Afif Ikhwanul M.
State University of Malang
English Language Teaching (ELT)
(110221509492)
Which of the views of second language
reading do you tend to support? That of Jolly and Coady that focuses on lack of
trnasfer? That of Clarke and Yorio that focuses on a ‘short-circuit’ due to
language deficit? What about Goodman and Goodman who view reading as a single
uderlying process regardless of language and abilty? What conclusion do you
make regarding Alderson’s hypothesis?
1. Jolly and Coady (1979: 12) said
that the success of reading in L2 is influenced by the reading skill in L1 and
the poor L2 reader need to learn reading skill in L1 instruction.
2. Clarke and Yorio (1971: 108) said that the poor ability of reading in
L2 is caused by the reader’s lack of knowledge (imperfect knowledge) in L2.
3. Goodman and Goodman (1978: 3-22) reading is a single process which
directly connected to culture and experiential factors. Which means reading is
not only about mastering english as productive and receptive input, but inside
there is big role of the reader himself to interpret the meaning based on their
culture and experience.
4. Alderson Hypothesis explained that poor reading ability in L2 due to
poor reading ability in L1 and poor reading ability in L2 because of inadequate
knowledge of L2.
In my opinion, Jolly and Coady theory is applied in
case of customacy of reading habit. If readers have good speed of reading in L1
may be influence the speed of reading in L2. But, in sometimes readers can not
apply their speed of reading in L1 while they are not familiar with the words.
Readers tend to slow down their reading speed in L2. The reduction of reading
speed in L2 have correlation with thier
understanding the meaning of the word itself which shows readers’ imperfect
knowledge. It happens to my ESP students who come from various department in
University of Muhammadiyah Malang. They read better (speed and understanding)
in L1 (with their authentic materials handbook) than in L2 (ESP book with
specific authentic material). Goodman and Goodman is also correct in case of
culture and experiential as the prominent factors of reading L2. But, reading
L2 text with only relying on culture and experience will not be able sufficient
for students to comprehend their reading. With imperfect knowledge of L2 may
cause reverse understanding of passive sentence which motivate subject-object
misconception. So, Anderson’s second hypothesis plays bigger portion than his
first in the success of reading L2 as in my experience in teaching reading in
ESP class in University of Muhammadiyah Malang.
THEORIES AND MODELS OF FIRST LANGUAGE READING PROCESS
The
Summary and Responds
by
Afif Ikhwanul M (110221509492)
Introduction
According to
Carr (1982) that the first language model that has been developed are
meant to describe one of at least two
different processes: how a skill is acquired and what the processes of a
skilled reader look like. Historically, first language models have provieded
frameworks for help in explaining second language reading processes and the
variables that may be involved. Then, Barnett (1989) explains that there are
problems with the model buidling of reading processes and instruction. The
problems are because of limited to the knowledge, historical perspective, and
trends of time which it is embended; and implication of the experimental data
will change depending upon age, skill, materials, etc. So, linguists have developed some models
which in applications the models are still influenced by some problems which
may differ the success of the result.
In
1880s reading research focued on reading primarily as a vehicle for examining
perceptual processes such as eye movement, perceptual span, and word recognition. Then, after the publication of Huey’s pivotal
text, Psychology and Pedagogical of
Reading (1908), psychological research turn its focus to behaviorist
explanatory theories, and little cognitive processing research. In 1963, Tulvin
and Gold did research on speed of word recognition and comprehension. It was
supported by Beck and Carpenter (1986) theory on reading process. Hence, many
researches have been done by linguists to understand the best reading process
and skill for learners by using Skinner’s and Chomsky’s theories as base of
thinking.
In reading and listening there are three approaches used
help learners to learn the language in the form of text and listening. They are
Top-Down, Buttom-Up, and Interactive Approaches.
TOP-DOWN
APPROACHES
Top-down approaches is generally more symphatetic with
psycholinguistic and sociological perspectives. In this case the reader
approaches the text with conceptualization above the textual level already in
the operation and the works down to the text itself. The reader makes
continually changing hypothesis on certain information. The readers apply
background knowledge, both formal and content, to the text in order to create
meaning that is personally and contextually sensible. Goodman (1968) proposed
theory of a psycholinguistics guessing game, he emphasized that in reading
there is a process of interaction between thought and language. Further, he
specifies the four processes how readers understand reading text. The processes
are predicting, sampling, confirming, and correcting. In buttom-up approach the
reader makes guesses about the meaning of the text and smaples the print to
confirm or disconfirm the guess later on where the reader must employ his
experiential background, general conceptual background, and his background
knowledge (schema, schematta, schemes, or schemas).
According to Smith (1971, 1994) that this approach save
much time to understand the reading text rather than spending much time to
investigate all visual cues as his supply on the term redundancy in language. So,
this approach emphasize reading on the reader as the actor who has knowledge
before reading the text and assumed to have known about the content of the text
before.
BUTTOM
UP APPROACHES
According to Hudson (2007) buttom-up approaches
corresponds to the cognitive and information processing psychological concern.
The reader construct meaning from letters, words, phrases, clauses, and
sentences by processing the text into phonemic units that represent lexical
meaning. The person encodes the message into letters and words, and some soon
to be reader decodes the letters and words linearly in order to reconstruct the
original notion or idea of the writer.
Gough (1972)
proposes one second reading theory which actually reader passes through
reading process in which the visual
system scans the series of letters one by one, letter by letter, from left to
the right. He believed that word recognition takes place prior to
comprehension. so, there is Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondence in which readers
read each letter from left to right one by one then bring it to the brain as
symbol and send stimulus to speech organ to say the sound of the symbol which
in the middle there is a process of comprehension after recognizing the letter.
LaBerge and
Samuels (1974) proposed a theory of Automaticity in reading which means a
reader may not only do one thing in reading but many sub-thing in reading such
as a basketball players which they able to do dribbling, catching, and passing
in once action of ball handling. A reader may recognize the letter, comprehend
a letter, and read with sound a letter in once.
Since this
approach pays attention alot on the text itself, so researches are primarily
interested in how a reader reads rather than in what the reader comprehends a
text. The reader focus on the grammar first then moves to comprehension of the
meaning of the text. Without good understanding on part of speech as part of
text to convey the meaning, readers will never have ability to grab the meaning
of the text.
INTERACTIVE
APPROACHES
Hudson (2007) in
his book states that the use of one only between top-down or buttom-up approach
seems to be naive or simplistic. It means that reading seems to be
bidirectional in its nature which is not only need the reader to recognize the
syntaxtic sturcture of the sentence but also comprehending the meaning by
uploading background knowledge. Then he states four things needed in reading
for readers. First, vocabulary knowledge and sight word recognition. Second,
phonetic decoding skills. Third, relational knowledge and prediction from
context. Fourth, comprehension skill.
Grabe (1991)
states that the interactive frameworks focus on the process of reading where
the key is on the interacton of componential cognitive processes in fluent
reading, or whether the interactive
focus is in the product of readers’ interaction with the information in the
text and the readers’ background knowledge during comprehension.
There are three
basics understanding of intercative approach in reading:
1.
Emphasizing on the process rather than the product
of reading. The process of reading plays the most important part which play eye
movement activity (recognizing letters, etc.) and direct understanding to what
is being read --- autonomus view of
reading.
2.
Language has surface structure (the grammar) and
deep structure (the meaning comprehension) which can not be separated.
3.
Necessity of addressing social context to comprehend
the text.
Some
models on reading process by experts
1.
Rumelhart model, promote prediction model on
featural knowledge, letter-level knowledge, letter cluster knowledge, lexical
level knowledge, and semantic level knowledge. It seems that Rumelhart support
interctive approach.
2.
Kintsch and Van Dijk model, promote microstucture as
local level of individual propositions and macrostructure as global nature of
discourse as whole in comprehension. This model realizes the reader’s schema
and support top-down approach.
3.
Just and Carpenter model, emphasizes that there is
eye fixation in reading which focus more in function words rather than
prepositions. It supports buttom-up approach.
4.
Stanovich model, he said that poor readers (lack of
word understanding and vocabulary) will not be success in reading. While
reading in interactive approach need the application of reader’s sources of
knowledge.
5.
Anderson and Pearson Schema-theoretic view, they
focus on schema or knowledge which has already stored in memory, in text
comprehension. So, if the readers have read the story before they will be
easily understand and infer the story.
6.
Pearson and Tierny reading and writing model, they
propose that the text contains a negotiation meaning between readers and the
author. This model focuses on Thoughtful reader with four interactive roles:
planner, composer, editor, and monitor.
7.
Perfetti’s model, this model has two components:
local-text processes and text-modelling processes. It supports interactive
approach which understanding both the words and background knowledge.
8.
McClelland, Rummelhart, et al. model, proposes PDP
(Parrallel distributed processing) in which mental operations must operate in
parallel manner supports the Smith’s Theory.
9.
Reyner and Pollatsek model, differs visual focus on
line of text into foveal, parfoveal, and peripheral regions. The visual related
to the eye movements.
10. Mathewson’s
model, states that reader’s attitude and motivation play big role in success of
reading.
RESPONDS
I believe that all linguists had done
research before they proposed their theory on reading which then classified
into buttom-up, top-down, and intercative approach. In my opinion, readers are
actually not able to seperate to activate their background knowledge and their
eye sight during the process of reading. Though some linguists believed that
eye moved first to see single letter to word and so on in buttom-up approach,
but actually the readers think and process that letter at the same time with
very slight different of time. As in top-down approach, it is impossible for
readers to activate background knowledge without words said y lecture or from
the text. Reading is progressive process of understanding text by applying
human senses ability and metacognitive ability (schema) which are supported by
human motivation (intention to read). So, all the theories are right when the
linguists see in slight different of time.
STRATEGIES AND METACOGNITIVE SKILL
The
Summary and Responds
by
Afif Ikhwanul M (110221509492)
INTRODUCTION
Strategies
are action selected deliberately to achieve particular goals. (Paris et al.
1996 in Hudson, 2011:108). Skills refer to information-processing
techniques that are automatic, whether at the level of recognizing
phoneme-grapheme correspondence or summarizing story.
Learning strategies
are mental process that students can consciously control when they have a
learning goal. (Chamot in Richard-Amato, Snow, 2005:93).
3 categories of
learning strategies: metacognitive, cognitive, and social/effect. (Chamot in
Richard-Amato, Snow, 2005:93). Metacognitive model describes the learning
process by examine the types of strategies that are useful before engaging in a
task (Planning Strategies), during engagement in the task (Monitoring and
Problem-Solving Strategies), and after completing the task (Evaluating
Strategies). (Chamot in Richard-Amato, Snow, 2005:94)
·
Planning Strategies
a.
Goal-setting and Selective attention; focus on
specific ideas or key word as they prepare to listen or read,
b.
Organizational planning; engage in a variety
of pre-writing activities (brainstorming, quick-writing, and the like) to plan
the content and sequence of their composition.
c.
Making prediction make logical guesses about
what will happen and Background or Prior knowledge, think about and use what
you already know to help you do the task. (Chamot in Richard-Amato, Snow,
2005:94)
·
Monitoring strategies focus primarily on
sense-making and awareness of whether they are communicating their ideas
successfully.
a. Prior
knowledge; make associations and compere it with incoming new information to
better comprehend the meaning.
b. Selective
attention; focus on important information (structure, key words, phrases, or
ideas) and not become distracted by new words that are not essential to the
main ideas of passage.
c. Imagery
(Visualization), to imagine the people or events in the reading or listening
text. (Chamot in Richard-Amato, Snow, 2005:94)
·
Problem-Solving Strategies
a. Making
inference, use context and what you know to figure out the meanings of new
words
b. Substituting
a similar word when the exact word is unknown or cannot be remembered.
c. Cooperating
with others to find solutions, build confidence, and give and receive feedback.
d. Taking
notes, write down important words and ideas and using resources such as
reference materials and technology-accessed information. (Chamot in
Richard-Amato, Snow, 2005:94)
Evaluating
Strategies help students not only revise and improve the final product, but
also engage in reflection and self-evaluation.
a. Summarizing,
after reading a paragraph or text, a student might try to make a mental summary
in order to evaluate his or her comprehension.
b. Self-Evaluation,
identify what they know and can do as a result of engaging in a particular
learning task. (Chamot in Richard-Amato, Snow, 2005:94)
In
applying metacognitive strategies the readers relies on what has been learned
in the past about achieving cognitive goals. Metacognitive model of strategic
learning is a recursive model. It means that at any time during a learning
task, a student may go back to a previous stage. For example, while monitoring
the progress of a task, a student might feel some uncertainty about whether he
or she is on the right track. By returning to the planning stage, this student
can check on the task’s goal and requirement and adjust any misconceptions.
(Chamot in Richard-Amato, Snow, 2005:95)
Metacognition
has come to the fore in identify how to improve students learning. Metacognition
means that students understand their own learning, how they learn best, how
they learn less effectively, i.e. a process of self-evaluation of their
learning strategies and successes. Deep learning promotes metacognition, as do
higher order thinking and collaborative learning. Metacognition can be
deliberately developed through a variety
of means: require students to
reflect on their own learning, work through problem visually/graphically.
conduct debriefing, use co-operative learning and feed
back from, and to, students, introduce, and build on, cognitive conflict (a puzzling experience
which contradicts others) and constructive disagreement,
and have
students considered:
1. Examining
aims, goals, and objectives
2. Examining
all sides of an issue/argument
3. The
plus, minus and interesting points in a situation
4. The
consequences of and sequel to, a situation
(Cohen, Manion, dan
Morrison, 2004:176)
Learners
must first become aware of structure of text, as well as knowledge of the task,
possible strategies, and their own characteristics.
Metacognitive
knowledge
a. Knowledge
of person
Successful students tend to relate information
in texts to previous knowledge, where less successful students show little
tendency to use their knowledge to clarify the text at hand.
b. Knowledge
of task
It
includes two categories:
1. Understand
the nature of the information, relates to how familiar one is with the
information.
2. Comprehending
the inherent demands of the task, e.g. comprehend two passages.
c. Knowledge
of strategies, involve such activities as looking for text structure within the
passage. It is for monitoring an individual’s cognitive progress and how to
remedy comprehension failure.
While
reading, good readers will reread particular passage for clarification
meanwhile poor readers will not reread the problematic section of the text.
Brown (1987 in
Hudson, 2011:115) explain that an activity such as looking for
the main idea in reading comprehension can be seen as a cognitive strategy when
it serves the goal of reading comprehension, or as metacognitive when it is
used to self-evaluate comprehension.
RESPONDS
Reading
somehow complicated skill which many students argue as the harder skill to
achieve than listening and speaking, especially for ESP students who are lack
of vocabularies and some of them are not satisfy with thier proposed study. As
my experience, giving understanding of the activating students metacognitives
helps students in reading. I do agree with what has been explained by Chamot in
Richard-Amato, Snow (2005:94) which in teaching of reading three things must be
employed with students’ metacognitive existence : planning, monitoring, and
problem-solving activity. In planning, lecturer guides
students to aware what goal will they achieve in their study. In monitoring,
students aware to analyze thier works based on thier experience. In
problem-solving, students are able to syntesize inference from material they
read based on persuation by the lecturer.
