a reader-response approach to reading: does it have …
TRANSCRIPT
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
71
A READER-RESPONSE APPROACH TO READING: DOES IT HAVE AN EFFECT
ON METACOGNITIVE READING STRATEGIES?
Majid Farahian Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
Majid Farshid Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
ABSTRACT Metacognitive reading strategies have been found to play an important role in foreign language reading comprehension. As such, attempts have been made to integrate them in second language as well as English as Foreign Language (EFL) courses. Based on the assumption that a reader-response approach as a non-interventionist strategy may result in readers’ interaction with the text and consequently lead to the improvement of learners’ metacognitive reading strategies, this study investigated the effect of a reader-response approach on EFL learners’ metacognitive reading strategies. The participants were divided into two groups and both groups were given the metacognitive reading questionnaire (MARSI). After the experimental group received the treatment both groups took the MARSI again as the posttest. The findings revealed that the application of reader-response theory has a significant effect on EFL readers’ metacognitive reading strategies.
KEYWORDS: Metacognitive reading strategies, reader-response theory, EFL learners
1. Introduction
Apart from the crucial role reading plays in one’s daily life in the first language, it is regarded as an important skill in education especially in the second and foreign language teaching. Various studies have made attempt to investigate the nature of processes involved in second language reading. Although much is to be revealed regarding the nature of second language reading comprehension, lots of factors involved in SL reading have been investigated and revisited. The current models of reading, unlike the traditional view which regarded text as the main source of input and considered readers as passive recipients of the input, describe
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
72
the reader as an active agent who interacts with the text. In the new perspective, reading is considered as a combination of varying processes or components such as linguistic, purposeful, evaluative, and interactive which define reading comprehension (Grabe, 2009). Moreover, it has been found out that both lower order processes such word recognition and higher order ones including metacognitive strategies are responsible for reading. To put it into another perspective, Griffith and Ruan (2005) explain that skilled reading is comprised of the interaction of both micro and macro-processes. Based on the processes the reader focuses on what author has produced at the sentence level. He also makes inferences and relates the information he has taken from the text to the prior knowledge. As Griffith and Ruan maintain, the execution of both processes needs attention and decision making from the side of the reader. In Griffith and Ruan’s term, decisions such as “when to reread a portion of text, when and what type of inference to make, what information of importance to retain in memory and what information of lesser importance to discard, when to move on in the reading of text and at what rate” (p.5) should be made. Accordingly, selection and allocation of cognitive recourses needs metacognition. 1.1. Metacognition
Metacognition which has become a highly debated area of research and experimentation in cognitive psychology can simply be defined as thought about the thought (Louca-Papaleontiou, 2008). Learners who are metacognitively aware can spot check their learning process and in an ongoing process gain control on their problem solving behavior (Brown, 1987; Flavell, 1979; Flavell, 1987; Schraw & Moshman, 1995). Metacognition is at work in the learning process of both children and adults and based on Louca-Papaleontiou (2008) it “can lead somebody to select, evaluate, revise and abandon cognitive tasks, goals, and strategies” (p.13). It has been reported that successful SL learners efficiently make use of metacognitive awareness (Thamraksa, 2005) and such an awareness contributes to their progress in different language learning skills, specifically reading in SL (see Paris, 2002; Paris et al., 1994; Paris & Winograd, 1990). Metacognitive strategies as for any type of learning are crucial for efficient reading and are at work both at the micro and macro processing levels. To put it in simple words, the reason for the significance of metacognition, as Carrell et al (2001) argue, is “if learners are not aware of when comprehension is breaking down and what they can do about it, strategies introduced by the teacher will fail "(p.232). Pressley (2002) who underlines the use of metacognitive strategies enumerates some characteristics of metacognitively skilled readers. As he describes the reader who is metacognitively sophisticated is adept at asking questions while he is involved in reading, visualizes what is being read, and knows how to summarize the text. Such a reader, based on Pressley, knows that he might encounter some confusing parts in the text. Therefore, he consciously adopts some specific strategies to deal with the confusion. 1.2. Reader-Response theory
In recent years, a new wave of interest which gives a high credit to using literature in EFL courses has begun to emerge. Various authors have written about the application
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
73
of literary texts in EFL setting (See, Van, 2009). It is assumed that the use of literature can foster learners’ imagination, critical abilities, and their emotional awareness (Lazar,1993). As a literary theory, reader-response theory (Rosenblatt ,1994) assumes that there is a transactional relationship between the reader and the text. Here the term transaction refers to the reciprocal relationship between the text and the reader. As such, one cannot surmise that meaning resides in the text and the reader’s duty is to get that fixed meaning out of entangled words of the text. Word meaning, based on reader-response theory, is necessary but not sufficient for comprehension of the text (Liaw, 1997) and meaning is not confined to the text (Harper, 1988). Therefore, the readers’ emotion, experience, background opinion and whatever he brings to the text play a prominent role in the creation of meaning. Hirvela (1996) explains the approach … challenges traditional emphases on authorial intention in a text, and on the text itself, in assigning supremacy to the interpretation of texts, asserting instead that the plays at least an equal role in the interpretative process. (p.128) Rosenblatt (1994; 1995) differentiates between a reader’s two different responses to the text; aesthetic and efferent. As Rosenblatt (1994) explains “the efferent stance …is involved primarily with analyzing, abstracting, and accumulating what would be retained after the reading” (p.184). As he further in the same page adds, “ in the aesthetic stance attention is primarily on experiencing what is being evoked, lived through, during the reading”. There is no opposition or sharp contrast between the stances, as Rosenblatt (1994) argues, since both are part of a continuum. One who argues for reader-response view sees meaning as having various layers. This means that every reader has his own interpretation of the text and the best meaning is interpreted and got through just by the individual himself who grapples with the text to understand it. The reader can evaluate the author’s as well as his classmates’ views and challenge them if they are against his values (Thomson, 1987).Thus, based on such a view, as Carson (1993) argues, “the text itself. . . is incomplete; it needs a reader’s experience to make it understood” (p.88). It has been argued that reader-response approach can be incorporated in ESL courses. Mishra (2010) sees a relationship between reader-response approach and Communicative Language Teaching and refers to some implications as follows 1. It creates an environment in which learners initiate the interactions 2. It leads to autonomous leaning 3. Results in the individualization of learning 4. Fosters classroom discussions 5. Encourages learners to have their say and express their ideas Al-Bulushi (2011) who investigated the use of reader- response theory in an EFL context also emphasizes the connection between reader-response theory and communicative language teaching and explains The reader -response theory supports communicative language teaching since it is rooted in a task-based methodology in which tasks designed are aimed to elicit the target language discourse production. What really makes the approach communicative is the intention of the tasks assigned by teachers in engaging learners
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
74
in tasks, which require them to generate personal responses to something in the text, responses which necessitate the production of original discourse. (p.450) Much emphasis has been laid on relationship between EFL and reader-response approach (Carlisle, 2000; Hirvela ,1996). Carlisle (2000) argues that for EFL learners, reading comprehension is often equal to doing long comprehension exercise and in such a context “ class novel in one hand and electronic dictionary in the other, students plough their way through the pages looking up the new vocabulary until they ‘understand’ the story” (p.13). A reader-response approach in EFL reading courses “stimulates foreign language readers to go beyond the first barrier of semantic understanding and to move towards critical appreciation” (p.12). Sanches (2009) in line with Carlisle (2000) postulates that incorporating a reader -response approach in EFL courses helps EFL practitioners change their attitude toward literacy teaching and learning , recognize the learner differences, and appreciate a learner centered approach to pedagogy “taking into account their previous experience, beliefs, values, and individual cognitive development” (pp.1-2). In the same vein, Bagherkazemi and Alemi (2010) state the benefits of applying reader-response theory in EFL classrooms. As they argue, reader -response approach in EFL context • makes literature more accessible by activating students’ background knowledge; • harnesses emotional reactions for classroom instruction; • increases students’ individual and group participation and motivation since it personalizes the learning experience. (p. 5) Since, based on reader-response approach, there are multiple interpretations for a piece of a text and there is no best or correct answer it can be assumed that critical thinking is fostered (Amer, 2003). It is expected that such change has a bearing on learners’ metacognition since as Kuhn (1999) assumes critical thinking is a form of metacognition. In the same vein, Fogal’s (2010), in his study, found out that learner’ preferences for material engages learners’ meta-cognitive awareness. It should be mentioned that one of the preferences in his study among other approaches to reading was reader-response approach. Afflerbach (1998) enumerates characteristics of constructively responsive readers. While reading such readers get involve in many types of strategies. A quick glance at the characteristics presented by Afflerbach indicates that constructively responsive readers have the command of higher order skills such as over viewing text before reading or revising knowledge based on the content of the text. This implies that there is a close relationship between constructively responsive reading and being metacognitively aware. Since the efficient use of reading strategies is a defining characteristic of efficient reading comprehension (Anderson, 1991; Grabe, 2004) and because foreign language readers need to get acquainted with such strategies in order to be independent readers, it is necessary to pave the ground for second as well as foreign language learners in order to obtain understanding of their reading comprehension strategies .For years, foreign language learners have been directly taught various reading strategies such as guessing the meaning of unknown words and guessing the context of the story or previewing the text. However, to the author’s experience the problem of reading comprehension has remained unresolved for lots of EFL learners. As Kowalewski (n.d) quotes Spiegel (1998), critical thinking activities help the learners to act reflectively and
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
75
critically. They also result in learners’ application and modification of their cognitive and metacognitive skills and strategies. As a result, their understanding of the texts would turn to be more profound. In such a case they would gain a positive view toward themselves. It is assumed that getting involved EFL readers in reading literary texts and having them apply reader-response approach to reading (Rosenblatt, 1994) is one of the ways to elevate their comprehension of EFL texts (Carlisle, 2000). A reader-response approach to teaching literature, as a student-centered approach, provides the opportunity for EFL learners to be more involved in the process of reading (Sheridan, 1991; Khatib, 2011), think critically, and be more aware of their reading strategies. It can be assumed that reader- response approaches among its various contributions, give purpose to the readers, helps learners take part in discussion groups, gives clues to the learners as how to visualize the information, teaches them to read critically. The present study investigates the effect of the application of a reader-response approach to develop EFL readers’ metacognitive strategies since it is based on the assumption that poor readers may not have full command of metacognitive reading strategies or do not use them appropriately. Therefore, the following research question was formulated. Does reader-response approach improve EFL readers’ metacognitive reading strategies? 2. Method 2.1. Participants The participants in this study were 75 Iranian intermediate university students, 69 females and 6 males studying English Language Teaching and English Translation in Kermanshah, a city in the West of Iran. Their age ranged from 20 to 28. The participants had been selected out of the pool of 120 students. To make sure the participants are of homogeneous proficiency level in reading, the reading section of an actual TOEFL test was administered before the administration of the treatment sessions. Based on the scores, it was decided 75 of the participants were of homogeneous proficiency level in reading comprehension. 2.2. Procedure and instrumentation
As the first step in the study, the reading section of a TOEFL test was given to all 120 students studying English Language Teaching and English Translation in Azad University Kermanshah Branch and Jahad Daneshgahi University. The TOEFL test had already been administered by the ETS® in January 2004. Based on the results, 75 students with homogeneous level of proficiency in reading were chosen as the participants of the study. The participants were randomly assigned to experimental and control group. In the next stage of the study, a metacognitive reading questionnaire MARSI (Mokhtari & Richards, 2002) was employed to assess participants’ knowledge of reading strategies. MARSI is a self report which measures frequency of reading strategies employed by students while reading academic materials in English. The questionnaire measures Global Reading Strategies, Problem-Solving Strategies, and Support Reading Strategies.
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
76
The questionnaire was distributed by the researcher during regular university classes in reading courses. The participants were assured that their names would remain confidential and that the result was just used for research purposes. They were also told that there was no right or wrong answer to the questions. During the administration of the questionnaire the participants were allowed to ask questions about the items which seemed to be ambiguous. Although Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) report that the MARSI has good internal consistency (a = .89), the questionnaire was piloted on 36 EFL university students and the index of reliability of 0.79 showed that the questionnaire was reliable. To make sure the MARSI was valid for Iranian EFL students, five experts in the field were asked to check the content of the questions. They confirmed that the questionnaire really checked the construct it intended to assess. One week after the distribution of the questionnaire the treatment for the experimental group began. The treatment for both experimental and control groups lasted 4 consecutive weeks. In the normal schedule of the course the students had to participate in reading courses 2 sessions in a week. Therefore, all participated in the experimental and control group participated 8 sessions in the classes. In line with Khatib and Farahian (in press), the stories for both groups were chosen from Introduction to literature 1(Maleki &Farahian, 2008). The stories, based on the researcher’s experience were among the stories which were highly motivating for EFL learners. Necklace, The bet, War, The land lady, The long exile, After twenty years, The open window, and The lady or the tiger. It was assumed that the stories allow learners’ to become personally involved in the process of reading. A week later after the treatment, the participants took the same MARSI questionnaire. 2.3. Treatment for the control group Treatment for both experimental and control groups were based on Khatib and Farahian (in press). As such, the teacher in the control group was asked to teach the selected short stories based on the conventional approach in Iranian universities. Based on such an approach, the teacher is the person who transmits what he knows to the classroom and students are expected to receive the interpretations reported by the teacher. This does not mean that in such courses learners do not have a share in classroom discussions; they seldom initiate discussions. To have a more accurate view of the conventional approach to literature teaching, as in Khatib and Farahian, three English literature instructors from different universities were asked to outline their conventional practice teaching short stories. Based on the instructors’ report, the customary procedures included: pre reading activities, factual in class work and follow up activities. In the first phase students had the opportunity to read the short stories before attending the class. Students were then asked to present a brief summary of the story. Later on, teachers inquired about the literary elements of the story. These elements included elements of the story such as theme, characters, plot, setting, and so on. After students presented their views regarding the elements of the short story the instructor gave the final verdict on the elements of the story.
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
77
2.4. Treatment for the experimental group As it was stated the reader-response approach challenges the assumption that the best interpretation of each text is authors’ intention and suggests that reader and the text are inseparable. This means that it is the interaction of the reader with the text which determines meaning. Based on this perspective, the treatment for the experimental group proposed by Carlisle (2000) was formulated. As Carlisle suggests, while reading the story students can write down their “thoughts and feelings” while reading the texts and presents a framework for doing so. Based on Carlisle, logs are one of the practical applications of reader-response theory in classrooms. The following steps were taken as the treatment of the experimental group. As recommended by Carlisle (2000), the students were provided with explicit explanation of the concept of reader- response theory and there was a discussion over “What is the difference between reading literature and reading for information?” and “What do you do when you are reading a story?” (p.15). According to Carlisle and as Khatib and Farahian (in press) note, students should value their own interpretations as readers. Furthermore, they should understand that meaning is created in the interaction between the reader and the text. To show the participants how they should answer the questions provided in the log and in order to give them a vivid picture of the concept of log, the instructor answered the first four entries based on a short story the students had studied in the previous sessions. As the seconds stage, the participants were required to wrote the rest of the entries in pair. They were also asked to feel free to ask questions. It was assumed that giving them the logs from the beginning gives the participants a framework as to what they are required to do and what reader-response mean. After answering the entries in pairs, students read out their notes and other classmates provided comments as to the answers. They were reminded that there was no right or wrong answers. As the next stage, students were asked to read one of the selected short stories at home and write their own logs. As the final stage, before asking the students to hand in their logs, the instructor asked a volunteer to provide a brief summary of the story and gave brief explanations regarding any point unfamiliar to the participants. At this point, the instructor asked the participants to share ideas regarding the points in the logs. They were told to take turn talking and feel free to present their ideas. During the discussion, the instructor remained silent and acted as a coordinator. After the discussion, different ideas brought up by the participants were summarized by the teacher. 3. Results
As Table 1 depicts, there is no significant difference between the means and SD of both groups in the pretest. Table 2 reveals that in the post test the mean and SD of the experimental group has exceeded those of the control group. This indicated a drastic change in the performance of the experimental group.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Pre-Test Control/Experimental Groups
Variance SD Mean Maximum Minimum Range N
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
78
5.01 2.24 13.63 17 6 11 37 PreCGroup
5.15 2.27 13.69 17 6 11 37 PreEGroup
37 Valid N
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Post-Test Control/Experimental Groups
Variance SD Mean Maximum Minimum Range N
5.90 2.43 14.26 18 7 11 37 PoCGroup
12.74 3.57 20.38 28 13 15 37 PoEGroup
37 Valid N
Based on Table 3, the difference between the two groups regarding their performance was not significant. This means that both groups were of equal performance. On the contrary, table 4 shows a major difference in the performance of both groups in the posttest since the amount of the observed T with 95% Confidence interval of the differences is 3.92.
Table 3. Paired T-Test of Pre-Test Control/Experimental Groups
Paired Differences
95% Confidence interval of the Difference
Pair 1 PreCGroup/PreE Group
Mean SD SD Error Mean
Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed
.04321 1.64301 .30123 .68478 .62435 .136 36 .895
Table 4. Paired T-Test of Post-Test Control/Experimental Groups
Paired Differences
95% Confidence interval of the Difference
Pair 1 PostCGroup/PostE Group
Mean SD SD Error Mean
Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed
.16574 3.31542 .86545 2.91221 2.47870 3.92 36 .000
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
79
4. Discussion and conclusion Research findings indicate that both in first and second language learning effective readers are better at reading strategies than poor readers and use the strategies more efficiently. As such, investigations have been made as to find the best ways for training reading strategies. It has often been recommended that instruction may help second language learners acquire reading strategies ( Chamot, 2004 ) ; therefore, various direct reading strategies each with their inherent strength or weaknesses have been recommended to ESL as well as EFL teachers to adopt; however, the problem with direct instruction of strategies is that they are seldom transferred to other contexts (Gu, 1996). To investigate the effect of a non interventionist approach to teaching reading strategies, this study employed a reader-response approach. Based on the findings, using logs and adopting a reader-response approach has a significant impact on EFL learners’ metacognitive reading skills. Although the time interval between the treatment and the post test which was the MRSQ was short and a delayed posttest is needed to confirm the findings, it can be concluded that reader- response approach, as Carlisle (2000) suggested, resulted in learners’ interaction with the text and such an interaction have impacted learners’ metacognitive reading strategies. This is in line with Birjandi and Khatib (2013) who argue The multiplicity of layers embedded in literary texts and their meanings require students to take part in a heuristic quest for interpretations and meanings. … this personal involvement and mental engagement leads to beneficial outcomes such as a more flourished critical thinking ability and an extended application of metacognitive processing of the input (p.84). This study highlights some important points. First, the reader-response approach to reading helps learners to be more purposeful and active readers. It can be suggested that such an approach indirectly influences different subscales of metacognition in reading including global reading strategies, problem-solving strategies, and support strategies. As an example, one of global strategies is critical analysis of the text. This global strategy is in close tandem with the rationale behind the reader-response theory which involves readers in the critical analysis of the text. Second, unlike the prevalent assumption regarding raising learners’ awareness toward the importance and use of strategies, it seems that non interventionist strategies may be effective as well. This means that although the related literature on the role of metacognition in reading comprehension argues for the conscious involvement of the learners in the application of metacognitive strategies, these strategies might be invoked by means of approaches which do not seem to be under the learners’ immediate control. All in all, it seems that reading literary texts are more demanding task and at the same time more challenge to EFL readers than nonliterary texts (Birjandi and Khatib, 2013). The reader who embarks on interpreting the text and involves in the transaction of meaning with the text engages in what Afflerbach (1998) calls ‘constructively responsive reading’. Therefore, constructively responsive readers involve in various types of strategies such as overviewing the text before reading, activating prior knowledge, and visualizing which are metacognitive in nature. As such, it is of great importance for curriculum developers in general and EFL language teachers in
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
80
particular to value the role literature plays in foreign language teaching. Moreover, giving insight to EFL teachers regarding the role of reader-response theory in EFL reading might help teachers create an environment in which learners read texts critically and employ higher order skills such as metacognitive strategies. REFERENCES Al-Bulushi,Y.(2011). Teaching short stories in the Omani context: The use of the reader
response theory. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 2(3), 450-455. Afflerbach, P. (1998). Helping students become constructively responsive readers. In P. Reitsma & L. Verhoven (Eds.) Problems and interventions in literacy development, pp. 349- 363. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Amer, A.A. (2003).Teaching EFL/ESL literature. The Reading Matrix, 3(2), 63-73. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language
reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 460–472. Bagherkazemi, M., & Alemi, M. (2010). Literature in the EFL/ESL classroom: Consensus
and controversy. Linguistic and literary: Broad Research and Innovation, 1(1), 1-12. Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading development in a second language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Birjandi, P., & Khatib, S. (2013). A student-centered literature class: A step towards a
less stressful literary experience in language classes. Iranian EFL Journal, 9(4), 83-93.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carlisle, A. (2000). Reading logs: An application of reader-response theory in ELT. ELT Journal, 54(1): 12-19.
Carrell, P. L., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (2001). Metacognition in EFL/ESL reading. In H. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and
practice (pp.229-243).Norwell, M.A: Kluwer. Carson, J. (1993). Reading for writing: Cognitive perspectives. In Carson, J & Leki, I. (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 85-100). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Chamot, A.U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching.
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In
F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fogal, G.G. (2010). EFL Literature Studies: Student feedback on teaching methodology, Asian EFL
Journal, 12(4), 34-47.
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
81
Griffith, P. L. & Ruan, J. (2005). What is metacognition and what should be its role in literacy
instruction? In Collins Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.).Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grabe, W. (2004). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24,
44–69. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gu, P.Y. (1996). Robin Hood in SLA: What has the learning strategy researcher taught us?
Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 6, 1-29. Harper, S.N. (1988).Strategies for teaching literature at undergraduate level. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 402-408. Hirvela, A. (1996). Reader-response theory and ELT. ELT Journal, 50, 127-134. Khatib, S. (2011). Applying the reader-response approach in teaching English short
stories to EFL students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 151-159. Khatib, M., & Farahian, M. (in press). Application of two different reader response
approaches to teach short stories . Iranian EFL Journal. Kowalewski, K.D.M. (n.d). Reading Engagement: What influences the choice to read? Retrieved from http://bpm.slis.indiana.edu/scholarship/award01.shtml Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher,
28(2), 16–26. Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Liaw, M.(1997). Using reader response approach for literature reading in an EFL
classroom, Tunghai Journal, 38, 113-130. Louca-Papaleontiou, E. (2008). Metacognition and theory of mind. U.K.: Cambridge
Scholars Press. Maleki, N., & Farahian, M. (2008). Introduction to literature 1. Kermanshah: Razi
University Publication. Mishra, P. (2010). Reader response and its relevance for communicative language
teaching in the context of EFL learners. ELT Weekly, 2(62), 18-25. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 249-259. Paris, S. G. (2002). When is metacognition helpful, debilitating, or benign? In P.
Chambers, M. Izaute & P. Marescaux (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, function and use (pp. 105–121). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming strategic readers. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 788–810). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning
and instruction. In B. Jones, & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15–51). Elmhurst, IL: NCREL.
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
82
Pressley, M. (2002) Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.) (3 rd Ed). What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291-309).Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ridgway, T. (1994). Reading theory and foreign language reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 10 (20), 55-76.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The reader, text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration. (5th ed.). New York: The Modern Language Association.
Sanchez, H.S. (2009). Building up literacy reading responses in foreign language classrooms, English Language Teacher Education and Development, 12, 1-13.
Sheridan, D. (1991). Changing business as usual: Reader response in the classroom. College English, 53(7), 804-814.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.
Thamraksa, C. (2005). Metacognition: A key to success for EFL learners. Retrieved from http:// www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/jan_june2005/chutima.pdf. Thomson, I. (1987). Understanding teenagers’ reading. Norwood: AATE. Van, T. T. M. (2009). The relevance of literary analysis to teaching literature in the EFL classroom. English Teaching Forum, 3, 2-9. Appendix A: The reading log (Only part of the log is provided here) While you are reading the story write down all the things that go on in your head in a 'stream of consciousness' style. As you read, you will be making a record of images, associations, feelings, thoughts, judgments, etc. You will probably find that this record will contain: Questions that you ask yourself about characters and events as you read. (Answer these yourself when you can.) Memories from your own experience, provoked by the reading. Guesses about how you think the story will develop, and why. Reflections on striking moments and ideas in the story. Comparisons between how you behave and how the characters in the story are behaving. (4 more items) Please do not try to rewrite the book. Figure 1. Reading log: Adapted from “Reading logs: An application of reader-response theory in ELT”, by A. Carlisle, 2000, ELT Journal, 54 (1), 12-19. Copyright 2000 by Oxford University Press.
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
Vol. 4, Issue 1, March 2014
Pag
e 3
83
Appendix B: The Persian version of MARSI (Only part of the full version is provided here)
.خوانم می را انگلیسی متون خاص هدفی با. 1
.کنم می برداری یادداشت خواندن هنگام انگلیسی متون فهمیدن بهتر برای. 2
.کنم می فکر دانم می که آنچه مورد در انگلیسی متون فهمیدن بهتر برای. 3
می مطالعه سطحی بطور ابتدا را آنها خواندن به شروع از قبل انگلیسی متون فهمیدن بهتر برای 4
.کنم
.خوانم می بلند صدای با را آن متن فهمیدن بهتر برای شوم می مواجه مشکلی متن با وقتی. 5
.کنم می خلاصه را نها آ بفهمم بهتر خوانم می که را مطالبی که این برای. 6
.باشد متناسب دارم متن خواندن از که هدفی با متن مفهوم که است مهم برایم. 7
.خوانم می دقت با و کم سرعت با را مطالب متون، بهتر درک برای.8
.کنم می مشورت دیگران با کنم درک را مطالب بهتر که این برای. 9
.کنم توجه متن اندازه و ساختاری مانند خصوصیاتی به تا خوانم می سطحی بار یک را آن متن. 10
.اورم می بدست را تمرکزم کوتاهی زمان در بدهم دست از را تمرکزم که صورتی در. 11
.کنم می مشخص علامت با را آنها یا و کشم می خط زیرآنها بیاورم بیاد بهتر را مطالب اینکه برای.12
. دهم تطبیق خوانم می که متنی نوع با را خواندنم سرعت توانم می. 13
.بخوانم کمتری دقت با را قسمتی چه و بیشتر دقت با را چیزی چه دانم می متن خواندن هنگام.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click t
o buy N
OW!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.com Clic
k to b
uy NOW
!PD
F-XChange Viewer
ww
w.docu-track.c
om