TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………IIIACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………….…………………………….IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………V

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………….……………VIII

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………….………………….IX

CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE………………………………1

1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………2

1.2 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………………7

1.3 Statement of the Research Question…………………………………….…………………….9

1.4 Statement of the Research Hypothesis…………….………………………………………….10

1.5 Definition of Key Terms………………………………………….………………………….10

1.5.1 Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) ……….………………..…..……….………….10

1.5.2 Reading Comprehension…….…………………………………………………………..10

1.6 Significance of the Study……………………………………………..………………………11

1.7 Limitations and Delimitations …………..……………………………………………….…..12

1.7.1 Limitations……………………………………………………….………………………12

1.7.2 Delimitations……………………………………………………………………………..13

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE………………15

2.1Introduction…………………………………….………..….…..……………………………16

2.2 Reading…………………………………………………………….…………………………16

2.2.1 Models of Reading………………………………………………………………………..17

2.2.2 Components of Reading…………………………………………………………………..19

2.2.3 Foreign Language Reading……………………………………………………………….20

2.3 Reading Comprehension……………………………………………………………………..22

2.3.1 Definitions of Reading Comprehension…………………………………………………..24

2.3.2 Categories of Reading Comprehension………………………………..…………………25

2.3.3 Influential Factors in Reading Comprehension………………………….………………27

2.4 Reading Strategies……………………………………………………………………………28

V

2.4.1 Definitions of Reading Strategies………………………………………………………..30

2.4.2 Categories of Reading Strategies…………………………………………….…………..31

2.4.3 Reading Strategies and Reading Comprehension…………………………..……………32

2.4.4 Reading Strategies Studies in Iran………………………………………….……………35

2.5 Skilled Versus Unskilled Readers……………………………………………………………36

2.6 Collaborative Strategic Reading……………………………………………………………..42

2.6.1 Strategies Used in Collaborative Strategic Reading………………………..……………42

2.6.2 Collaborative Strategic Reading Training………………………………………………..47

2.6.3 Theoretical Background for CSR…………………………………………….…………..54

2.6.4 Studies Related to Collaborative Strategic Reading…………………………..…………62

CHAPTER III: METHOD…………………………….………………………..68

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………..………………69

3.2 Participants……………………………………………………………………………………69

3.3 Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………………70

3.3.1 Language Proficiency Test Used for Homogenization……………………………….….70

3.3.2 Rating Scales…………………………………………………………..………………….72

3.3.2.1 Writing Rating Scale of PET……………………………………………..………….72

3.3.2.2 Speaking Rating Scale of PET……………………………………………………….72

3.3.3 Pretest……………………………………………………………………………………..72

3.3.4 Post-test …………………………………………………………………………………..73

3.3.5 Material………………………………………………………………………………..….73

3.3.6 Cue Cards………………………………………………………………………………….74

3.3.7 CSR Learning Logs……………………………………………………………………….75

3.3.8 Clunk Cards ………………………………………………………………………………75

3.4 Procedure…………………………………………………………………………….………76

3. 5 Design of the Study………………………………………………………………………….89

3.6 Statistical Analysis……………………………………………………………………………89

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………….91

4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..92

4.2 Participant Selection…………………………………………………………………………92

VI

4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Proficiency Test Piloting……………………………..93

4.2.2 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Proficiency Test Administration…………..…………97

4. 3 Dividing the Participants into the Two Groups…………………………………….……….98

4.3.1 Descriptive Statistics of Reading Comprehension Pretest Piloting…………..…………98

4.3.2 Descriptive Statistics of Reading Comprehension Post-test Piloting…………..……….99

4.4 Checking the Normality……………………………………………………………………100

4.5 Pretest of Reading Comprehension Administration……………………………………..…101

4.6 Research Question………………………………………………………………………….103

4.7 Criterion Referenced Validity………………………………………………………………106

4.7.1 K-R 21 Reliability Indices…………………………………………………….………..107

4.8 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………….107

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS..109

5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………110

5.2 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….………………111

5.3 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………..……………….111

5.3.1 Implications for EFL Teachers……………………………………………….…………112

5.3.2 Implications for EFL Learners……….………………………………………..…….…113

5.3.3 Implications for EFL Syllabus Designers and Curriculum Developers………….…….113

5.4 Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………………………………..114

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………….116

APPENDICES………………………………………………………..…………130

Appendix A: Language Proficiency Test Used for Homogenization (PET)…………..……….

Appendix B: Writing Rating Scale of PET………………………………..……………………

Appendix C: Speaking Rating Scale of PET……………………………………………………

Appendix D: Pretest……………………………………………………………….……………

Appendix E: Post-test…………………………………………………………………………..

Appendix F: Cooperative Learning Group Roles………………………………………………

Appendix G: CSR Learning Log……………………………………………………………….

 

	VII

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Number of Participants in Experimental and Control Groups………..………………69

Table 3.2: Stage 1 of CSR’s Plan for Strategic Reading……………………………..…………..81

Table 3.3: Stage 2 of CSR’s Plan for Strategic Reading…………………………..……………..83

Table 3.4: Stage 3 of CSR’s Plan for Strategic Reading………………………………………….84

Table 3.5: Stage 4 of CSR’s Plan for Strategic Reading……………………………..…………..86

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of the PET Piloting……………………………………………93

Table 4.2: Reliability of the PET Piloting before Deletion of Malfunctioning Items……………94

Table 4.3: Reliability of the PET Piloting after Deletion of 3 Items……………………….……94

Table 4.4: Inter-rater Reliability of the Two Raters in the Piloting of Writing Part 2….….…….95

Table 4.5: Inter-rater Reliability of the Two Raters in the Piloting of Writing Part 3………..….95

Table 4.6: Inter-rater Reliability of the Two Raters in the Piloting of Speaking…………….….96

Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics of the PET Administration……………………………………97

Table 4.8: Reliability of the PET Administration……………………………………….………97

Table 4.9: Descriptive Statistics of Reading comprehension Pretest Piloting……………..……98

Table 4.10: Reliability of the Reading Comprehension Pretest Piloting…………………..……99

4.11: Descriptive Statistics of the Reading Comprehension Post-test Piloting…………………99

4.12: Reliability of the Reading Comprehension Post-test Piloting……………………………100

Table 4.13: Normality Assumptions……………………………………………………………101

Table 4.14: Descriptive Statistics of Pretest of Reading comprehension by Groups………..…102

Table 4.15: Independentt-test of Pretest of Reading comprehension by Groups…………..….102

Table 4.16: Descriptive Statistics of Post-test of Reading comprehension by Groups…………104

Table 4.17: Independentt-test of Post-test of Reading Comprehension by Groups…………..105

Table 4.18: Pearson Correlation PET with Pretest and Post-test of Reading Comprehension…107

Table 4.19: K-R 21 Reliability Indices…………………………………………………………107

 

 

	VIII

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Sample CSR Cue Card…………………………………………………..…………..74

Figure 3. 2: A Sample Clunk Card………………………………………………….……………76

Figure 3. 3: CSR’s Plan for Strategic Reading……………………………………………………80

Figure4. 1: Pretest of Reading Comprehension by Groups………………………….…………103

Figure4.2: Post-test of Reading Comprehension by Groups……………………………………106

 

 

 

 

	IX

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

 

1.1 Introduction

 

Reading is an inseparable part of daily life and the most necessary skill for it. It is a process involving the activation of relevant knowledge and related language skills to accomplish an exchange of information from one person to another. It requires the reader to focus his/her attention on the reading materials and integrate previously acquired knowledge and skill to comprehend what someone else has written (Chastain, 1988, p. 216).

Reading is a receptive skill, similar to listening, during which readers decode the message of the writer and try to recreate it anew (Rashtchi & Keyvanfar, 2010, P. 141). In fact, reading can be seen as a dialogue between the reader and the text or between the reader and the author. During this active involvement, the reader tries to either construct their personal interpretation of the text or get at the author’s original intention.

What has to be noted is that in real life, reading does not happen in a vacuum. It is always done within a social context for a specific reason. We might read to get information on how to do something such as reading a manual, or to learn something like studying our course books. We sometimes read in order to socialize with our friends like reading their email or read in order to organize our daily life matters such as finding the shortest route to a certain destination. Many times we find ourselves reading for pleasure such as reading a novel or browsing the internet. In some situations, we may read for a combination of reasons.

Reading comprehension as the “essence of reading” (Durkin, 1993, P. 4) occurs when a mental concept of meaning is created from the written text. To do this, “The reader extracts and integrates various kinds of information from the text and combines it with what is already known” (Koda, 2005, P. 4).

Effective reading is not something that every individual learns to do (Nunan, 1999, P. 249). Learning to reading is difficult especially for those reading in a second or foreign language (Celce-Murcia, 1979). Since reading is one of the most complex cognitive processes, there are a number of skills that contribute to fluent reading comprehension, and it is especially so in the context of L2 reading (Sepp & Morvay, 2010, p. 9). However, the widespread attention to reading predominantly focuses on early reading instruction, such as phonological awareness, decoding, and word identification instruction (Burns, Griffin, Kuldanek & Snow 1998).

To improve learners’ reading abilities, effective strategies, skills and assistant tools should be carefully considered (Oxford, 1990). The concept of strategy is defined by a number of scholars. Strategies are specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that students (often intentionally) use to improve their progress in developing L2 skills (Oxford, 1990). These strategies can facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of the new language. They are tools for the self-directed involvement necessary for developing language skills (Oxford, 1990). Many attempts have been done in order to determine and identify strategies especially influencing in the complex process of reading comprehension. In particular, many researchers have been interested in understanding what good readers typically do or posses while they read (e.g., Block, 1992; Brantmeier, 2002; Burns, Roe, & Ross, 1999; Erten & Topkaya, 2009; Heidari, 2010; Lehr, Osborn, & Hiebert, 2005; Kondo-Brown, 2006).

Interest in reading strategies among ESL/ EFL practitioners to conduct research began in the late 1960s and early 1970s along with various fields such as psycholinguistics, cognitive psychology, and education. Common to most of these streams was a desire to account for differences between “good” and “poor” readers and compare the types of strategies the former group employed which contributed to their successes and distinction.

Singhal (2001) emphasizes the crucial role of reading strategies by stating that, “They are of interest for what they reveal about the way readers manage their interactions with written text, and how these strategies are related to reading comprehension” (p. 78).

Despite using the related strategies in reading, the results of reading from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed that many students are still not able to read fluently. There are some reasons behind low reading scores such as lack of phonological awareness, phonics-related skills, not being familiar with and using proper reading strategies fully. It seems that these points were overlooked in most approaches related to teaching reading (Standish, 2005).

As mentioned before, reading is a complex process. So, it seems that using one or two strategies alone is not sufficient for being an effective reader therefore, according to Standish (2005), what is needed is a specific approach consisting of the combination of different strategies that improve reading comprehension. This approach is called “Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR)”.

Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) is proposed by three researchers Klingner, Vaughn, and Schumm in 2001. According to Klingner, Vaughn, and Schumm (as cited in Standish, 2005), CSR was designed to address three important issues in reading instruction. The first, was meeting the needs of the increasingly diverse classrooms in the United States, including English-language learners. Second, CSR provided strategy instruction that increased the students’ comprehension of text and their ability to retain and transfer their new knowledge. Third, CSR was designed to facilitate collaborative, peer-mediated instruction among students in the content area classroom.

It is an assembly of strategies that have been proven through research, to be associated with improved outcomes in reading comprehension. CSR integrates word identification, reciprocal reading, and cooperative learning. Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) is a set of four strategies which struggling readers can use to decode and comprehend as they read content area text as follows:

1. Preview: Before reading, students brainstorm prior knowledge and predict what will be learned.

1. Click and Clunk: Students identify words and word parts that were hard to understand (called “Clunks”). A sequence of “fix-up” is used to decode the “Clunk”. These strategies are: (a) Re-reading the sentence for key ideas; (b) Looking for context clues in the sentences before and after; © Looking for prefixes or suffixes; and (d) Breaking the word apart to find smaller words.

1. Get the Gist: Students learn to ask themselves: what is the most important person, place, or thing? What is the most important idea about the person, place or thing?