Can Reading Taught?

Patricia L. Carrell
Georgia State University

Strategies

be

Successfully

This article is about reading strategies, and more particularly, about how reading strategies can be successfully taught, and what goes into successful teaching of reading strategies. I don t thin! I need to argue that reading is an important means by which, not only is new information learned, but also by which new language s!ills are ac"uired. In first language reading, e#en relati#ely ad#anced learners constantly ac"uire new #ocabulary !nowledge through reading. In second language reading, learners are e$posed to #aluable second language input which they can use to ad#ance their second language ac"uisition. %nd in both first and second language reading, reading is the primary source of new information about all sorts of topics. The goal of most second language reading programs is to turn &learning to read& into &reading to learn.& 'y focus in this article will be on learning how to read more effecti#ely in order to gain information or to read for pleasure, not (ust on reading for further language ac"uisition. I will use the term &second language reading& to refer to both foreign and second language reading, without distinction. The distinctions between the two are irrele#ant to the points made in this article. %nd, although I will focus on reading strategies and reading strategy instruction, of course I do not intend to imply that reading strategies should be the only focus of a second language reading class or program. )b#iously, second language reading programs must focus on many other things as well, including e$tensi#e reading, e$posure to lots of accessible, comprehensible, authentic te$t, as well as on language ac"uisition, and primarily #ocabulary ac"uisition. *owe#er, my focus herein is on reading strategies and reading strategy instruction. Reading Strategies Reading strategies are of interest not only for what they re#eal about the ways readers manage their interactions with written te$t, but also for how the use of strategies is related to effecti#e reading comprehension. I use the term &strategies& deliberately, rather than the term &s!ills& because I want to focus on the actions that readers acti#ely select and control to achie#e desired goals or ob(ecti#es, although I recogni+e that there are different claims in the literature as to how much conscious deliberation is in#ol#ed in these actions. In my use of the term &strategies,& I am aligning myself with Paris, ,asi! and Turner ha#e said the following about &strategies& and &s!ills&S!ills refer to information.processing techni"ues that are automatic, whether at the le#el of recogni+ing grapheme.phoneme correspondence or summari+ing a story. S!ills are applied to a te$t unconsciously for many reasons including e$pertise, repeated practice, compliance with directions, luc!, and nai#e use. In contrast

strategies are actions selected deliberately to achie#e particular goals. %n emerging s!ill can become a strategy when it is used intentionally. Li!ewise, a strategy can &go underground& /in the sense of 0ygots!y, 12345 and become a s!ill. Indeed strategies are more efficient and de#elopmentally ad#anced when they become generated and applied automatically as s!ills. Thus, strategies are &s!ills under consideration.& 61221, p. 7118 Reading researchers ha#e sought to identify the surprisingly wide #ariety of strategies used by both nati#e and non.nati#e language readers. Reading strategies run the gamut from such traditionally recogni+ed reading beha#iors as s!imming a te$t to get the general idea, scanning a te$t for a specific piece of information, ma!ing conte$tual guesses about the meanings of un!nown words, s!ipping un!nown words, tolerating ambiguity, ma!ing predictions, confirming or disconfirming inferences, identifying the main idea, rereading, and using cognates to comprehend, to more recently recogni+ed strategies such as acti#ating prior bac!ground !nowledge and recogni+ing te$t structure. Reading strategies can be #irtually impossible to distinguish from other cogniti#e processes related to thin!ing, reasoning, studying, or moti#ational strategies, and I won t attempt such a demarcation here either. 9or our purposes, reading strategies will include any of a wide array of tactics that readers use to engage and comprehend te$t. ,hat do we !now about reading strategies and strategic reading from the research on proficient first language reading? ,e !now that e$pert readers use rapid decoding, large #ocabularies, phonemic awareness, !nowledge about te$t features, and a #ariety of strategies to aid comprehension and memory. Pressley and %fflerbach6122:8, in e$amining a number studies of #erbal protocols of reading, ha#e shown a great deal of the comple$ity of s!illed reading. ;et they summari+e all the comple$ity of self.reported thin!ing during e$pert reading by obser#ingThus, s!illed readers !now and use many different procedures 6strategies8 in coming to terms with te$t- They proceed generally from front to bac! of documents when reading. <ood readers are selecti#ely attenti#e. They sometimes ma!e notes. They predict, paraphrase, and bac! up when confused. They try to ma!e inferences to fill in the gaps in te$t and in their understanding of what they ha#e read. <ood readers intentionally attempt to integrate across the te$t. They do not settle for literal meanings but rather interpret what they ha#e read, sometimes constructing images, other times identifying categories of information in te$t, and on still other occasions engaging in arguments with themsel#es about what a reading might mean. %fter ma!ing their way through te$t, they ha#e a #ariety of ways of firming up their understanding and memory of the messages in the te$t, from e$plicitly attempting to summari+e to self."uestioning about the te$t to rereading and reflecting. The many procedures /strategies5 used by s!illed readers are appropriately and opportunistically coordinated, with the reader using the processes needed to meet current reading goals, confronting the demands of reading at the moment, and preparing for demands that are li!ely in the future 6e.g., the need to recall te$t content for a test8. 6122:, pp. 32.4=8. >o#ice readers, by contrast, often focus on decoding single words, fail to ad(ust their reading for different te$ts or purposes, and seldom loo! ahead or bac! in te$t to monitor and impro#e comprehension. Such cogniti#e limitations are characteristic of young no#ices as well as of older, uns!illed readers. In addition, readers who are older yet poor readers may ha#e

moti#ational handicaps such as low e$pectations for success, an$iety about their reading, and unwillingness to perse#ere in the face of difficulty. <i#en the multidimensional differences between s!illed and uns!illed readers, why focus on strategic reading and reading strategies as a hallmar! of e$pertise? Strategic reading is a prime characteristic of e$pert readers because it is wo#en into the #ery fabric of &reading for meaning,& and the de#elopment of this cogniti#e ability. Reading strategies..which are related to other cogniti#e strategies enhancing attention, memory, communication and learning..allow readers to elaborate, organi+e, and e#aluate information deri#ed from te$t. ?ecause strategies are controllable by readers, they are personal cogniti#e tools that can be used selecti#ely and fle$ibly. %nd, reading strategy use reflects both metacognition and moti#ation, because readers need to ha#e both the !nowledge and the disposition to use strategies. % great deal of research in first language reading o#er the last @: years has shown that young and uns!illed readers do not use strategies often or effecti#ely without help. 9ailure to use reading strategies effecti#ely has been obser#ed in the first language reading of young or uns!illed readers when 618 they fail to monitor their comprehension, 6@8 they belie#e that the strategies will not ma!e a difference in their reading, 6A8 they lac! !nowledge about te$t features, 6B8 they are disinterested in te$t and unwilling to use strategies, and 6:8 they prefer familiar yet primiti#e strategies o#er less.familiar but more effecti#e tactics. >onstrategic reading in these situations reflects a mi$ture of de#elopmental nai#ete, limited practice, lac! of instruction, and moti#ational reluctance to use unfamiliar or effortful strategies. Second language reading research began to focus on reading strategies in the late 123=s and early 4=s. Se#eral early studies .often e$ploratory, descripti#e in#estigations with small numbers of indi#idual learners, and using thin!.aloud techni"ues..these early studies identified relationships between certain types of reading strategies and successful and unsuccessful second language reading. In 1233, *osenfeld studied high school students in the C.S. reading 9rench, <erman, or Spanish, but thin!ing aloud in Dnglish. *er e$ample of a &successful& 9rench reader did se#eral things- 618 he !ept the meaning of the passage in mind during reading, 6@8 he read in what she termed &broad phrases,& 6A8 he s!ipped words unimportant to total phrase meaning, and 6B8 he had a positi#e self.concept as a reader. ?y contrast, *osenfeld s &unsuccessful& 9rench reader 618 lost the meaning of sentences as soon as they were decoded, 6@8 read in short phrases, 6A8 seldom s!ipped words as unimportant and #iewed words as e"ual in their contribution to total phrase meaning, and 6B8 had a negati#e self.concept as a reader. In 1247, ?loc! studied generally nonproficient readers, nati#e and nonnati#e Dnglish spea!ers enrolled in freshman remedial reading courses in the C.S. She found four characteristics which seemed to differentiate the more successful from the less successful of these nonproficient readers. These four characteristics were- 618 integration, 6@8 recognition of aspects of te$t structure, 6A8 use of general !nowledge, personal e$periences, and associations, and 6B8 response in an e$tensi#e as opposed to a refle$i#e mode. In the refle$i#e mode, readers relate affecti#ely and personally, directing their attention away from the te$t and toward themsel#es, and focusing on their own thoughts and feelings rather than on the information in the te$t. In the e$tensi#e mode, readers attempt to deal with the message con#eyed by the author, focus on understanding the author s ideas, and do not relate the te$t to themsel#es affecti#ely or personally. %mong the nonproficient readers in#estigated by ?loc!, one subgroup which she labeled &integrators& integrated information, were generally aware of

te$t structure, responded in an e$tensi#e mode, and monitored their understanding consistently and effecti#ely. They also made greater progress in de#eloping their reading s!ills and demonstrated greater success after one semester in college. The other subgroup, which ?loc! labeled &nonintegrators,& failed to integrate, tended not to recogni+e te$t structure, and seemed to rely much more on personal e$periences, responding in a refle$i#e mode. They also made less progress in de#eloping their reading s!ills and demonstrated less success after one semester in college. There ha#e been se#eral other case studies similarly showing relationships between #arious reading strategies and successful or unsucessful second language reading 6 Ee#ine 124BF *auptman, 1232F Gnight, Padron, and ,a$man, 124:F and Sarig, 12438. ;et, the picture is more comple$ than suggested by these early case studies. Cnfortunately, the relationships between strategies and comprehension are not simple and straightforward. Cse of certain reading strategies does not always lead to successful reading comprehension, while failure to use these strategies or use of other strategies does not always result in unsuccessful reading comprehension. Research reported by %nderson in 1221 shows that there are no simple correlations or one.to.one relationships between particular strategies and successful or unsuccessful reading comprehension. *is research with nati#e Spanish.spea!ing, uni#ersity le#el, intensi#e DSL students reading in Dnglish as their second language and self.reporting their strategy use, suggests wide indi#idual #ariation in successful or unsuccessful use of the e$act same reading strategies. Rather than a single set of processing strategies that significantly contributed to successful reading comprehension, the same !inds of strategies were used by both high and low comprehending readers. *owe#er, those readers reporting the use of a higher number of different strategies tended to score higher on %nderson s comprehension measures. 'ore recently, Gern 612238 reported at the %merican %ssociation of %pplied Lingusitics meeting in )rlando on a case study of two %merican uni#ersity students reading in 9rench as a second language, one a &good reader of 9rench as L@,& one less good. Gern showed that no strategy is inherently a &good& or &bad& strategyF that so.called &bad& strategies are used by &good& readers and #ice.#ersa. 9or e$ample, using prior !nowledge may sometimes be an effecti#e strategy for one reader in one reading situation, but not for another reader or in another reading situation. Gern showed that the same is true of translation as a strategy. %nderson concluded from his data that successful second language reading comprehension is &not simply a matter of !nowing what strategy to use, but the reader must also !now how to use it successfully and !now how to orchestrate its use with other strategies. It is not sufficient to !now about strategies, but a reader must also be able to apply them strategically& 61221, p.128. Similarly, Gern concluded from his data that there are good and bad uses of the same strategy, and that the difference between a &good& use and a &bad& use of the same strategy is in the conte$t in which they are used, how they are used and how they interact with other strategies. In other words, Gern says, the differences is how the strategies are &operationali+ed.& So, what does it mean to successfully &conte$tuali+e and operationali+e& strategies, in the sense of Gern, or to &be able to apply strategies strategically,& in the sense of %nderson? That, I belie#e, is where metacognition comes in. 9or the remainder of this article, I want to argue that the difference between good and bad uses of the same reading strategies may lie in whether the strategies are used metacogniti#ely or not. Conse"uently, I will argue that the

difference between successful and unsuccessful reading strategy training can be due to the inclusion 6or lac! of inclusion8 of metacognition in the strategy training. Metacognition and Metacognitive Strategy Training/Teaching ,hat is metacognition? ,ell, as one can probably figure out from analy+ing the term itself, metacognition is &cognition about cognition,& or &thin!ing about thin!ing.& ?ut what does that mean? Let s try to get at an understanding of metacognition first in terms of learning strategies in general, not (ust in terms of reading strategies. ) 'alley, Chamot, and their collaborators /Stewner.'a+anares, Russo and Gupper 6124:85, articulated the contrast between metacognition and cognition in terms of general learning strategies, sayingmetacogniti#e strategies in#ol#e thin!ing about the learning process, planning for learning, monitoring /of5 comprehension or production while it is ta!ing place, and self. e#aluation of learning after the language acti#ity is completed. Cogniti#e strategies /by contrast5 are more directly related to indi#idual learning tas!s and entail direct manipulation or transformation of the learning materials. 6124:, p. :=78 %ccording to ) 'alley, et al., &students without metacogniti#e approaches are essentially learners without direction or opportunity to re#iew their progress, accomplishments, and future directions& 6124:, p. :718. Pressley, Snyder and Cariglia.?ull 612438 ha#e said about the role of metacognition in general learning that metacognition helps students to be consciously aware of what they ha#e learned, recogni+e situations in which it would be useful, and processes in#ol#ed in using it. )ne reason metacognition is important is that if learners are not aware of when comprehension is brea!ing down and what they can do about it, strategies introduced by the teacher will fail and the learner will not be able to use the strategies strategically. %s early as 1234, 9la#ell defined metacognition as &!nowledge that ta!es as its ob(ect or regulates any aspect of cogniti#e beha#ior& 61234, p. 48. Two dimensions of metacogniti#e ability are generally recogni+ed- 618 !nowledge of cognition, and 6@8 regulation of cognition 69la#ell, 12348. The first aspect of metacognition, &!nowledge about cognition,& includes three components which ha#e been labeled &declarati#e,& &procedural,& and &conditional& 6Paris, Lipson, and ,i$son, 124A8. Declarative knowledge is propositional !nowledge, referring to &!nowing what.& % learner may !now what a gi#en reading strategy is, for e$ample, sHhe may !now what s!imming or scanning is. Procedural knowledge is &!nowing how& to perform #arious actions, for e$ample, &how to write a summary, how to s!im or scan& 6,inograd and *are, 1244, p. 1AB8 Conditional knowledge refers to &!nowing why,& and includes the learner s understanding of the #alue or rationale for ac"uiring and using a strategy and when to use it. Conditional !nowledge is necessary if a reader is to !now whether or not a certain strategy is appropriate, and whether or not it is wor!ing effecti#ely for that learner. The second aspect of metacognition, the e$ecuti#e or regulatory function refers to when a &higher order process orchestrates and directs other cogniti#e s!ills& 6Paris, Cross, and Lipson, 124B, p. 1,@B18. In reading, these metacogniti#e abilities relate to the planning,

monitoring, testing, re#ising, and e#aluating of the strategies employed during reading 6?a!er and ?rown, 124B8. The importance of the e$ecuti#e or regulati#e function of metacognition in strategic reading shows up in the tactics readers use to monitor comprehension. )ne of the problems of nonstrategic readers is that they often proceed on &automatic pilot,& obli#ious to comprehension difficulties. 9irst language reading studies ha#e shown clear differences in the spontaneous comprehension monitoring of good and poor readers, as well as clear de#elopmental differences in monitoring. Poor and underde#eloped readers commonly manifest an inability to detect inconsistencies or nonsense in a te$t. Comprehension monitoring is a !ind of &e$ecuti#e& function, essential for competent reading, directing the readers cogniti#e processes as sHhe stri#es to ma!e sense of the incoming information. Thus in reading, the two !ey metacogniti#e factors, knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition, are concerned, respecti#ely, with what readers !now about their cogniti#e resources and their e$ecuti#e control of these resources. ?ecause students may ha#e many misconceptions about the nature of reading and incomplete awareness of reading strategies, or of e$ecuti#e processes for monitoring and regulating comprehension, some researchers ha#e called for fostering better metacognition and reading comprehension through direct instruction. &%n essential aim of direct instruction,& according to ?a!er and ?rown 6124B8, &is to ma!e the reader aware of the acti#e nature of reading and the importance of employing problem.sol#ing, trouble.shooting routines to enhance understanding. If the reader can be made aware of 6a8 basic strategies for reading and remembering, 6b8 simple rules of te$t construction, 6c8 differing demands of a #ariety of tests to which his /sic5 bac!ground !nowledge may be put, and 6d8 the importance of attempting to use any bac!ground !nowledge that he may ha#e, he cannot help but to become a more effecti#e reader. Such self.awareness is a prere"uisite for self.regulation, the ability to monitor and chec! one s own cogniti#e acti#ities while reading& 6124B, p. A378. Researchers interested in reading strategy instruction, appreciating the importance of the learner s acti#e or metacogniti#e participation, ha#e, therefore, attempted to enlist it through careful and complete e$planation of the procedures and #alues of the particular strategy in "uestion. %s Roehler and Euffy 6124B8 point out...teacher e$planations of the processes are designed to be metacogniti#e, not mechanistic. They ma!e students aware of the purpose of the s!ills and how successful readers use it to acti#ely monitor, regulate, and ma!e sense out of te$t, creating in students an awareness and a conscious reali+ation of the function and utility of reading s!ills and the lin!ages between these processes and the acti#ities of reading. 6124B, p. @778. Thus, successful reading strategy instruction in#ol#es the de#elopment of metacogniti#e awareness of the strategies. ?ut, we may as!, what constitutes a careful and complete e$planation of a reading comprehension strategy? ,hat should teachers do, who want to gi#e their students not only a repertoire of reading strategies to draw upon, but who also want to help ma!e their students metacogniti#ely aware of those strategies and their use of the strategies? Erawing upon the prior wor! of a number of other instructional researchers, ,inograd and *are 612448 proposed the following fi#e elements as constituting complete teacher e$planation-

618 what the strategy is, Teachers should describe critical, !nown features of the strategy or pro#ide a definitionHdescription of the strategy 61244, p. 1@A8. 6@8 why a strategy should be learned, Teachers should tell students why they are learning about the strategy. D$plaining the purpose of the lesson and its potential benefits seems to be a necessary step for mo#ing from teacher control to student self.control of learning 61244, p. 1@A8. 6A8 how to use the strategy, *ere, teachers brea! down the strategy, or re.enact a tas! analysis for students, e$plaining each component of the strategy as clearly and as articulately as possible and showing the logical relationships among the #arious components. ,here implicit processes are not !nown or are hard to e$plicate, or where e$planatory supplements are desired, assists such as ad#ance organi+ers, thin!.alouds, analogies, and other attention clues are #aluable and recommended 61244, p. 1@A8. 6B8 when and where the strategy should be used, Teachers should delineate appropriate circumstances under which the strategy may be employed, 6e.g., whether the strategy applies in a story or information reading8. Teachers may also describe inappropriate instances for using the strategy 61244, pp. 1@A.@B8. I would add here that the teacher should not be too prescripti#e here, but merely lay out possibilities for the learner, and then let the learner e$periment for him or herself to see where the strategy wor!s for them. and 6:8 how to e#aluate use of the strategy. Teachers should show students how to e#aluate their successfulHunsuccessful use of the strategy, including suggestions for fi$.up strategies to resol#e remaining problems 61244, p. 1@B8. It has probably not escaped the reader s notice that these fi#e elements of complete teacher e$planation are related to the three components of metacogniti#e !nowledge I pre#iously mentioned- teacher e$planation of what the strategy is 6element 18 addresses declarative knowledgeF teacher e$planation of how to use the strategy 6element @8 addresses procedural !nowledgeF teacher e$planation of why the strategy should be learned or used, when and where to use the strategy, and how to evaluate its effecti#eness 6elements A, B and :8 all address conditional knowledge. ,inograd and *are 612448 re#iewed se#en L1 reading strategy training studies which used direct instruction procedures, loo!ing for the presence or absence of the fi#e elements of metacognition. Dach of the studies reported significant gains in the use of the strategy taught 6e.g., study s!ills based on SIAR, main idea identification, summari+ing8 and each of the studies utili+ed one or more of the fi#e metacogniti#e elements. ?ased on the ,inograd and *are re#iew, it is clear that successful L1 reading strategy training can in#ol#e some but not necessarily all of the desirable elements of metacogniti#e strategy training. The components

most often included are those in#ol#ing procedural !nowledge 6how to use the strategy8, as well as declarati#e !nowledge 6what the strategy is8. Some, but not all of the studies also contained one of the elements of conditional !nowledge In second language reading strategy training there ha#e also been a number of studies which ha#e also included #arying amounts of metacogniti#e training. ,ithout attempting to be e$hausti#e, I ha#e selected a small sample of studies as illustrati#e. 9igure 1 reports the studies in chronological order. 9igure 1. Selected L@ Reading Strategy Training Studies . Declaretive Procedural Conditional When Study What How to usewhy & Evaluate Where Carell yes yes yes yes yes 6124:8 *amp. Lyons yes . . . . 6124:8 Sarig J 9olman yes possibly yes . . 612438 Carell, Pharis J yes yes yes yes . Liberto 612428 Gern yes yes . . . 612428 Raymond yes yes yes yes yes 6122A8 I must preface my re#iew of these studies by obser#ing that all of them, my own included, suffer from what one might generously describe as a &lac! of specificity& with respect to the published description of the methods. Dach of the si$ studies could ha#e benefited from greater completeness in specifying the details of the training methodology. In a strategy training study focused on te$t structure reported in 124: 6Carrell, 124:8, we pro#ided some e#idence that all fi#e components of metacogniti#e training were co#ered, although I see now in hindsight, as I #e grown myself more aware than e#er of the importance of the metacogniti#e components of the training, that the published #ersion of the study could ha#e and should ha#e pro#ided greater details as to e$actly how each of the fi#e was co#ered. ,e said, for e$ampleThe basic ob(ecti#es of the teaching program were e$plicitly communicated to the students /what5 ... ,e e$plained to the students that sometimes it did not matter how they read...but that at other times, it did. They were told that sometimes, especially as students studying Dnglish for academic purposes and headed for the uni#ersity, they would be called on to read a lot of information and to remember it .. for e$ample, in

preparing for e$ams and class assignments. ,e e$plained that the efficiency with which students could read under such circumstances was important, that if they could get the necessary information "uic!ly and effecti#ely, it was li!ely they would perform well and feel better about the tas! /here we were addressing the why, and the where and when5. ,e told them that o#er the training period, we would be teaching them a strategy for reading that should impro#e their understanding of what they read and their ability to recall it /again we were addressing the why5. ,e emphasi+ed that by teaching them a little about the ways in which e$pository te$ts are typically organi+ed at the top le#el /addressing here the what5, we hoped to teach them how to use this !nowledge to impro#e their comprehension of what they read, as well as to teach them a strategy for using this !nowledge to impro#e their recall of what they read /addressing again the why5. ... D#ery day as students left the session, they were as!ed to apply what they were learning to all of the reading they did until the ne$t session. This was intended to get the students to use the strategy outside of their DSL reading classroom, in other non. teacher.supported reading situations... The study pac!ets included detailed e$planations of the benefits of learning the strategy /again the why5, along with chec!lists so students could monitor and regulate their own learning /our attempt to address the how to evaluate component5. 6124:, pp. 3A:.3A78 In another 124: study of what she termed a &te$t.strategic& training approach, which in#ol#ed training on a long list of te$t characteristics, *amp.Lyons appears to ha#e included instruction in the what but doesn t indicate anything e$plicitly about ha#ing co#ered the other metacogniti#e components. Sarig and 9olman, in a 1243 study in#ol#ing a coherence strategy 6i.e., formal instruction in what constitutes coherence and how to produce it in reading and writing8, claimed to ha#e included declarative and possibly /their word5 procedural !nowledge rele#ant to the training of coherence 6ms., pp.1A.1B8. They are silent on conditional !nowledge. In another training study, published in 1242, focused on te$t structure and utili+ing semantic mapping and the D$perience.Te$t.Relationship method, Carrell, Pharis, and Liberto co#ered the what, how to use, why and when and where components in the strategy training, but there is not much indication in that study of our co#ering the evaluation component. In Gern s 1242 description of his strategy training procedures, which focussed on strategies of word analysis and the recognition of sentence and discourse cohesion, it appears that he co#ered both the what and possibly also the how to use components of metacognition, but his description gi#es no indication that he included any emphasis on the why, when and where, or evaluative components. 9inally, Raymond, in her 122A strategy training study on te$t structure, modelled after Carrell 124: top.le#el.rhetorical structures, asserts that all fi#e components of metacognition were co#ered in the study, but gi#es no indication of how these elements were presented in the training. She says of the trainingThe outside instructor taught the structure strategy by e$plaining what it was in session one 6Step %8, why it should be learned in session two 6Step ?8, how to use it in session three 6Step C8, and when to use it in session four 6Step E8. Short "ui++es were pro#ided to help the sub(ects /sic5 e#aluate their use of the structure strategy in session

fi#e 6Step D8. These fi#e steps 6%.D8 ha#e been suggested for the effecti#e, direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies. 6122A, pp. BB4.BB28 In all of these L@ studies, significant positi#e effects were found for the strategy training when compared with control groups or traditional approaches to instruction. Thus, as with the L1 training studies, we ha#e e#idence from these L@ training studies that reading strategy training which includes a focus on the metacogniti#e aspects of strategy use show significant positi#e results. I would argue that the positi#e results were obtained because of the inclusion of the metacogniti#e components. ;et, the researcher in me cannot be satisfied with simply asserting this conclusion. I want to !now it as an empirical fact, not as an asserted truthK I want to be able to answer the "uestionTo what e$tent is direct, e$plicit instruction in the metacogniti#e components of strategy use necessary to achie#e success in strategy training? To answer this "uestion, I am currently engaged in a study testing the hypothesis that DSL reading strategy training which includes metacogniti#e strategy training in all three components of metacognition 6declarati#e, procedural, and conditional !nowledge..including not only the what, how to use, and why components, but also the when and where and how to e#aluate components as well8 that such reading strategy training will contribute significantly more to reading strategy training than that which only includes the what, how to use, and why components. The following is a brief summary of our study s methodology and current status. )ur pro(ect is being conducted in an Dnglish for %cademic Purposes reading program for college.le#el DSL students at a ma(or southeastern uni#ersity in the Cnited States. ,e are using one control group and two e$perimental groups. The control group recei#es the usual curriculum of the D%P ad#anced reading course. )ne e$perimental group recei#es strategy training in addition to the usual D%P curriculum. The strategy training consists of a number of strategies !nown to be rele#ant to D%P college.le#el reading. These strategies include 618 main idea e$traction 6?aumann, 124B8, 6@8 te$t pre#iew and sur#ey methods 6SIAR8 6Robinson, 12B18, 6A8 top le#el rhetorical structure recognition . a te$t structure strategy 6'eyer, 1233a, 1233b, 1233c8, and 6B8 summari+ation 6*are J ?orchardt, 124B8. The strategy training includes information on what each strategy is, how to use each of the strategies, and why each strategy should be learned. The second e$perimental group recei#es metacogniti#e strategy training of the same strategies as the first e$perimental group. This metacogniti#e strategy training consists of the three elements of strategy training I (ust mentioned 6 what, how to use, and why8, plus the following additional metacogniti#e aspects- added emphasis on why, when to engage in utili+ing the #arious strategies in a #ariety of reading settings and purposes, when and where the strategies are recommended for use or not, whether the strategy is appropriate in particular reading situations, and how the learner can evaluate hisHher own use of the strategy and its effecti#eness for the learner in a particular reading situation. Control #ariables include the measurement of the learners o#erall second language proficiency 6as measured by the T)D9L8, the learners second language reading ability 6as measured by the reading section of the T)D9L8, and the learners basic approaches to learning 6also referred to as their &learning styles& or their &personality types,& as measured by the 'yers.?riggs Type Indicator, cf., 'yers J 'cCaulley, 124:8.

)ur pre and posttests include a number of measures rele#ant to the strategies being trained, as well as to the Dnglish.for.%cademic.Purposes 6D%P8 curriculum- namely, 6a8 a test of main idea identification for both short and longer passages, and implicit as well as e$plicit main ideasF 6b8 a summary writing tas!F and 6c8 a reading and written recall tas! for passages with particular top.le#el rhetorical structures. 'y collaborators at <eorgia State Cni#ersity and I ha#e (ust completed the data collection phase of this pro(ect and are currently underta!ing data analysis. %s both educators and researchers, we are struc! by the comple$ities and nuances of metacogniti#e strategy presentation within the classroom with students of ad#anced DSL proficiency. ,e ha#e also been challenged to de#ise appropriate classroom acti#ities and dependent measures which are sufficiently sensiti#e to tease apart the effects of each type of strategy training. ,e hope that our efforts, when all of our data are analy+ed and interpreted, will pro#e beneficial for researchers, educators, and more importantly, students. In the meantime, others ha#e continued to ta!e metacogniti#e awareness training into the L@ reading classrooms, and not (ust for e$perimental or research purposes but for pedagogical reasons. )ne such e$ample is the recent article by %uerbach and Pa$ton 612238 on &?ringing Reading Research into the DSL Classroom.& In that article, %uerbach and Pa$ton report an informal and successful attempt to bring metacogniti#e awareness into the L@ reading class. The article presents a retrospecti#e account of an undergraduate DSL reading course that trained DSL students to in#estigate their own reading as part of the pedagogical process, and in#ited the students to apply their disco#eries to their reading. The authors report that students strategies, conceptions, awareness and feelings about reading in Dnglish were positi#ely affected by the course. Csing data which included pre and postcourse reading inter#iews, reading conception "uestionnaires, strategy awareness "uestionnaires, reading in#entories, thin!.aloud protocols, and comprehension tests, the authors conclude from their findings thattransferring L@ research tools into the hands of learners and in#iting them to reflect critically on their own reading can not only increase their metacogniti#e awareness and control in L@ reading but also significantly increase their en(oyment of Dnglish readingH 61223, abstract, p. @A38 %nd, lest we thin! that metacogniti#e strategy training is limited to more cogniti#ely mature students li!e %uerbach and Pa$ton s undergraduate uni#ersity students, let me (ust close by mentioning one additional pedagogical study showing that metacognit#e strategy training can be effecti#e with younger, less cogniti#ely mature learners. In a case study of : bilingual Latino students with low literacy le#els in Dnglish..they were reading up to B grade le#els below their current 3th grade placement 6appro$imately 1@ years of age8..and probably not great literacy s!ills in their nati#e language, Spanish, either..Limine+ in another recent article 612238 demonstrated that reading strategy training with a focus on metacogniti#e awareness had a positi#e effect on these students. The strategies the students were trained in included 618 resol#ing the meanings of un!nown #ocabulary, 6@8 as!ing "uestions, and 6A8 ma!ing inferences. These students were also encouraged to use their bilingual language abilities, such as searching for cognate #ocabulary, translating, and reflecting on the te$t in either their L@ or their L1. )#er the si$.month period of the training and obser#ation, the students demonstrated positi#e shifts in their attitudes toward their L@ literacy and their ability to succeed in L@ reading, as well as greater effecti#e use of the strategies, and effecti#e use of their L1 abilities.

Limine+ reports that the students demonstrated a willingness to wor! hard, and an appreciation of the &goal.directed instruction.& onclusion ?oth the first language and the second language research literature on reading strategy training which in#ol#es emphasis on some or all of the fi#e metacogniti#e elements 6 what, how! to!use, why, when and where, and evaluation8 has clearly shown that such teaching can definitely ma!e a difference in the short term. ,hat we need to bear in mind, howe#er, is that s!illed readers don t get that way o#er night. They learn how to do this comple$ thing we call reading by doing it repeatedly, o#er long periods of time, with lots of different te$ts, and with lots of opportunities to practice applying strategies, and monitoring their processes and e#aluating the effecti#eness of different strategies for themsel#es in different reading situations. Therefore, metacogniti#e reading strategy teaching should also be a long term educational process, with constant attention and support o#er longer periods of time. ,ith teachers e$plaining and modeling use of a wide #ariety of strategies, scaffolding student practice and application, pro#iding re.e$planations and additional modeling as necessary and helping learners to e$perience reading strategies as personal cogniti#e and metacogniti#e tools for ma!ing meaning, reading strategy use should be seen not as means to pursue a &correct& in.the.te$t meaning, but as long.term means to personal understanding and interpretation of te$t that is, nonetheless, based on the te$t. )r, as Pressley and %fflerbach 6122:8 label it, the reader should be able to come to a &constructi#ely responsi#e& reading of the te$t. References %nderson, >. L. 612218. Indi#idual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 3:, B7=.B3@. %uerbach, D. R., J Pa$ton, E. 612238. &It s not the Dnglish Thing-& ?ringing reading research into the DSL classroom. TESOL uarterly! "#, @A3.@71. ?a!er, L., J ?rown, %. L. 6124B8. 'etacogniti#e s!ills and reading. In P. E. Pearson 6Dd.8, $and%ook of reading researc& 60ol. 1, pp. A:A.A2B8. >ew ;or!- Longman. ?loc!, D. 612478. The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL uarterly! '(, B7A.B2B. Carrell, P. L. 6124:8. 9acilitating DSL reading by teaching te$t structure. TESOL #), 3@3.3:@. uarterly!

Carrell, P. L. 612428. 'etacogniti#e awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal! *", 1@=.1AB. Carrell, P. L. 612218. Strategic reading. In L. D. %latis 6Dd.8, Georgetown University +ound Ta%le on Languages and Linguistics #))#, Linguistics and language -edagogy, T&e state of t&e art 6pp. 173.1348. ,ashington, EC- <eorgetown Cni#ersity Press. Carrell, P. L. 6122@8. %wareness of te$t structure- Dffects on recall. Language Learning, B@, 1. @=.

Carrell, P. L., Pharis, ?. <., J Liberto, L. C. 612428. 'etacogniti#e strategy training for DSL reading. TESOL uarterly! '"! 7B3.734. Ee#ine, L. 6124B8. DSL readers internali+ed models of the reading process. In L. *andscombe, R. )rem, J ?. P. Taylor 6Dds.8, On TESOL ./" 6pp. 2:.1=48H ,ashington, EC- TDS)L. 9la#ell, L. *. 612348. 'etacogniti#e de#elopment. In L. '. Scandura J C. L. ?rainerd 6Dds.8, Structural0-rocess t&eories of co1-le2 &u1an %e&aviour 6pp. @1A.@B:8. The >etherlandsSi(thoff and >oordhoff. *amp.Lyons, L. 6124:8. Two approaches to teaching reading- % classroom.based study. +eading in a 3oreign Language! ", A7A.A3A. /Dnglish as L@5 *auptman, P. C. 612328. % comparison of first and second language reading strategies among Dnglish.spea!ing uni#ersity students. 4nterlanguage Studies 5ulletin, B, 13A.@=1. *osenfeld, C. 612338. % preliminary in#estigation of the reading strategies of successful and nonsuccessful second language learners. Syste1! 6, 11=.1@A. Limene+, R. T. 612238. The strategic reading abilities and potential of fi#e low.literacy LatinaHo readers in middle school. +eading +esearc& uarterly! "', @@B.@BA. Gern, R. <. 612428. Second language reading strategy instruction- Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal, 3A, 1A:.1B2. /9rench as L@5 Gern, R. <. 612238. L' reading strategy training, 7 critical -ers-ective . Cnpublished paper presented at the %%%L Conference, )rlando, 9lorida, 'arch 1=, 1223. Gnight, S. L., Padron, ;. >., J ,a$man, *. C. 6124:8. The cogniti#e reading strategies of DSL students. TESOL uarterly! #), 342.32@. ) 'alley, L. '., Chamot, %. C., Stewner.'a+anares, <., Russo, R., J Gupper, L. 6124:8. Learning strategies applications with students of Dnglish as a second language. TESOL uarterly! #), @4:.@27. Paris, S. <., Cross, E. R., J Lipson, '. ;. 6124B8. Informed strategies for learning- % program to impro#e children s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psyc&ology! 8, 1@A2.1@:@. Paris, S. <., Lipson, '. ;., J ,i$son, G. G. 6124A8. ?ecoming a strategic reader. Conte1-orary Educational Psyc&ology! /! @2A.A17. Paris, S. <., ,asi!, ?. %., J Turner, L. C. 612218. The de#elopment of strategic readers. In R. ?arr, '. L. Gamil, P. ?. 'osenthal, J P. E. Pearson 6Dds.8, $and%ook of reading researc&! 9olu1e 44 6pp. 7=2.7B=8. >ew ;or!- Longman. Pressley, '., J %fflerbach, P. 6122:8. 9er%al -rotocols of reading, T&e nature of constructively res-onsive reading. *illsdale, >L- Drlbaum.

Pressley, '., Snyder, ?., J Cariglia.?ull, ?. 612438. *ow can good strategy use be taught to children? D#aluation of si$ alternati#e approaches. In S. Cormier J L. *agman 6Dds.8, Transfer of learning, Conte1-orary researc& and a--lication 6pp. 41.1@=8. )rlando, 9L%cademic Press. Raymond, P. '. 6122A8. The effects of structure strategy training on the recall of e$pository prose for uni#ersity students reading 9rench as a second language. 'odern Language Lournal, 33, BB:.B:4. Roehler, L. R., J Euffy, <. <. 6124B8. Eirect e$planation of comprehension processes. In <. <. Euffy, L. R. Roehler, J L. 'ason 6Dds.8, Co1-re&ension instruction, Pers-ectives and suggestions 6pp. @7:.@4=8. >ew ;or!- Longman. Sarig, <. 612438. *igh.le#el reading in the first and in the foreign language- Some comparati#e process data. In L. Ee#ine, P. L. Carrell, J E. D. Ds!ey 6Dds.8, +esearc& in reading in Englis& as a second language 6pp. 1=:.1@=8. ,ashington, EC- TDS)L. Sarig, <., J 9olman, S. 612438. Metacognitive awareness and t&eoretical knowledge in co&erence -roduction. Cnpublished paper presented at the Communication and Cognition International Congress, <hent, ?legium. /Dnglish as L@5 ,inograd, P., J *are, 0. C. 612448. Eirect instruction of reading comprehension strategiesThe nature of teacher e$planation. In C. D. ,einstein, D. T. <oet+, J P. %. %le$ander 6Dds.8, Learning and study strategies, 4ssues in assess1ent instruction and evaluation 6pp. 1@1.1A28. San Eiego- %cademic Press. %rticle copyright M 1224 by the author. Eocument CRLhttp-HHwww.(alt.publications.orgHtltHfilesH24HmarHcarrell.html Last modifiedLuly B, 1224 Site maintained by TLT )nline Dditor