Skipping 7 Translating

8. Substituting 9. Using visual aids

46

(a) Using lexical knowledge

(b) Using syntactic or grammatical knowledge 11. Using context

12. Vocalizing

From the point of view of this model, accuracy in understanding linguistics units is very significant and the lower-level processing skills in reading are important. This model, however, weakens the significance of reading comprehension because the focus is on linguistic knowledge but little attention is paid to schema, i.e. related cultural

background, the whole text, etc. Some example of reading activities used in this approach includes:

 Finding or underlining examples of tenses or grammar structures.

 Scanning a text for specific information.

 Making a timeline of the events in the text

 Finding synonyms or definitions of words in bold.

(Munoz Fuendalida, 2010, p13)

3.3.2. Top-down Approach

The top-down model is in direct opposition to the bottom-up model. Also called the concept-driven or reader-driven approach, this model recognizes the critical role played by readers’ expectations of the contents of the text being processed (Urquhart & Weir, 1998). Goodman (1967) presented reading as “a psycholinguistic guessing game”, a process in which readers sample the text, make hypotheses, confirm or reject them, make new hypotheses, and so forth. Here, the reader, rather than the text is at the heart of the reading process. This top-down model views readers as beginning with meaning and sampling information sources in the text and then making connections with their own experiences to construct the meaning of what they read. Top-down processes are characterized as higher level processes whereby processing direction during reading is from the reader to the text. Briefly stated, the top down model views the reader beginning with meaning and sampling of information sources in the text. The readers then make connections with his/her own experiences in order to construct meaning from their reading. Variables including reader’s background knowledge of the text and

47

emphasis of top-down theories and models.

Top down strategies are strategies that readers used to predict text content, construct goal for reading, and self-monitor the reading problems. These are called general strategies (Block, 1986 and Block, 1992) or global strategies (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). Lee-Thompson’s (2008) top-down strategies were mainly applied to ‘assemble or integrate information to gain a holistic understanding of larger portions or the entire text’ (p.709) which also used to evaluate or monitor the reader’s progress towards achieving his/her goal of comprehension. These fifteen top down strategies are as below:

1. Previewing

2. Paraphrasing

3. Using background knowledge and personal experiences

4. Anticipating

5. Hypothesizing

6. Formulating questions

7. Identifying main ideas

8. Taking notes 9. Making a summary 10. Planning 11. Attending Selectively 12. Monitoring Comprehension 13. Identifying problems 14. Evaluating performance

15. Evaluating Strategy use

(Lee-Thompson, 2008. Pp709)

Examples of reading activities that are based on this approach include:

 Predicting the text using titles, pictures

 Writing a journal entry about a time the learner had a similar experience

 Expressing an opinion or reaction to the text

 Writing a summary of the text or the author’s point of view

 Taking notes in the margin of the main ideas of each paragraph

 Relating the text to something in current events

48

and 1980s until a general consensus began to emerge that reading is a complicated, interactive process that involves both approaches (Carrell, 1988; Stanovich, 1980; Rumelhart, 1977). As Wolf (1987) puts it, both data-driven processing and concept- driven processing are “interdependent processes” (p.311). Each compliments the other. It is further difficult to process L2 reading texts on the strength of either the top-down or bottom-up approach alone.

3.3.3. The Interactive Approach

In this model reading is viewed as an interactive, cognitive psycholinguistic process where both, bottom-up and top-down processes are simultaneously involved. This approach considers an interaction between the reader and the text. Specifically, bottom-up processing is evoked by the incoming data from the text, while top-down processing occurs as the reader makes predictions in the light of his/her background knowledge (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983).

As indicated in section 1.3, this study views reading process as the interaction of both bottom-up and top-down processing during reading. This is seen of relevance to this study because L2 reading processing seemed to be happening on several levels. Researchers in the L2 reading have also acknowledged the interactivity of reading processes (for example Carrell, 1985; Carrell, Devine, and Eskey, 1988; Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Erler and Finkbeiner, 2011).

In this interactive approach to reading, the processing information during reading involve readers starting with bottom-up reading to process a chunk of a sentence and then shift to top-down reading to make a hypothesis about the meaning of a sentence or a group sentences. Readers will use top-down reading to predict the meaning of the input then switch to bottom-up reading to check whether their prediction is correct. In the L2 reading context, when students read a text, he or she attempts to interpret the reading material and in doing so, various sources of knowledge interact with each other. Such sources of knowledge include orthographic knowledge, lexical knowledge, syntactic knowledge and semantic knowledge (Faizah Abdul Majid, Zalizan Mohammed

49

variables but attempts to gain insight into strategy use during the reading process and how students process information from the text, i.e. for comprehension and eventually to learn the content. .

According to Cooper, Warncke & Shipman (1988), reading is not merely decoding words but it is actually a process of constructing or processing. Grabe (1991) further states that reading is not merely a receptive process of picking up information from the page in a verbatim manner but it is a selective process which characterizes an active process of comprehending. Reading does not occur unless comprehension takes place or meaning is constructed. Therefore, the ultimate goal of reading is to process information and comprehend a text. In this respect, this study is further based on the assumption that reading is a complex process of making meaning from the text, for a variety of

purposes (Allan & Bruton, 1998) and that readers make use of background knowledge, vocabulary, grammatical knowledge, experiences with text and other strategies to help them understand a written text (Paris, Cross & Lipson, 1984; Block 1992).This reading process is even more complex in second language reading context because other variables also contribute to the process. These include motivation, task and purpose of reading, L2 proficiency and reader’s background. These variables are not the focus in this study but the employment of reading strategies in processing information from a text written in a second language.

Second language reading is therefore an important skill that can facilitate or hinder academic success to second language learners across educational context. Reading is also a crucial source input for L2 development (Taylor, Stevens & Asher, 2006). This adds further support to the current study in Brunei because the results might have great implications for success in content subjects and English language.

We will now look at how reading strategies play a significant role in reading, particularly in academic setting as in the current study.

50

expected to teach literacy, in this case reading in their classroom. There needs to be a balance between teaching reading skills and teaching reading particularly in the content subject classes. Reading in these classes does not just include comprehension but to enable students to learn, use and apply the content. Content area reading

instruction includes helping students tap into their reasoning abilities, increase problem solving skills, and demonstrate higher-level thinking abilities (Misulis, 2000). In the preliminary study conducted prior to the main study, the teachers stated that the students in Brunei are required to read extensively. And since subjects in the Brunei secondary schools are predominantly taught in English, it can be hypothesized that Bruneian students do need reading instruction, particularly reading to learn for study purposes.

It has been recognized that students encounter many new words, or words used in new ways in content subjects and that students need to read with understanding and to study effectively in order to learn subject matter (Singhal, 2001). Research has

encouraged teachers in recent decades to identify and use tools other than explaining the content of their lessons that can enable students to engage with and more

effectively learn subject matter (e.g. Ogle, 1986; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Therefore the next sections will try to describe reading

strategies used for comprehension and for learning.

3.4

Reading comprehension strategies

The National Reading Panel’s (NRP) report (cited in Dole, 2004) listed a number of comprehension strategies that have been found to be useful to L2 readers and have been successfully taught. These strategies include procedures such as identifying existing prior knowledge, predicting, visualizing, summarizing, generating questions, monitoring comprehension, and repairing comprehension breakdowns. Students can learn or taught to use these strategies, with practice and instruction, on their own and thus can learn to become strategic readers (Paris, Wasik & Turner, 1991).

51

comprehension improves as shown in a study by Palincsar & Brown (1984). Palincsar & Brown (1984) identified four particular important strategies to teach: predicting, summarizing, clarifying hard parts, and asking questions. The researchers taught L1 students in their study over an extended period of time. They first modeled the strategies when reading content area textbooks, then the students worked in peer learning groups and over time students are given responsibility to use the strategies completely on their own. Students eventually learned how to use the strategies on their own. The teaching of these four particular strategies is well known as reciprocal

teaching (Palincsar & Brown 1984). Although their study was done with L1 students, L2 students may benefit from the reading strategies component when reading in the L2 context. Comprehension strategies are therefore useful to teach and useful to learn. The body of research supporting their use is abundant (e.g. Palincsar & Brown 1984; Beach, 1996; Block, 1992; Kern, 1989; Nassaji, 2002).

In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), language learner strategies have enriched the SLA literature by providing insight into the metacognitive, cognitive and affective processes involved in L2 learning (Chamot, 2005). Learner strategies can be defined as specific actions taken by learners to facilitate language learning task (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Within the L2 context, language learner strategies can be classified into two categories: language learning and language use (Cohen 1998).

Though not the intention of this study to exhaustively outline what these strategies are, it is necessary to discuss here briefly the difference between the two strategies.

Research in second language reading suggests that learners use a variety of strategies to assist them with the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information (Rigney, 1978 cited in Singhal, 2001). Strategies are defined as learning techniques, behaviours,

problem-solving or study skill which make learning more effective and efficient (Oxford & Crookall, 1989). In the context of second language learning, a distinction can be made between strategies that make learning more effective (that is reading to learn), versus strategies that improve comprehension (Singhal, 2001). The former are generally referred to as learning strategies in the second language literature. Language learner

52

and acquisition in general (Phaktit, 2003) whereas language use strategies are those that language learners use to successfully achieved their goals in a specific context (e.g. to obtain better scores on a reading test).

3.4.1. Defining Strategies

Defining strategies has also leads to various controversial issues and difficulties. The fuzziness of the definition of strategies is due to the decision to be made on whether strategies are referred to as activities or behaviours deployed consciously,

subconsciously or unconsciously (e.g. Barnett 1988; Kern 1989) or whether they are only referred to activities or behaviours employed in a conscious way (e.g. Anderson, 2005; Cohen, 1998; Ellis, 1994). However, despite the debate of the clear cut extent of

consciousness, most researchers (e.g. Chamot, 2005; Cohen, 1998; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Oxford & Cohen, 1992) agree that the involvement of a certain level of conscious intention is an indispensible element in employing strategies.

Added to this, there is also the issue concerning whether strategies are mental operations or behavioural activities. Some strategy researchers view strategies as mental operations that language learners deploy in L2 acquisition, L2 use or L2 test contexts (e.g. Abbott, 2006; Cohen 1998; Hosenfeld, 1977; Macaro, 2006) while among several researchers (e.g. Anderson, 2005; Ellis, 1994; Purpura, 1997), ‘there remained [remains] a determination that strategies should encompass more than mental operations’ (Grenfell & Macaro, 2007:21). That is, strategies are conceived as both mental and behavioural activities related to given task performance.

The controversial definition of strategies seems to be associated with methods utilized to investigate strategies that learners use. As verbal reports are applied to examine learners’ strategies deployment, it appears evident that actions or activities occurring consciously will be verbalized and detected. On the other hand, when questionnaire are adopted, subconscious or potentially unconscious activities, in addition to conscious ones, may be self-reported. In this study, a strategy is defined as a consciously or subconsciously, mental or behavioural activity related to directly or indirectly to task

53

context of reading, processing information from academic text (books) by students is an area of interest in the study.

As this section looked at reading strategies and since the preliminary study found that the students seemed to use more cognitive strategies, It was felt that a section on this type of strategy will be discussed.

3.4.2. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies .

It is quite difficult to distinguish between what is cognitive from what is metacognitive or in other words how to distinguish between ‘meta’ from ‘cognitive’ (Borkowski 1992, Brown 1987).This difficulty arises in trying to differentiate a cognitive strategy (such as thinking, reasoning and perceiving) from a metacognitive strategy. Metacognitive strategies are higher order skills which include planning for, monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learning activity (Brown, 1985) and are applicable to a variety of learning tasks and should be integrated into instruction for both L1 and L2 students at various ability levels (Nolan, 1991). Cognitive strategies operate directly on the

information in hand, manipulating it to enhance learning. Such strategies may include inferencing, summarizing, deduction, imagery and transfer. Another difficulty arises when reading strategies that were once considered as cognitive are now considered metacognitive. Such strategies include: