C 2002 Shen

User Manual: C-2002

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 14

http://eflt.nus.edu.sg/

ElectronicJournalofForeignLanguageTeaching

2007,Vol.4,No.1,pp.108–121

©CentreforLanguageStudies

NationalUniversityofSingapore

CollaborativeActionResearch for

ReadingStrategyInstruction:ACaseinTaiwan

MingYuehShen

(myshen@nfu.edu.tw)

NationalFormosaUniversity,TaiwanR.O.C.

YuehKueyHuang

(ykhuang@mail.tku.edu.tw)

Tamkang University,TaiwanR.O.C.

Abstract

EFL learners’ low engagement in reading class and poor reading proficiency has been a longlasting and

widespread problem challenging English teachers in Taiwan. This report of a collaborative action research

project involving a teacherresearcher, a teaching assistant, and fortysix students, focused on how action

researchhelpstheteacherresearchertoseeksolutionstotheproblemandonhowtheapproachfacilitatesthe

learningofreadingstrategiesbystudents.Thegeneraldesignofthisstudywasbasedontheconceptsofindi

vidual differences, the actionresearch process– posing a question, planning,taking action, observing, and

reflecting –as well as diagnostic teaching. Data were collected through a number of instruments: pre and

postassessment of reading comprehensionand strategies, classroom observation field notes written by the

assistant, reflective learning journal entries, and semistructured interviews. Data analysis involved three

stages:organizingthedata,codingthedata,andanalyzingandinterpretingthedata.Resultsrevealthelearn

ers’ development in their use of reading strategies, better selfimages, and more positive attitudes toward

learning.Thisstudysuggeststhatcollaborativeactionresearch canbringaboutchangeintheclassroomby

givingteachersagreaterbreadthanddepthinunderstandingtheirownpedagogicalpracticeandcanleadtoa

more meaningful learning environment for learners. However, given certain limitations and difficulties in

effectingchangeinteachingandlearning,teachersandstudentsshouldmoderateanyexpectationsofachiev

ingrapidsuccess.

1 Introduction

Lowselfesteemandengagementinlearninghasbeenalonglastingandwidespreadproblem

among students in Taiwan, particularly among those in technical universities

1

. One of the chal

lengesfacingteachersishowtomotivatestudentstobecomeinvolvedinthelearningprocess.In

anattempttosolvetheprobleminatraditionallargesizeclass,theteacherresearcherdecidedto

implementamethodologicalapproachinclasswhichwouldbemoreengagingandmoreeffective

in gettingstudentstoparticipateintheirreadingclass.Thecoursewasdesignedinline withthe

teacherresearcher’s belief thatstudentsneedtotakeastrategicapproachtoreading,shouldpar

ticipate actively in class, and should keep themselves informed about what and how they are

learning.Thisshiftinherteachingattitudesandbeliefsopensthedoorforanewapproachtoher

CollaborativeActionResearchforReadingStrategyInstruction:ACaseinTaiwan 109

readingclass:readingstrategyinstructioninacollaborativeway.

Researchersofsecond/foreignlanguagereadinghavelongrecognizedtheimportanceofread

ingstrategies(Brantmeier,2002;Carrell,1985,1989;Janzen,1996;Slataci&Akyel,2002;Song,

1998).Theycontendthatstrategyuseisdifferentinmoreandlessproficientreaders,whousethe

strategiesindifferentways(Carrell,1989;Janzen,1996).Moreover,ithasbeenacknowledgedthat

readingstrategiescanbetaughtandthatreadingstrategyinstructioncanbenefitallstudents(Carol,

2002;Carrell,1989;Janzen,1996).Thisbodyofliteratureonreadingresearchprovidesthetheo

reticalframeworkforthisstudy.

However,althoughavastnumberofthestudiesinreadingstrategytraininghavesuggesteda

widevarietyofreadingstrategiestobetaught,fewofthemhavebeenconductedwithclasseswith

alargesizeandstudentsofdiverseabilities.ClassesinschoolsinAsiancountriesmayhavefifty

ormorestudentsofdifferentproficiencylevels.Therearesomeproblemsconnectedwithworking

with students ofdifferentlevelsofabilityinalargeclass.Oneof theproblems isthattheclass

roomteachermightdesigncoursesattheexpenseofparticulargroupsoflearners,e.g.thehigher

orlowerachievers.Itisalsodifficulttocoverteachingmaterialsataratethatisappropriatetothe

morecompetentstudentswithoutneglectingthelesscapableones.

Agrowingbodyofresearchsuggeststhatonewaytoimproveteachingandlearninginschools

istoinvolveteachersindoingresearchintheirownclassrooms(DarlingHammond&McLaugh

lin,1995;Herndon,1994;Lieberman,1995).Theregularclassroomteacherastheproviderofin

structionhelpstoexploremorethoroughlyhowreadingstrategiescanbeintegratedintotheregu

larreadingclass.Theteacherresearchercangainanemic(‘insider’)viewofclassrooms(Freeman,

1998)inadditiontotheetic(‘outsider’)perceptionsthataresearcherusuallytakes.Teachers,may,

asCohen(1998)proposes,assumetherolesofdiagnostician,learners,coachers,coordinators,lan

guagelearnersandresearchers.Theinvestigationintoclassroomteachinghelpsteacherstoexam

inewhatthey doasteacherresearchers,howtheworkisstructuredandhowtheycarryitoutona

daily basis,whysomethingworksordoesnot workforthelearners,andhowinlargeand small

waystheworkcanbedonedifferentlyorbetter(Freeman,1998).

Diagnostic teachingrepresentsonemeansofdealingwiththeproblemsdescribed,arisingfrom

thepracticalteachingsituation,byhelpinglearnersidentifythestrengthsandweaknessesandthus

facilitatingtheirlearning.Furthertodiagnosticteaching,Walker(2003)suggeststhataneffective

teachermakesinstructionaldecisionsbefore, during,andafterthereadingevent.Intheroleofa

diagnosticteacher,theteacherresearcherusesassessmentandinstructionatthesametimetoes

tablishtheinstructionalconditionsthatenhancelearning.Indoingso,theteacherneedstobesen

sitivetoindividualdifferences,ascertainedthroughpreteachingassessment,andtoidentifylearn

ers’problems,adjusttheinstruction,andmonitortheimprovementinbothteachingandlearning

(Walker,2003).

Thisarticlealsopresentsthekeyconceptofcollaborativeteachingbecauseteachingitselfcan

be veryisolatedandthe teachingjob has becomeincreasingly demandingandcomplexwiththe

teacherencounteringproblemssuchasphysicalconstraints,theinabilitytodevotesufficientindi

vidualattentiontostudents’needs,andachievinglearningeffectiveness.Workingwithotherscan

beasuperbwaytoinitiate,manage,andsustainone’steachingcommitmentbecauseitencourages

collaborativereflection,asCaroBruce(2000)suggests.

This article will describe an action research project for reading strategy instruction that was

developedbasedonsomeoftheprinciplesofdiagnosticteachingaswellascollaborativeteaching

andlearning.Italsogivesanaccountofhowtheteacherresearcherreflectedonherteachingand

modifiedher teachingmethodsbasedonherassistant’sfieldnotes,followedbya description of

thechangesinstudents’readingstrategyuseandtheirattitudestowardlearning.

2 Collaborativeactionresearchforreadingstrategyinstruction

2.1 Thestudentparticipants

Theparticipantswerefortysixfirstyearstudentsinthenightprogramofatechnicaluniversity

MingYuehShen andYuehKueyHuang110

inTaiwanenrolledinthereadingclassinthesecondsemesterofacademicyear2006.Bytechnical

universitylearners,IrefertothosestudentsintheTaiwanesetechnologicalandvocationaleduca

tionsystem,whoaregenerallyconsideredtoberelativelyinadequateintermsofvocabularysize,

grammar knowledge, and strategy use (Joe, 1995; Lin, 1995; Ou, 1997). They have arelatively

lowlearningmotivation,andarelessproficientandweakerinacademicperformance,whencom

pared to the learners in general universities (Joe, 1995). The students in the night program are

parttimestudentswhogenerallyhavealowerselfesteemandpoorerlanguageproficiency,com

paredtothoseatthedayprogram.Mostofthementereduniversityforthepurposeofobtaininga

diploma.

2.2 The teacherresearcher’sexperiencesintheEFLreadingclass

During reading classes in the first semester,the teacherresearcher (also the class instructor)

hadbeenannoyedbythemoansandgroansofstudentswhenreadingassignmentsweregiven.She

wasastonishedto findthatstudentslaboriously lookedup everydifficult word inthedictionary

and were unable to draw inference or to guess the meaning of unknown words. The

teacherresearchernotedthatherstudentswerequiteunpreparedtodealwithlongerreadingtexts,

withouttheabilitytounderstandthemainideaorknowledgeofotherreadingstrategies.

Inresponsetotheabovementionedproblems,theteacherresearcherwasdeterminedtochange

thesituationinthesecondsemester.Thegeneraldesignofthisprojectisbasedonthekeyconcept

ofcollaborativeactionresearch,whichinvolvesworkingtogetherwithanotherteachingpractitio

ner,her assistant. On the basis of the assistant’s regular class observations, the teacherresearch

discussed,reflected, andmademodificationstothe course,withtheaimof creatingamorepro

ductiveandpleasantreadingclass.

2.3 Instructional program

This section outlines how the teacherresearcher attempted to deal with her students with

lowesteem and diverse proficiency levels in her reading class. This project was conducted in

sevenphases,asshowninFigure1.

Thegoalwastoprovideacollaborativeclassroomenvironmentinwhichteacherandstudents,

as well as students and students, can work together and support each another, while remaining

aware of their individual differences. The flow chart in Figure 1 presents and summarizes the

readingstrategyinstructionprogram,adaptedfromLin’s(2003)actionresearchprocess.

CollaborativeActionResearchforReadingStrategyInstruction:ACaseinTaiwan 111

Fig.1:Concept flowchartforcollaborativeactionresearchproject

· Preassessment/diagnosing

Thefirstphaseof thisresearchwasdiagnosis.Traditional strategy instruction emphasizes

what strategies to teach, and how and when to use these strategies (Winograd & Hare,

1988). In the current study, an understanding of the learners’ backgrounds and needs

formedtheprerequisiteforthefollowupteaching.Allthelearnerswererequiredtowrite

theirfirstjournal describingtheirlearningbackgrounds,beliefs towardsreadingandtheir

learningdifficulties.Moreover,aDiagnosticReadingAssessment

2 (Yang,2004)wasused

todiagnosethestudents’abilitiesinreadingskillsandtoidentifytheirstrengthsandweak

nessesinreading.

· Recognizingtheproblems&raisingthequestions

Theteacherresearcherandherassistantanalyzedthestudents’ preassessmentandreflec

tive learning journal entries. They discussed the data, identified the students’ needs and

learning difficulties, and then provided evidence of the critical components of student

learning for each student.Inclass,theresultsof thepreassessment(diagnostic test)were

given to the students, and the teacherresearcher explained what each item meant. Using

this individual assessment report (Appendix I), each student was made aware of his/her

ownweaknessesandstrengthsintheuseofreadingstrategies.Accordingly,he/shebecame

cleareraboutthelearninggoalshe/sheneedstopursue,i.e.whichspecificstrategieshe/she

needs/doesn’tneed to pay more attention to. Another classdata sheet (Appendix II) was

usedtotracelearner’sgrowthandprovidedvaluableinformationfortheteacherresearcher.

· Actionplanning– selectingstrategiesforinstruction

Thelessonplanswerecarefullydesignedaccordingtotheresultsofthepreassessment(i.e.

the Diagnostic Reading Assessment and the preteaching journals) (Appendix III). They

were developed through collaborative discussions between the teacherresearcher andher

assistant.Theteacherresearcherconsideredwaysofsolvingthelearners’problemsandde

velopedmorelearningopportunitiesforthem.

MingYuehShen andYuehKueyHuang112

· Reflecting

Usingtheteachingchecklist(AppendixIV),resultsofquizzes,followupdiscussionswith

the observer (the assistant), and individual interviews with low achievers, the teacher

selfevaluatedtheteachingprocess andthecourse arrangementby examiningwhetherthe

outcome is positive and if the course meets the learners’ needs. Constant reflection was

conducted after Action Planning, during the process of evaluating and modifying. Addi

tionally,thestudentswererequiredtokeepreflectivelearningjournalsatthebeginningand

attheendofthesemester.Bywritingthelearningjournals,thestudentshadopportunities

torecallwhatstrategiestheyhadlearnedandhowwelltheyhadlearnedthem.

· Modifying

The instructional skills were modified and adjusted based on an analysis of the

midassessment data (i.e. quizzes, observations) in order to maximize student learning.

Basedontheanalysis,theteacherresearcherandresearcherassistantalsohelddiscussions

with each student in a teacherstudent conference concerning the learning problems and

possiblewaystoachievemoreeffectivelearning.

· Evaluating

Thefinalphasewasdevotedtothedescriptionofthefinalassessmentandtheanalysisof

thedata.Ananalysisoftheongoingobservations,reflectivejournalentriesaswellasre

sponsesininterviewsandtoastrategyquestionnaireprovidedthebasisoftheresults.The

dataanalysisalsoincludedtheanalysisofthepostassessmentusingtheDiagnosticRead

ingAssessment.Thepracticeofcollaborativeteachingandlearningchallengedteachersin

two ways. Oneof the challengesarisesfromthefact thatexpectationshadtobe different

fordifferentindividualswithintheclass.Inaddition,thelessoncontentandthepaceofde

livery mayhavetobeadjusted.The styleofteachingmayneedadjustmentsaswell.One

way to look at assessment on an individual basis is to measure progress (Appendix II)

ratherthancumulativeknowledge.Ausefultoolherewastheuseofthepreassessmentto

helpdetermineastartingpoint.Usingthediagnosticpreassessment(AppendixI)asabase,

achievementwasmonitoredandprogresswastraced.Anotherassessmenttoolwasthestu

dents’ selfassessment. When students are involved in the assessment process, they can

cometoseetheirownprogressandthemselvesascompetentlearners.

· Finalreflection&reportingtheoutcome

Theteacherresearcherreflectedonhowtheimplementationoftheactionresearchaffected

students’learningandsoughttoinvestigatehowtheresultscouldbegeneralizedtosimilar

populations.Shemadeconclusionsabouttheactionresearchwithregardtostudents’over

allacademicgrowthandreflectedonhowtheseconclusionswouldimpacttheplanningand

instructionforthefollowingyear.

3 Findings

3.1 Teacher’s changesininstructionalapproach

Inthefollowingisadescriptionoftheactionplanning,reflectionsandmodificationsthattook

placeinthecourseofthecollaborativeactionresearchprojectforreadingstrategyinstruction.

3.1.1 Recognizingthe problems&actionplanning

After the diagnosticpreassessment,theteacherresearcherdiscussedwithherteachingassis

tant and decided what strategies should be emphasized. Taking into account the results of the

preassessment (as shown in Table 1), they decided to pay more attention to such strategies as

paraphrasing, solving vocabulary problems, connecting text to background knowledge, posing

questions,syntacticanalysis,internalconsistency,andprepositionalcohesiveness.Thesestrategies

wereidentifiedbecausethepercentageofcorrectresponsesforthesestrategieswasbelow60per

CollaborativeActionResearchforReadingStrategyInstruction:ACaseinTaiwan 113

centofthetotalparticipants,indicatingthatstudentshadweaknessesintheuseofthesestrategies.

Other important reading strategies, such as predicting, skimming for main idea, scanning, and

summarizingwerealsointroduced.

3.1.2 Modifying

The first observation note showed that the teacherresearcher was trying to avoid a gram

martranslationapproachbyattemptingtointroducethestrategyofpredictioninreadinganarticle

aboutthehistoryofkeepingtime.However,shefeltfrustratedtofindherstudentsdidnotrespond

tothestrategy ofpredictionasquicklyasshehadhoped.Thestudentswereunfamiliar withthe

class.Theythusremainedquietandseldomgavearesponse.

Using the field notes and after a followup discussion with the teaching assistant, the

teacherresearchermodifiedherteachingmethod.Tofacilitatethelearningofthepredictionstrat

egy, shemodeled the use of the prediction strategy with thehelp of a powerpoint presentation.

Shealso chosean articleabout findinga ‘Mr./Ms. Right’to stimulatestudents’learningmotiva

tion.

Todevelopthestudents’readingfluency,scanningwastaughtfollowingthepredictionstrategy.

Theteacherresearchermodeledhow onecanquicklyscanatextinsteadofreadingeverysingle

word.Then, the students were asked to practice reading paragraphs in their textbook using this

strategy.Asthesecondobservationnotereveals,

Theatmosphereoftoday’sclassisquiteinteractivebecauseofthedailylifeissue.Thestudentswere

highlyinterestedinthisclass.

However, the teacherresearcher was alarmed by the interviews with some less capable stu

dentswhofounditdifficulttobreaktheiroldhabitsbasedonatraditionalreadingapproach,i.e.

reading wordbyword and lookingup every difficult word. They felt the scanning strategy was

usefulbutwereannoyedathavingtofindthemainideaswithinaparagraph.Duringthefollowing

class period, the teacherresearcher achieved some success by employing a “new” method. The

teacher presentedthemainideaswithinaparagraphusingaguidedapproach.Theuseofmulti

plechoiceandfillintheblanksitemsmadethetaskeasiertounderstand.

Judging by the ongoing quizzes before the midterm evaluation, the teacherresearcher was

concernedthatthetestresultswouldadverselyaffectthestudents’learningmotivation.Believing

that the feeling of success will propel studentsto learn further, the teacherresearcher asked her

assistanttohelpthemreviewwhatwascovered,includingvocabularyandthereadingstrategies.

Shealsosloweddownalittlefortheremainderofthesemesterandtriedtoreinforcethestrategies

alreadyintroducedthroughfurtheractivitiesandexercises.Subsequently,sheintroducedthecom

prehension monitoring strategy, which was apparently a difficult strategy for the students, as

showninTable1.

Tohelpstudentstothinkabouttheirreadingprocess,theteachermodeledthestrategyofpos

ingquestionsthroughathinkaloudprocess.Afteraguidedpractice,somestudentswereinvitedto

ask questions, while othersanswered them.The exchangebetween theteacher and the students,

andbetween students and students,madetheclass moreinteractive. Asthelast observationnote

indicates,

…Theatmosphereoftheclassroominteractioniswarmandfun.Thestudentswerewellbehavedand

cooperativeinthelearningprocess.

MingYuehShen andYuehKueyHuang114

3.2 Changesinlearners’classperformance

3.2.1 Overallimprovementinreadingstrategyuse

Table 1indicates the students’ overall performance for eachreading strategy in the preand

postassessments.Thepercentageofcorrectnesshadbeenlowforsuchstrategiesasparaphrasing,

solving word problems, connecting text with prior knowledge, posing questions, and syntactic

analysis,providinganindicationthattheyhadweaknessesinusingthesestrategiestocomprehend

thereadingpassages.Throughtheemphasis givenby theteacherresearcherandthe assistanton

thesestrategies,thestudentsachieved progressinmostof theidentifiedcategories,althoughthe

percentageincreaseswerenottremendous.AsshowninTable1,thepercentageofcorrectnessin

creasedfrom 54%to58%forparaphrasing,from51%to58%for solvingvocabularyproblems,

and from 51% to 60% for using prior knowledge. An increase was also established for posing

questionsandsyntacticanalysis,resultingprobablyfromtheemphasisonthesetwostrategiesafter

thepreassessment.However,theanalysisdidnotfindprogressintheuseofthestrategiesofin

ternalconsistencyandpropositionalcohesiveness.Thestudentsshowedlessprogressformonitor

ingcomprehension,comparedwithmostotherstrategies.

I. Local strategies: dealing with

basiclinguisticunits

Percentageofcorrectness–

preassessment

Percentageofcorrect

ness–

Postassessment

Paraphrasing 54% 58%

Rereading 82% 80%

Solvingthevocabularyproblem 51% 58%

Recognizingtextstructure 73% 75%

Interpretinginformation 72% 72%

Connectingtextwithpriorknowl

edge

51% 60%

II.Comprehensionmonitoring

Monitoringcomprehension 62% 64%

Posingquestions 41% 49%

III.Discourselevel

Syntacticanalysis 41% 50%

Internalconsistency 58% 56%

Propositionalcohesiveness 59% 58%

Structuralcohesiveness(thematic

compatibility)

73% 75%

Note: Percentageofcorrectnessisdefinedastheproportionofcorrectanswerstothetotalnumberofpartici

pants.Thepercentageofcorrectnessis54%forparaphrasingbecause25outof46studentsgavecorrectre

sponsesfortheitemforthisstrategy.

Table1:Comparisonofoverallpercentagesofcorrectnessforvarioustypesofreadingstrategiesin

thepre andpostassessment

3.2.2 Lessskilledlearners’individualdevelopmentinreadingstrategyuse

Toexaminewhetherthediagnosisandcollaborativeteachinghelpedthelessskilledlearnersin

theclass,thisstudylookedatstudents’individualperformancesinthepreassessment.Theywere

defined as “less skilled” if they obtained a reading score below 50% (i.e. 10 correct out of 20

items)inthepreassessment.Table2presentsthesixlessproficientlearners’scoresforbothpre

and postassessment.Mostofthesestudentsshowedan improvementinreadingcomprehension,

althoughtheincreasewasslight.Theresultsseemtoindicatethatthehighertheproficiencyofthe

CollaborativeActionResearchforReadingStrategyInstruction:ACaseinTaiwan 115

studentswas,themoreamenabletheyweretotheinstruction.Thosewhoperformedbetterinthe

preassessment,i.e.studentsC,D,andE,alsohadhigherscoresinthepostassessment.

Students A B C D E F

Preassessment 5(25%) 5(25%) 6(30%) 6(30%) 7(35%) 5(25%)

Postassessment 8(40%) 6(30%) 10(50%) 8(40%) 10(50%) 6(30%)

Note. The fullscore for reading comprehension is 20. Thesix students(A~F) were defined as less skilled

basedontheirpreassessmentscoresthatwerefarbelow50%correct.

Table2:Sixlessskilledlearners’performanceonreadingcomprehension

Further analysis of the reflective journal entries from the six lessskilled students indicates

several positive responses. In spite of the slight progress made between the pre and

postassessments,mostofthemreporteddevelopmentinidentifyingmainideas(recognizingtext

structures), guessing word meaning from context (solving word problems), and seeing the rela

tionshipbetweenlinesandbeyondlines(internalconsistency&propositionalcohesiveness).

Iappreciateformyteacher’sinstruction.Sheunderstandswhatweneedtolearnmore.Ibecameless

panicthanbefore.Iknowwherethemainpointisandreadfaster. (StudentA)

Ilearnedhowtofindthemainideaandwhataparagraphis.Ialsolearnedagreatdealofsynonyms

whichhelpmetofindthecohesiverelationshipamongsentences. (StudentC)

My teacher taught me to look into the relation between sentences. Thus, it helps me guess word

meaningfromtheprevious/orthefollowingsentences.Icanreadmorefluentlyandhavemoreconfi

dencethanbefore. (StudentD)

Ilearnedtoidentifymainidea,andsupportingdetails.It’sinterestingtoguesswordmeaningfromits

previous/followingsentences. (StudentE)

3.2.3 Student’sattitudestowardtheinstructionalprogram

Fivestudentswiththemostprogress(S1S5,GroupA)andfivestudentswithlittleornopro

gressinthepostassessment(S6S10,GroupB)wereselectedforindepthindividualinterviews.

The results are presented according to the subcategories: (1) attitudes toward learning, and (2)

attitudestowardtheinstructionalprogram.Whilemostoftheresponseswerepositive,aslightdis

crepancybetweenthetwogroupswasfoundanddescribedasfollows.Overall,thestudentswith

betterperformanceresponded withmorepositiveattitudestowardtheir learning.They werealso

keentosharetheiropinionsabouttheinstructionalprogram,insteadofrespondingwith“noidea,”

orkeepingsilence,comparedwiththeirlessskilledcounterparts.

(1)Attitudestowardlearning:

Whenaskedhowtheyfeltaboutthediagnosticapproachinreadingclass,mostofthestudents

inGroupBdidnotconsidertherepeatedpracticeofunfamiliarstrategiestobehighlybeneficialto

them. They confessed to paying little attention to class even though they understood the

teacherresearcher’sdedicationinhelpingthem.

Ididn’t senseanydifferenceto me.Well...IjustlistenedtoclasswithlesscareabouthowmuchI

understand. (S6)

Mymindwentcompletelyblankinclass.Well …Idon’tknowhowtosay…Iknowmyteacherwas

hardworking,butIdidnotconcentrateonlearning. (S7)

Ifeelthatmyteachertriedingreatefforttohelpus.But,Ifeellearners’learningattitudeisthemost

importantfactor. (S9)

MingYuehShen andYuehKueyHuang116

Whenaskedwhattheyhadlearned fromthereadingclass,mostof thestudentsreportedthat

theybenefitedfromusingreadingstrategies,suchasrereading,scanning,inferringwordmeaning

fromcontext,skimmingforthemainidea,andtheintra/intersentencecoherence etc.

Ilearnedtoskimoverthetexttogetageneralidea.ThenIreadthequestionsandwentbacktoscan

theanswersfromthetext.Beforethisclass,Ireadwordbyword.Myreadingspeed wasveryslow.

(S1)

I found the transitional words very helpful to me. I learnedto guess word meaning from the clues

aroundtheunknownword.I usedtolookupthewordsinthedictionary;but now Icanreadfaster.

(S2)

Ithinkso.Iusedtolookupeverysingleword becauseI didn’tknowhowtofindmainideawithin

paragraph. (S4)

WhatmademedifferentfromthiscoursewasthatIfeellessthreatenedbytheunknownwordsafter

learningwordsolvingstrategies.Ilearnedtoreadthefirstandthelastparagraphverycarefully. (S6)

I greatly benefited from learning how to find main idea. I didn’t have also helped me infer word

meaning. (S3)

Iusedtoreadwordbyword;butIlearnedhowtofindmainideawithinparagraphnow.That’sgreat!

(S8)

Afterlearningreadingstrategies,Ialwayslocatedthegeneralideainsteadofgrabbingmyelectronic

dictionaryasIdidbefore. (S9)

However,S5andS7inthetwodifferentgroupsstillfounditdifficulttochangetheiroldhabits

of reading. As S5 stated, “Iread slightly in a way different from before; however, I sometime

couldnothelpreturningtothedictionaryforimmediatehelp.”Anotherstudent,S7,responded,“I

feltIwasnotahardworkingstudent,payinglittleattentiontowhatstrategiesweretaught.Istill

readwordbybywordasIdidbefore.Nobigdifferencetome.”

(2)Attitudestowardtheinstructionalprogram:

AllfivestudentsinGroupArealizedthattheteacherrepeatedseveralstrategiesinclassfor

somelessskilledstudents andtheydidnotdevaluetherepeatedpractice. Instead,theyfoundit

helpfultoreviewwhattheylearnedseveraltimes.

Ididn’tfeelloathsomewiththerepeatedsomestrategiesIalreadyknewbecauseIcanusethembetter.

(S1)

I usually reviewed the reading text before class. When theteacher repeatedthe strategies,I under

stoodtheuseofstrategiesbetterandhadabetterunderstandingofwhatIread. (S2)

I’veneverlearnedstrategiesinmyseniorhighschool.Althoughsomestrategiesarequiteeasytouse,

Istillenjoyedalot. (S3)

WhileallthestudentsinGroupAprovidedsuggestionsforabetterclassinthefuture,theless

capablestudentsinGroupBapparentlyhadacomparativelylowerselfesteemandcontributedthe

failuretotheirpoorattitudestolearning,withoutgivinganysuggestions.

IhopetoreadmoreaboutthecurrentnewsandthenIcanapplythestrategiestothereallifereading.

(S2)

Ifeelweneedtolearnasmanystrategiesaswecanbecausetheymustbeimportantforanylanguage

tests,i.e.GEPTandTOIEC.(S5)

Ihavenosuggestions.I’mhappyaslongasthequizzeswillnotbe difficult.Ifeellazy inreading.

(S6)

CollaborativeActionResearchforReadingStrategyInstruction:ACaseinTaiwan 117

4 Discussion

This research project indicates how collaborative action research provides opportunities for

teachers towork withinateam. Theteacherresearcher, theassistant, andthestudentscanshare

theircommonproblemsinteaching/learningandthen workcooperatively tosolvetheproblems.

Besides,theteacherresearchercanobtainsupportandhelpfromotherteammembers.Inthisstudy,

theassistantregularlyprovidedtheteacherresearcherwithclassobservationsandfieldnotes,and

discusseddifferentapproachestoimprovingteaching.AsBurns(1999) contends,the advantages

of collaborative perspectives on action research are broader than in individual action research.

Reportingorsharingtheresultsofthecollaborativeactionprojectwithpeersandcolleaguesisan

importantpartoftheprocessandservestostrengthentheprofessionalsupportsystemdeveloped

asapartoftheproject.Richards(2003)alsosuggeststhattakingactionwithcarefulplansmakes

essentialchangestotheresearcher’steachingpractice.

StrategytrainingforESL/EFLreadersisworthwhile;however,teachers,especiallyEFLteach

ers,shouldmodifyanyexpectations of achievingrapidsuccess(Farrell(2001). As showninthe

findingsofthisstudy,theteacherresearcherrealizedthatsheshouldnotexpectimmediatesuccess,

afteraprocessoftrialanderror.Shealsorealizedthatreadingstrategyinstructiontakestimeand

thatonesemesterisnotenoughtosuccessfullychangeallofherstudents’oldhabitsofreadingand

toimprovetheirreadingproficiency.Inspiteofthesmallamountofprogressachieved,apromis

ing changetookplace:most ofthestudentsbecamemoreawareof theirreading processandof

readingstrategies.

Somecharacteristicsofameaningfulcollaborativeinstructioncanbeaddressedasfollows:

· Basedonthediagnostictestresults,theclassteachercanidentifyanindividual’sprofileof

strengthsandweaknesses. Thisprofile willprovidedirectionforremedialandcompensa

torystrategiesleadingindividualswithlearningdifficultiestoacademicsuccess.

· Reflectionservesasameaningfulcomplementtoreadingstrategyinstruction.Keepingob

servation notes and reflective learning journals provided the teacherresearcher and the

studentswithameansforreflectiononwhathappenedduringthelearningprocesses.The

regularobservationsandreflectionscapturedthedynamicsoftheinstructionalprocedures.

AsCohen (1998)emphasizes,ongoing evaluationandrevision ofthetraining program is

necessarytoensureasuccessfulprogram.Students’reflectivejournalsandtheregularob

servationnoteshelpedtheteachersreflectonandmodifythecoursedesign.

· Selectinginterestingand relevant materials motivates learners to learn reading strategies.

Theobservationnotesrevealthatthereadinganinterestingtopicmotivatedthestudentsto

learnreadingstrategies.Inthisstudy,thetopicoffindinga‘Mr./Ms.Right’wasquiterele

vanttothestudents’(youngadults’)experiences.Thus,withahigherlevelofinterestinthe

readingtexts,thestudentswereapparentlymoreinvolvedinlearning,whenthe‘skimming

formainideas’and‘scanning’strategieswereintroducedwiththattopic.

· Theteacherservesinmultiplerolesofaguider,facilitator,andaffectivesupporter.There

sultsfromtheobservationnotes,theinterviewsandreflectivejournalentriesconfirmedthe

teacherresearcher’srolesasaguider,facilitator,andaffectivesupporter.Thereisnodoubt

that the effects of instruction may be subject to the individual’s motivation to learn

(Wenden,1998)andtheimportanceofthelearners’motivationtolearnintheEFLcontext

cannot be overemphasized. However, the results of this study reemphasize the teacher’s

rolesinaffectingchangesinstudentlearning.Knowingthedifficultiesattachedtoreading

strategyinstruction,theteacherresearcherinthisstudykeptremindingherstudentsofthe

relevanceof thestrategiesforacademicsuccess.Ateacher’scommitmentandencourage

ment can be the best motivational influence that inspires and supports the learning proc

esses. As Dornyei (2001) writes, the teacher¬researcher acts as programmer organizer,

classroommanager,andaffectivesupporterwhoexertsadirectandsystematicmotivational

influenceonstudents’learning.

MingYuehShen andYuehKueyHuang118

5 Conclusionandimplications

Thisarticledetailsateacherresearcher’sexperienceinworkingtogetherwithherassistantand

herstudentsinareadingclass.Theobjectiveofthispaperwastoaddressthepotentialindevelop

ingandimplementingmodificationstoteachingforlowachieversinareadingclassandillustrate

how these changes can improve students’ motivation to learn. The creation of a collaborative

learningenvironmenthelpedactualizethepotential.Althoughbeingfrustratedatthebeginningof

the semester,the teacherresearcher managed to modify and improve her teaching methods. To

wardsthe end of the semester, she beganto achieve some success in makingher students more

awareoftheirreadingprocessesaswellasthereadingstrategiestaught.

Movingtowardschangesinteachingandlearningisnotanimpossibletaskifwebringtogether

theeffortsofteachersandstudentsintheclassroomsetting.Teachersshoulddevelop,implement,

anddemonstrateproficiencyandenthusiasmtocreateacaringandencouraginglearningclimatein

theirclassrooms.

Althoughthefindingsindicatebothchangestotheteacher’steachingandthestudents’learning

resulted from collaborative actionresearch, we shouldremain cautious about generalizing these

results,aschangemayoftenbedifficultduetothepresenceoffactorssuchasthelackinskillsfor

collaboration, the inability to shareroles and goals between experts and learners, difficulties in

classroommanagement,andmotivation.Furtherresearchisneededtoinvestigatethepossiblefac

torscontributingtosuccessorfailureincollaborativeactionresearch.

Notes

1 TechnicalUniversitylearnershavearelativelylowlearningmotivation,andarelessproficientandweaker

intheiracademicperformance,whencomparedtothoseinthegeneraluniversities,(Joe,1995; Lin,1995;Ou,

1997).

2 Yang’sDiagnosticReadingAssessmentincludesasixlevel,multiedition,readingcomprehensiontestsand

vocabularytests,coveringthecontentintheEnglishcoursesfromjuniorhightosenior highschoolsinTai

wan.Thistoolmeasures(1)thelearners’readingcompetenceinvariousreadingstrategies(asshowninAp

pendix I) and (2) vocabulary size and knowledge. The reading comprehension test consists of 20 multi

plechoiceitems.

References

Brantmeier, C. (2002). Second language reading strategy research at the secondaryand university levels:

variations,disparities,andgeneralizability.TheReadingMatrix,2(3),1–14.

Bruce, C. (2000). Action research facilitator’s handbook. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED472452)

Burns,A.(1999).CollaborativeactionresearchforEnglishlanguageteachers.Cambridge:CambridgeUni

versityPress.

Carrell,P.L.(1985).FacilitatingESLreadingbyteachingtextstructure. TESOLQuarterly,23,647–678.

Carrell,P.L.(1989).Metacognitiveawarenessandsecondlanguagereading.ModernLanguageJournal,73,

120–133.

Carol, R. (2002). Mindful reading: strategy training that facilitates transfer. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy,Vol.45(6),498–513.

Cohen,A.D.(1998). Strategiesandlearningandusingasecondlanguage.NewYork:Longman.

DarlingHammond,L.,&McLaughlin,M.(1995).Policiesthatsupportprofessionaldevelopmentinaneraof

reform.PhiDeltaKappan,76,597–604.

Dornyei,Z.(2001). Teachingand researchingmotivation.London:Longman.

Farrell, T.S.C. (2001). Teaching reading strategies: “Ittakes time!” Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(2),

631–646.

Freeman,D.(1998). Doing teacherresearch.NewYork:Heinle&Heinle.

Herndon, K. (1994, April). Facilitating teachers' professional growth through action research. Paper pre

sentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,NewOrleans,LA,USA.

Janzen,J.(1996).Teachingstrategicreading.TESOLJournal,6(1),6–9.

CollaborativeActionResearchforReadingStrategyInstruction:ACaseinTaiwan 119

Joe,S.G.(1995).AnInvestigationofESTstudentsreadingcomprehensionofscientifictext.Taipei,Taiwan:

Crane.

Lieberman,A.(1995).Practicesthatsupportteacherdevelopment. PhiDeltaKappan,76,591–596.

Lin,M.S.(1995).DesigninganeffectiveEnglishprograminuniversitiesoftechnologyinTaiwan.InSelected

Papersfromthe9thConferenceonEnglishTeachingandLearningintheRepublicofChina (pp.409–425).

Taipei,Taiwan:Crane.

Lin, SC. (2003). Using collaborative action research to improve classroom discipline. Journal of Taiwan

NormalUniversity:Education,48(1),91–112

Ou, H.C. (1997). A study of technological institute freshmen’s reading comprehension competence. In The

12thTechnologicalandVocationalEducationConferenceofRepublicof China: GeneralVocationalEdu

cationandHumanities (pp.351–360).Taichung,Taiwan:Crane.

Song,MJ.(1998).TeachingreadingstrategiesinanongoingEFLuniversityreadingclassroom.AsianJour

nalofEnglishLanguageTeaching,8,41–54.

Slataci,R.,&Akyel,A. (2002).Possibleeffectsof strategyinstructiononL1andL2reading.Readingina

ForeignLanguage,14(1),1–16.

Walker,B.(2003).Diagnosticteachingofreading:Techniquesforinstructionandassessment(4thed.).N.Y.:

PrenticeHall.

Winograd, P., & Hare, V.C. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies: the nature of

teacherexplanation.InC.E.Weinstein,E.T.Goetz&P.A.Alexander(Eds.), LearningandStudyStrategies:

IssuesinAssessmentInstructionandEvaluation (pp.121–139).SanDiego:AcademicPress.

Wenden,A.L.(1998).Metacognitive knowledgeandlanguagelearning.AppliedLinguistics,19(4),515–537.

Yang,YF.(2004).Thepilotstudyofdiagnosticreadingassessment.InTheProceedingsofthe21stInterna

tionalConferenceonEnglishTeachingandLearninginR.O.C.(pp.241–254).Taichung:ChaoyangUni

versityofTechnology.

Appendices

Appendix1:Sampleofindividualassessmentreport

Name： No： Class：

ReadingSkills (Level5)

TypesofReadingStrategiesandtheItemDistribution

Strategies SimpleDescription ItemNumbers

LocalStrategies:Dealingwiththebasiclinguistic

units

ParaphrasingThereaderrestatesthecontentwithdif

ferentwords.

Preassessment: □4

Postassessment: □19

Rereading Thereaderrereadsapartofthereading

passage.

Preassessment: □2,□4,□9,□10

Postassessment: □4,□8

Solvingthe

vocabulary

problem

Thereadertriestounderstandaparticular

wordwithinthecontext,asynonymor

someothercuesinthecontent.

Preassessment: □12,□18

Postassessment: □14,□17

GeneralStrategies:Dealingwithhighlevelreadingcomprehension

Recognizing

textstructure

Thereadertriestofindoutthemainideas,

thesupportingpointsorthepurposesof

thetext.

Preassessment:□5

Postassessment:□10

Integrating

information

Thereaderintegratestheoldinformation

printedinthepassagewiththenewcom

inginformation.

Preassessment:□13,□19

Postassessment:□3,□9

Interpreting

thetext

Thereaderdrawsapossibleinference,

reasonableconclusion,orlogicalhypothe

sisaboutthecontent.

Preassessment:□3,□7,□8

Postassessment:□3□9,□20

Utilizing Thereader(a)explains, extends,andclari Preassessment:□15,□20,

MingYuehShen andYuehKueyHuang120

general

knowledge

andassocia

tions

fiescontent;(b)reacttothetextwith

his/hergeneralknowledgeanddailyex

periences.

Postassessment:□14,□18

TypesandStandardsofComprehensionMonitoringandtheItemDistribution

ItemNumbers

Types SimpleDescription

Posingquestions Thereaderquestionsthecor

rectnessofthetext.

Preassessment:□15,□16

Postassessment:□2,□13

Monitoringcomprehension Thereaderevaluatesorassesses

his/herunderstandingofthe

content.

Preassessment:□1, □6,□11,

□16,□17

Postassessment:□1,□5,□6,

□7,□11,□12,

Lexicalstandard Thereadercheckswhetherthe

meaningofeachwordisunder

stood.

Preassessment:□3,□9

Postassessment:□5,□8

Syntacticstandard Thereaderevaluatesthegram

maticalityof asentenceor

phrase.

Preassessment:□7,□11□13

Postassessment:□2,

□13,□16

Internalconsistency Thereaderexaminesiftheideas

expressed in the text are logi

callyconsistentwithoneanother.

Preassessment:□13,□19

Postassessment:□7,□15

Propositionalcohesiveness The reader checks the cohesive

relationship among propositions

sharingalocalcontext.

Preassessment:□16,□17

Postassessment:□1,□6

Informationalcompleteness The reader reviews whether the

text provides all of the informa

tion necessary for full under

standing.

Preassessment:□16

Postassessment:□5

Structuralcohesiveness The reader examines the the

matic compatibility of the ideas

inaparagraphortext.

Preassessment:□1,□6,

Postassessment:□16,□17

· Teacher’sComment:

· ResearcherAssistant’sComment:

Appendix2:Classdatasheet(excerpt)

Student# PreAssessment Signif.

Growth

Target

Adjusted

Growth Tar

get

FinalAss. Overall

Growth

Meet

Target

(Yes/No)

#2

(continues...)

CollaborativeActionResearchforReadingStrategyInstruction:ACaseinTaiwan 121

Appendix3:Samplelessonplan

LessonPlan7

Date:Dec.12

th ,2005

1. Studentnumber: 41

2. Subject:Reading

3. Coursedescription: Themainpurposeofthiscourseistohelpstudentsdeveloptheirabilityin

readingfluency,comprehensionandvocabularyskills.

4. CourseText:

(1) ACTIVE:SkillsforReading,Book3,Boston:Thomson,Heinle

(2) Supplementaryhandouts

5. Collaborators:

RegularEnglishteacher:XXX

ResearchAssistant:XXX

6. Classprocedures:

Regularinstruction Remedialinstruction

Reading

Topic Chapter7:FashionandStyle

ReadingskillSkimmingforthemainideas:

(It’sbeentaughtlasttwoweeks.)

Internalconsistency:

The reader examines if the ideas

expressed in the text are logically

consistentwithoneanother.

Syntacticstandard:

Thereader evaluates the grammati

calityofasentence.

Reading ac

tivities

On page 74 of the textbook, students

are asked to skim the passages

quicklytofindthemainideaofeach

passage.

While doing the activities on page

76, the teacher asks students to

check their partners’ answers based

on internal consistency and syntac

ticstandard.

While doing the activities on page

77, students are asked to circle the

word to complete the sentences

based on the skills of internal con

sistency.

Appendix4:Sampleteachingchecklist(excerpt)

Strategies SimpleDescription Remark

Have

been

taught?

LocalStrategies:Dealingwiththebasiclinguisticunits Students’ Reac

tion:

Notyet Paraphrasing Thereaderrestatesthecontentwithdifferent

words.

Yes Rereading Thereaderrereadsapartofthereadingpassage.

Yes

Solvingthe

vocabulary

problem

Thereadertriestounderstandaparticularword

withinthecontext,asynonymorsomeothercues

inthecontent.

(continues...)

C 2002 Shen

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation