HEORIES OF READING AND READING COMPREHENSION ABILITY

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Introduction

Academic reading is widely regarded as a major determining factor in academic achievement. In the United States, studies by Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala and Cox (1999), Guthrie and Wigfield (2000), Janzen (2007), and Stanovich and Cunningham (1993) have shown a consistent relationship between reading and academic achievement; good readers cope academically, while poor, unskilled readers show poor academic performance. South African studies by Cliff, Ramaboa and Pearce (2007), Pretorius (2000; 2007), Pretorius and Mampuru (2007), Scheepers (2008), and Van Wyk (2008) at primary and tertiary levels, demonstrate similar results. Various ways of improving academic reading abilities in students have been advocated as a means to improve students‟ academic success, the majority of which have focused on the cognitive processing of print information (e.g. Anderson 1999; August 2006; Cipielewski & Stanovich 1992; Dreyer & Nel 2003; Shultz 2005; Worden 2005). However, a number of scholars in the field of reading research and reading pedagogy have pointed towards the important role of social and affective factors in both facilitating and hindering successful academic reading (Alderson 2000; Grabe & Stoller 2002; Greaney 1996; Guthrie & Wigfield 2000; Pretorius 2007; Verhoeven & Snow 2001; Wallace 2003). Various studies have shown that high affective levels in reading correspond with good reading ability and low affective levels relate to poor reading ability.

Causes related to primary and secondary education in South Africa

Reading problems that become prominent at tertiary level are said to be rooted in primary and high school education (Pretorius 2007:104). A 1992 study by the IEA showed that students in participating developing countries (countries with high illiteracy and high poverty levels) performed below the expected performance levels (Elley 1996). This finding points to the low literacy levels of a number of students in primary schools in developing countries, mostly in Africa. The situation has not changed much in the intervening twenty years. African countries that participated in the 2006 PIRLS performed the worst out of forty countries (Taylor & Yu 2009; Van Staden & Howie 2010).

Causes related to primary and secondary education in South Africa

Reading problems that become prominent at tertiary level are said to be rooted in primary and high school education (Pretorius 2007:104). A 1992 study by the IEA showed that students in participating developing countries (countries with high illiteracy and high poverty levels) performed below the expected performance levels (Elley 1996). This finding points to the low literacy levels of a number of students in primary schools in developing countries, mostly in Africa. The situation has not changed much in the intervening twenty years. African countries that participated in the 2006 PIRLS performed the worst out of forty countries (Taylor & Yu 2009; Van Staden & Howie 2010).

Demands and constraints of the tertiary education sector

The changing socio-political situation at tertiary level is no consolation either. The recently reduced funding of universities as a result of throughput rate funding instead of the previous funding according to intake system, as well as the merging of universities and technikons, have given rise to various logistical problems. For example, the funding policy has led to a number of universities facing financial crises, and the mergers have led to institutional and curriculum challenges. In addition, the poor reliability of matriculation results to predict university success (Cliff et al. 2007:34; Yeld 2009:78), and the newly introduced school leaving qualification which is still to be tested, all contribute towards the challenges relating to students‟ reading abilities or proficiency at tertiary level. This consequently poses numerous challenges for teachers of academic literacy. At tertiary level, the main academic operations of students are reading and writing, with reading being fundamental to writing, and influencing writing to a large extent. At this level, students are required to read to understand concepts (with or without prior knowledge), make inferences from context, perceive relationships between parts of texts, apply relevant information to new situations, and be able to synthesise information. Students are also required to synthesise, integrate and evaluate the texts they read. In addition, students are required to read large quantities of printed materials, usually involving large volumes of academic texts, and to do so within limited timeframes. They are also expected to read and understand high-density and abstract texts comprising mostly specialized disciplinary vocabulary.

Evidence of poor reading ability

As may be evident in other South African institutions, a number of first-year students at the University of Pretoria who enrol for first-year courses in the Unit for Academic Literacy (UAL) demonstrate the reading deficiencies mentioned above and display inappropriate use of strategies. The TALL is used to identify students deemed to be At Risk, in order to be given academic literacy support by the Unit. Almost a third of them fall into the At Risk and High Risk categories. In 2010 and 2011 the TALL assessments, which are highly dependent on reading proficiency (Weideman 2007), showed that of 5,060 students who wrote the English test (TALL) in 2010, 1,647 (31%) were deemed to be At Risk or at High Risk of failure, and of the 4,977 who wrote in 2011, 1,559 (32%) were categorised as At Risk or High Risk (UAL unpublished results). In both 2010 and 2011, 51% and 57% respectively, were deemed to be at Low Risk, with only 18% (2010) and 11% (2011) categorised as having negligible or no risk. Table 1.1 gives an overview of students‟ performance on TALL for 2010 and 2011.

Gaps in existing research

Socio-affective factors, though recognised as being significant in reading development, have received little attention in reading research (Grabe & Stoller 2002; Guthrie & Wigfield 2000). Although research on affective factors such as motivation, interest, attitudes and self-efficacy has received attention, the role of these factors in reading research has been under-researched. Yet, as Guthrie & Wigfield (2000:403) point out, readers are decision makers whose affects as well as their language and cognition play a role in their reading practices. They argue that people read not only because they have the ability but also because they are motivated to do so. Furthermore, the few researched experimental intervention programmes on reading that focus on socio-affective factors have been focused mainly on learners in primary and secondary schools, and those that have been conducted at tertiary level deal with first language (L1) students. In addition, research has not been seriously pursued in multilingual tertiary contexts, such as UP, even though socio-affective factors may be more pronounced in contexts accommodating large numbers of non-traditional, second language (L2) users of English (August 2006). The current research therefore differs from other research studies in higher education which use mainly cognitive-oriented approaches. This study is novel in that it uses a cognitive foundation that is embedded in a socio-affective approach, adopted from Guthrie and Wigfield‟s (2000) affect-oriented model (cf. § 3.4 for a more detailed discussion).

Bottom-up approaches

Bottom-up approaches, predominant from about 1950 to 1965 (Alexander & Fox 2008), emphasise skills and explain reading as decoding of individual sounds to derive the meaning of words. This approach is typically associated with Behaviourism and with „phonics‟ approaches to the teaching of reading (Alderson 2000:17; Alexander & Fox 2008; McLaughlin 2008). It describes the word by word, sentence by sentence patterning of the text by the reader to create meaning. The bottom-up theory rests on the central notion that reading is basically a matter of decoding a series of written symbols into their aural equivalents; translating from one symbolic representation (letters/graphemes) to another (sounds/phonemes) to derive meaning (Nunan 1991:64). The perception attached to this approach is that once a reader has gone through the processing steps and mastered the various skills, meaning would be obtained. Alderson (2000:16) states that the bottomup approach posits that the “reader begins with the printed word, recognises graphic stimuli, decodes them to sound, recognises words and decodes meaning”.

Top-down approach

In view of the inadequacies of the bottom-up approach, the top-down approach to reading became predominant between 1966 and 1975 (Alexander & Fox 2008). Goodman (1971; 1976) and Smith (1971; 1973; 1978), cited by a number of reading researchers (Alderson 2000:14; Alexander & Fox 2008; Anderson 1991; Grabe & Stoller 2002; McLaughlin 2008), were strong proponents of this approach to reading. Proposed as an alternative approach, the top-down model posits that reading proceeds through the processing of larger units of language. The reader rather than the text is at the heart of the reading process. In other words, the focus is on the knowledge a reader possesses. The model explains that readers bring other knowledge sources into the reading process. Rather than perceiving readers as passive decoders of meaning, as in the bottom-up explanation, readers are seen as reconstructing meaning from text. The interaction of the reader and the text is central to the reading process. The reader interacts with the text by forming hypotheses and making predictions. Instead of decoding words, the reader uses goals and expectations to derive meanings from text. The reader formulates hypotheses, and confirms expectations based on background knowledge. Goodman (1971) as reported in Alderson (2000:17) referred to reading as a Psycholinguistic Guessing Game in which the reader guesses or predicts the text‟s meaning on the basis of textual information and existing background knowledge (Alderson 2000:17). The more predictable a text is in terms of background knowledge, the easier the text can be processed.

Table of contents :

• LIST OF TABLES
• LIST OF FIGURES
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• ABSTRACT
• CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
  • 1.1 Introduction
  • 1.2 Academic reading
  • 1.3 Possible causes of inadequate academic reading abilities of university students
  • 1.3.1 Causes related to the social and cultural environment of the learners
  • 1.3.2 Causes related to primary and secondary education in South Africa
  • 1.3.3 Demands and constraints of the tertiary education sector
  • 1.4 Evidence of poor reading ability
  • 1.5 Responses to the problem of students’ inadequate academic reading abilities
  • 1.5.1 Intervention programmes
  • 1.5.2 Limitations of previous and current reading intervention programmes
  • 1.6 Desiderata for holistic interventions
  • 1.7 Gaps in existing research
  • 1.8 Methodology
  • 1.8.1 Research questions
  • 1.8.2 Aims of the present study
  • 1.8.3 Hypotheses
  • 1.8.4 Research design and procedure
  • 1.8.4.1 Research design
  • 1.8.4.2 Research procedure
  • 1.8.4.2.1 Phase 1: Pre-intervention phase of research (questions 1 & 2)
  • 1.8.4.2.2 Phase 2: Designing and administering the intervention (question 3)
  • 1.8.4.2.3 Phase 3: Pre- and post-intervention and cross-intervention analyses (question 4)
  • 1.8.4.2.4 Phase 4: Evaluation and integration of anlyses
  • 1.9 Conclusion
  • 1.10 Structure of the thesis
• CHAPTER 2: THEORIES OF READING AND READING COMPREHENSION ABILITY
  • 2.1 Introduction
  • 2.2 Importance of academic reading
  • 2.3 Reading theories
  • 2.3.1 Cognitive views of reading
  • 2.3.1.1Bottom-up approaches
  • 2.3.1.2 Top-down approach
  • 2.3.1.3 Interactive approach
  • 2.3.1.4 Comprehensive interactive view of reading
  • 2.3.2 Social view of reading
  • 2.3.3 Affective/ response theories
  • 2.3.4 Current directions in reading development
  • 2.3.4.1 Metacognition
  • 2.3.4.2 New Literacy Studies
  • 2.4 Social and psychological theories that relate to learning
  • 2.5 A synopsis and justification for social and affective issues inreading development
  • 2.6..Conclusion
• CHAPTER 3: SOCIO-AFFECTIVE FACTORS IN READING AND THE ENGAGEMENT MODEL
  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Socio-affective factors
  • 3.2.1 Motivation
  • 3.3.2 Self-efficacy
  • 3.3.3 Interest
  • 3.3.4 Attitude
  • 3.3.5 Social and cultural factors
  • 3.3.5.1 Home environment
  • 3.3.5.2 School environment
  • 3.3.5.3 Cultural influence
  • 3.3.6 Engaged reading
  • 3.3.7 A synopsis
  • 3.4 Engagement framework for reading instruction
  • 3.4.1. Self-determination Theory
  • 3.4.2 Guthrie and Wigfield’s (2000) framework
  • 3.4.2.1..Learning and knowledge goals
  • 3.4.2.2..Real-world interactions
  • 3.4.2.3 Autonomy support
  • 3.4.2.4 Interesting texts
  • 3.4.2.5 Strategy Instruction (competence support)
  • 3.4.2.6 Collaboration (relatedness support)
  • 3.4.2.7 Rewards and Praise
  • 3.4.2.8 Teacher involvement
  • 3.4.2.9 Evaluation
  • 3.4.3 Guthrie and Wigfield’s (2000) Engagement Model
  • 3.4.4 The adapted model
  • 3.4.4.1 Students’ needs
  • 3.4.4.2 Institutional demands and constraints
  • 3.4.4.3 L2 reading and learning issues
  • 3.4.4.3.1 The second language
  • 3.4.4.3.2 The L2 learner/reader
  • 3.4.4.3.3 The L2 learning environment
  • 3.4.4.3.4 The socio-cultural context
  • 3.4.4.4 L2 motivational issues
  • 3.4.4.4.1 Creating basic motivational conditions
  • 3.4.4.4.2 Generating initial motivation
  • 3.4.4.4.3 Maintaining and protecting motivation
  • 3.4.4.4.4 Encouraging positive retrospective self-evaluation
  • 3.5 Adapted framework for academic reading development
  • 3.6 Conclusion
• CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
  • 4.1 Introduction
  • 4.2 Research design
  • 4.3 Participants
  • 4.3.1 Phase 1(2009 Exploratory survey)
  • 4.3.2 Phase 3 (2010 quasi-experimental study)
  • 4.4 Measurement tools
  • 4.4.1 Phase 1 (2009 exploratory study on students’ needs)
  • 4.4.1.1Reading experience
  • 4.4.1.2 Reading in the social environment/social literacy
  • 4.4.1.3 Interest in reading
  • 4.5.1.4 Attitudes towards reading
  • 4.4.1.5 Self-efficacy
  • 4.4.1.6 Intrinsic motivation
  • 4.4.1.7 Extrinsic motivation
  • 4.4.1.8 Reading strategies
  • 4.4.1.9 Reading habits
  • 4.4.2 Phase 3 (2010 quasi-experimental study)
  • 4.5 Data collection
  • 4.5.1 Phase 1 (2009 exploratory study on students’ needs)
  • 4.5.2 Phase 3 (2010 quasi-experimental quantitative and qualitative studies)
  • 4.6 Data analysis
  • 4.6.1 Quantitative data (Phase 1)
  • 4.6.2 Quantitative data (quasi-experimental study)
  • 4.6.3 Qualitative data
  • 4.8 Research outline
  • 4.8.1 Phase 1: pre-intervention phase of research (research questions 1 and 2)
  • 4.8.2 Phase 2: Designing and administering the intervention (Research question 3)
  • 4.8.3 Phase 3: Cross intervention analyses (Research question 4)
  • 4.8.4 Phase 4: Evaluation and integration of analyses
  • 4.9 Ethical considerations
  • 4.10 Conclusion
• CHAPTER 5: EXPLORATION OF STUDENTS’ SOCIO-AFFECTIVE PROFILE
  • 5.1 Introduction
  • 5.2 The exploratory survey: Phase
  • 5.3 Methodology
  • 5.3.1 Participants
  • 5.3.2 Procedure
  • 5.3.3 Measurement tool/instrument (questionnaire)
  • 5.3.3.1 Reading experience
  • 5.3.3.2 Reading in the social environment/social literacy
  • 5.3.3.3 Interest in reading
  • 5.3.3.4 Attitudes towards reading
  • 5.3.3.5 Self-efficacy
  • 5.3.3.6 Intrinsic motivation
  • 5.3.3.7 Extrinsic motivation
  • 5.3.3.8 Reading strategies
  • 5.3.3.9 Reading habits
  • 5.4 Results
  • 5.4.1 Descriptive statistics
  • 5.4.2 Inferential statistics
  • 5.4.2.1 Reading experience
  • 5.4.2.2 Social literacy/social reading environment
  • 5.4.2.3 Perceptions of reading capabilities (self-efficacy)
  • 5.4.2.4 Interest in reading
  • 5.4.2.5 Attitude towards reading
  • 5.4.2.6 Intrinsic motivation
  • 5.4.2.7 Extrinsic motivation
  • 5.4.2.8 Strategy use
  • 5.4.2.9 Reading habits
  • 5.4.3 Summary statistics for gender and faculty
  • 5.4.3.1 Gender
  • 5.4.3.2 Faculty
  • 5.4.4 Summary of the results
  • 5.4.5 Strongest predictors of reading ability
  • 5.5 Discussion
  • 5.6 Implications of survey results for intervention instruction
  • 5.7 Conclusion
• CHAPTER 6: READING INTERVENTION PROGRAMME
  • 6.1 Introduction
  • 6.2 Intervention: enrichment and tasks
  • 6.2.2 Section 2: Reading strategies
  • 6.2.3 Section 3: Academic vocabulary
  • 6.2.4 Section 4: Critical reading
  • 6.2.4.1. Inferencing
  • 6.2.4.2 Writer’s stance
  • 6.2.4.3 Evaluating arguments
  • 6.2.5 Extensive reading
  • 6.3 Synopsis
  • 6.4 Conclusion
• CHAPTER 7: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PRE- AND POSTINTERVENTION QUESTIONNAIRES
  • 7.1 Introduction
  • 7.2 Methodology
  • 7.2.1 Participants
  • 7.2.2 Procedure
  • 7.2.3 Instrument
  • 7.3 Results of the quasi-experiment
  • 7.3.1 Presentation and analysis of pre-questionnaires
  • 7.3.2 Presentation and analysis of post-intervention data
  • 7.3.2.1 Descriptive statistics: Presentation of pre- and post-intervention results
  • 7.3.2.2 Inferential statistics: Paired t-test and independent t-test Analysis of differences between control and intervention classes
  • 7.3.2.2.1 Paired t-test
  • 7.3.2.2.2 Independent t-test
  • 7.3.3 Differential performance (effect sizes)
  • 7.4 Discussion
  • 7.5 Conclusion
• CHAPTER 8: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE STUDENT INTERVIEWS
  • 8.2 Methodology
  • 8.2.1 Respondents
  • 8.2.2 Instrument
  • 8.2.3 Procedure
  • 8.3 Presentation and analysis of data
  • 8.3.1 Learning and knowledge goals
  • 8.3.2 Relevant texts
  • 8.3.3 Competence support: strategy instruction
  • 8.3.4 Teacher support
  • 8.3.5 Autonomy support
  • 8.3.6 Collaboration
  • 8.3.7 Rewards and praise
  • 8.3.8 Learning environment
  • 8.3.9 Extensive reading
  • 8.3.10 General comments
  • 8.4 Discussion
  • 8.5 Conclusion
• CHAPTER 9: INTEGRATING THE QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESULTS
  • 9.1. Introduction
  • 9.2 Integrating quantitative and qualitative findings
  • 9.2.1 Learning and knowledge goals
  • 9.2.2 Relevant and interesting texts
  • 9.2.3 Teacher support
  • 9.2.4 Competence support (strategy instruction)
  • 9.2.5 Collaboration
  • 9.2.6 Rewards and praise
  • 9.2.7 Autonomy
  • 9.2.8 Learning environment
  • 9.2.9 Extensive reading
  • 9.3 Summary
  • 9.4 Conclusion
• CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSION
  • 10.1 Introduction
  • 10.2 Research problem, theoretical and conceptual framework
  • 10.3 Summary of results
  • 10.4 Limitations and further research
  • 10.5 Significance of study
  • 10.6 Recommendations
  • 10.6.1 Classroom level
  • 10.6.2 Institutional level
  • 10.7 Conclusion
  • REFERENCES
  • APPENDICES: ON CD

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
A socio-affective approach to improving students’ reading comprehension abilities