The Effect of Reading Involvement through Open-Ended Strategy vs. Fill-in- the- Blanks Strategy on Young EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension Ability

Rita Salehi Sepehr, Esmaeil Bagheridoust, Massood Yazdani Moghaddam

Abstract


The present study investigated the extent to which an instructional framework of integrating strategy instruction (open-ended strategy and fill-in-the blanks strategy) with motivation- support affected on reading result for young EFL learners. The central area of exploration included a comparison among three approaches to reading instruction: First, fill-in-the blanks strategy intervention; second, open-ended strategy intervention; and last, a control group which received the conventional reading strategies. The participants were sampled from amongst a group of seventy-seven pre-intermediate EFL learners in a language school in Tehran- Iran based on convenient sampling technique. For the sake of measurement, the researchers administered PET and CELT along with reading strategy based-test to quantify the participants’ current level of knowledge as well as the degree of achievement after treatment. For measurement’s sake, different types of tests such as PET, reading comprehension test (CELT), and reading strategy based- test were employed to quantify the participants’ current level of knowledge as well as the degree of achievement before and after instruction. The result of the present study indicated that the experimental groups had a significant improvement over the control group. Also, the level of learners’ reading engagement during classroom work mediated the instructional effects on reading outcomes. The results of this study can be to the benefit of both EFL and ESL teachers to teach reading comprehension using the student's critical mind as well as critical involvement in the reading tasks.


Keywords


Reading comprehension, reading involvement, reading strategies, critical thinking, metacognition

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Anderson, N. J. (2003). Teaching reading. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 67-86). New York: McGraw Hill Publishers.

Brown, J. C. & Adams, A. (2001). Constructivist teaching strategies: Projects in teacher education. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Erkaya, O. R. (2005). Benefits of using short stories in the EFL context. The Asian EFL Journal, 8, 38-49.

Faggella-Luby, M., & Deshler, D. D. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know, what we need to know. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 23(2), 70-78.

Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G., (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A phenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 634-645.

Koda, K. (2004). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2002). Report of the National Reading Panel, “Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction.” (NIH Publication No. 00-4769), Washington, D.C.: U.S Government Printing Office.

Pakhare, J. (2007). Effective Teaching: Reading Comprehension Strategies. Retrieved July 20, 2013 from www.buzzle.com

Pardo, L.S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58 (3), 272–280.

Prince, M. & Felder, R. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 123-38.

Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self- regulation (pp. 651-685). San Diego: Academic Press.

Wilhelm, J., Sherrod, S. & Walters, K. (2008). Project-based learning environments: challenging preservice teachers to act in the moment. The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 220-233.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.6p.124

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.