1

STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

Students Appreciations on Oral Paired Rereading

Paula Cabrera Campos

Brigham Young University

 2
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

Introduction

There are very polarized opinions about the value of oral paired reading in the ESL

classroom. While some educators are advocates of this practice by claiming that it helps students

to develop fluency, pronunciation and word recognition, some others strongly believe that this

practice goes in detriment of reading comprehension, which is in their opinion, a more valuable

and useful skill to develop. This action research is aiming to shed some light in this discussion by

understanding how students perceive paired rereading and the effective impact of this activity in

the acquisition of English. This action research paper will provide with insights and impressions

of a group of novice high students during an oral paired rereading activity at the English

Language Center of Brigham Young University. The objective will be to find out if there are

preferences when it comes to working with a partner and if this type activity is, from the point of

view of the students, beneficial for the acquisition of their second language. To find answers to

these questions, an oral paired rereading activity was conducted over the course of 6 sessions in a

period of 3 weeks.

About Oral Reading

In second language learning reading aloud is specially used as an instructional method to

develop skills of decoding and vocabulary recognition (among others) at the beginning levels of

second language development. It is believed that the efficacy of this practice decreases when

used with more proficient students of a second language and as a consequence, this activity

becomes less used in the ESL classroom. Contrary to this idea some researchers have identified

benefits that can help students at any time of their learning process. Griffin, S.M. (1992) listed

among the benefits of oral reading, expansion of oral vocabulary, developing awareness of
 3
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

sounds of the language, facilitation of chunking of words in meaningful groups and development

of self-confidence. The benefits of this practice are evident; however, it is still in discussion to

what degree these benefits are the same for more advanced students. Some researchers such

as Fuchs et al. (2001) suggested that if oral reading fluency is a good predictor of student

performance, then it should influence our teaching practices. This idea has been embraced by

some educators in different parts of the world and some have developed oral reading materials

with tasks more appropriate for advanced learners. In Japan, for instance, Shinozuka, Mizusawa,

and Shibata (2014) developed a “read-aloud instruction package”. This packet includes a series

of instructional and classroom activities that focus on oral reading for developing English

proficiency. This method was tested on college students whose English proficiency was at an

elementary level (TOIC IP) and who surprisingly reported significant improvement in only 3

weeks. After 3 months of using this method, they reported a considerable increase in the students

listening and reading scores. In the study conducted by Griffin (1992) among teachers who use

oral reading, the results showed that oral reading allows sound-symbol relationship and helps

them with their predicting pronunciation of words found in texts, provides them with auditory

experience of words that are not usually found in spoken language, keeps all students involved in

the class and gives students feelings of accomplishment.

All these findings strongly support the benefits of oral reading when tailored to the

students' needs. Making further research on the subject is highly needed to draw conclusions

about in which ways this teaching method can benefit the most ESL students.
 4
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

Pair and Group Work in the ESL Classroom and Paired Reading

Pair work or group work are among of the most common and well accepted practices in

the ESL classroom. Among the pedagogical benefits of this methodology we have, increased

opportunities for practicing, improved quality of talking, it additionally offers opportunities for

individualized instruction, it promotes a positive affective climate, and it motivate learners.

Some of the most relevant contributions in this fields were made by Gass et. al (1983) and his

study focused on understanding pair and group work in the acquisition of a second language

from a psycholinguistic perspective, Krashen (1980), on the role of comprehensible input in

second language acquisition, and Watanabe et.al (2007) and the negotiation work possible in

conversation between non-native speakers, or interlanguage talk. All these studies concluded that

language acquisition occurs when learners communicate to others, that symbiotic relationship is

essential for the development of communicative skills. About student pairing or grouping

Watanabe et.al (2007) concluded that “that peers of different proficiency levels could benefit

from working with one another,” and that “social mediation comes not only from an expert such

as teachers but also from peers, and even from less proficient peers. Therefore, SLA researchers

and teachers should be careful not to assume that grouping different proficiency peers is less

conducive to L2 learning.”

Oral Paired Reading

Oral paired reading is highly valued as an important part of L1 learning and development.

However, its role in the learning of a second language role is controversial. Li et. al (2001), an

advocate of this practice, reported his findings of the use of paired reading in an ESL class. The

conclusions obtained from his research show that all the students who participated in paired oral
 5
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

reading demonstrated, at some degree, a steady increase in reading fluency and reading accuracy.

He also advised that:

Paired oral reading should be implemented in the classroom because “paired reading

reduces students' pressure and anxiety, which they often experience in reading classes at

school. Because many ESL students have a poor command of English, they tend to be

shy or reluctant to speak out. This reduces their chance to practice the new language.

Paired reading is a form of individualized tutoring. In this learning context, students feel

less pressure than in-class instruction. (p. 59)

Oral paired reading has a profound cognitive and emotional impact on second language

learners Understanding their feelings and views about this practice and can provide a teacher

with the necessary information to tailor this type of task for the benefit of the students.

Methodology

Participants
A total of 16 ESL student with Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Algerian, Creole, and

Russian background participated in this activity. Eleven of them male and the rest female. The

English proficiency of this group was determined by a placement test designed by the English

Language Center of Brigham Young University which consisted of testing students on their

reading comprehension, writing, listening and speaking skills. The evaluations were based on the

proficiency descriptors of the ACTFL scale. The results of this test placed these students in a

Foundation C class which is the equivalent of a novice high rating in the ACTFL scale. The ages

of this group ranged between 18 and 45 years old.

 6
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

Procedures

Six sessions were conducted on Tuesday and Thursday for a period of 3 weeks. The first

session was a pilot session and data from this session was not considered for analysis. In the first

introductory session, students were explained about the task. A mocking oral paired reading was

introduced and carried out to explain how they should proceed in the next couple of sessions.

They were asked to choose a partner to read with. Once they found their partner and sat next to

them. They were given a reading passage from a book they had read in their reading class.

Additionally, they were given a set of questions that they had to answer at the end of the

experience. The students were instructed to read aloud the given passage for 1 minute, taking

turns with his classmate and marking how far they reached after the first reading. Students were

not explicitly encouraged or discouraged to help each other if needed. Once they both counted

the number of words read they would read again for the second time. Repeating the procedure in

the first reading. This time students are supposed to reach further down in the passage. Once this

part of the activity was finished students were asked to answer the questionnaire about their

reading times, their impressions about the activity, and their overall experience working with

their classmate.

Instruments

For this activity, two types of instruments were used: reading passages and a

questionnaire. The reading passages were taken from the book Charlotte’s Web, which they had

previously read in their reading class. Passages were randomly selected from this book and given

to the class to read aloud. The questionnaire was made by the teacher to keep track of the people

the students were working with and their experience working with their classmate. No names
 7
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

were required for this log entry. Students wrote their names in the questionnaire, but their

classmates’ names were kept anonymous. The questions of the questionnaire were the following:

About your partner

1. Where is your classmate from?

2. What is hi/her gender?

3. What is hi/her age?

4. How satisfactory was the oral reading with your partner (choose one)?

a) Very positive b) positive c) regular d) not very positive

5. What kind of help did you receive from your partner?

About you

How many words did you read the first time?

How many words did you read the second time?

On the final day, there were three additional questions that students had to answer.

1. How has this experienced helped you in the last 6 days?

2. How did you feel reading aloud with a partner?

3. Do you have any preferences when it comes to choosing a reading partner?

Collecting Data

Data collection took place after the introductory activity and in five subsequent sessions.

This activity took place twice a week. Students were given a questionnaire that the students

would complete. Right after that, the teacher would collect all of them. In total 80 pages of action
 8
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

research were collected. The data gathered from this activity contained teachers notes and the

student answers to the survey.

Data were analyzed qualitatively, based on the answers and appreciations of the students.

In this action research report, the words read per minute will not be analyzed from a quantitative

point of view. Though there will be pointed out some facts from the data about the WPM reading

it will not be the main objective of this study.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed by gathering all the survey responses and first recording if their

reading fluency improved during the second reading (even though for the purpose of this study

this information is not relevant and will not be analyzed in detail), second identifying in their

responses comments about preferences for their reading partners, and third personal impressions

about the task.

First, the reading fluency of this group improved by the end of six weeks. According to

their recorded readings, everyone read between 20 to 30 more words than in the first reading. By

the end of the oral paired reading aloud activity the first and second reading also improved

compared with the first time, they read orally with a partner. From the teacher log we found the

following observation:

Week 2, Oral paired reading 2: It seems that they are still timid or unfamiliar about this

activity. They are making clear efforts to read to the best of their abilities in front of their

partners. Even when the activity is supposed to be about fluency they are focusing more

on accuracy.
 9
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

Week 5: They seem more confident in their reading it shows in their recordings of the

time. They are indeed reading faster I can hear them when I monitor the task. I have also

noticed that in order to read faster they are allowing themselves to make more accuracy

mistakes than at the beginning. I don’t think it is a good thing. It would be ideal if there

could be a balance between both.

Many students informed at the end of this experience that they felt they were reading faster but

not necessarily well. They also mentioned that they wish they could read more naturally in

English.

Most students did not openly mention having a preference in reading partners however

the question about their reading satisfaction with a partner showed an interesting correlation.

Students reading with classmates they are friends with evaluated their experience as very

positive while those who read with classmates they are not used to work selected the options

positive or regular. The exception for this tendency was working with a more proficient student.

They were more likely to rank their reading experience as positive if their partner was someone

more proficient. Additionally, males who outnumber women by the double were a lot more vocal

at expressing who they enjoy more reading with. Only one woman in the class was vocal about

her preference when working with a partner the other ones were discrete in their answers.

Overall only 4 students out of 16 confessed having a favorite reading partner. The students

considered to be the best partners were 2 women and 2 men. Considering these results is hard to

tell if gender, age or L1 are important indicators of an ideal reading partner.

Lastly are their personal impressions of the task. This part of the data analysis is the one

that gave more feedback about the task. Students were very critical of the activity and along with

personal impressions they also provided suggestions for improvement.

 10
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

I classified their comments in 4 categories: what I learned about myself, how I felt during oral

paired reading, how my partner helped me, and what could make this activity better. The

comments that students made will be listed under each category. To capture their feelings and

opinions better their words were used exactly as they wrote them in the surveys. Their responses

are presented as follow:

What I learned about myself

 Fun to know how fast I am.

 It helped me understand how I sound.

 When I hear myself I can correct many things.

 I listen to my own intonation and compare with my partner.

 I was able to know what’s hard for others and what’s hard for me.

How I felt during the oral paired reading activity

 I feel more confident in my reading.

 I felt encouraged by my partner.

 I want to read fast and well.

 I felt more comfortable because I was reading with a person who is learning too.

 It helps my pronunciation, but I don’t understand what I’m reading.

 I don’t like it, it’s boring. It doesn’t help me.

How my partner helped me

 My partner helped me pronounce words.

 It was a very personal interaction.

 11
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

 I receive encouragement from my partner.

 My partner only listen, she didn’t help me.

 Corrected my pronunciation.

 He took time for me.

 My partner said I need to read like an American.

 My partner helped me with meaning of a word.

 She helped me to stay calm.

 I don’t feel anything special about reading with a partner.

 Helped me say a word that I know but I couldn’t say.

What can make this activity better

 Use other book.

 I want the teacher to read it first for all the class then we can copy her.

 More time.

 Use different types of reading paragraphs.

Discussion

According to the answers obtained by the FC listening speaking class oral paired reading

is a good activity to implement. Most of the students reported gaining an understanding of their

own level and what they need to improve. They also agree that working with a partner gives

them a sense of confidence and motivation. Their biggest critics and suggestion were about how

the activity was implemented, they think that by using different types of reading passages or

even choosing their own would make the activity more interesting, also, many of them requested
 12
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

some type of modeling from the teacher said because that would help them to

make less mistakes.

The last suggestion for this activity was to give more time for this task. Based on the

students’ feedback it seems that they can see how this type of activity can be beneficial for them

however, it seems that at this stage of their second language development they value

pronunciation over fluency. This study oral paired reading study showed that students have a

positive disposition to this type of tasks and that at least in this class, working with a more or less

proficient does not make a difference on individual overall performance. Affection or friendship,

however, does play an important role, since students feel more at ease and relaxed working with

their friends and as reported by them the task was more positive and meaningful.

As an educator, it is important to understand not only about the actual productive skill

that our students are developing but also how to provide them with tasks and an environment that

will foster second language acquisition. For this reason, a teacher should know his class and his

students in order to tailor learning communicative experiences that will be meaningful and useful

to them. One of the biggest lessons I learned from this action research was that our students are

very critical of how they are taught, they know what works and what does not work for them and

that they are a very good source of feedback for improving the teaching and their learning.
 13
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

List of reference

Shinozuka, K., Shibata, S., Mizusawa, Y. (2017). Effectiveness of read-aloud instruction on

motivation and learning strategy among Japanese college EFL students. English

Language Teaching, 10 (4), 1-14.

Griffin, S.M. (1992) Reading Aloud. An Educator Comments. TESOL Quarterly, 26 (4), 784-

787.

Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. (2011) Teaching and researching reading. Great Britain: Pearson

Education Limited

Breznitz, Z. (2006). Fluency in Reading. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition.

TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–227.

Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In Georgetown Round table on Languages and

Linguistics, James E. A

Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden (Eds.). (1983). Negotiation of meaning in non-native speaker-

non-native speaker conversation. In Input and second language acquisition. Rowley,

Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Hatch, Evelyn.

Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair

interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL

learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.

Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels:

Their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 605–635.
 14
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING

Li, D., & Ness, S. (2001). Using Paired Reading To Help ESL Students Become Fluent and

Accurate Readers. Reading Improvement, volume 38, issue 2, starting on page 50-61