Conclusions – reading in FL/L2

In this section, the following questions are answered:

What are the diff erences between skilled and less skilled readers?

–

What is the conception of FL reading depicted by the studies and is this –

picture similar to the one implied by L1 reading research?

At the end, the TA methodology used in the studies is discussed. In this section, the terms “skilled,” “strong,” “successful” and “good” are used interchangeably.

3.5.1. Skilled vs. less skilled FL/L2 readers

Strategies used by strong and weak readers were investigated by Block (1986), Hosenfeld (1977, 1984), Yang (2002) and Zupnik (1985). Hosenfeld managed to identify strategies that distinguish successful from unsuccessful readers. Successful readers apply a range of strategies related to lower-level processing: they identify the grammatical category of words, show sensitivity to a diff erent word order in FL, use orthographic information, decode word meaning correctly, read in broad phrases, recognise cognates and skip irrelevant words. Th ey also use the follow-ing higher-level strategies: payfollow-ing attention to the title and illustrations and usfollow-ing them to make inferences as well as using knowledge of the world. Hosenfeld laid emphasis on the role of memory in reading – successful readers remember the meaning of a phrase or sentence they decode, in contrast to unsuccessful readers, who tend to forget the meaning of a chunk of language as soon as they decode it.

Th is shows that successful readers are better at word recognition and consequently read more fl uently.

Zupnik’s (1985) research confi rms Hosenfeld’s (1977) fi ndings. She implies that weak readers use more clarifi cation and simplifi cation moves (those operating at the lower level of text comprehension), whereas strong readers – more monitoring moves (which are examples of higher-level reading strategies). Similarly, Berman’s (1984) research underlined the role of lower levels of text processing. She identifi ed syntactic factors as potential sources of FL reading diffi culty.

Block (1986) highlights the role of background knowledge in reading. In her study, the most successful readers seemed to be so called Integrators responding to text in the extensive mode. Th is means that they concentrated on comprehending the ideas conveyed by the author of the text they read, rather than on relating the text to their personal experiences. When they made associations while reading, they integrated this information to the information in the text. In contrast, less suc-cessful readers, Nonintegrators, responded in the refl exive mode. Th ey related text message to their emotions and personal experiences. Block (1986: 486) concludes the following: “Although their associations with their own lives were initiated by information in the text, Nonintegrators usually failed to reconnect these associa-tions with the information in the text. Th us, these associations became ends in themselves, rather than a means for extending and explaining the text.”

Yang (2002) focused on readers’ ability to monitor comprehension. Th e study implied that both weak and strong readers are able to monitor their comprehen-sion. However, better readers operate more frequently at higher levels of cognitive processing, such as checking cohesiveness among propositions that share a local context or checking the completeness of the information extracted from the text.

Weak readers’ evaluation, on the other hand, is limited to the lexical and syntactic levels, i.e., the checking of word understanding and evaluating the grammaticality of a sentence.

As demonstrated above, the studies reviewed in this section highlight the role of both lower-level and higher-level components of text processing in profi cient reading. A successful FL reader has developed functioning at both levels, especially

effi ciency and automaticity at the lower decoding level. Th is facilitates his/her processing at higher levels and enables him/her to control understanding. A good reader knows how to use his/her background knowledge; while comprehending the text message the reader does not use it as a factor to fi ll in gaps in his/her incomplete language competence (which characterises weak readers) but is able to integrate this knowledge with the information from the text. A skilled reader evaluates his/her understanding at both lexical and syntactic as well as text information level. While coping with a larger portion of text, he/she examines the thematic compatibility of the ideas in a paragraph or text and checks the relation of this information with what he/she knows about the topic.

Th e studies contribute to the debate concerning the role of FL/L2 competence in FL/L2 reading – known as the Linguistic Th reshold Hypotheses (see Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 1.1.). Th ey also discuss other questions related to the one posed in the above mentioned hypothesis. Namely: what is the role of FL/L2 reading strategies and FL/L2 competence in FL/L2 reading and whether the eff ectiveness of FL/L2 reading strategies depends on readers’ FL/L2 competence. Yang’s (2002: 18) words best summarise the studies’ fi ndings concerning this question:

For many years, researchers only focused on seeking either ‘effi cient reading strategies’

to help readers solve problems, or the so-called ‘metacognitive strategies’ to build up readers’ comprehension monitoring. However, the truth is that if readers do not possess suffi cient basic language skills, then no matter how many diversifi ed reading strategies they are equipped with … the process will turn out to be fruitless if they have no basic resources to access when attempting to solve problems.

Several studies reviewed in this section examined the eff ectiveness of reading strategy instruction. All of them show that reading strategies are teachable. How-ever, they indicate that there are strategies that the instruction did not manage to teach. Th ese are: identifying the grammatical function of words, changing the form of words, e.g., verbs, before looking them up in a glossary and skipping inessential words while reading. I think that all these strategies can be taught only if the reader improves his/her language competence, which is in line with the above quotation emphasising the role of FL/L2 competence in FL/L2 reading.

3.5.2. FL/L2 reading vs. L1 reading

Let us look at the conception of FL reading that the studies create. FL reading is viewed as a language skill that is a source of diffi culty for its users. It is a process in which the reader applies strategies to solve the problems he/she encounters while reading. Th is view is similar to the view of L1 reading described in the previous chapter. However, in comparison with L1 reading, FL reading seems to be more focused on the lower level of text comprehension; it is this level that makes a lan-guage a problem. Th is diff erence between L1 and FL reading is refl ected in the strat-egies that have proved to be the least teachable in L1 and FL reading instruction.

In teaching L1 readers the least teachable strategy was the strategy of demanding

relationships in a text (which is a higher-level skill). In FL instruction: identifying the grammatical function of words, skipping inessential words and changing the form of words, e.g., verbs, before looking them up in a glossary (which are lower-level abilities). Th is comparison elucidates the diff erence between what L1 and FL readers fi nd challenging in reading.

As regards other reading aspects, it is worth noting that background knowledge and metacognitive strategies seem to play a similar role in L1 and FL reading.

A most revealing fi nding concerning L1 readers’ perceptions of their reading com-prehension was suggested by Lundeberg (1987). Native reader novice and expert readers diff ered in reference to their perceptions of their comprehension process.

Th is aff ective aspect of reading was also tackled in comparative studies of L1 and FL reading, which are discussed in the next section of this chapter.

To conclude, L1 and FL reading studies seem to shed light on the same aspects in the two reading processes, thus emphasising similarities between the two proc-esses. Research also highlights diff erences, suggesting, however, that FL reading is not a poorer version of L1 reading, but a separate language phenomenon worth investigating. Th e review of reading research reveals some gaps in FL reading re-search. What calls for more attention is a model-based perspective on FL reading, similar to the one conducted by Collins, Brown and Larkin (1980) in their study of L1 reading. Such an approach would look at reading as a holistic integrative process in which the reader concentrates on constructing a model of the text, i.e., his/her understanding of the text. It is the approach that I have adapted for the TA study I present in this book. It facilitated my attempts to look at reading as a whole process, not only at a series of reading comprehension breakdowns (see Ericsson 1988).

4. A review of selected comparative