Strategies used by successful and unsuccessful readers

Hosenfeld (1977, cited in Cohen and Hosenfeld 1981) looked at the behaviours of successful and unsuccessful readers. Th e subjects were 20 students who scored high on a reading profi ciency test and 20 students who scored low on this test. All subjects were American students attending French, Spanish and German classes.

Th e fi ndings showed that the two groups of readers use diff erent strategies to un-derstand texts. Successful readers read in broad phrases, remember the meaning of the sentences they have read, ignore unessential words and use context to guess the meaning of new words. Unsuccessful readers read word-by-word, tend to forget the meaning of sentences as soon as they decode them, rarely skip words that are not essential for understanding and prefer to check the meaning of unknown words in a dictionary. For the sake of clarity, Hosenfeld (1977) presented the results of her research in the form of “reading maps,” which eff ectively portrayed the dif-ferences between the two types of readers. Further analysis of the above described protocols led Hosenfeld (1984) to identify the following strategies of successful reading: identifying the grammatical category of words, sensitivity to a diff erent word order in FL, examining illustrations, paying attention to the title and using it to make inferences, using orthographic information (e.g., capitalisation), referring to the side gloss, using the glossary as a last resort, looking up words correctly, con-tinuing after the unsuccessful decoding of a word or phrase, recognising cognates, using knowledge of the world, going on with a proposed solution to a problem and evaluating guesses.

Hosenfeld conducted a few studies which aimed to check whether it is possible to teach an unsuccessful reader strategies of successful reading. In one of them (Hosenfeld 1979, cited in Hosenfeld 1984), a 14-year-old girl learning French as FL was fi rst shown a protocol of a successful reader and asked to compare her reading with that from the verbal report. Th en, she practised new reading strategies. Th e girl improved her style of reading and began to apply a number of successful

read-ing strategies. However, there were strategies she did not manage to learn. Th ese were: 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.

Zupnik (1985, cited in Cohen 1986) compared two intermediate EFL readers, a strong one and a weak one. In the analysis of the moves (i.e., strategies) used by the readers, the researcher applied Sarig’s (1987) taxonomy (described in Section 4.4. below). Th e results revealed that the weak reader used more moves and a larger variety of moves than the strong one. Th is seemed to contradict Olshavsky’s fi ndings that stronger readers use more strategies. However, a closer analysis showed that most of the moves used by the weak reader were clarifi cation and simplifi cation (e.g., the analysis of vocabulary), whereas most of the moves applied by the strong one were monitoring moves (e.g., the ability to identify failure in comprehension).

Moreover, most of the strong reader’s moves were comprehension-promoting, while most of the weak reader’s moves deterred comprehension.

3.3. Monitoring comprehension by profi cient and less profi cient readers

Yang (2002) aimed to compare comprehension monitoring of profi cient and less profi cient FL readers as well as to observe the infl uence of teacher intervention on subjects’ comprehension monitoring. Th e researcher defi nes comprehension moni-toring not as strategies or skills but as a general competence or higher-level ability which controls readers’ understanding and enables them to use specifi c monitoring strategies. After a think-aloud session, the subjects were asked to answer a set of multiple choice questions without referring to the text. Five days after the main experiment, the subjects were asked to read and evaluate their protocols.

To analyse the subjects’ protocols, a taxonomy of evaluation standards proposed by Baker (1985, cited in Baker 1996 ) was used; Yang calls them levels of cognitive process in comprehension monitoring. (All the seven standards are presented in Chapter 2, Section 2.3. in this part). Th e levels of monitoring adapted from Baker (1985, cited in Baker 1996) showed how the lexical and syntactic levels were utilised to monitor the lexical and syntactic comprehension of the text. Th ey also indicated how the other levels were used to integrate this linguistic knowledge with the subject’s prior knowledge internal and external to the text. Th us, Yang (2002: 16) concluded that “[t]he emergence of higher standards of comprehension monitoring follows the comprehension of a large portion of the text at the lexical and syntactic levels.” To achieve higher levels of comprehension of the text, it is necessary to operate at a higher level of comprehension monitoring.

Th e results indicated that both profi cient and less profi cient subjects could monitor their comprehension. Th e better readers operated more frequently at the higher levels of comprehension monitoring and seemed to monitor their

on-line reading retrospectively. For example, although they were not able to grasp the meaning of certain words as they appeared in the text, they managed to suc-cessfully “guess” what the words mean as they progressed to the end of the text.

In contrast, the less able readers’ monitoring was limited to the lexical and syn-tactic levels. Th e author of the study attributed it to the readers’ poor language knowledge and inability to integrate it with their prior knowledge related to the text.

As regards the second part of the study, i.e., the instruction session, the results showed that all the subjects benefi ted from teacher intervention. All the readers began to apply a richer repertoire of cognitive levels; even the less profi cient read-ers got engaged in the levels other than the two most basic ones, i.e., lexical and syntactic. Th e reading teacher directed the subjects’ monitoring, helped them to distinguish relevant from irrelevant information as well as prompted them to evalu-ate their interpretations of words.

3.4. Factors that make texts diffi cult to read

Berman (1984) conducted an informal study with her students at Tel Aviv Uni-versity. Th e material for the study was taken from the academic text her students found diffi cult. Th e main aim was to fi nd out what factors made the text diffi cult:

linguistic or conceptual. Subjects read the passage sentence-by-sentence, explain-ing what they had not understood. To explain unclear aspects of the text, students resorted to translating sentences into Hebrew; in some sentences they were asked by the researcher to reword the sentence or indicate the subject and main verb. Th e analysis of students’ protocols revealed a number of sources of diffi culty caused by syntactic, rather than lexical or conceptual, factors. Berman identifi ed areas of diffi culty which in many cases were attributed to diff erences between Hebrew and English grammar. For example, subjects were confused by the deletion of gram-matical markers or lack of overt pronominalisation of the complex subject in the sentence they read.

3.5. 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 studies in L1 and FL/L2

Of particular interest to this discussion are think-aloud studies that investigate both L1 and FL/L2 reading. Because of the focus of this book, most of the studies reviewed here explore reading in FL. Only one study, i.e., the one by Pritchard and O’Hara (2008), looks at the reading of sequential bilingual learners, those who read in L1 and L2 (see Note 1). Th e summary of the studies discussed in this chapter is presented in Table II.6.

Table II.6. Th ink-aloud text comprehension studies in the L1 and FL/L2 context

Name Type of text Subjects Aim Results

Nevo (1985);

strategy use is a stable phenomenon in both L1 and FL reading;

no diff erences in strategy use in L1 and FL were found

Name Type of text Subjects Aim Results

* this sign means that it is not possible to specify the kind of think-aloud procedure used in the study Source: own study.

4.1. Processing strategies in L1 and FL/L2 reading

Davis and Bistodeau (1993) investigated eight native readers of English and eight native readers of French. Two newspaper articles on the same topic were selected, each in two versions: an English and a French version. Each subject read one text in the FL and the other in the L1. Subjects were shown the texts sentence by sen-tence and asked to think aloud. After reading each passage, they were asked to write down everything they remembered from the text. Th is task gave subjects a clear purpose to read the texts for global understanding. After the think-aloud session, subjects were interviewed about whether and how their L1 and FL read-ing diff ered as well as what they thought about the think-aloud task itself. Th irteen strategies were identifi ed: 3 bottom-up strategies, e.g, individual word focus, focus on intrasentential features; 10 top-down strategies, e.g., prediction, making infer-ences, drawing on prior knowledge, evaluative comments and self-questioning; and 2 metacognitive strategies – comments on the task itself and comments on the subjects’ own behaviour.

Th e analysis concerning native readers of English revealed that when subjects read in their L1 (i.e., English), they used signifi cantly more top down strategies than in their FL (i.e., French). For example, subjects made signifi cantly more evalu-ative comments in their L1 than FL. Exactly the opposite was observed in their FL reading, i.e., greater frequency of bottom up strategy use in the FL than in the L1.

For example, focusing on individual words was reported more frequently in the FL than the L1. Th e number of metacognitive comments did not diff er according to the language. As regards the group of native readers of French, no statistically signifi cant diff erences were found between the use of bottom-up and top-down strategies. An interesting fi nding was that the more linguistically profi cient readers produced more top down comments in both their L1 and the FL.

Th e comparison of the two groups, native readers of French and native readers of English, revealed two common trends between the groups. First, it was found

that when subjects read in their FL, there was a positive correlation between the reported use of restatement (one of the bottom-up strategies) and the number of units recalled. To explain this result, Davis and Bistodeau quoted Kern (1988), who claims that due to weaker memory traces in a non-native language restatement may be more useful in one’s FL. Th e other trend refers to aff ective diff erences between L1 and FL reading. Subjects seemed to react diff erently to comprehension diffi cul-ties depending on whether they read in their L1 or FL. Readers’ comments implied

that when subjects read in their FL, there was a positive correlation between the reported use of restatement (one of the bottom-up strategies) and the number of units recalled. To explain this result, Davis and Bistodeau quoted Kern (1988), who claims that due to weaker memory traces in a non-native language restatement may be more useful in one’s FL. Th e other trend refers to aff ective diff erences between L1 and FL reading. Subjects seemed to react diff erently to comprehension diffi cul-ties depending on whether they read in their L1 or FL. Readers’ comments implied