Reader variables

Beside the text variables that may affect REFL, there are reader variables such as motivation, attitude, purpose, background knowledge and experience. These aspects of reader variables are discussed in the following sections.

Motivation

Motivation is important in learning any language skill generally, and REFL in particular, because readers with a high interest or particular purpose in reading are likely be more engaged in reading tasks. Reading in FL researchers (for example, Grabe, 2009; Hedgcock and Ferris, 2009) discuss reader motivation by subdividing it into two categories:

integrative versus instrumental, and intrinsic versus extrinsic. The distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation is indistinct. For instance, Gardner (1985) defines integrative motivation ‘as a composite construct made up of three main components’:

1. Integrative orientation, interest in foreign language.

2. Attitudes toward the teacher and the course.

3. Desire and effort to learn. Instrumental motivation is the desire to study the FL.

(Gardner, 1985, cited in Nakata, 2006, p.58)

Ryan, Kuhl, and Deci, (1997) introduce Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which is based on an innate need for competence in which the individual chooses the sources that interest him/her and which s/he enjoys, whereas extrinsic motivation refers to engaging the

individual in reading activities to gain social rewards. For instance, intrinsic motivation views reading as a source of enjoyment in which the reader engages during their free time.

Meanwhile, extrinsic reading motivation describes reading as based on external demands, such as those made by a teacher.

Many FL learning scholars, for example, Brown, (2007) and Deci and Ryan, (1985), argue that intrinsic motivation, which can be presented as integrative and instrumental

motivation, is the more positive motivation for EFL learning. However, Dhanapala (2008) investigated intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in FL reading among 247 Japanese and Sri Lanka EFL students using a motivation for reading questionnaire, a background

questionnaire and reading comprehension test. He found that ‘intrinsic motivation was

highly correlated with extrinsic motivation’ (p.6), and there were no variations in L1 and FL reading because readers in both languages might be reading either for personal

enjoyment or external rewards. Motivation is important in reading and relevant while I was attempting to read A Scots Quair. Text level and genre affected my motivation to read.

Further, my difficulties with, and interest in, the text content did not motivate me to read and understand the content when I could not understand so many terms. The background knowledge and content knowledge might help to increase readers’ motivation, as the next section discusses.

Schemata

Schema refers to background knowledge such as the reader's knowledge and experience.

Rumelhart (1980, cited in Dechant, 1991, p.113) define schema as ‘organized knowledge structures that aid the reader in comprehending text; they are the building block of cognition’. Researchers such as Brummer and Macceca (2004, p.64) state that readers

‘build a schema, or a mental representation, of what they learn to organise their prior knowledge on a topic’. Schema theorists argue that the text offers directions to the readers which allow them to build their own meanings based on their background knowledge (Anderson and Pearson, 1984; Wilson and Anderson, 1986). Readers organise and store knowledge in units of schema based on their experiences of a situation or event. EFL readers have different socio-cultural schema and may have problems processing

knowledge from the target language. In addition, they may or may not be fluent readers in their L1. The main question is whether their background knowledge in L1 always balances their lack of knowledge in FL. I review three types of schema knowledge: content,

rhetorical and linguistic, which are relatively related to top-down and interactive reading models.

Content schemata

According to Kusiak (2013), content schemata refer to the reader’s use of background knowledge to comprehend a text and he claims that the more knowledge the reader has about the topic, the more easily s/he will comprehend the text. It would seem, that EFL readers benefit from using their previous experience in understanding a text. However, Carrell (1983) states that content schemata should be approached carefully because of cross-cultural variations in texts. Some cultural information may be problematic for EFL

readers because of their lack of familiarity with culture-specific context presumed by the text. Also, English L1 speakers from the same 'cultural group', reading the same text, may vary in their content schemata. A reader from London may have difficulties reading A Scots Quair that a reader from Edinburgh might not. Understandably, readers of EFL might find it impossible to activate their content schemata for this text.

Jalilifar and Assi (2008) looked at a particular aspect of content schemata, the role of cultural differences in comprehending EFL reading context, with 60 Iranian students majoring in teaching EFL. Using three short American stories, Jalilifar and Assi (2008) found the participants were challenged in identifying the content and characters because

‘these stories take for granted the cultural assumptions of the native speakers of English’

(p.73). Cultural differences are surely likely to have a significant impact in comprehending reading texts because culture represents the beliefs, values and standards that direct

individuals' behaviours and thoughts. Yokota and Teale (2002) state that the boundaries by which cultures are defined are sometimes based on geographical areas, ethnicity, religion, philosophy and other common ground. For instance, one of the major factors that affected my comprehension in reading A Scots Quair was my lack of cultural schemata, such as geographical and ethnic background knowledge of a particular region of Scotland, so I was unable to predict the meaning of the context using schemata. The following section

discusses the rhetorical or formal schema which refer to the knowledge of various texts organisational structures (Carrell and Eisterhold, 1988).

Rhetorical schemata

Rhetorical schemata might be described as the communicative samples that writers utilize to represent circumstances in discourse (Rouet, 2012), such as the writer's knowledge and how s/he might communicate his/her knowledge. According to Rouet (2012, p.43), rhetorical schemata reflect the ‘situations conveyed by language and communication conventions’. As discussed above, Davies (1995) demonstrated three main types of texts that should be considered: cause-effect, comparison-contrast, and

argument-exemplification. Several researchers investigated the effect of the FL reader’s knowledge of the rhetorical schema of text type. For instance, Zhang (2008) carried out a study of 45 university students to explore the effects of rhetorical patterns on EFL reading

comprehension. He selected three groups of EFL students, and each group was asked to recall a passage containing identical content, but using different rhetorical schemata:

description schema, comparison and contrast schema, and problem-solution schema (Zhang, 2008, p.176). He found that rhetorical schema has a crucial effect on written communication because the subjects did better on highly structured schema than on loosely controlled schema.

Rhetorical schemata knowledge could be helpful for all readers, but some FL readers may have gaps in the text type’s knowledge. Hedgcock and Ferris (2009) identified two primary sources of FL reading problems. First, the FL reader has limited experience of the target language’s different genre and text types and, second, some formal schemata may not transfer from the L1 to the FL. Working with Arab EFL students, Stapa and Irtaimeh (2012) investigated the transfer of rhetorical features from Arabic to English. The study looked for differences in the transfer of two rhetorical features in relation to gender, as well as the effectiveness of raising students' awareness of rhetoric in writing. They found that Arab EFL students transfer Arabic rhetorical structures such as culture to English. The results also showed that raising the students' awareness of the importance of rhetoric in FL writing and of the cultural, rhetorical, and linguistic differences between Arabic and English, significantly reduced the transfer of rhetorical features (Stapa and Irtaimeh, 2012, p.160). Comprehension of the context is reduced because the two languages have

completely different text structures so the reader might need interactive reading strategies to understand the text.

3.3 Chapter Summary

This chapter discussed the main strategic behaviours (bottom-up, top-down and eventual interactive reading strategies) that successful EFL readers might utilize to comprehend the reading text. Discussions about reading strategies highlighted various difficulties in defining what was meant by strategies and how they could be classified from reading behaviours. The literature showed no clear-cut distinction between the terms ‘behaviour’

and ‘strategy’ because strategies might sometimes be defined as conscious or

subconscious. For example, tracing words while reading might be considered a reading strategy and, simultaneously, a reading behaviour to indicate a strategy. From this perspective and to overcome these difficulties I decided to use the term ‘strategic behaviour’ that included both terms.

Reviewing the literature about reading strategic behaviours also showed that successful EFL readers were those who used both top-down and bottom-up to interactive reading strategic behaviours. This supported my selection of the eventual interactive reading type strategies discussed in the previous chapter. The eventual interactive reading model is a nonlinear model that combines elements of top-down and bottom-up type strategies, where the information comes from different directions to help the reader interact with the text.

However, obstacles such as text and reader variables should be considered while investigating reading strategies, for the reason that reader motivation and linguistic knowledge might affect reading competence. The following chapter discusses the perspectives on teaching methods to reading English as FL.

CHAPTER FOUR: PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING METHODS FOR READING ENGLISH AS A

FOREIGN LANGUAGE

4.0 Introduction

In this chapter, I will explore the main theories and methods of teaching in a foreign language (FL) to understand, ultimately, which methods of teaching eventual interactive reading strategic behaviours might be most appropriate in my work. Studying the methods of teaching in a FL could help me to understand how to use the reading models which I discussed in Chapter Two: Goodman’s top-down model (1967), Gough's (1972) bottom-up model, Rumelhart's (1977) interactive model and Bernhardt's (1991) compensatory

interactive model in teaching Reading in English as a Foreign Language (REFL). Adopting various techniques selected from different language teaching methods and reading models could, I thought, be helpful because certain parts of each teaching method might ‘fire’ an eventual interactive model of reading for meaning. In this chapter, therefore, I will discuss methods of teaching REFL by providing an overview of teaching and learning methods of, for example, the Grammar Translation Method and Audio-Lingual Method, as these offer insights into how EFL is taught. Further, these methods will, I suggest, affect ways in which REFL is both regarded and taught. I will briefly discuss different methods in terms of their general characteristics, and outline how these methods conceive of teaching and learning REFL in particular. Finally, I will provide a brief outline of the advantages and disadvantages of each method in practice by analysing them with respect to my own reading of A Scots Quair.