nguyenkhoi_9vn8
New Member
Download Luận văn What are the reading strategies employed by readers among TBU ethnic minority junior first-Year English-majored students
Questionnaires are printed forms for data collection, which include questions or statements to which the subject is expected to respond, often anonymously. Questions can range from those that ask for yes-no responses or indication of frequency (e.g. 'never', 'seldom', 'sometime', 'often' and 'always') to less structured questions asking respondents to describe or discuss language learning behavior in detail. It is believed that surveys are the most commonly used descriptive method in educational research. There are a few advantages to use survey questionnaire as a research method. "The main attraction of questionnaires is their unprecedented efficiency in terms of (a) researcher time, (b) researcher effort, and (c) financial resources." (Zoltan Dornyei, 2003: 9). In the history of learning strategy research, "the most frequently used method for identifying students' learning strategies is through questionnaires." (Chamot, 2005). As Selinger and Shohany (1989) pointed out, questionnaires have the following advantages. Firstly, they do not take so much time to administer as other procedures. Secondly, since the same questionnaire is given to all subjects at the same time, the data are more uniform, standard and accurate. Lastly, questionnaires can be easily quantified because multiple choice questions are used. Because of these advantages, I have used questionnaires as a main data collection method in my study. The questionnaire used in this study consists of two main parts. The first part required the subjects to give information about their names, ages, genders, the number of years learning English, their English certificates (if available) and their self-evaluated English proficiency levels. The second part contains 17 questions mainly about the participants' reading strategies and some questions about their views on reading comprehension.
Để tải bản DOC Đầy Đủ xin Trả lời bài viết này, Mods sẽ gửi Link download cho bạn sớm nhất qua hòm tin nhắn.
Ai cần download tài liệu gì mà không tìm thấy ở đây, thì đăng yêu cầu down tại đây nhé:
Nhận download tài liệu miễn phí
* Keep the meaning of the passage in mind
* read in broad phrases
* skip inessential words
* guess from context the meaning of unknown words
* have a good self-concept as a reader
* identify the grammatical category of words
* demonstrate sensitivity to a different word order
* examine illustrations
* read the title and make inferences from it
* use orthographic information (e.g. capitalization)
* refer to the side glossary
* use the glossary as the last resort
* look up words correctly
* continue if unsuccessful at decoding a word or a phrase
* recognize cognates
* use their knowledge of the world
* follow through with a proposed solution to a problem
* evaluate their guesses.
Poor readers, on the other hand, translated sentences and lost the general meaning of the passage, rarely skipped words or looked up unknown words in a glossary and had a poor concept as a reader. While these results clearly described the strategies the students used to process the text, they did not link the strategy use to comprehension of specific paragraphs or to text as whole. The data only focused on sentence level comprehension so the results of the study did not reveal overall comprehension of the entire text.
A decade later, Block's (1986) study compared the reading comprehension strategies used by native English speakers and ESL students who were enrolled in remedial reading course at the university level and she connected these behaviors to comprehension. The participants were identified as non-proficient readers because they failed a college reading proficiency test before they study. Subjects read two exploratory passages selected from an introductory psychology textbook, and were asked to think aloud while they reading (they reported after each sentence). After reading and retelling each passage, the participants answered twenty multiple choice comprehension questions. Block developed a scheme to classify strategies that consisted of two types: general strategies and local strategies. General strategies included the following behaviors: anticipate content, recognize text structure, integrate information, question information, distinguish main ideas, interpret the text, use general knowledge and associations to background, comment on behavior or process, monitor comprehension, correct behavior, focused on textual meaning as a whole, and react to the text. Local strategies were: paraphrase, reread, question meaning of a clause or a sentence, question meaning of a word and solve a vocabulary problem. Of the 9 ESL students in the study, the readers with higher comprehension scores on the retelling and the multiple choice questions integrated new information in the text with old information, distinguish main ideas from details, referred to their background and focused on textual meaning as a whole. This means they all employed "general strategies". On the other hand, readers with low comprehension scores rarely distinguished main ideas from details, rarely referred to their background, infrequently focused on textual meaning and seldom integrated information.
Sarig (1987) investigated the contribution of L1 reading strategies and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading, as well as the relationship between L1 and L2 reading strategies. Sarig's subjects were 10 female native Hebrew readers who were studying English as a foreign language. Sarig classified the data from think-aloud reports into four general types of behaviors or responses: (1) technical aids, (2) clarification and simplification, (3) coherence detection and (4) monitoring moves. Sarig's results revealed that subjects transferred strategies from L1 reading to L2 reading and that the same reading strategy types "accounted for success and failures in both languages to almost the same extent" (Sarig, 1987: 118). Top-down, global strategies led to both successful and unsuccessful reading comprehension. The two language dependent strategies, the clarification and simplification strategies contributed to unsuccessful reading comprehension in both L1 and L2. Results also indicated that most of the strategies used during the reading comprehension process were particular to each reader or that each individual read differently and used a different combination of strategies. These results do not duplicate Block's (1986) where global strategies led to successful (not unsuccessful) reading comprehension.
Some studies have shown that better readers are also better strategy users. Carrel (1989) for example, conducted a study to investigate the metacognitive awareness of second language reader strategies in both their first and second language and the relationship between this awareness and their comprehension. Her first group of subjects was native Spanish speakers of intermediate and high-intermediate levels studying English as a second language at a university level institute. Her second group consisted of native English speakers learning Spanish as a foreign language in first, second and third-year courses. Carrel first asked subjects to read two texts, one in L1 and one in L2. She controlled for content schemata as both texts were on a general topic of language. The subjects answered multiple choice comprehension questions about the text followed by a strategy use questionnaire. Carrel correlated strategy use with comprehension and concluded that the ESL readers of more advanced proficiency level perceived "global" or top-down strategies as more effective. With the Spanish as a L2 group, she found that at the lower proficiency levels, subjects used more bottom-up or "local" strategies.
The last study mentioned here was conducted by Block (1992). He investigated the comprehension monitoring process used by first and second language readers of English. The subjects were 25 college freshmen and consisted of proficient and non-proficient readers of English. While reading an expository text, the participants were asked to think aloud or more specifically, to "say everything they understood and everything they were thinking as they read each sentence" (Block, 1992: 323). The results indicated that when facing a vocabulary problem, proficient ESL readers used background knowledge, decided on whether the word contributed to the overall meaning of the passage, reread the sentence and used syntactic clues. The meaning-based strategies are classified as global behaviors. On the other hand, non-proficient ESL readers focused on identifying lexical problems and did little to figure out the meaning of the words.
From the above findings of research in reading strategies, it becomes clear that there are indeed differences between successful or good readers and less successful or poor readers in terms of strategy use. Overall, more proficient readers combine both top-down and bottom-up strategies in reading but tend to use more top-down strategies than bottom-up ones. Specifically, they exhibit the following types of reading behaviors:
* overview text before reading
* employ context clues such as title, subheadings and diagrams
* look for important information while reading and pay great attention to it than
other information
* attempt to relate important points in text to one another in order to understand
the text as a whole
* activate and use prior knowledge to interpret text
* reconsider and revise hypothesis about the meaning of the text based on text
content
* attempt to infer information from the text
* attempt to identify or infer the meaning of words not understood or recognized
* monitor text comprehension
* use strategies to remember text (paraphrasing, repetition, making notes,
summarizing, self-questioning etc)
* understand relationship between parts of text and recognize text structure
* change reading strategies when comprehension is perceived not be proceeding
smoothly
* evaluate the qualities of text
* reflect on and process additionally after a part has been read and anticipate or plan for the use of knowledge gained from the reading. (Hosenfield 1977; Block 1986; Carrel 1986)
While this list is not priotized or complete, it helps provide a description of the characteristics of successful readers and serves as an important foundation for more research into reading.
However, a gap that can be found in these studies on reading strategies is that few resea...
Download miễn phí Luận văn What are the reading strategies employed by readers among TBU ethnic minority junior first-Year English-majored students
Questionnaires are printed forms for data collection, which include questions or statements to which the subject is expected to respond, often anonymously. Questions can range from those that ask for yes-no responses or indication of frequency (e.g. 'never', 'seldom', 'sometime', 'often' and 'always') to less structured questions asking respondents to describe or discuss language learning behavior in detail. It is believed that surveys are the most commonly used descriptive method in educational research. There are a few advantages to use survey questionnaire as a research method. "The main attraction of questionnaires is their unprecedented efficiency in terms of (a) researcher time, (b) researcher effort, and (c) financial resources." (Zoltan Dornyei, 2003: 9). In the history of learning strategy research, "the most frequently used method for identifying students' learning strategies is through questionnaires." (Chamot, 2005). As Selinger and Shohany (1989) pointed out, questionnaires have the following advantages. Firstly, they do not take so much time to administer as other procedures. Secondly, since the same questionnaire is given to all subjects at the same time, the data are more uniform, standard and accurate. Lastly, questionnaires can be easily quantified because multiple choice questions are used. Because of these advantages, I have used questionnaires as a main data collection method in my study. The questionnaire used in this study consists of two main parts. The first part required the subjects to give information about their names, ages, genders, the number of years learning English, their English certificates (if available) and their self-evaluated English proficiency levels. The second part contains 17 questions mainly about the participants' reading strategies and some questions about their views on reading comprehension.
Để tải bản DOC Đầy Đủ xin Trả lời bài viết này, Mods sẽ gửi Link download cho bạn sớm nhất qua hòm tin nhắn.
Ai cần download tài liệu gì mà không tìm thấy ở đây, thì đăng yêu cầu down tại đây nhé:
Nhận download tài liệu miễn phí
Tóm tắt nội dung:
ed to process written texts. Participants were ninth grade students who were learning French. Before conducting her study, she classified readers based on a test of L2 reading. Then, in an oral interview, participants were asked to read a text and do think-aloud reports (that is, she directed them to say in their first language whatever came to their mind while processing each sentence in the text). Hosenfield found out that the successful readers used the following kinds of strategies (1977: 233-4):* Keep the meaning of the passage in mind
* read in broad phrases
* skip inessential words
* guess from context the meaning of unknown words
* have a good self-concept as a reader
* identify the grammatical category of words
* demonstrate sensitivity to a different word order
* examine illustrations
* read the title and make inferences from it
* use orthographic information (e.g. capitalization)
* refer to the side glossary
* use the glossary as the last resort
* look up words correctly
* continue if unsuccessful at decoding a word or a phrase
* recognize cognates
* use their knowledge of the world
* follow through with a proposed solution to a problem
* evaluate their guesses.
Poor readers, on the other hand, translated sentences and lost the general meaning of the passage, rarely skipped words or looked up unknown words in a glossary and had a poor concept as a reader. While these results clearly described the strategies the students used to process the text, they did not link the strategy use to comprehension of specific paragraphs or to text as whole. The data only focused on sentence level comprehension so the results of the study did not reveal overall comprehension of the entire text.
A decade later, Block's (1986) study compared the reading comprehension strategies used by native English speakers and ESL students who were enrolled in remedial reading course at the university level and she connected these behaviors to comprehension. The participants were identified as non-proficient readers because they failed a college reading proficiency test before they study. Subjects read two exploratory passages selected from an introductory psychology textbook, and were asked to think aloud while they reading (they reported after each sentence). After reading and retelling each passage, the participants answered twenty multiple choice comprehension questions. Block developed a scheme to classify strategies that consisted of two types: general strategies and local strategies. General strategies included the following behaviors: anticipate content, recognize text structure, integrate information, question information, distinguish main ideas, interpret the text, use general knowledge and associations to background, comment on behavior or process, monitor comprehension, correct behavior, focused on textual meaning as a whole, and react to the text. Local strategies were: paraphrase, reread, question meaning of a clause or a sentence, question meaning of a word and solve a vocabulary problem. Of the 9 ESL students in the study, the readers with higher comprehension scores on the retelling and the multiple choice questions integrated new information in the text with old information, distinguish main ideas from details, referred to their background and focused on textual meaning as a whole. This means they all employed "general strategies". On the other hand, readers with low comprehension scores rarely distinguished main ideas from details, rarely referred to their background, infrequently focused on textual meaning and seldom integrated information.
Sarig (1987) investigated the contribution of L1 reading strategies and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading, as well as the relationship between L1 and L2 reading strategies. Sarig's subjects were 10 female native Hebrew readers who were studying English as a foreign language. Sarig classified the data from think-aloud reports into four general types of behaviors or responses: (1) technical aids, (2) clarification and simplification, (3) coherence detection and (4) monitoring moves. Sarig's results revealed that subjects transferred strategies from L1 reading to L2 reading and that the same reading strategy types "accounted for success and failures in both languages to almost the same extent" (Sarig, 1987: 118). Top-down, global strategies led to both successful and unsuccessful reading comprehension. The two language dependent strategies, the clarification and simplification strategies contributed to unsuccessful reading comprehension in both L1 and L2. Results also indicated that most of the strategies used during the reading comprehension process were particular to each reader or that each individual read differently and used a different combination of strategies. These results do not duplicate Block's (1986) where global strategies led to successful (not unsuccessful) reading comprehension.
Some studies have shown that better readers are also better strategy users. Carrel (1989) for example, conducted a study to investigate the metacognitive awareness of second language reader strategies in both their first and second language and the relationship between this awareness and their comprehension. Her first group of subjects was native Spanish speakers of intermediate and high-intermediate levels studying English as a second language at a university level institute. Her second group consisted of native English speakers learning Spanish as a foreign language in first, second and third-year courses. Carrel first asked subjects to read two texts, one in L1 and one in L2. She controlled for content schemata as both texts were on a general topic of language. The subjects answered multiple choice comprehension questions about the text followed by a strategy use questionnaire. Carrel correlated strategy use with comprehension and concluded that the ESL readers of more advanced proficiency level perceived "global" or top-down strategies as more effective. With the Spanish as a L2 group, she found that at the lower proficiency levels, subjects used more bottom-up or "local" strategies.
The last study mentioned here was conducted by Block (1992). He investigated the comprehension monitoring process used by first and second language readers of English. The subjects were 25 college freshmen and consisted of proficient and non-proficient readers of English. While reading an expository text, the participants were asked to think aloud or more specifically, to "say everything they understood and everything they were thinking as they read each sentence" (Block, 1992: 323). The results indicated that when facing a vocabulary problem, proficient ESL readers used background knowledge, decided on whether the word contributed to the overall meaning of the passage, reread the sentence and used syntactic clues. The meaning-based strategies are classified as global behaviors. On the other hand, non-proficient ESL readers focused on identifying lexical problems and did little to figure out the meaning of the words.
From the above findings of research in reading strategies, it becomes clear that there are indeed differences between successful or good readers and less successful or poor readers in terms of strategy use. Overall, more proficient readers combine both top-down and bottom-up strategies in reading but tend to use more top-down strategies than bottom-up ones. Specifically, they exhibit the following types of reading behaviors:
* overview text before reading
* employ context clues such as title, subheadings and diagrams
* look for important information while reading and pay great attention to it than
other information
* attempt to relate important points in text to one another in order to understand
the text as a whole
* activate and use prior knowledge to interpret text
* reconsider and revise hypothesis about the meaning of the text based on text
content
* attempt to infer information from the text
* attempt to identify or infer the meaning of words not understood or recognized
* monitor text comprehension
* use strategies to remember text (paraphrasing, repetition, making notes,
summarizing, self-questioning etc)
* understand relationship between parts of text and recognize text structure
* change reading strategies when comprehension is perceived not be proceeding
smoothly
* evaluate the qualities of text
* reflect on and process additionally after a part has been read and anticipate or plan for the use of knowledge gained from the reading. (Hosenfield 1977; Block 1986; Carrel 1986)
While this list is not priotized or complete, it helps provide a description of the characteristics of successful readers and serves as an important foundation for more research into reading.
However, a gap that can be found in these studies on reading strategies is that few resea...