages. For example, reading comprehension for them implies the ability of understanding social specialty- related or other long, complex texts; belles letters and scientific-popular books, magazines, periodical materials, instructions, advertisement materials, various information sheets, documents, school record book, questionnaires, informal or electronic letters; memoranda, lectures, critical analyses, and working with working documentation. The actuality of the graduation paper. During conducting our research work we analyzed the significance of ways of developing reading skills to learn English and how to improve English learners’ knowledge. The significance of our work can be proved that we found out several ways of increasing the important parts of English for learners: grammar, vocabulary, spelling. The aim of the graduation paper is to identify the problems of learning English reading skills and how to learn English reading skills by looking at their ages. Many approaches have been proposed for the teaching of foreign language. One of the basic language skill is reading that includes pronunciation, syntax that are straightly linked with the theme of the qualification paper. However no one knows exactly how people learn languages although a great deal of research has been done into the subject. The task of the graduation paper. Having based upon the actuality of the theme we are able to formulate the general goals of our qualification work. - To analyze the major results achieved in the studied field; - To prove the idea of importance of studying reading skill to learn English; - To work on the activities that are based on teaching reading skills; - To study, analyze and sum up from the scientific point of view. The object of the graduation paper. The object of the research work is to study the significance of reading skills and to introduce how to use syntax, phonological process in learning reading skills in English language.

The scientific novelty of the graduation paper. The novelty of this research work is to work out analyzing some approaches by applying them in practice. Also ,we consider the idea of using some activities in teaching reading skills of English language by looking at their abilities. The structure of the graduation paper. The present qualification work consists of introduction, the main part, conclusion and bibliography. The main part of the qualification work includes several items. There we discussed techniques, theories, approaches of reading skills and many processes based on reading comprehension. In the conclusion part our qualification work we tried to draw some results from the scientific investigations made within the main part of the qualification work. in bibliography part we mentioned more than 20 sources which were used while compiling the present work. It includes articles dealing with the theme, a number of used encyclopedias, textbooks and some internet sources.

Chapter 1. Reading is conscious thinking process Reading is a conscious and unconscious thinking process. The reader applies many strategies to reconstruct the meaning that the author is assumed to have intended. The reader does this by comparing information in the text to his or her background knowledge and prior experience. Effective reading is essential for success in acquiring a second language. After all, reading is the basis of instruction in all aspects of language learning: using textbooks for language courses, writing, revising, developing vocabulary, acquiring grammar, editing, and using computer-assisted language learning programs. Reading instruction, therefore, is an essential component of every second- language curriculum. Understanding some important facts about reading, literacy, and teaching methods is essential for providing effective instruction in reading. A reader approaches a text with a huge store of prior knowledge and experience, including preconceptions about the uses of spoken and written language. All of a person’s prior knowledge, experience, and values are organized in categories, or schemata. Each category, or schema, is connected to many other schemata in a complex mental network. As he or she notices particular ideas or facts in a text, the reader matches that information with background knowledge and is able to construct a version of the text’s meaning. Researchers in text comprehension have applied an information- processing analogy to understanding how people think, learn, and remember what they read. When a person reads, two aspects of this “human information processing system” continuously interact. When the reader focuses primarily on what he or she already knows, this is called a concept-driven or “top- down” mode. On the other hand, when the reader relies primarily on textual features and information to comprehend, this is called a data-driven or “bottom-up” mode (Kintsch and van Dijk 1978; Rumelhart and Ortony 1977; Winograd 1977; Rumelhart 1980). In other words, the reader is constantly noticing parts of the text and comparing that sample with what he or she already knows.

1.1. An approach to develop reading skills Reading skills are the cognitive processes that a reader uses in making sense of a text. For fluent readers, most of the reading skills are employed unconsciously and automatically. When confronted with a challenging text, fluent readers apply these skills consciously and strategically in order to comprehend. Every language requires a different repertoire of reading skills, based on the structure of the language and the literacy habits of the native speakers of that language. ESL and EFL teachers, therefore, should train students in the skills that will give them the power to comprehend in English. As Brown and others pointed out, learning a new thinking process is best accomplished when the learner is consciously aware of the process, and an approach to teaching reading skills should take that into account. In fact, the more students talk about their thinking processes, the more they learn. Many teachers believe that they can teach reading skills by instructing students to read a text and then showing them how to apply a variety of skills to the text for better comprehension. It is more effective for students, however, to focus on one reading skill at a time and talk about their application of that skill in a number of text samples. Eventually, students will be able to apply the skill unconsciously so that they can call it up to consciousness and apply it strategically whenever they face a challenging text. Literacy is a set of attitudes and beliefs about the ways of using spoken and written language that are acquired in the course of a person’s socialization into a specific cultural context. Language and culture cannot be separated. Language knowledge and thinking patterns are socially constructed within a cultural setting, and each language/culture fosters its own way of understanding the world. In other words, each culture fosters the development of different schemata of the world. That is why readers from two different cultural backgrounds can read the same text and construct very different models of what the text means. They have different schemata (different background knowledge), different expectations about how a text should present information, and different ways of creating

meaning. Consequently, teachers cannot assume that students who are good readers in their native language can simply apply successfully the same skills to reading in English. Reading in English requires a set of thinking skills and attitudes that grow out of the spoken and written use of the English language. Teaching reading in standard English to second-language learners and other limited English proficient students means helping them acquire the literate behaviors, the ways of thinking about text, that are practiced by native speakers of English. In fact, learning to read and comprehend a second language requires learning a secondary literacy: alternative cultural interpretations, cultural beliefs about language and discourse, and culture specific formal and content schemata. It is important to realize that learning to read effectively in a second language literally alters the learner’s cognitive structures and values orientations. Therefore, that second-language students need to learn to “think in English” in order to read effectively in English. Reading instruction needs to be based on training ESL and EFL students in new ways of talking and thinking about texts. In teaching reading, instructors need to take into account the following conclusions and recommendations of educational researchers. Early in the twenty-first century, reading comprehension research was summarized by two “blue ribbon” groups: the National Reading Panel and the Reading Study Group . The National Reading Panel described reading comprehension thus: Comprehension is a complex process often viewed as ‘the essence of reading.’ Reading comprehension is intentional thinking during which meaning is constructed through interactions between text and reader. . . . The content of meaning is influenced by the text and by the reader’s prior knowledge and experience that are brought to bear on it. Similarly, the Reading Study Group noted that reading comprehension involves four components: the reader , the text, the activity, and the situational context. The first three essential components—the reader, the text, and the task — occur within the fourth component of reading comprehension the situational context. The reader is the one doing the comprehending, and the text is the reading material (e.g., stories,

nonfiction selections, etc.). The activity refers to what kind of comprehension task, skill, strategy, or concept the reader is attempting to perform (e.g., discovering the author’s main idea, understanding a sequence of events, thinking about a character’s intent in a story, etc). The situational context of reading comprehension can be thought of in at least two ways. First, the actual setting where reading occurs—at home, in a school classroom, the library, under a blanket at bedtime, and so on—affects how well one comprehends while reading. There is little doubt that children’s reading comprehension is influenced by the setting in which they read. (Aren’t you more focused and relaxed when reading alone at home than if called on to read during a college class?) Second, there is a social context associated with reading comprehension. In some cases, reading comprehension occurs individually, alone—a very limited social setting. In other cases, however, reading comprehension can be part of a vibrant social activity in which people— teachers, parents, and children read a text together and jointly construct meaning through discussion. Lively interaction about a text in the company of others seems to be the optimal situational context to enhance students’ reading comprehension found that commercial reading programs used by most school districts are not very effective in teaching reading comprehension. Such core reading programs must be used selectively and supplemented by a knowledgeable teacher if children are to reach their potential. For example, the National Reading Panel recommends that teachers primarily focus on seven specific comprehension strategies supported by rigorous research whereas other researchers feel five is the magic number of strategies for intensive focus. But the curricula found in leading core reading programs today cover skills and strategies varying from 18 to 29 per program per year! Not only is this unnecessary and ineffective, but the large numbers of skills and strategies taught in core reading programs means all get superficial treatment, often at a rate of one skill a week . As Dewitz and colleagues state:

Our analysis of comprehension instruction in core reading programs demonstrates several shortcomings that may undermine their effi cacy. First, the comprehension skills and strategies curricula are wide but not terribly deep. The structure of the curricula is often incoherent so that students and teachers do not know how skills and strategies relate to one another or how acquiring these sets of skills leads to becoming a better reader. The review ways you can take control and supplement your core reading program to produce effective comprehension instruction for your students. Research over the past 30 years has contributed greatly to our understanding of the thinking processes involved in reading comprehension. Surprisingly, however, little research has focused on the development of young children’s comprehension. Pressley describes the development of reading comprehension as a two stage process, beginning with “lower processes” focused at the word level such as word recognition (phonics, sight words), fluency (rate, accuracy, and expression), and vocabulary (word meanings). The second stage of reading comprehension development focuses on higher-order thinking relating prior knowledge to text content and consciously learning, selecting, and controlling the use of several cognitive strategies for remembering and learning from text. Reading comprehension research over the years has been profoundly influenced by schema theory, a hypothesis that explains how information we have stored in our minds helps us gain new knowledge. The term schema (the plural is schemata or schemas ) can be defined as a kind of storage cabinet in our brains with file folders containing different information about concepts (chairs, birds, ships), events (weddings, birthdays, school experiences), emotions (anger, frustration, joy, pleasure), and roles (parent, judge, teacher) drawn from our life experiences. Researchers often think of our schemas as neural networks (i.e., “brain networks”) of connected meanings (Collins & Quillian, 1969; Lindsay & Norman, 1977). Each schema is connected to other related schemas, forming a vast, interconnected network of

knowledge and experiences. The size and content of an individual’s schemas are infl uenced by personal experiences, both direct and vicarious. Therefore, younger children typically possess fewer, less well-developed schemas about a great many things than do mature adults. For example, Figure 7.1 represents a schema for birds that an elementary student might produce, showing it as a network of associated meanings. In 1978, Dolores Durkin reported fi ndings from her studies of reading comprehension instruction as taught by teachers using commercial reading programs (i.e., basal or core reading programs). After observing in both reading and social studies classrooms, Durkin concluded that the teachers spent very little time actually teaching children how to understand what they read. In fact, less than one percent of total reading or social studies instructional time was devoted to the teaching of reading comprehension. Unfortunately, researchers have concluded that the situation in today’s schools has not improved appreciably over the past 30 years . Research has shown that reading comprehension improves most when teachers provide explicit comprehension instruction to children (e.g., Dymock & Nicholson, 2010; Manyak & Bauer, 2008; McKeown et al., 2009; National Reading Panel, 2000). We support the following fi ve research-supported strategies as the most critical keys for focused instruction: 1. Activating prior knowledge 2. Questioning 3. Analyzing text structure 4. Creating mental or visual images 5. Summarizing The National Reading Panel, and other studies since, have also found that comprehension instruction is most effective when there is a great deal of text- focused dialogue among students (Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2007, in press; Mills, 2009; Pressley, 2006). Research also indicates that teaching children how to use combinations of comprehension strategies as they read, or multiple

comprehension strategies (McKeown et al., 2009), yields particularly strong results for improving children’s reading achievement. Other research evidence points clearly to the need for teachers. Chapter 7 Teaching Reading Comprehension to help students apply comprehension strategies in a variety of text types (narrative and expository) and genres (fairy tales, realistic fi ction, almanacs, encyclopedias, etc.) (Dymock & Nicholson, 2010). Thus, the key to successful instruction is delivering carefully structured learning activities that support children while they are developing the ability to use multiple comprehension strategies to understand what they read (McKeown et al., 2009; Pressley, 2006; Reutzel et al., 2005). It is important that teachers know and understand the minimum expected outcomes, or end-of-year benchmark standards , for comprehension development at each grade level, especially in the early years. This information becomes an essential road map for teachers to use in assessing each student’s level of comprehension development. With this knowledge, you can plan instruction that best fits the needs of every child and that lays the groundwork for appropriate “next steps” in comprehension development. Of course, in the classroom you will discover students are at different places in their comprehension development, and you will need to plan small-group sessions each day for students having common needs. In this way, you can help all students continue learning in a systematic fashion. Figure 7.3 offers research based end of year “benchmark” standards. Later in this chapter we provide specific assessment and teaching strategies related to these standards. Good readers are often selective, focusing their attention on the parts of the text that are most appropriate to their goals. Effective readers go beyond the literal meaning of text, interpreting what they read by filtering ideas in the text through their prior knowledge. Such interpretations often include an evaluation of the quality of the ideas in the text. Often, such associations are carried out intentionally by thinking about how the ideas in the text seem vaguely familiar and then recalling where similar ideas were presented or encountered. Readers also make predictions and form hypotheses

about what will happen next, or what ideas the text will advance. In addition, readers continuously evaluate these predictions and hypotheses and revise them as the reading warrants. As they read, good readers vary their reading speed, sometimes skimming and sometimes rereading a section of text that is especially relevant to the reading goals. As they encounter new ideas during reading, they update their prior knowledge. Good readers make conscious inferences, such as determining the author’s intentions for writing the text, clarifying the meaning of unknown words, and filling in information if they perceive gaps in an argument. They create mental images. If, for example, they are reading fiction, they create mental pictures of settings and characters. Good readers are strategic! Good readers are often selective, focusing their attention on the parts of the text that are most appropriate to their goals. Effective readers go beyond the literal meaning of text, interpreting what they read by filtering ideas in the text through their prior knowledge. Such interpretations often include an evaluation of the quality of the ideas in the text. Often, such associations are carried out intentionally by thinking about how the ideas in the text seem vaguely familiar and then recalling where similar ideas were presented or encountered. Readers also make predictions and form hypotheses about what will happen next, or what ideas the text will advance. In addition, readers continuously evaluate these predictions and hypotheses and revise them as the reading warrants. As they read, good readers vary their reading speed, sometimes skimming and sometimes rereading a section of text that is especially relevant to the reading goals. As they encounter new ideas during reading, they update their prior knowledge. Good readers make conscious inferences, such as determining the author’s intentions for writing the text, clarifying the meaning of unknown words, and filling in information if they perceive gaps in an argument. They create mental images. If, for example, they are reading fiction, they create mental pictures of settings and characters. Good readers are strategic! What are Strategies? Comprehension strategies are conscious or intentional plans that people use in order to achieve a goal (Roit,

2005) and are used deliberately to make sense of text (Afflerbach et al. 2008). Readers use strategies consciously to make sense of the text, remember critical ideas and integrate new learning into existing schema or prior knowledge. Students need to learn how to use strategies independently, to recognize and solve problems, and to delve deeper into text to make connections and inferences. Reading strategies are not the same as instructional strategies. The goal of instructional strategies is to teach students how to make sense of text. Instructional strategies are the plans used by the teacher to teach comprehension. They include but are not limited to explicit explanation, modeling, pre-teaching, organizing learning and scaffolding. Strategies laid out in this chapter emphasize teaching and student engagement. Obviously, there is an interaction between both reading and instructional strategies. Often the terms comprehension strategies, skills, and activities are used interchangeably. Comprehension strategies are used consciously by the reader to monitor and check understanding, to clarify confusion, and to process text. Strategies are situational and are used intentionally by readers. (McEwan, 2004). In contrast, once skills are learned, they are used unconsciously, i.e. decoding words or breaking words into syllables. Skills are also the tools readers use to organize the structure of text, e.g., main idea and supporting details, compare and contrast, sequencing, etc. Activities such as charts like KWL or terms such as “click and clunk” and “get the gist” are not comprehension strategies themselves but instructional devices to encourage students to use comprehension strategies as they read. Props such as strategy character puppets may catch children’s interest but they may also take students’ attention away from the strategies themselves. In contrast, skills are applied automatically rather than deliberately and yield a high level of performance with minimal effort (Afflerbach et. al, 2008; Dewitz et al. 2009). Learning skills requires practice in order to become automatic. Decoding is a skill that when it becomes automatic results in fluent reading. Readers read most words without ever thinking about the sounds and spellings. Similarly, fluency is a skill that

develops over time, allowing readers to access text with automatically so they can focus their mental efforts on making sense of what is being read. The Interplay of Strategies and Skills Simply put, comprehension strategies are the cognitive processes and procedures that readers bring to the content of reading; comprehension skills are the procedures they use to grasp the organizational structure of the text. Readers employ various comprehension strategies before, during, and after an initial reading of a text. Comprehension skills, however, are best employed as readers reread a text and do close reading. Why is it important to provide students with instruction in comprehension skills? The most persuasive answer is given by Pearson and Camperell : When we identify a variable, including a text structure variable, that looks like it might make a difference in comprehension, we ought to adopt a frontal assault strategy when considering its instructional power—teach about it systematically and make Effective Teaching Strategies for Reading Comprehension 3 certain students have a chance to practice it. Research states that the ability to identify and use text structure can make a difference in students’ text comprehension. Therefore, teaching students the skills necessary to use text structure is another way to improve their reading comprehension. A very practical way to understand both the distinction between strategies and skills and their interaction is to think about the sport of basketball. Players practice different types of shots - three-point plays, hook shots and dunks; they work on different types of dribbling from pull back to crossover to behind the back. All of these skills become automatic with practice, just as reading skills become automatic. . But skills are not sufficient to win the game. Players also learn to play strategically by looking at where players are positioned, where a shot can be made, and which shot makes the most sense. Reading the court and players is key to knowing which play to make. The same is true with reading. The foundational skills of reading are necessary but not sufficient. Skills must work in partnership with strategies. Skills are used automatically; strategies are used thoughtfully and intentionally. Like basketball shots, main idea, sequencing,

compare and contrast, and other reading skills need to be learned and practiced. They are foundational skills that enable the reader to use comprehension strategies effectively. For example, understanding the concept of main idea underlies summarizing. Effective readers are constantly monitoring their understanding, assessing their understanding, and identifying when comprehension breaks down. They are meta cognitively aware or in control of their own thinking throughout their reading. Luke compares this meta cognitive or self-regulatory behavior to a foreman who oversees monitors all the parts of a project. When the project is moving along smoothly, there is no need for intervention. Depending upon the problem, the foreman may need to stop the project to take some action. And this is exactly what proficient readers do. When reading comprehension is moving along smoothly, skilled readers do not need to stop. However, when reading challenging or complex text, these same readers recognize when comprehension is interrupted, identify the cause or problem like unfamiliar words or confusing referents or inconsistent ideas, and use strategies to clarify and resolve the problems. They also use strategies such as predicting and making connections to increase engagement and promote deeper meaning. Novice and struggling readers seem to lack awareness of thinking about what is and is not making sense as they read. They are often are unaware of when they do not understand what they are reading. This is painfully evident when a struggling reader turns two pages instead of one and continues on the wrong page even though it does not make sense. They often are focused so much on reading the words that they cannot think about how the words connect to create meaning. Good readers, on the other hand, are aware of when their comprehension breaks down or if they are confused by the text and have “fix up” strategies to resolve their problems. They also know that it is OK to ask for help from others. Activating Prior Knowledge Background or prior knowledge comes from life experiences, either real or vicarious (Knuth and James, 1991). Often people presume that background knowledge comes just from actual experiences, but it is often

acquired through reading, movies, discussion, or any number of other indirect means, all of which can increase background knowledge. In fact, reading is one of the most important ways that people build prior knowledge. Prior knowledge is the sum of all the knowledge that readers have acquired, experienced, and stored in memory or schema. Schema theory proposes that knowledge is organized in a network of structures called schemata. Readers not only have schemata for ideas and experiences but for text structures such as fiction and nonfiction. When readers activate their schema they link to this network of information. As readers interact with a text, they continually relate what they are reading to their prior life and reading experiences. Readers’ interest in what they are reading influences the links they continue to build in their schema which is one reason why motivation increases comprehension. The relationship between prior knowledge and reading is obviously reciprocal. Prior knowledge enhances comprehension by enabling readers to comprehend text better, to make connections, to predict, and to develop inferences as they are reading. As readers learn more from reading, they are also expanding their knowledge, which is then stored in memory and connected to schemata, which are activated at a later time as background or prior knowledge. Activating background for proficient readers happens quite naturally as they preview a text before reading, browsing through the text, reflecting on the author, and noting information in the book jacket or other visuals. Making conscious what is already known helps the reader link new information with what is already known make connections, increase the ability to make inferences, improve recall of content, view and reconcile conflicting information, interpret text and absorb new information (Kujawa and Huske, 1995; Pressley, 2000). For students with limited background knowledge, it may be necessary to help them build background prior to reading (Stevens, 1982; Hayes and Tierney, 1982). When reading fiction, readers may activate prior knowledge by browsing the text to use one or more of the following browsing activities to activate background knowledge.

1.2Theories of reading comprehension Over the last decade, a number of studies that have carefully examined young English learners’ early reading in English have found convergence on a number of key points (Manyak & Bauer, 2008). For example, ELs from a variety of first languages can successfully develop beginning literacy skills in English regardless of limitations in English proficiency. Second, the early stages of ELs’ reading development looks a lot like that of native speakers of English, with the same basic underlying factors of phonological awareness, letter identification, and decoding skills. Third, it appears that the same percentages of NS and ELs have difficulties learning to read in English. Finally, explicit instruction has proven to be beneficial for the early English reading development of ELs. Taken together, we need to hold high expectations for ELs’ learning of reading and writing skills in English. At this point there seem to be few existing studies on comprehension instruction for ELs that offer examples of sound instructional practices . Nevertheless, it seems clear that comprehension instruction is critical to the long-term achievement of ELs. Manyak and Bauer (2008) offer several principles to guide instruction for ELs summarized from extant research. First, research has demonstrated that ELs may comprehend more than they are able to communicate verbally in English. Thus we must not underestimate ELs’ ability to read diffi cult texts and participate in higher order comprehension activities and discussions. Second, learning new vocabulary through language- rich instruction is key in ELs’ comprehension. Third, it has been established that using ELs’ background knowledge (i.e., culturally familiar content) as a means for scaffolding to new text content learning boosts their comprehension. Teachers should provide children with culturally familiar texts whenever possible. However, ELs will always face many texts with unfamiliar content, so it critical Motivation and Engagement Strategies for Teaching

Reading Comprehension that teachers implement pre-reading activities that build ELs’ relevant background knowledge. An activity called synopsis text (Manyak & Bauer, 2008) is recommended for building background knowledge for ELs. First, identify key ideas from an upcoming text into a brief one- to two-paragraph synopsis. Students are asked to read the synopsis twice and then, working in pairs or small groups, identify three key points, one idea they find difficult to understand, and any unfamiliar words. Next, the groups write a question they have that relates to the upcoming reading. This familiarizes students with the content of the text and prompts them to anticipate new information (a schema- building activity). Although families usually do not have the expertise to provide explicit reading comprehension strategies instruction and guided practice, they can do a great deal to facilitate children’s reading comprehension. For years now, Allington has insisted that children need to read a lot to get good at reading. Families are in an ideal position to facilitate wide reading and discussion of text. As teachers, we can provide families with both access to reading materials and structure for facilitating discussion and interaction around texts. Richgels and Wold (1998) have designed the Three for the Road program to involve parents in choosing one or more books to read and discuss with their children at home from among three “leveled” books. These leveled books are placed in a backpack that is sent home to parents with their children. The three books selected in each backpack represent a variety of themes, including fantasy, comedy, math mania, adventure, ABCs, and sing- along. The three levels of books included in each backpack are at the “easiest,” “in-between,” and “most challenging” levels for the student’s grade level. The backpack includes a letter to parents as shown in Figure 7.26. This letter may be easily adapted to suit the needs of parents and children in other grades. Just like teaching methodology, reading theories have had their shifts and transitions. Starting from the traditional view which focused on the printed form of a text and moving to the cognitive view that enhanced the role of

background knowledge in addition to what appeared on the printed page, they ultimately culminated in the meta cognitive view which is now in vogue. It is based on the control and manipulation that a reader can have on the act of comprehending a text. According to Dole et al. (1991), in the traditional view of reading, novice readers acquire a set of hierarchically ordered sub-skills that sequentially build toward comprehension ability. Having mastered these skills, readers are viewed as experts who comprehend what they read. Readers are passive recipients of information in the text. Meaning resides in the text and the reader has to reproduce meaning. According to Nunan , reading in this view is basically a matter of decoding a series of written symbols into their aural equivalents in the quest for making sense of the text. He referred to this process as the ' bottom-up ' view of reading. McCarthy has called this view ' outside-in ' processing, referring to the idea that meaning exists in the printed page and is interpreted by the reader then taken in.This model of reading has almost always been under attack as being insufficient and defective for the main reason that it relies on the formal features of the language, mainly words and structure. Although it is possible to accept this rejection for the fact that there is over-reliance on structure in this view, it must be confessed that knowledge of linguistic features is also necessary for comprehension to take place. To counteract over-reliance on form in the traditional view of reading, the cognitive view was introduced. Goodman presented reading as a psycholinguistic guessing game, a process in which readers sample the text, make hypotheses, confirm or reject them, make new hypotheses, and so forth. Here, the reader rather than the text is at the heart of the reading process. The schema theory of reading also fits within the cognitively based view of reading. Rumelhart has described schemata as " building blocks of cognition " which are used in the process of interpreting sensory data, in retrieving information from memory, in organising goals and subgoals, in allocating resources, and in guiding the flow of the processing system. Rumelhart has also stated that if our schemata are incomplete and do not

provide an understanding of the incoming data from the text we will have problems processing and understanding the text. Cognitively based views of reading comprehension emphasize the interactive nature of reading and the constructive nature of comprehension. Dole et al. have stated that, besides knowledge brought to bear on the reading process, a set of flexible, adaptable strategies are used to make sense of a text and to monitor ongoing understanding. According to Block (1992), there is now no more debate on "whether reading is a bottom-up, language-based process or a top-down, knowledge-based process." It is also no more problematic to accept the influence of background knowledge on both L1 and L2 readers. Research has gone even further to define the control readers execute on their ability to understand a text. This control, Block has referred to as meta cognition. Meta cognition involves thinking about what one is doing while reading. Klein et al. stated that strategic readers attempt the following while reading: Identifying the purpose of the reading before reading, Identifying the form or type of the text before reading, Thinking about the general character and features of the form or type of the text. For instance, they try to locate a topic sentence and follow supporting details toward a conclusion, Projecting the author's purpose for writing the text (while reading it), Choosing, scanning, or reading in detail, Making continuous predictions about what will occur next, based on information obtained earlier, prior knowledge, and conclusions obtained within the previous stages.

Moreover, they attempt to form a summary of what was read. Carrying out the previous steps requires the reader to be able to classify, sequence, establish whole-part relationships, compare and contrast, determine cause-effect, summarise, hypothesise and predict, infer, and conclude. A more recent theory of reading comprehension is called "schema theory" or the " schema perspective." The goal of schema theory is to describe interaction between what is in the text and how that information is shaped and stored by the reader. The underlying assumption is that meaning does not lie solely in the print itself, but interacts with the cognitive structure or schemata already present in the reader's mind. These schemata represent, in Ausubel's terms, the "ideational scaffolding" or framework for understanding new information. Thus the reader has present in cognitive structure schemata which constitute a cognitive filter through which one views the world and from which one predicts or makes inferences about what is read. Schemata, according to Rummelhart and Ortony, represent generic concepts which are stored in memory. The way in which a particular concept is stored is not by remembering that isolated event in its totality down to its most basic components, but by identifying those aspects of the event related to other concepts already stored. We make connections between the information in the text and what we already know. A particular schema would be analogous to a play with its integral structure corresponding to the script of the play. So a schema represents generalized knowledge about a sequence of events and, as a play has a cast of characters and a sequence of scenes, a schema has its parts and sequenced events. We comprehend the message in a text when we are able to call up the appropriate schema, fitting it into an intorpritati on which allows us to see the text in a certain way. What we store is the interpretation of the text, which we then call up to make inferences about author's purpose, specific characters, and soon in other similar texts. Generalized schemata allow us to learn or make sense of a wide array of information or very abstract ideas, and these generalized schemata can be

modified or adapted as we learn new information. This idea is almost identical to the Piagetian concepts of assimilation and accommodation except that schema theory limits the input to printed material. In Piaget' s definition assimilation takes place when new knowledge is integrated into a preexisting knowledge base. Thus, accommodation occurs when the knowledge base, or a schema is changed in order to fit in new information. We can construct very specific schema to account for situations and events which occur frequently in our environment. This allows us to process this information faster and easier by helping us focus on a pattern of elements which occurs both in the stored schema and in the text. A particular reader's interpretation of a printed message is influenced by the reader's personal background and history, knowledge, and the beliefs which are brought to bear in constructing schemata to provide the interpretative framework for comprehending discourse. The effect of prior experience can be so great that a reader may perceive only one interpretation for a text to the exclusion of other possible interpretations. Anderson and others conducted an experiment with college students from two different disciplines. Each group was asked to read two passages each of which was sufficiently ambiguous so that it could be interpreted in ways related to either of the two disciplines. Scores on multiple choice and other tests indicated that there was a striking relationship between interpretation and professional discipline. Most subjects were unaware that more than one interpretation was possible for each of the passages. The experimenters stated that the results indicated that high level schemata influenced the interpretations of these passages. Schemata serve as the basis for making inferences or reading between the lines and for making predictions based on observation of only part of the input. Schemata also serve as the vehicles for searching memory for previously read material and reconstructing meaning. We can see that schema theory has placed new emphasis on various parts of the teaching process, particularly the importance of utilizing preexisting knowledge and experience of the reader, setting purposes for reading, and asking appropriate questions

before and after reading. While we have always deplored the teacher who instructed students to "read from pages 91 to 124," the importance of motivating and building interest as well as assessing the knowledge and experience of the reader before having the student read is more important in light of the schema theory. The secondary reading teacher needs to determine whether the students have the general background knowledge or experience to understand what they are reading as well as how to use it. For the remedial student with limited experience in reading, relationships or similarities to vicarious or real-life situations need to be drawn. Students also need to become aware of their personal attitudes and beliefs which can shape their interpretation of a text, giving it a meaning unlike that which the author intended. When an existing schema is inappropriate to account for the information in the text, teacher will need to help students modify the schema or shift gears to another more appropriate schema. It seems rather evident that if we want students to comprehend a text in a particular way, that we must assist them in setting up a cognitive structure for doing so. It should also be apparent that we cannot presume that students have schemata for all possible purposes for reading. Instruction should provide appropriate models or exemplars so that students can develop schemata which can be used as the basis for inferring when faced with the purpose in another context. Vocabulary development becomes more than simply introducing words, looking up definitions in the dictionary, and using the words in sentences. Developing vocabulary means developing concepts for words, and seeing how they are alike or different from other words. Since Socrates (if not before) teachers have recognized the importance and value of questioning. To a somewhat similar end, reading materials have attempted to generate questions at a variety of comprehension levels following a taxonomic mode. The structure of a comprehension taxonomy presupposes that higher order understandings are based on the acquisition of lower order knowledge. Yet we have all had experiences of students answering so-called higher order or evaluative

questions about a text without recalling some literal facts in the story, and giving a low level response to a high level question. As we begin to focus on reading comprehension in a more who listic way, the overlapping nature of comprehension skills as well as the importance of knowing which to use and how to integrate this into one's cognitive structure becomes more the issue. Hopefully the most significant result of recent research on comprehension would be to see the demise of the practice of teaching skills in isolation. Anyone who has worked with remedial readers has noted that some of them are unable to transfer the knowledge of skills developed in isolation into context while reading. The situation of students trying to outguess the teacher must be changed. A teacher must first assess students' mental background, so that new material can be related to what is known. The process of learning from written material must be made more efficient. Students need to be compensated for taking risks and speculating about meaning. If the teacher will give trust and confidence to students, s/he will find them more willing to relate how a passage may have a specific meaning for them. This process leads to free exchange of ideas about why passages have various interpretations for different people. The class may thus avoid the numbing process of the teacher's evaluating interpretations by "absolute" authority.

1.3. Techniques for beginning reading skill development The four reading components described are integrated into a reading lesson, but they may not all be practiced in any one day. A reading lesson may cover several class periods. Throughout the lesson, the teacher should be aware of gaps in the learners’ skills and plan activities that give them the practice they need. For example, if students are having difficulties comprehending past tense verbs in a reading, the teacher would then include activities to practice using - ed to form past tense ; if students demonstrate difficulties in pronouncing the past tense marker, the teacher could then include activities to practice the pronunciations of -ed (phonological awareness). The following activities give examples of reading activities that can be used with learners who are preliterate, those who have minimal reading skills in any language, and those who have some literacy in English. As always, it is up to teachers to adapt the activities for use with the learners in their classes. Adult English language learners who have little or no literacy in English may have little or no literacy ability in their native language. They may come from countries that have no written alphabet, or where an alphabet is just being developed, such as with Somali Bantu. If there is a written tradition in their country, the alphabet may be written from right to left, as is the Arabic alphabet; or the writing may not be alphabetic, as with Chinese languages. This means that, before they can receive instruction in alphabetic skills including phonological processing and decoding, learners may need to develop pre-literacy concepts and skills. These include distinguishing same and different objects and shapes, how to hold a pencil and paper, copying shapes and patterns, and understanding directionality. Beginning literacy learners whose native language is not English have additional barriers to learning to read that most native speakers do not have. English language learners often have a limited oral vocabulary (Burt, Peyton, & Adams, 2003). Yet they need to be able to read common words that they see every day or are learning in class, even if they do not know all the letters of the alphabet. Teaching sight words is a technique that can be used

with this level learner every time new vocabulary words are introduced. Because a learner needs to know 95-98 percent of the words in a text to be able to predict from context, teaching vocabulary through context clues has limited success with adult English language learners. Therefore, teaching words before they appear in a text is recommended. The following technique can be used with literacy- and beginning-level learners whenever new vocabulary words are introduced. Intermediate- and advanced-level students also need direct instruction in vocabulary. Like beginning-level learners, their oral vocabulary is below the level needed to learn word meanings from context. Teachers often struggle when instructing students who have different levels of literacy. The following lesson plan demonstrates how a teacher can take advantage of learners’ differing abilities through a reading assignment that requires students to find the answers to specific questions about a health clinic in their community. The activity combines practice in speaking, listening, reading, and writing as students read an actual brochure and tell each other what they have learned. Of course, when doing this activity, teachers should use brochures from their community and create questions from those brochures, rather than using the sample provided here from Arlington, Virginia. For beginner level. Learning the alphabet should be spread out over several class periods. Introduce only 4-5 letters (uppercase) at a time. Learners should not be expected to master the alphabet all at once. Letters can be cut out of construction paper and should be at least four inches high.

Chapter 2. What learners need to know to read English

2.1.The importance of phonological processing Phonemic awareness is a cognitive skill that consists of three pieces. The first piece concerns a linguistic unit, the phoneme; the second concerns the explicit, conscious awareness of that unit; and the third involves the ability to explicitly manipulate such units. Phonemic awareness is thus the ability to consciously manipulate language at the level of phonemes. Let us take each of these in turn. A phoneme is an abstract linguistic unit. Linguists define it as the most basic unit of language capable of making a difference in meaning. As an example, the difference between the word pairs (each containing three phonemes) bit and pit, bat and bet, bin and bid, is a single phoneme, one occurring in these examples in the initial, medial, or final position, respectively, of the spoken word. Phonemes are abstract because they are not the actual sounds of which words are composed; these are known as phones. Rather they are the underlying category of which the phones are members. To illustrate this, think of how the sound represented by the letter p is different in the words pan and span. To make this readily apparent, hold your hand close to your mouth and notice that the puff of air that is released when saying the former is much stronger than that released with the latter. The puff, known as aspiration, is not distinctive in English, in that there are no pairs of words where this single difference in aspiration marks a difference in meaning. In short, these two sounds (or phones) are different, yet they represent the same underlying category (or phoneme). As we will see, the abstract nature of phonemes presents one of the obstacles a child must overcome in developing phonemic awareness. It is also important to recognize that phonemes are linguistic units and not units of writing systems. Thus, while bit, bait, butte, and bought all differ in the number of letters they possess, they each represent words containing only three phonemes, which differ only in their second phoneme. Beyond the phonemic unit, the second piece of the phonemic awareness concept entails the explicit, conscious awareness of these units. Any child who has learned a language knows the phonemes of that language if

she did not, she could not recognize the difference between spoken minimal pairs in that language, like bit and pit. But being able to use that linguistic difference in speaking and listening to language is very different from knowing explicitly that the difference being used is in the initial part of the word. This explicit knowledge is the meta linguistic nature of the skill, or the ability, to consciously reflect upon the linguistic units that underlies language. More than just being conscious of the phoneme, the third piece of the phonemic awareness concept requires some level of skill in manipulating phonemes. In learning to read an alphabetic language, it is not enough just to be aware of the phonemic units, the child also must be able to manipulate those units. Such manipulation is important because the child learning to read must be able to hold and contrast in memory both the phonemes and the letter strings that represent them. If she cannot, she will not be able to master the relationship between the letter units and the phonemic units. In learning to read, the child must be able to isolate, compare, and contrast phonemes and letter sequences Ñ for example, noting that the final phoneme in both bit and bought is the same, but that one is represented by a single letter and the other by three letters. To sum up, the three pieces of phonemic awareness are knowledge of language at the level of individual phonemes, knowledge of these language units that is conscious, and skill at consciously manipulating language at this level. As mentioned earlier, phonemic awareness is not necessary for reading all written languages, only those that are alphabetic. For instance, writing systems that use logographic representations (where a single symbol represents a word) do not require would-be readers to possess phonemic awareness. But any system that links written letters to the phonemes underlying the spoken word requires phonemic awareness, because the would-be learner cannot connect the units underlying the written word (the letters) with the units underlying the spoken word (the phonemes)

unless she is consciously aware of both and has the intent to learn the relationship between the two (known as the alphabetic principle). Thus, if you know the letters and you know there is some relation between the letters and the spoken word, but you do not know the units underlying the spoken word, then you will not be able to figure out what the relationship is between the two representations. Much research, conducted under a variety of research designs, converges on the conclusion that phonemic awareness is critical for learning to read in alphabetic languages. First, there is evidence from concurrent correlations, which are derived from research designs that simply measure two skills in a sample of students at roughly the same point in time and then determine how those skills vary with each within the student sample. For example, a typical design might use all the first-grade students in a school as a sample, measuring each studentÕs phonemic awareness skill and reading skill at the end of first grade. Positive correlations between these two measures exist when, in general, students with better performance on one skill (phonemic awareness) also have better performance on the other skill (reading) and vice versa (that is, when students with poorer performance on one skill also have poorer performance on the other skill). Such positive correlations are generally found when both phonemic awareness and reading skills are measured in the early elementary grades. This same positive relationship has been found whether reading skill was measured as skill in reading individual words, skill in reading letter sequences that do not form real English words but are constructed like English words (for example, the pseudoword splure), or skill in reading connected text where fluency or comprehension

were measured. These correlations are consistent with a causal relationship between the two variables, where skill in one is the cause for the development of skill in the other, but they do not guarantee that the variables are causally linked (indeed, there might be a third variable that is causing the development in the other two skills). Nor, even if causally linked, do these correlations specify the direction of causation (that is, does phonemic awareness cause the reading skill or is it the other way round?). Even more suggestive evidence comes from a closer look at the distributions between phonemic awareness and reading skills concurrently measured. If you plot skill in phonemic awareness against skill in decoding (measured as reading individual pseudowords), you find triangular distributions. In these distributions, there are many instances of either low skill in both domains or high skill in phonemic awareness coupled with either low or high skill in decoding. However, there are no instances of low skill in phonemic awareness and high skill in decoding. This pattern suggests that phonemic awareness is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for skill in decoding. That is, you must have skill in phonemic awareness if you are to acquire skill in decoding, but having skill in phonemic awareness is no guarantee for successful development of skill in decoding. To get the latter, you need something in addition to phonemic awareness (you also need knowledge of the letters and of the alphabetic principle, plus lots of practice pairing written and spoken words). Predictive correlations , derived from research designs where phonemic awareness is measured at one point in time and reading skill is measured at some subsequent point in

time, are even more suggestive of causal relationships. Many studies report such correlations, where the time lag between the measure of phonemic awareness and the subsequent reading skill (measured either as decoding or reading comprehension skill) ranges from very small (a matter of months) to very large (a matter of many years). While providing stronger evidence than concurrent correlations do, these results could still appear even when the two variables were not causally related. For instance, as in concurrent correlations, there could be a third, unmeasured factor that is the cause underlying the development of both skills, where the two skills themselves are not at all causally linked. The strongest evidence for a causal relationship between phonemic awareness and reading comes from training studies. In the typical training study design, children who lack phonemic awareness skills are randomly divided into different groups, one receiving training designed to develop phonemic awareness skill and the other receiving training designed to develop a skill that is unrelated to reading (say, a mathematical skill like counting). After training, the different groups are given the same reading instruction, and one looks to see whether those groups that received phonemic awareness training in fact do better in both assessments of phonemic awareness and reading than those who did not. Many studies like this have now been conducted, and the majority of them report that the groups receiving phonemic awareness instruction subsequently did much better in reading development than those who did not receive such training. Now it is true that reading by itself does advance skill in phonemic awareness Ñ reading practice advances reading

skill, and the more skill in reading, the more skill in phonemic awareness. This indicates a reciprocal relationship between phonemic awareness and reading, where skill in one supports development of skill in the other and vice versa. But the critical question is whether some amount of skill in phonemic awareness is critical before skill in reading can advance; the evidence suggests (especially that from training studies) the answer to this question is yes. Current research suggests that most children who enter school at kindergarten do not come skilled in phonemic awareness. Research also suggests that if there is no explicit instruction in this skill, many will fail to acquire it. Further, for some small percentage of young people, even explicit training is insufficient to guarantee the development of phonemic awareness. So what is known about the reasons behind the difficulty in acquiring phonemic awareness? First, as discussed above, phonemes are abstract Ñthey cannot be isolated and presented to the child as objects. When we explain to a child that the first sound in bug is "buh," what we are actually pronouncing is neither abstract (for abstract things are by definition unpronounceable) nor something related to a single phoneme. In fact, what we are saying is a syllable, one that has two phonemes underlying it. Thus, one difficulty in developing phonemic awareness is that it is not possible to explicitly state to the child what she must become aware of, rather we can only lead her to try to induce for herself what must be acquired. Some Examples of How Phonemic Awareness Skill Is Demonstrated Isolation : Say the first part of the word song;

say the middle part of hop; say the last part of stick. Deletion: Say the word pies without the first part. Addition: Say the word you have when you add the sound s to the beginning of the word top. Categorization: Say the word that does not belong in this group of words: pig, pack, top, put. Substitution: Say the word you make when you take out the second part of stop and replace it with the first part of lake. Segmentation: Say how many parts there are in the word build. Second, the sound units that are transmitted in speech that are derived from the underlying abstract phonemes do not arrive at the ear in a strict serial order. Rather the information that allows the hearer to detect the first sound in a word generally comes overlapped with information about the subsequent segment in the word Ñ linguistic information is transmitted in parallel. As an example, if we recorded our speaking of the word bug and then, starting at the end of the tape segment, cut off successive pieces and played what was left, we would never be able to isolate a piece of the tape representing only the initial phoneme of the word. Rather, the best we would come away with would be some resemblance of the first two sounds of the word. This is true because the positions of the articulators (those things we use to produce speech, like our tongue and jaw) are set to reflect both the beginning

and subsequent sounds that are to be made. You can get a sense of this for yourself by noting the position of your lower jaw as you begin to say bug and bought. In the latter example, the lower jaw is lowered from the outset to prepare for the pronunciation of the vowel that follows. These co-articulation effects result in the parallel transmission of linguistic information. And this poses a significant problem for acquiring phonemic awareness, for in many cases we cannot isolate even the initial sound (or phone) that is a member of the phonemic category the child is attempting to become aware of. Again, the best we can do is to set conditions where the child will induce the phonemic category we are trying to have her attend to. Third, what we are asking the child to do is counterintuitive. For the child learning language, meaning has been paramount, while the forms in which the meaning is represented have been unimportant they are merely the medium, which is to be ignored in favor of the message. With phonemic awareness, we are asking the child to focus attention in the opposite fashion, ignoring meaning and attending only to form. Each of these features of language make difficult the task of acquiring the awareness of phonemes but there are instructional approaches that can be helpful. Future issues of SEDL Letter will address this topic. For the child having difficulty acquiring phonemic awareness, the prognosis is not good. First, such a child is not able to take advantage of the alphabetic principle. She might know the letters, even that the letters are somehow connected to the spoken word, but without phonemic awareness, she is baffled by what that relationship might be. Second, we know that exposure to print is important for figuring

out the relationships between letters and phonemes. With the prerequisites in hand (namely, knowledge of the letters, phonemes, and the alphabetic principle), the greater the opportunity to pair printed and spoken words, the greater the opportunity to learn the relationship between letters and phonemes. The child who lacks these prerequisites cannot take advantage of such opportunities, and print exposure is no longer efficacious for learning to read. Third, we know that if the child is not making progress in reading by the third grade, there is very little likelihood that she will ever, regardless of the intervention used, be able to read at the same level as her same-age peers. Our challenge as educators is thus to do all that we can to make sure our students are making early progress, including mastering phonemic awareness early in their school careers. This is something that can be achieved, if only we understand what must be done and provide appropriate support mechanisms to help teachers master those techniques that can best help their students master this (and other) skills. 2.2. The importance of syntactic processing Although there is a general consensus that a link between syntactic skills and

reading comprehension exists, researchers are less in agreement when it comes to determining the specific relations between syntax and each of the two major aspects of reading, namely decoding and comprehension. Some researchers have demonstrated a link between syntactic abilities and decoding and L1 reading comprehension respectively, but have pointed out that there was a stronger relationship between syntactic abilities and the former than there was with the latter. For example, Willows and Ryan found that syntactic tasks of repetition, localization, correction and cloze tasks correlated more strongly with decoding than with reading comprehension. Bowey obtained the same results when she experimented with children in fourth and fifth grades. Onthe other hand, Nation and Snowling found a strong correlation between syntactic awareness skills and reading comprehension. These and other L1 studies (Cox, 1976; Ehri & Wilce, 1980; Forrest-Pressley & Waller, 1984; Morais, Cary, Alegria, & Bertelson, 1979; Rego & Bryant, 1993) indicate that the relationship between syntactic abilities and reading comprehension is still controversial. Normally developing readers – since the discussion of various reading disabilities is beyond the scope of this paper – go through stages leading to the achievement of skilled, fluent reading (Chall, 1983; Ehri, 1991). There is no doubt that those children who struggle to learn to read often fail to perform well on various verbal tasks which do not involve reading (Liberman & Shankweiler, 1985; Vellutino, 1979). These problems are often so subtle that they may not be detected in everyday communication, and only sophisticated testing might shed light on them. Moreover, poor readers do not perform as well as competent readers in understanding oral puns and jokes (Hirsch-Pasek, Gleitman, & Gleitman, 1978), and cannot detect, correct, or explain semantically and syntactically anomalous sentences (Ryan & Ledger, 1984). There has been much speculation about whether these deficiencies are due to impoverished verbal short-term memory, deficient speech perception and production, or lack of syntactic awareness. In recent years, two competing

hypotheses have attempted to explain the differences between poor and good comprehenders, each offering a fundamentally different view of what reading requires and how language acquisition is related to it. While one view, the processing limitation theory, claims a deficiency in processing and locates the problem in the “subsidiary mechanisms that are used in language processing” (Crain & Shankweiler, 1988, pp. 168-169), the other view, the structural lag hypothesis, blames poor reading comprehension on a deficiency in linguistic knowledge, more precisely on in while most reading research in a foreign language has investigated vocabulary knowledge, also the ability to process structures has an important facilitative effect on reading comprehension (Barnett, 1986; Berman, 1984). Among recent studies on children’s L2 reading development and syntactic abilities, Martohardjono, Otheguy, Gabriele, and Troseth (2005) focused on structures that are considered to be milestones in the development of monolingual children, specifically coordination and subordination. The team investigated whether bilingual children with a strong knowledge base in their L1 (Spanish) acquire reading comprehension in L2 (English) better than those with weaker L1 syntax. Their second question concerned the degree to which a strong syntactic base in L2 contributes to listening comprehension in L2, and if this is a “more significant factor than the corresponding base in the L1” (p. 4). The tasks and stimuli were based on the literature on complex sentence development. Kindergartners were tested on a syntax measure using various coordinate and subordinate structures in Spanish and English through an act-out task. Martohardjono et al. (2005) found that performance on the coordinate structures exceeded the performance on subordination, which reflects the developmental order for monolingual children. In addition, performance on L1 (Spanish) coordination was better than on English (L2) coordination. On the other hand, although performance on the subordinate structures was also somewhat better in Spanish, the difference was not statistically significant. Finally, the combined performance on both coordination and subordination was significantly better in Spanish.

The participants were then tested on the pre-reading level of the Gates- MacGinitie Standardized Reading Test (MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, Dreyer, & Hughes, 2000) which has components known to be precursors of reading ability.2 Correlations between the syntax measure and the precursors to reading indicated that there were more significant correlations between the Spanish syntax scores and English pre-reading than between the English syntax scores and English pre-reading. Correlations between Spanish syntax and English listening also appear to be stronger than those between English syntax and English listening. Based on these results, Martohardjono et al. concluded that there is indeed a strong relationship between syntactic skills in L1 and listening comprehension (as precursor to reading) in L2 in young ESL learners, and this relationship is particularly strong between the knowledge of subordination and listening comprehension in both L1 and L2. Some recent investigations have also focused on the syntactic knowledge that L2 readers bring to the reading process and how such knowledge influences comprehension. Bernhardt (2003), for example, hypothesized that syntax would be a key variable in predicting L2 reading comprehension. She claimed that evidence within L2 contexts predicts that the impact on the comprehension process of readers moving between predictable and unpredictable word order is significant. Languages such as German, Russian, or French exhibit degrees of flexibility for comprehension, but must understand the signaling relationships between and among words. Odlin (2003) also noted that L2 learners from flexible word order languages have higher numbers of oral production error rates when learning rigid word order languages (e.g., English). Odlin further hypothesized that learners from rigid word order languages have higher error rates in the receptive language skills, namely reading and listening, when learning flexible word order languages. A very recent study dealing with the issue of syntactic knowledge and reading comprehension in L2 was conducted by Shiotsu and Weir (2007), who investigated the relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary in

the prediction of reading comprehension performance. They pointed out that even though a number of contributing factors to reading ability have been empirically validated, the relative contribution of these factors to the explanation of performance in a foreign language reading test is limited. While previous studies (i.e., Brisbois, 1995; Ulijn and Strother, 1990) attached a greater importance to vocabulary knowledge in foreign language reading, Shiotsu and Weir (2007) offered support for the relative superiority of syntactic knowledge over vocabulary knowledge in predicting performance on a reading comprehension test. They further claimed that the literature on the relative contribution of grammar and vocabulary knowledge to reading comprehension is too limited to offer convincing evidence for supporting either of the two predictors, and a more sophisticated statistical approach (i.e., structural equation modeling) would shed more light on the question. Based on the above discussion, the following research questions were investigated: 1. To what extent does syntactic knowledge contribute to reading comprehension? 2. What are the effects of L1 (Hungarian) syntactic knowledge on L2 (English) reading comprehension? 3. What are the effects of L2 (English) syntactic knowledge on L2 (English) reading comprehension? The research questions investigate whether there is a different contributing effect of L1 and L2 syntax respectively on L2 reading comprehension, and if so, which one. While Martohardjono et al. (2005) found a stronger relationship between bilingual children’s L1 syntax and L2 listening than between their L2 syntax and L2 listening comprehension, our hypothesis predicts the opposite for the young adult population that was studied, for the following reason: Since the participants’ mean age was over 18 years, their L1 syntactic skills had Gabriella Morvay 420 been finalized. The strong correlation between L1 syntax and L2 listening comprehension in Martohardjono et al.’s study is due to the fact that children’s syntactic abilities at kindergarten age have not been

developed fully. Even though there is a widely-held belief that children attain adult syntax at about the age of 5, C. Chomsky (1969) noted that while differences between a 5-yearold’s and an adult’s grammar might not be apparent in a conversation, direct testing can reveal differences. Her investigation supporting this claim involved 40 elementary schoolchildren between the ages of 5 and 10. In that study, the researcher elicited information about children’s knowledge of sentence subject assignment to infinitival complement verbs and found that 3 out of 14 children who failed to show mastery of this syntactic feature were over 9 years of age. This suggests, according to C. Chomsky, that “active syntactic acquisition is taking place up to the age of 9 and perhaps even beyond” (p. 121). This claim is especially true for the less dominant language in the case of bilingual children. Studies of oral language development have challenged the notion that children know most structures by the age of five or six. Certain syntactic structures have not emerged in the syntactic development process as yet, and so this gap must have affected the relationship between the two skills. Since our participants’ L1 syntactic abilities were not in the developing stages, but rather were mature, it was predicted that their L1 syntactic comprehension would have no effect on their L2 reading comprehension. Instead, it was predicted that L2 syntax would have a significant effect on L2 reading comprehension given that these adolescents were still in the process of acquiring complex structures in the L2. Furthermore, while aural comprehension has strong predictive value in the early stages of reading acquisition, in adults this predictive value fades, and listening and reading comprehension rates level out (Baddeley, Logie, & Nimmo-Smith, 1985; Danks & End, 1987; Duker,1965; Dymock, 1993; Sinatra & Royer, 1993). 2.3. The role of background knowledge in enhancing reading skills

Background knowledge and prior knowledge are generally used interchangeably. For example, Stevens defines background knowledge quite simply as what one already knows about a subject. Dochy et al., provide an elaborate definition, describing prior knowledge as the whole of a person’s knowledge, including explicit and tacit knowledge, meta cognitive and conceptual knowledge. Background knowledge is supposed to consist of two main components: “our assimilated direct experiences of life and its manifold activities, and our assimilated verbal experiences and encounters” (Swales, 1990, p.9 ). It is a reader’s background knowledge of the topic, vocabulary, and structure of a text. Prior knowledge may come from experience or from reading. When a reader activates his prior knowledge, he is linking what he already knows to what he is currently reading. A text does not by itself carry all meaning. The reader brings information, knowledge, emotion, and culture – that is schemata, to the printed word (Brown 2001). Reading is only incidentally visual. More information is contributed by the reader than by the print on the page.” This indicates that our understanding of a text depends on how much related schema we, as readers, possess while reading. Consequently, readers' failure or confusion to make sense of a text is caused by their lack of appropriate schemata that can easily fit with the content of the text. This lack of appropriate schemata can be either formal or content-based on ,schemata includes what we know about people, the world, culture, and the universe, while formal schemata consists of our knowledge about discourse structure. Prior knowledge is necessary for retaining information from a text. Activating prior knowledge before reading helps students get ready to read and be open to new information. It focuses students' reading and helps them read for a purpose. Having a purpose and inquiring about the subject before reading helps students take ownership of their own reading experiences. It is believed that the readers’ background knowledge (schema) interacts with the content of the passage they are reading. So decoding a message more accurately needs the activation of vocabulary and structure knowledge as well as background

knowledge. In this research, the role of background knowledge activation will be done through previewing strategy (THIEVES); as a pre-reading activity will be explored from the perspective of schema theory. The study is designed to investigate the increase in readers’ comprehension if their prior knowledge is activated before reading a text. Readers' prior knowledge activation is ensured through the prior knowledge activation strategy of text previewing (THIEVES). This investigation will be carried out through an experiment divided into: Part One and Part Two. In Part One, participants in the experiment; Group1 and Group 2 will work on the first reading selection. In this part, the experimental group is Group2 and the control one is Group1. The experimental group; Group2 will receive the experiment's treatment. In Part Two, the experiment's treatment shifts to Group1 and Group 2 turns to be the control one. Here, learners will work on the second reading selection. In both parts of the experiment, the groups' reading comprehension will be tested by using the multiple-choice formats . The contribution of background knowledge to children's comprehension became all that more clear for us in a recent three- part experiment including 4-year olds from low- and middle-SES (socioeconomic status) families . In the first experiment, we assessed low- and middle-SES children's background knowledge about birds by creating a task with fictional characters and names: “This is a toma. A toma is a bird. Can a toma live in a nest?” and other items in a similar format. The experiment revealed stark differences in knowledge about birds between the two groups: ( t (43) = 3.22, p = .002), Cohen's d = .93. Low-SES children had significantly more limited background knowledge than their middle-class peers. So, to tap how these differences in background knowledge might relate to comprehension in text, we created an 18-page illustrated storybook in our second experiment that featured the adventures of four types of birds (named for extinct species): the moa, faroe, cupido, and kona. The book had a total of 238 words and shared a common plot and story grammar, including the setting (i.e., a house), problem, response, and resolution. Using a receptive comprehension measure

that examined children's understanding of critical story events and their ability to make causal inferences, we found once again that the low-SES children experienced greater difficulty comprehending the story than their middle-SES peers. These children demonstrated significantly poorer comprehension of the text ( t (75) = 1.99, p = .050), with a moderate effect size (Cohen's d = .46). Consequently, in our third study, we attempted to neutralize background knowledge by introducing a storybook narrative context that would be novel to both groups. Here was our reasoning: If children's preexisting background knowledge underlies these differences in comprehension, then we would expect that there would be no differences in learning among our differing SES groups. For this study, we created an 18-page illustrated storybook similar to the one we used in our previous study—with one difference: The storybook used a novel category, wugs (a pseudo-word), and was designed around the adventures of four species of wugs. And our results sustained our hypothesis about background knowledge and comprehension. In this case, there were no differences between groups ( t (56) = .57, p = .569, Cohen's d = .15). When we held background knowledge constant by introducing an unknown topic, there were no significant differences between SES groups in children's word learning, comprehension, or ability to make inferences. Taken together, these results suggest that differences in low-SES children's comprehension skills may be attributed, in part, to limitations in their preexisting knowledge base. This research builds on a large body of work that has shown the effects of background knowledge and comprehension (Anderson & Nagy,1992; Anderson & Pearson, 1984). For example, studies have shown that individual differences in prior knowledge affect the ability to extract explicit and implicit information from text and integrate this text-based information in reading comprehension (Kintsch, 1988). Other studies (e.g., Cain, Oakhill, Barnes, & Bryant, 2001) have examined multiple factors, including the relative contributions of inferential processing, domain knowledge, metacognition, and working memory to learning from text. Our results are consistent with this

research (Cain & Oakhill, 2011; Recht & Leslie, 1988), highlighting the role of background knowledge on children's comprehension as early as preschool. It makes good sense that to comprehend a story or text, readers will need a threshold of knowledge about the topic. Sometimes we call it domain-specific knowledge or topical knowledge. Without such knowledge, it becomes difficult to construct a meaningful mental model of what the text is about. Consider the following examples. For example, think about the word operation . If you were to read the word in a sports article about the Yankees, you might think about Derek Jeter recovering from his latest baseball injury. If you read the word in a math text, on the other hand, you'd think about a mathematical process like multiplication or division. Words have multiple purposes and meanings, and their meanings in particular instances are cued by the reader's domain knowledge. Even the most immediate oral language exchanges, like “What do you say?” to a young child who just received some Halloween candy, require some level of inferencing. From infancy on, oral language comprehension requires children to actively construct meaning by supplying missing knowledge and making inferences. This, of course, becomes even more complicated when we turn to written texts, since it may require students to make inferences based on limited information in the text itself. In fact, many of our greatest writers engage readers through their writing to think beyond the text. Understanding text depends on readers supplying enough of the unstated premises to make coherent sense of what is being read. But to do this well, readers need to have a foundation of knowledge about the topic. Otherwise, as studies have shown, they can get caught on the “seductive details” (Garner, Gillingham, & White, 1989) of a text—highly interesting and entertaining information that is only tangentially related to the topic—which can distract the reader and disrupt the comprehension of text. Background knowledge, in contrast, acts as a road map for students, allowing them to stay on target despite the interesting details. This suggests that once print has been decoded into words, reading comprehension and listening comprehension

requires the active construction of inferences that rely on background knowledge and are implicit in the text. Second-language learners know for certain that many metaphors, idioms, and other literary devices are based on background knowledge. For example, if we say that you “really hit the ball out of the park” after you gave a presentation to your colleagues, you would quickly understand the compliment. We know that it can't be taken literally because we know what the saying refers to. Writings are heavily dependent on metaphors and idioms. Studies (e.g., Ortony, Schallert, Reynolds, & Antos, 1978) have shown that idioms are often processed just as rapidly as literal meanings, indicating that we are constantly activating background knowledge in comprehension. Informational text tends to have a greater density of vocabulary and concepts that are directly related to students' background knowledge (Price, Bradley, & Smith, 2012). And these demands placed on background knowledge only accelerate as students progress through the grade levels. Students will be required to apply previously learned concepts to increasingly complex text. They must read, discuss, and write about topics that are conceptually more difficult, and they will need to increasingly draw on intertextual linkages across subject areas. They'll be required to provide evidence from text, show deep and thorough understanding of these concepts, and think creatively about applying these concepts in new ways. Consequently, in much of the literature in reading, we have focused on skills associated with comprehension: decoding, vocabulary development, strategy instruction, and meta cognition, among many others. But what we can see from this brief summary is that we have given very little instructional time to a skill that can play an enormous role in comprehending text. We would venture to guess that students' understanding of text is unlikely to improve unless we begin to more deliberately teach background knowledge. The question then becomes, how do we build children's background knowledge? Core reading materials often encourage us to activate, support, build on, and tie to children's existing knowledge base. But what do we do when there is no existing knowledge base?

Or when there is little to build on? If you asked us, for example, to read an elementary physics text building on our previous knowledge base of physics, you would likely see blank stares, akin to a deer in headlights. This issue becomes even more complicated in the age of Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The CCSS place a premium on the amount of background knowledge we provide to children prior to reading a text. It's not that the standards negate background knowledge or its contribution to comprehension; rather, the authors of the publishers' guidance to the CCSS emphasize close reading, developing knowledge through text, regarding the deliberate and careful analysis of text as the gateway for developing independent readers (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers,2010). Although at times, this clash of perspectives might seem like a catch-22, the problem is solvable. Teachers can effectively build children's background knowledge early on (Neuman & Wright, 2013). However, at the same time, we must recognize that knowledge is not just accumulating facts; rather, children need to develop knowledge networks, comprised of clusters of concepts that are coherent, generative, and supportive of future learning in a domain. Here's how we do it:  Begin by teaching words in categories . For example, you can try something as simple as this: “I'm going to say the following words: strawberries, bananas, papayas, pineapples . They all are a type of… (fruit).” Categories of objects begin to develop concepts, and the use of generic nouns ( fruit ) has been shown to be highly related to language and vocabulary development.  Use contrasts and comparisons. For example, you can give children puzzlers like, “Is an artichoke a type of fruit? Why is it or is it not a kind of fruit?” Puzzlers help children think outside the immediate context and consider the reasoning behind these contrasts and comparisons, which can further their understanding of categories and concepts.

 Use analogies. An analogy is another type of comparison, but this time the comparison is made between two things that are usually thought to be different from each other. Analogies help children build knowledge because they compare something new to something we already know. For example, try something like, “bird is to feather as dog is to… (fur).” Children can use similes (comparisons using the words like or as ) or metaphors (comparisons without using like or as ) to build new knowledge.  Encourage topic-focused wide reading. Reading builds knowledge, but wide reading has typically been interpreted as reading about a lot of different topics, demonstrating breadth rather than depth in reading. Try this variation: Encourage children to identify an interest and read as many books as they can on one topic. What you find is that children will develop a deeper knowledge and expertise on a topic. These interests will drive children to read more. E mbrace multimedia. We often think that direct experiences are the most compelling ways to build knowledge. As many teachers can attest, there is nothing more thrilling than watching children engage in learning through direct experiences or seeing their delight and excitement on field trips and other activities. Although it is certainly not a replacement for real- life experiences, multimedia can often provide a wealth of information that we could only wish to experience firsthand. Further, it can introduce children to important words and concepts in a highly motivating way and build a shared knowledge based among all of your students. In this study, we look at the relationship between emerging language knowledge and reading skills in the bilingual child. In particular, we investigate the role of the bilingual child’s syntactic systems in the emergence of reading readiness. Our focus is on reading comprehension and more specifically its precursor skill, listening comprehension. The comprehension of written and aural text is an area of literacy development that has received relatively little attention, especially when compared to the investigation of decoding skills. Gough and Tunmer (1986) and Tunmer and Hoover (1993) were among the first reading theorists

to identify two main areas of cognition that contribute to the ability to read and understand written text: decoding skills, consisting of the ability to identify speech sounds and link these to individual letters; and listening comprehension, which is based on the reader’s ability to recruit her mental grammar of the language and process sentences. Since syntax is a significant component in processing and at the same time a domain of language that reading researchers are only beginning to investigate, we have made it the main focus of our study. In the following section we report some of the findings on the relationship between syntax and developing reading skills in monolingual children. Conclusion Students today are faced with ever increasing demands to read and read well. The importance of teaching reading as a process and that strategy instruction

has been found to impact students’ appreciation of reading as a process, the goal of which is to understand what is being read. But the ultimate objective of comprehension instruction should be student ownership of the strategies and skills, knowing when comprehension breaks down and how to address the problem and repair the breakdown. Teaching students to use a repertoire of comprehension strategies and skills can set them securely on the path to becoming lifelong readers. Many opportunities to read independently allow students to begin to coordinate the strategies they have learned; to adjust, modify, or change strategies and skills until they are able to make sense of text. The higher order thinking of strategic readers also enhances their reading experience and responses to literature and informational text. And once students take ownership of the process, they take it one step further—they take what they know, apply it to the unknown, and become creative thinkers who are able to assess problems from the comfortable position of knowing they have the skills and can acquire the knowledge they need to solve any problem with which they are faced. In examining the various theories of reading comprehension one is struck by the proliferation of different terms, and what superficially appear to be different theories. There seems to be a tendency for researchers to coin a new term whenever they propose a new perspective on the reading comprehension process, leaving it up to the reader to discern whether and how this is different from or similar to other theories. We are beginning to integrate the reading process into larger theories of cognitive development and learning. The importance of background knowledge is especially salient in the age of Common Core. To meet the demands of these new standards, children will be expected to develop knowledge through text, both narrative and informational, within specified difficulty ranges at each grade level. Informational text, in particular, is likely to have a greater density of conceptual language and academic terms than typical storybooks or narrative texts. Consequently, these texts will place increasing demands on children's prior knowledge, further attenuating other risk factors. Without greater efforts

to enhance background knowledge, differences in children's knowledge base may further exacerbate the differences in children's vocabulary and comprehension. The imperative to foster children's background knowledge as a means for providing a firm foundation for learning, therefore, is greater than ever. Reference 1. Burt, M., Peyton, J., & Adams, R. (2003). Reading and adult English language learners: A review of the research.

2. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. 3. Burt, M. (2003). Issues in improving immigrant workers’ English language skills. 4.Florez, M. C., & Burt, M. (2001). Beginning to work with adult English language learners: Some considerations. 5. Hadley, A. O. (1993). Teaching language in context. 6. Moss, D., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2003). Second language acquisition in adults: From research to practice. 7. Birch, B. M. (2002). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. 8. Burt, M., Peyton, J. K., & Adams, R. (2003). Reading and adult English language learners: A review of the research. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 9. Eskey, D. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning . 10. Folse, K. S. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. 11. Greenberg, E., Mac н as, R. F., Rhodes, D., & Chan, T. (2001). English literacy and DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

12. Hadley, A. O. (1993). Teaching language in context. 13. Hood, S., Solomon, N., & Burns, A. (1996). Focus on reading. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. 14. Kruidenier, J. (2002). Research-based principles for adult basic education reading instruction. 15. Nation, I. M. P. (2000). Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines. 16. Nation, I. M. P. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary, Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning . 17. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw Hill. 18. Chomsky, C. (1969). The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge. 19. Clarke, M. (1979). Reading in English and Spanish: Evidence from adults ESL students. Language Learning, 29 , 121-150. 20. Cox, (1976, May). A study of the syntactic competence of adult beginning readers .

Похожие

Efficient ways in teaching writing in esl classesfor b1 level students

Designing vocabulary tasks for beginners of English as a second language

Teaching English for Specific Purposes in the tourism sphere

Developing reading comprehencion through defferent classroom technics for B1 level learners

Implementing effective techniques for developing efl learners’ listening skills