Models……………………………………………………………………………….25
2.2.1.3. Interactive Models………………………………………………………………………………..26
2.2.2. Types of Reading…………………………………………………………………………………………26
2.2.2.1. Extensive Reading………………………………………………………………………………26
2.2.2.2. Intensive Reading……………………………………………………………………………….27
2.2.2.3. Silent Reading……………………………………………………………………………………28
2.2.3. Reasons for Reading…………………………………………………………………………………….29
2.2.4. Importance of Reading…………………………………………………………………………………30
2.2.5. Importance of Teaching Reading…………………………………………………………………..31
2.2.6. Process vs. Product of Reading……………………………………………………………………..32
2.3. Good vs. Poor Readers………………………………………………………………………………………..32
2.4. Schema Theory…………………………………………………………………………………………………..35
2.5. Inferencing…………………………………………………………………………………………………………36
2.5.1. The Difference between Reasoning and Inferencing…………………………………………37
2.5.2. Types of Inferences………………………………………………………………………………………37
2.6. Scaffolding and Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): History of the Concept………..38
2.7. ZPD in the Classroom………………………………………………………………………………………….42
2.8. Learning from a Sociocultural Perspective……………………………………………………………..43
2.9. The Mind and Scaffolding……………………………………………………………………………………44
2.10. Educational Scaffolding: an Instructional Technique ……………………………………………45
2.11. Concepts Embedded in Scaffolding…………………………………………………………………….47
2.12. Self-scaffolding………………………………………………………………………………………………..48
2.13. Contexts of Scaffolding……………………………………………………………………………………..49
2.14. Successful vs. Inefficient of Scaffolding………………………………………………………………51
2.15. Macro and Micro Focuses on Tasks in Scaffolding……………………………………………….52
2.16. Scaffolding and Good Teaching………………………………………………………………………….52
2.17. Effective Scaffolded Instruction………………………………………………………………………….53
2.18. Guidelines for Effective Scaffolding……………………………………………………………………54
2.19. Types of Instructional Scaffolding to Use with English Learners…………………………….55
2.20. Challenges and Benefits of Scaffolding………………………………………………………………..57
Chapter III : Methodology 60
3.1. Participants…………………………………………………………………………………………………………61
3.2. Instrumentation …………………………………………………………………………………………………..61
3.2.1. Language proficiency test……………………………………………………………………………..61
3.2.2. The reading posttest……………………………………………………………………………………..64
3.2.3. Instructional Material……………………………………………………………………………………65
3.3. Procedure …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..65
3.3.1. Piloting the PET Test……………………………………………………………………………………65
3.3.2. Homogenizing the Participants………………………………………………………………………66
3.3.4. The Treatment……………………………………………………………………………………………..66
3.3.5. Administration of the Reading Post-Test…………………………………………………………68
3.4. Design……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….69
3.5. Data analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………………69
Chapter IV: Results and Discussions 70
4.1.Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………71
4.2.Results of Data Analyses……………………………………………………………………………………….71
4.3 Discussions………………………………………………………………………………………………………….81
Chapter V : Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications86
5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………87
5.2. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..87
5.3. Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………………………………………………..88
5.4. Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………………………………………….89
References 91
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics of scores obtained by both groups on PET 72
Table 4.2: Mean Ranks of both groups on PET test 74
Table 4. 3: Test Statisticsaof PET scores 74
Table 4.4:Descriptive Statistics of reading scores of both groups before treatment 75
Table 4.5: Mean Ranks of reading scores before treatment 75
Table 4.6: Test Statisticsaof reading scores before treatment 77
Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics of the posttest scores 78
Table 4.8: Mean Ranks of reading posttest scores 80
Table 4.9:Test Statisticsaof reading posttest scores 80
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Expanded ZPD (by van Lier, 2004, cited in Walquil ,2006) 50
Figure 4.1: Histogram representing the scores obtained by the control group on the PET test 73
Figure 4.2: Histogram representing the scores obtained by the experimental group on the PET test 73
Figure 4.3: Histogram representing the scores obtained by the control group on the reading pretest 76
Figure 4.4: Histogram representing the scores obtained by the experimental group on the reading pretest 76
Figure 4.5: Histogram representing the scores obtained by the experimental group on the reading posttest 78
Figure 4.6: Histogram representing the scores obtained by the control group on the reading posttest 78
Figure 4.7: Bar graph representing the mean scores of the two groups on the reading posttest 81
Chapter I
Background and Purpose
1.1 Introduction
There is no doubt that developing the ability to read is a very important skill
because literacy has always been described in terms of being able to read. Reading is a necessity in modern societies because we are all surrounded by print. We read newspapers to keep abreast of recent world news during the day. We read novels and short stories for pleasure at night before going to sleep. We read brochures and catalogues to decide whether to buy a specific product or not. In addition to all these, thanks to modern technology, we need to read other materials such as e-mails and short text messages. Given the importance of reading in our daily lives, there is little wonder why assisting English language learners in understanding reading comprehension texts has always been a major preoccupation for reading researchers and teachers (Baleghizadeh, 2011 .1669).
Rivers (1981) said ”Justification for an emphasis on the development of the
reading skill is not hard to find. In many countries foreign languages are learned by numbers of students who will never have the opportunity of conversing with native speakers, but who will have access to literature and periodicals, or scientific and technical journals, written in the language they are learning. Many will need these publications to assist them with further studies or in their work; other will wish to enjoy reading in another language in their leisure time to keep them in touch with world” (p.260)
Rivers (1981) is of the belief that the reading skill, once developed, is the one which can be most easily maintained at a high level by the students themselves without further help from a teacher. Through it they can increase their knowledge and understanding of the culture of the speakers of the language, their ways of thinking, their contemporary activities, and their contributions to many fields of artistic and intellectual endeavor. To imagine that all students who have learned language at school will do this, however, is a blissful illusion. Unless students have been taught to read the target language fluently, without deciphering it laboriously word by word, and to approach a book or magazine article independently with confidence, it is unlikely that they will want to continue to read in that language after they have completed their studies.
Rivers (1981), maintain that “the ability to read another language with direct
comprehension and with fluency should be cultivated in progressive stages, and
practiced at first with carefully selected material which students can read with ease
and enjoyment. ” (p.260). Rivers continues that rushing students very quickly into reading material beyond their present capacity for fluent comprehension with occasional contextual guessing,- the ultimate goal, destroys confidence and forces students back to deciphering with a dictionary or word list. This deciphering allows students to piece together the denotational meaning of discrete elements, but they frequently remain to the overall meaning which evolves from the way these elements interact within the discourse. They miss the mood, tone, or special intent of the passage while extracting detailed information from particular segments. After that, when they have gained confidence, they will be ready for a wide range of materials selected primarily for content and pertinence to their interests, without specific attention to level of reading difficulty.(Rivers, 1981).
Aksan and Kisac, (2009) believe that ”the fundamental of learning is apprehension and the fundamental of apprehension is reading ” (p.834). ”Reading is an important language skill and a highly complicated act that everyone must learn. Reading is not solely a single skill but a combination of many skills and processes in which the readers interact with printed words and texts for content and pleasure”. (Al-mansour and Al-shorman, 2011 p.69).They believes that one can teach writing, speaking, vocabulary items, grammar, spelling and other language aspects through reading. The main goals of reading are enabling students to gain an understanding of the world and themselves, to develop appreciation and interests, and to find solutions to their personal and group problems.
Norris and Philips (1989) point out that reading is more than just saying what is on the page; it is thinking. Moreover, Beck (1989) asserts ”there is no reading without reasoning” (p.677). Also, among those researchers and theoreticians who recognize that reading involves thinking is Ruggireo (1984). He indicates that reading is reasoning. Yu-hui (2010) stated clearly that reading is a
thinking process to construct meaning (cf.Aloqaili, 2012 p.38).
Lorch and Broek (1997) maintain that being able to read and comprehend text is vital for success in our society and its development has been a main component of instructional practice. In the past two decades, psychologists have dedicated a good deal of attention to the question of how competent, adult readers comprehend text. Influenced by work in linguistics and artificial intelligence, the efforts of these cognitive scientists have dramatically increased our understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying reading comprehension.
Dreyer and Nel (2003) concern the strategies for reading comprehension, they argue that ”in order to meet the reading needs of students in the 21st century,
educators are pressed to develop effective instructional means for teaching reading comprehension and reading strategy use”.(p.27)
Lewis (1991, p.421) stated that the goal of reading extended text is to arrive at a coherent representation of the text. This goal is achieved by readers’ weighing and comparing data from their schemata, the text, and the context in which the act occurs(cf Aloqaili, 2012 p.39).
Broek and Kremer (2000, pp. 11-12) state that to be successful, readers must
