00 B 495291 Cca 92 Ffe 5000000

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225559954
Constructivist pedagogy in
strategic reading instruction:
Exploring pathways to learner
development in the English as a
second language (ESL)
classroom
ARTICLE in INSTRUCTIONAL SCIENCE MARCH 2007
Impact Factor: 1.83 DOI: 10.1007/s11251-007-9025-6
CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
36
1,476
494
1 AUTHOR:
Lawrence Jun Zhang
University of Auckland
100 PUBLICATIONS 343
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Lawrence Jun Zhang

Retrieved on: 10 September 2015
Instr Sci (2008) 36:89116

DOI 10.1007/s11251-007-9025-6
Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction:

exploring pathways to learner development in the
English as a second language (ESL) classroom
Lawrence Jun Zhang
Received: 23 November 2005 / Accepted: 15 March 2007 / Published online: 3 April 2007
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract The study explored English as a Second Language (ESL) learner development.
In particular, it focused on investigating learners understanding of reading and their
willingness to be engaged in strategic reading in participatory classroom activities. It also
examined possible effects of such pedagogy on reading performance. The context was a
two-month strategy-based reading instruction program, set within a constructivist framework. The program emphasized developing students academic reading proficiency. The
study, quasi-experimental in design, involved a control group and an experimental group,
both of whom were ESL students from the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). The students
were expected to satisfy an intensive English communication skills requirement in order to
be successfully matriculated into English-medium universities in Singapore. The results
showed that the teachers strategy-based instructional intervention evolving around participatory activities affected changes in the ESL students use of reading strategies and
improvement in comprehension. These findings are discussed in relation to PRC students
in study-abroad contexts, especially the cultures of learning that they bring along with
them. Recommendations for further research are also made.
Keywords Constructivist pedagogy Strategy-based reading instruction
Chinese cultures of learning Reading strategies Chinese ESL learners
China Singapore
I have been granted permission to use all the materials presented in this article and I declare that the
participants names that are referred to in this study are not their real names.
L. J. Zhang (&)
English Language & Literature Academic Group, Arts Building, NIE3-03-98, National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Republic of
Singapore
e-mail: lawrence.zhang@nie.edu.sg
123
90
L. J. Zhang
Introduction
The utility and power of reading in helping learners develop general language proficiency
and reading skills in content learning have been widely recognized among reading
researchers and literacy educators (Bernhardt 2005; Kucer 2005; Smith 2004). The role of
reading in helping second language learners acquire and develop language skills has also
been documented in the literature (e.g. Krashen 1993). Some writers have argued strongly
for more target language input in order that English as a Second Language (ESL) learners
reading abilities can be improved, so that they can tackle authentic reading materials
confidently (e.g. Day and Bamford 1998). This is especially important in an era when
communicative language teaching (CLT) is a prominent feature in classroom practice.
Recent research has also provided evidence that student awareness, or, metacognition, of
aspects pertaining to successful second language learning in general and reading comprehension in particular, including learning strategies, is correlated with student success
(e.g. Anderson 1991; Block 1986; Chamot et al. 1999; Oxford 2001; Wenden 1991; Zhang
2002b). Building on work in first language strategic reading instruction (e.g. Dole et al.
1996; Palincsar and Brown 1984), within the metacognitive framework (Flavell 1992;
Pressley 2002), language and literacy educators have also become increasingly interested
in examining the strategies which second language learners use in reading and the effects
of related pedagogy on reading improvement (Anderson 1999; Carrell et al. 1989; Cohen
1998; Cotterall 1990; Harris 2003; Jimenez et al. 1996).
Given the important role reading plays in English-for-academic-purposes (EAP) programs, these research efforts have significant implications for tertiary-level students who
have to acquire academic literacy skills in a second language, especially reading, to succeed during their university years. They are particularly relevant to the students on EAP
programs, whose main purpose is to help improve the general English proficiency of the
students, who are faced with a huge amount of reading material through which their
reading skills are to be developed. How effectively they complete this task depends on how
good they are as second language readers. In order to enhance their reading skills for
university degree studies through the medium of English, they have to be instructed so that
they are metacognitively ready to become efficiently strategic readers (Anderson 1999;
Carrell 1998; Paris et al. 1994; Pressley 2002). This pedagogy should be implementable
because cognitive and educational research has shown that learner metacognition of the
task at hand can affect learning outcomes, which is generally reflected in learners efforts
towards ameliorating change and enhancing progress (Flavell 1992; Hartman 2001). This
is also where good and poor language learners can be distinguished from each other in
terms of their control over strategy use (Cohen 1998; OMalley and Chamot 1990; Naiman
et al. 1978/1996; Oxford 2001; Wenden 1991; Rubin 2001).
In studies on students learning to read in ESL, similar findings have been reported that
point to the teachability of strategies that are within the control of these students by virtue
of their metacognitive awareness of the cognitive resources available for use to enhance
reading comprehension (e.g. Anderson 1999; Carrell 1998; Zhang 2001). In the literature
on teaching reading strategies to such learners, results show that teacher instruction can
bring about learner development in both first language (Alexander 1995; Brown and
Palincsar 1982; Loranger 1997) and second language situations (Carrell et al. 1989; Janzen
and Stoller 1998).
Confucian learning culture favors teacher-led activities (Cortazzi and Jin 1996; Watkins
and Biggs 1996; cf. Wertsch 1985). Moreover, the learning context has a powerful effect
123
Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction
91
on learner perceptions about the generalized cultural patterns according to which they are
classified as different from others (Littlewood 1999; see also Gan et al. 2004). An interesting research question that arises from this is how Chinese ESL students would respond
to strategic reading instruction, within the framework of constructivist pedagogy. Also, a
review of studies on the effects of strategic reading instruction on learner development
shows that they were conducted in contexts where the learners were heterogeneous in
ethnicity and they had to use English as the medium for communication among themselves. How a homogenous group from the PRC, the participants in the present study, who
were studying in a multilingual and multicultural society in Asia (Singapore), would
respond to such instruction remains unclear. In addition, although the literature does
provide examples of lesson sequences (Chamot et al. 1999), there are few illustrations of
the classroom interaction through which strategy-based reading instruction takes place.
This study set out to fill this void. In the following sections I present the key concepts
involved in this study, briefly review related research and explain the context in which this
study was conducted, before I report on the study itself.
Constructivist pedagogy for learner development

The term learner development refers to a composite of factors contributing to learner
growth in language skills (Wenden 2002). In connection with the present study, learner
development is related to learners steady increase in confidence and reading competence
reflected in their proactive interest in becoming efficient readers. In specific terms, this
refers to the fact that students will be attitudinally inclined to learn to be strategic in
approaching written texts. Social constructivists argue that in the learning process meaning
is constructed through dialog and learning takes place at a level just beyond the current
competence of the learner, i.e. within her/his Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
through the co-construction of knowledge (Vygotsky 1986). Dialogic learning, in this
view, is crucial to learner development. Procedurally, learning takes place on an interpersonal plane and then on an intrapersonal one. Idea appropriation proceeds from dialog
between an expert, or a more competent learner/peer, and a novice, during which the
latter internalizes the new concepts under the teachers guidance. Language, which serves
the function of a tool, facilitates the learning of knowledge and skills (Vygotsky 1986).
With regard to language learning, it is not sufficient to focus only on conceptual development. Instead, skill-oriented approaches to learner development through interactional
participatory activities evolving around teaching/learning tasks were considered to benefit
learners more meaningfully (Donato 1994; Lantolf and Pavlenko 1995). In other words, the
idea of adopting constructivist pedagogy for learner development is based on the understanding that learners mastery of how to learn is more important than the learning act itself
(Chamot et al. 1999; Rubin 2001; Wenden 2002; Zhang 2000a).
As Donato (1994, p. 40) explains, in the field of ESL instruction, this type of scaffolding
or guided support is helpful in that it provides a situation where a knowledgeable participant can create supportive conditions in which the novice can participate, and extend
his or her current skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence. In the words of
Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994, p. 468), the teacher, the learner, their social and cultural
history, their goals and motives, as well as the resources available to them, including those
that are dialogically constructed together are all brought together by the concept of ZPD.
Nassaji and Swains (2000, p. 48) research has equally convincingly shown that help
123
92
L. J. Zhang
provided within the ZPD was more effective than help provided randomly. Therefore,
systematically developing reading strategies through such a pedagogical emphasis on
learner participation and interaction in the classroom context might be more suitable than
that of only developing decoding or automaticity skills. This is also because research has
shown that successful readers do not process written linguistic input at the decoding level
only; instead, language processing and reading for meaning occur at multiple levels in an
interactive manner (Bernhardt 2005; Koda 2005; Kucer 2005; Zhang 2002a). In the process
of learning, learner metacognition about what is done is crucial to learning success (Flavell
1992; Pressley 2002; Wenden 2002; Zhang 2001).
Flavell (1992) and Pressley (2002), in particular, argue for giving greater attention to the
role of metacognition in helping students self-regulation of their own learning (see also
Hartman 2001). They maintain that student metacognition, i.e. their awareness of, and
cognitive control and regulation over, learning, can enhance learning efficiency and selfefficacy (Alexander 1995; Veenman and Beishuizen 2004). Wenden (1991) has incorporated Flavells metacognitive knowledge framework into language learning and teaching
situations, arguing that obtaining information about learners understanding of themselves
as learners (person knowledge), of learning tasks (task knowledge) and of learning strategies (strategic knowledge) is essential to facilitate successful learning. This is especially
relevant to the present study. The issue at hand now is how classroom teachers can
maximize students own potential to develop them into more proficient, self-regulated and
autonomous learners in and outside the second language classroom based on their
understanding of what effective learning should be (see also Rubin 2001). Consequently,
strategy-based instruction has the potential of approximating the goal of helping learners to
improve performance through enhancing their metacognitive awareness, because through
dialogic classroom processes of strategy-based instruction, learners are offered more options to actively engage in the sociocultural interactions in the classroom (Pavlenko and
Lantolf 2000), where teachers and students deconstruct the learning processes for the
purpose of constructing meaning. Collectively, both the metacognitive and constructivist
ideas are useful for implementing a strategy instruction program aimed at learner development, especially in terms of enhancing efficiency and scaffolding learner autonomy in
language learning (Chamot et al. 1999; Cohen 1998; Harris 2003).
Strategy-based instruction in language teaching
Strategy-based instruction: what is it?
Strategy-based instruction refers to classroom procedures where the teacher incorporates
language learning strategies in language teaching (Cohen 1998; Chamot et al. 1999). It is
proposed because a rich body of literature shows that higher-proficiency students are more
likely to use learning strategies than their lower-proficiency counterparts and that the former
tend to use them more flexibly and effectively in relation to the context that requires the use
of such learning strategies for maximal learning outcomes (see Cohen 1998; Harris 2003;
McDonough 1999; OMalley and Chamot 1990; Oxford 2001; Zhang 2003, for reviews).
OMalley et al. (1985) report on a study that identified appropriate learning strategies
for students and demonstrated that explicit instruction in the use of the strategies significantly improved student performance. The authors concluded that the teaching of learning
strategies, coupled with the application of those strategies in a subject-area discipline,
greatly enhanced student learning. Oxfords (1990, 2001) work over the years has
123
93
consistently shown the role that learning strategies play in helping learners improve their
language proficiency. She also reports on the usefulness of strategy training in language
learning. Chamot and her colleagues attempts to implement systematic change in the way
language instruction was carried out deserve a special mention here (e.g. Chamot and
OMalley 1994; Chamot et al. 1999; OMalley and Chamot 1990). Their Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) was designed to connect the learning
experiences of ESL students. Content teaching, language improvement and strategy
instruction were integrated in the approach so that students were provided with an array of
support strategies for academic development. The results also showed obvious progress in
those students who received the CALLA training.
Wenden (1991, 2002) proposes a knowledge-based approach to learner training by
following Flavells framework, as mentioned earlier. She argues that strategy training can
benefit learners tremendously. Cohen (1998), in reviewing studies on language learning
strategies, points out the challenges of such instruction, but states that strategy-based
instruction is possible. He describes possibilities of how strategies such as tackling preassessment and pre-planning, on-line planning and evaluation, and post-evaluation of
language learning activities and of language use events can be taught in language learning.
He says that teacher instruction or learner training in the ESL reading curriculum would
not involve insurmountable tasks because such strategies allow learners to control their
own cognition by enabling them to coordinate their planning, organizing, and evaluating of
the learning processes within their ZPD, with the final aim of developing learner
autonomy.
Strategy-based reading instruction in L1 and L2 situations

Strategy-based reading instruction has always been regarded as very important in educational psychology and reading pedagogy in first language (L1) learning situations, as
learners internal monitoring and controlling of their learning processes are pivotal to
effective learning (Flavell 1992; Pressley 2002). Research along this line indicates that the
process at the metacognitive level plays a crucial role in the development of intelligence
and helps learners to take active control of their learning (Dole et al. 1996; Pressley and
Afflerbach 1995). As extensions of the studies on the differences between good and poor
readers, follow-up studies on the effects of reciprocal strategy instruction have also been
reported to have positive effects on learners reading improvement (Brown and Palincsar
1982; Loranger 1997; Palincsar and Brown 1984; Pearson and Fielding 1991), and lend
support to the benefit of strategy instruction. In all these studies, learners have demonstrated improvement in performance by virtue of the strategy instruction program they
have gone through.
In almost the same vein, researchers in second language (L2) contexts conducted studies
that were aimed not only at uncovering possible reading strategies which learners used
(Anderson 1991; Block 1986; Jimenez et al. 1996; Zhang 2001), but also the effects of
strategic reading instruction on reading improvement (e.g. Anderson 1999; Carrell et al.
1989; Janzen and Stoller 1998). Carrell et al. (1989), for instance, by setting up a control/
experimental design, conducted research on two metacognitive strategiessemantic
mapping and an experience-text-relationship method. The results showed that
metacognitive strategy training was effective in helping the experimental group improve
second-language reading, while the control group did not show any obvious progress. They
also noted that the effectiveness of one type of training versus another might depend on
123
94
L. J. Zhang
how reading was measured. In addition, their results also indicated a close correlation
between the effectiveness of the training with students learning style differences. They
concluded, therefore, that in second language reading pedagogy, especially for adult
learners in academic ESL settings, inclusion of explicit, comprehension-fostering
metacognitive strategy instruction would benefit learners.
Another recent study by Janzen and Stoller (1998) involved helping second-language
readers to develop as expert, or more strategic, readers, through instructed practice, i.e.
integration of strategic reading in second language instruction. As reported, the research
had four steps: (1) choice of a text at an appropriate difficulty level, (2) selection of
strategies for instruction, (3) structuring of lessons and the writing of transcripts for
guiding the presentation of strategies, and (4) the adaptation of instruction to suit learner
needs and reactions to in-class modeling, practice and discussion. They found that,
through the four-step systematic strategy instruction and practice, their students learned
how to read effectively, and became autonomous and aware of the processes involved.
The kind of teaching reported is similar to reciprocal teaching (Brown and Palincsar
1982; Palincsar and Brown 1984; Winograd and Hare 1988), which is an approach to
enhance students reading comprehension competence by directly engaging them with
texts, especially through studentstudent or teacherstudent dialogs in the classroom. In a
way, reciprocal teaching seems to be a welcome addition to the L2 reading classroom in
recent years (Cohen 1998; Cotterall 1990; Janzen and Stoller 1998; see also Harris
2003).
Carrell (1998) proposes explicit teaching of reading strategies to L2 readers, but tensions exist among those who are interested in strategy-based instruction in L2 teaching as
to how explicit the teaching of language learning strategies should be. Grabe (1991)
cautions that in L2 teaching effective strategy training is not a simple or easy matter (p.
393), as the duration of instruction, clarity of procedures, student responsibility, and
strategy transfer are variables influencing strategy instruction results. These are important
considerations in conducting strategy instruction programs. If a research study were conducted within constraints, some of these aforementioned issues would have to be taken into
account. McDonoughs (1999) article on language learning strategies also reminds readers
of potential difficulties for strategy training. Similarly, Harris (2003), in reviewing tensions
surrounding strategy-based instruction, presents OMalley and Chamots (1990) concerns
over the degree of explicitness in strategy instruction. The question is should it be
embedded in the materials or made explicit? While Wenden (1991) advocates a contextualized approach to emphasize the relevance of strategy instruction, Harris takes the
principle of simplicity that Chamot et al. (1999) advocate as a key consideration in her
own research project that focuses on strategy instruction. In addition, Chamot et al.
emphasize the explicitness in strategy instruction, arguing that developing student
awareness of the strategies they usethat is, teacher-modeling of strategic thinking, student-practicing in using new strategies, student-evaluating of the strategies used and
practicing in transferring strategies to new tasksare factors that teachers should consider
in designing strategy-based instruction. They also argue that strategy instruction should be
integrated into the language curriculum instead of being offered as a separate course.
Strategy-based instruction with Chinese ESL learners

Due to the fact that many of the research studies in L2 situations were conducted on a
short-term basis, mostly in Western cultural settings, strategic reading instruction with
123
95
respect to PRC students has not been sufficiently documented. There are reservations as
regards teaching reading strategies to ESL students from the PRC. The usual worry is that
they might resist group work or learner-centered pedagogy because of their cultural ties to
the Confucian learning tradition, where the teacher is highly respected and expected to
perform a teachers duty, i.e. to teach, as traditionally conceived (Szalay et al. 1994;
Watkins and Biggs 1996). The limited literature based on anecdotal evidence seems to
suggest that PRC learners are different from their Western counterparts in their learning
approaches and teaching reading strategies to them can be very frustrating (e.g. Field 1985;
Kohn 1992). The Chinese way of teaching and learning EFL reading would strike native
English speakers as very different from the common practice in the West. For example,
Kohn (1992) reminds American teachers that they should be well-aware of some of the
widely accepted beliefs when teaching reading to PRC students. He claims that
[American] students can rely on their knowledge of a familiar context, that they will
guess meanings from context, and that they will then volunteer those meanings aloud
as part of a classroom discussion are all expectations quite alien to Chinese classrooms. (Kohn 1992, p. 122)
The classroom situation summarized by Kohn has to be borne in mind in reading strategy
instruction. However, it is also necessary for us to look at the issue contextually and
culturally. The situation Kohn described might have been quite common in the late 1980s,
when Chinese students or teachers were not exposed to Western approaches to language
teaching due to the countrys closure to the outside world, particularly within territorial
boundaries in the PRC itself. But recent reports tend to view the issue from the perspective
of social change, which, in turn, has led to some innovation in pedagogical practice
reflected in learner behaviors (cf. Gu 2002; Parry 1996; Wu 2001; Zhang 2002b). This
suggests that PRC learners are not a static social group and that they may welcome
teachers initiatives to teach them useful reading strategies if they realize their value
(Watkins and Biggs 1996). Szalay and his colleagues survey (1994, p. 98) indicates that
the PRC students are particularly inclined to view their teachers in an idealized role
endowed with a great deal of authority, esteem and respect, suggesting that they value
teacher input and instruction and emphasize the teacherstudent relationship. Consequently, the power of teacher authority offers the teacher an advantage to enhance learner
behavior change as reflected in the use of language learning strategies related to language
proficiency (Wen and Johnson 1997; Zhang 2001, 2003). Similarly, Stephens (1997) reports that PRC students in the United Kingdom were put under stereotypical shadows
and that they were actually very cooperative if not restricted by their limited language
proficiency. Recent studies by Gao (2003) and Gan et al. (2004) also show that learner
attitudes and motivation are closely associated with student learning and use of strategies,
casting doubt on the stereotypic notions of passive and dependent Asian learners.
The above information was taken into account in conducting strategic reading
instruction in the present study, especially since these participants were learning EAP in
Singapore, a foreign country to them, where the predominant linguistic input greatly
differed from that in their home country. It was especially important in the selection of
reading strategies for inclusion in the training program in the present study. In addition, as
reported in the literature (e.g. Zhang 2000b) the cultural unfamiliarity with which they
were faced and the anxiety that they experienced might have been driving forces for their
higher locus of control and higher motivation level as exhibited in their greater efforts to
succeed.
123
96
L. J. Zhang
Research questions
The present study set out to examine two things: (1) how willingly a group of ESL students
from the PRC, when put into a foreign learning culture, would engage themselves in
strategy-based reading instruction and (2) whether such instruction would lead learners to
adopt certain reading strategies in relation to reading comprehension improvement. Specifically, the following research questions were tackled:
1. What was the degree of willingness of a group of Chinese ESL/EFL learners to engage
in strategy-based reading instruction when they were learning to read English material
in a foreign context?
2. Was there any improvement in students reading performance in relation to their
perceived use of reading strategies?
The study
Context of the study
The study was conducted in Singapore, where the PRC students were studying EAP on an
English Communication Skills Program, whose main objective was to improve students
English proficiency to qualify for entry into university degree programs. Singapore is a
multilingual and multicultural society where English functions as a lingua franca among
different ethnic groups. Also, because of its colonial legacy, Singapore is one of the few
countries which has the national policy whereby English is stipulated not only as one of the
four official languages but also the first language in the school curriculum. The mother
tongues of different ethnic groups (Malay, Chinese, and Tamil) are offered as the second
language. Because of this, Singapore society in general is greatly exposed to English, and
English is not only the medium of instruction in education, but also the language of the
media, the law and government administration, which means that it is not only one of the
four official languages, but also a language which is functioning as the de facto language
for practical and functionary purposes (Pakir 2004). By virtue of the paramount importance
of English in the education system, high proficiency in English is a prerequisite for academic success.
The PRC students in the present study had to exert much greater efforts in order to
achieve a near-equivalent level of English proficiency to mingle with their Singaporean
counterparts, who had already passed at least 4 A-Level (Advanced-Level) subjects on
the Cambridge-Singapore GCE (General Certificate in Education) examinations, including
GP (General Paper), a high-level English reading and writing exam, to qualify for bachelors degree studies in either of the two local universities. Further information about the
program is provided below.
The bridging program and reading instruction

The EAP program was tailored to meet the needs of foreign students, whose English
proficiency was too low to cope with content learning at the universities. After seven
months of intensive English remedial lessons, totaling 672 classroom contact hours, the
students were expected to be proficient in listening, speaking, reading and writing in
123
97
English in addition to acquiring other study skills, for example, the basic skills and conventions in writing up a research paper.
The objective of the intensive program was achieved by integrating the application
of language skills with some training in the use of information communication technology (ICT) so that they were well prepared to meet future challenges in their academic studies in the universities. Students had on average 28 weeks of program time
and they had 6 h of Reading Comprehension (RC), 6 h of Writing Skills (WS), and
10 h of Aural Oral Communication (AOC), in addition to 2 h of Tutorial Self-access
(TSA) each week. Students were given opportunities to manage their own study,
especially learning how to regulate their own progress. This practice implied that
equipping them with basic study skills, particularly strategies for attacking academic
texts in English, would be of great importance to their future degree studies in engineering fields. It was also hoped that by engaging them in such an intensive program
their study skills would be extended to such an extent that they would become independent and autonomous learners.
Also, the guidelines given to the reading teachers clearly stipulated that CLT approaches were encouraged in the teachers classroom procedures. For the reading course, a
similar rationale was supposed to be followed, and a variety of authentic texts were used in
the class, ranging from newspaper cuttings, magazine feature articles, and selected on-line
reading materials to prescribed textbooks. Although other materials were optional in
classes, the textbooks were the core material in the program. The coordinators encouraged
all the teachers to use the core textbooks and prepared different kinds of materials for use,
but they also gave all the teachers freedom to use other kinds of material of their own
choice in their respective classes. The course syllabus was generally skill-based. In order to
arouse students interests and to further enhance their reading ability, reading teachers also
designed a variety of classroom activities.
Experimental vs. control group design

As the study focused on strategy training to examine student willingness to be engaged in
strategic reading instruction and its possible effects on reading improvement through
teacher instruction, reciprocal teaching took up the bulk of classroom activities, where the
teacher was a facilitator, participant and interactant throughout the whole lesson. To this
end the present study involved an experimental group undergoing a two-month reading
strategy training program integrated with language instruction, and a control group, a
comparison group that remained intact, exposed only to the relatively more traditional,
teacher-centered, mode of language instruction. What this means is that the teacher/researcher did not deliberately teach the control group how to use the reading strategies
which were systematically taught to the experimental group. The training program consisted of two stages, the first of which concerned the enrichment of metacognitive
knowledge through awareness-oriented interactional and participatory discussion and direct instruction in small groups; and the second, the cultivation of self-regulation by means
of self-questioning and self-reflection (Brown and Palincsar 1982; Janzen and Stoller 1998;
Palincsar and Brown 1984; Vygotsky 1986). Due to the length of the training program
(48 h) and financial constraints, not all sessions were video recorded, and the teacher/
researcher relied heavily on field notes and audio-recordings.
123
98
L. J. Zhang
Participants
A total of 99 PRC students from two cohorts of matriculation were invited to be participants. Their average age was about 18. Their previous school EFL curricula had prepared
them with approximately 2,800 basic vocabulary words after starting learning EFL at
around 12 years of age when they were first-year Junior Middle School students (MOE
2000). Altogether, they had a cumulative period of 5 years in EFL learning at the time
when the data were collected. They were highly motivated. They came from a country
generally described in the literature as Confucian in learning and cultural orientations,
meaning that they tended to be respectful of the teacher and were relatively reticent in
contributing to classroom discoursethough various reasons may account for this (see e.g.
Gan et al. 2004; Littlewood 1999).
As a design feature, two groups of EFL students were purposefully chosen so as to
compare the results of the strategy-based instruction. The control group and the experimental group were comprised of 49 and 50 students respectively. The two groups were
assigned randomly into a control or experimental group because of their equitable level of
EFL reading proficiency which was measured at the outset of the bridging program.
Analysis of their pre-test results indicates that the two groups were not statistically different in terms of their perceptions of the utility of the reading strategies, nor were they
different in their proficiency level or reading scores.
The two groups were assigned the same reading materials in their Academic Reading
course and they were taught by the same instructor to guarantee the validity of the
experimental study. But the control group did not receive strategy training as did the
experimental group during the 2-month period of this experiment, as explained earlier. It
needs to be pointed out that in order not to shortchange the students in the control group,
the same instructor implemented the strategy-based instruction procedures with them
immediately after the experiment study was completed.
Selected reading strategies and texts

The literature on language learning strategies generally makes a distinction between
metacognitive, cognitive and socioaffective strategies (OMalley and Chamot 1990;
Oxford 1990). For example, OMalley and Chamot (1990, pp. 4445) state that
metacognitive strategies are higher-order executive skills which may entail planning
for, monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learning activity...Cognitive strategies
operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance
learning...Socioaffective strategies represent a broad group that involves either
interaction with another person or ideational control over affect.
However, in the literature on reading strategy instruction, such a distinction is not strictly
made. Nevertheless, I had to understand clearly which were cognitive, metacognitive and
socio-affective strategies so that I could spend my classroom time reasonably. Therefore,
my strategic reading instruction began with a sharing of Holschuh and Kelleys (1988) list
of possibly useful strategies with the participants in connection with a longer reading text
taken from Holschuh and Kelley (1988, pp. 118). The strategies shared included mainly
cognitive strategies such as previewing or surveying a text, reading headings or
subheadings to get a gist of a text, scanning for highlighted words or expressions and
summarizing main ideas of a text by re-reading it and metacognitive strategies such as
123
99
checking correctness of comprehension and checking the effectiveness in strategy

use. Most of these reading strategies were reported by researchers as facilitative of
reading comprehension (e.g. Anderson 1991; Block 1986; Jimenez et al. 1996).
The reading materials were used together with the strategy list. The typical reading
textbook was Quest (Hartman and Blass 1999). Other strategies later identified from the
literature as helpful to reading comprehension were added to their original list. These
included self-questioning, self-monitoring and making inferences of the meaning
of unknown words using contextual clues and so on (see Table 1 for other strategies; see
also Carrell 1998; Cohen 1998, for summaries). Although a clear understanding of the
above framework was relevant to this study, for easier classroom implementation, the
reading strategies considered to be useful for learners were classified into three groups with
reference to pedagogical operationalization; i.e. whether they were used during prereading, while-reading or post-reading stages. The expanded list of these strategies is
described in Table 1.
Pretest and posttest

The Reading Comprehension section of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) was used as pre-test and post-test measures. The test itself was new to all
students at the time when this study was conducted. The IELTS scores of the participants
in both groups were collected after the two tests were administered in order to examine the
possible effects of strategy instruction on their reading behavior change in relation to
improvement in reading comprehension. Given the quantitative orientation of the research
design, think-aloud was not considered as a tool for data collection in this study although it
has been proven to be a very productive instrument for revealing the thinking processes of
the reader (Pressley and Afflerbach 1995; see also Cohen 1998). In order to locate any
instructional effect, a list of reading strategies in a questionnaire format was prepared on a
7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (extremely infrequently) to 7 (extremely frequently) as
shown in Table 1. The questionnaire was intended to elicit participants reported frequency
of using these reading strategies, which could suggest the degree of their willingness to use
them as well. The strategic reading instruction was based on this knowledge. The questionnaire was distributed to all the participants who were invited to complete it before and
after the strategy-based reading instruction program.
Classroom procedures for strategy-based reading instruction

For the purpose of ascertaining participant interest and willingness to be engaged in the
strategic reading instruction program, four simple questions were asked of both the
experimental and the control groups about the change in their learning environment: (1)
Have you experienced any differences in the learning contexts between China and Singapore? (2) Have you ever heard of the term yuedu celue, or, reading strategies? (3) If
you have heard of the term yuedu celue, what specific strategies did you use in reading
while you were in China? (4) Do you want to learn more about how you can read more
effectively?
Bearing in mind the contentions mentioned earlier regarding strategy-based instruction
in the learning strategy research literature as highlighted in Harris (2003), I took the advice
from OMalley and Chamot (1990) and Chamot et al. (1999) as cited in Harris (2003, p. 5);
123
100
L. J. Zhang
Table 1 Reading strategies selected for instruction

Reading strategies
Description
Pre-reading stage
Instructional stage where preparations are made for the

start of a reading lesson
Previewing or surveying
Activating schema knowledge
Predicting content
Scanning for highlighted words or
expressions
While-reading stage
Advance look at text to see its layout, illustrations, etc

Getting ready to read by using what is already known of
text
Anticipating possible content of text
Looking for highlighted words or expressions
Instructional stage where learners are fully engaged in the
comprehension process
Reading headings, subheadings, etc.
Attending to organizational aspects of text
Self-questioning
Asking questions about text
Self-monitoring
Self-checking comprehension
Focusing on meaning, not form
Paying attention to meaning, rather than form
Relating meaning to what is already known
Connecting what is read with what is already known
Reviewing main ideas after each chunk

of reading
Summarizing main ideas either orally or in written form
Asking how the main idea or purpose is

related to previous paragraph
Looking for logical relationships between paragraphs
Looking for familiar affixes and roots in

unknown vocabulary
Trying to solve vocabulary problems using

morphological knowledge
Using context to make inferences of the

meaning of unknown words/expressions
Guessing at unfamiliar vocabulary items through

contextual clues
Identifying main ideas and supporting

details
Looking for relationships between main ideas (topic

sentences) and details
Identifying organizational patterns of text
Post-reading stage
Looking for the organizational aspects of text in terms of

its typical structure (e.g. causeeffect, compare/contrast,
etc.)
Instructional stage where reading task is completed
Evaluating reading
Examining how well text is understood
Giving personal response
Making critical/personal comments on text
Reviewing to summarize text meanings
Reading text again to summarize text meanings
Checking effectiveness in strategy use
Reflecting on how effectively a strategy was used
i.e. the optimum way of grouping strategies is to minimize potential learner confusion. I started with Winograd and Hares (1988, pp. 123124) framework, highly recommended by Carrell (1998), and my instructional procedures were based on the following
six principles, as shown in Table 2. (For a review of different strategy training models in
L2 teaching, see Chamot et al. 1999; Cohen 1998; Harris 2003; Oxford 2001.)
Metacognitive awareness-raising
Recent general consensus on strategy-based instruction shows that metacognition can be
integrated in a training program (Anderson 1999; Chamot et al. 1999; Harris 2003). Based
123
101
Table 2 Principles and procedures in strategy instruction

Pedagogical focus
Teacher roles and classroom procedures
What was the strategy?
Teacher described critical, known features of the strategy and provided a

definition of the strategy
Why should a strategy be

learned?
Teacher told the students why they were learning about the strategy by
explaining the purpose of the reading strategy instruction component
and its potential benefits for their self-regulated learning
How was the strategy used?
Teacher broke down the strategy, explaining each component of the

strategy as clearly and articulately as possible and show logical
relationships among the various components
When should the strategy be

used?
Teacher illustrated the use of the strategy with reference to particular

text types
Where should the strategy be

used?
Teacher showed examples of when the strategy should be used after

describing appropriate circumstances under which the strategy would
benefit reading comprehension
How should the use of the

strategy be evaluated?
Teacher demonstrated how to evaluate the successful or unsuccessful

use of the strategy, including suggestions for fix-up strategies to solve
remaining problems
on both groups responses to the last two questions and the six principles, interactive
discussion with the experimental group about the definitions of strategies followed. This
activity functioned as awareness-raising among the participants in addition to giving useful
feedback to learners understanding that could be drawn on as part of a constructivist
approach. After this preliminary discussion, all the participants were referred to the reading
strategies listed in a table format similar to Table 1, but the definitions were not provided.
The whole class was then divided into small groups and asked to talk about what each of
the strategies meant to them by supplying definitions, what situations would be appropriate
for using such strategies so that reading comprehension would be enhanced, and why such
strategies should be used. After the discussions, while the text was collaboratively processed, the participants were asked to explain what strategies should be used, and how,
why, when and where such strategies should be used. Integrating strategy instruction into
the reading curriculum became a design feature throughout the training program.
Scaffolding, practicing, monitoring and evaluating strategy use

When teaching reading strategies through passages from Holschuh and Kelley (1988, pp.
118), as a follow-up procedure, the teacher/researcher intentionally involved the participants in the discussion of the strategies and then asked them to use them in the reading
tasks in small groups with reference to pre-, while-, or post-stages in reading. The relevance and effectiveness of such strategy use were shared immediately among the members
of each group of 45 students prior to any class presentations. The activities were
supervised and the participants were ensured of opportunities to talk about their strategyuse experiences after the teacher/researchers explaining, modeling and evaluating and so
on were completed. With the passage of time, the teacher-scaffolding was gradually removed to make sure that the students started using these strategies on their own so that
learner autonomy or self-regulation could be regarded as an ultimate goal for the strategybased instruction program. This strategy instruction program lasted for 2 months, totaling
48 h of in-classroom instruction.
123
102
L. J. Zhang
Results
Learner willingness to be engaged in strategy-based reading instruction
Participant knowledge of the change in learning contexts or learning environments seemed
to be clear. Ninety-three students (96%) strongly realized the sociocultural differences
between the two societies, suggesting the existence of a foreign learning culture in which
they had to struggle for success. Both groups responses to the two questions on their
knowledge, interest and willingness to be engaged in strategy-based reading instruction
show that they were quite familiar with the term reading strategies, but they were not
very sure about what the word strategies specifically meant. What they were able to
indicate were some very broad terms, which were typically represented in twofast
reading and guessing at word meaning. Learners willingness to be engaged in strategybased reading instruction was manifest. A predominant majority (98%) expressed willingness to learn more about reading strategies so that they could read more efficiently and
strategically. Eighty-nine students (93%) of the total sample said they had heard of the
term. Of the experimental group, 43 (86%) students reported having heard of it, and of the
control group, 46 (93%) had similar experiences. However, their nave definitions of
strategies showed that their previous EFL reading strategy use experiences were limited
and their self-reports through the questionnaire were also divergent. (In the quotations that
follow, students identities are concealed with pseudonyms.) Jiangs definition of a reading
strategy, for example, showed that he was not very sure of what it really was, even in
Chinese. His fuzzy understanding of it was something like a method of how to do
reading. Xu, in contrast, seemed to be quite confident of what he thought should be the
defining features of a strategy, as he was able to relate to his experiences of using some of
the strategies, which were to be discussed in the later part of the lesson. Both examples are
shown below.
Extract 1: Reading strategy is...it is how to read...yeah, I dont know. (Jiang)
Extract 2: Reading strategies is way of reading...they can help us read better. For
example, kuaisu yuedu (fast or speed reading) is useful. (Xu)
Clearly, the two participants came to the EAP program with somewhat different
perceptions of ESL/EFL reading, so both definitions differed in scope and depth. Similar
patterns were found among other participants on the defining features of strategies.
Needless to say, some might have heard of the term, but actually defining it might have
proven to be a challenging task. Therefore, it is understandable that some students were
not able to name the strategies even in the mother tongue. Surprisingly, although they
reported having heard of terms such as kuaisu yuedu (fast reading) and caici (guessing at
word meanings), they did not have any other strategies in their mental stores. Kalaja
(1995) posits that learner beliefs or their metacognitive knowledge about language
learning do not necessarily lead to language improvement. This seems to be true if we do
not make a distinction between the direct and the indirect efforts learners have made to
improve language skills based on their beliefs, or reading strategies, for that matter.
However, learner beliefs or metacognitive knowledge might affect language learning or
123
103
reading comprehension in different ways or vice versa. Therefore, the information obtained for the first two questions has provided us with some useful data on learner
perceptions of EFL reading and this information also paved the way for the instructional
procedures reported in this study.
Strategic reading instruction and learner development

Reading strategy instruction seemed somewhat foreign to some of the Chinese ESL students in the beginning of the program, but the experimental group, on being introduced to
the concept of reading strategies, was keen to learn what it was. The following excerpt
illustrates how the participants involved themselves in the dialogic activities where
teaching reading strategies for better comprehension with reference to specific academic
text types was the central concern in the pedagogical procedures. The excerpts below also
serve to demonstrate the approach and to illustrate learners responses to it as part of the
qualitative data. Understandably, the strategy-based reading instruction in the form of
reciprocal teaching led by the teacher was relatively long.
Extract 3:
1 T:
2 Ss:
3 T:
4 S1:
5 T:
6 Ss:
7 T:
8 S2:
9
T:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
S2:
T:
S2:
T:
S2:
T:
S3:
T:
Ss:
T:
20
21
22
S4:
T:
S5:
Ok, class, lets have a quick look at this passage. Can you see the title?
No. (quite a number of students shake their heads)
What is the first sentence, then?
Humn ... This one ... dont know.
Can you guess what the text will be about?
No. (quite a number of students shake their heads)
Why?
Because I cant see the rest of paragraphs, so I dont know the meaning of
text.
You are probably right, Hewen, but lets see if we have any other comments on
your observations from your classmates.
Some information of first paragraph already tell us some texts main idea.
Oh, does it? Good. Can you show us?
The first few words [pointing to the text].
Ok, what strategies did we just try using, then?
Umh ...
Jianjun, you seem to have something to say?
Yeah. Actually, I think ... I think, we used some strategies ... guess?
Yes, guess, you mean guessing as a strategy?
Hmm ... [several students nod heads]
Yes. We also predict text contents by guessing. When you have some words
or expressions that are familiar to you, you can use this knowledge to get at the
meaning of those that are new. What other strategies did we use? Can someone
tell us? ... Very good.
We first looked for the first sentence of each paragraph, then we ...
You mean we were looking for topic sentences.
Topic sentence ...Yah.
As the above extract shows, reciprocal teaching through interactive activities imparted
to students some new information on how to read. Their interest in learning to use certain
123
104
L. J. Zhang
strategies was also manifest. When asking them to predict the text content by guessing,
the teacher did not explicitly tell them what strategy was to be used in the beginning.
Instead, students were encouraged to make an effort to experience how that particular
strategy could become available and useful in that context. From line 8 we can see clearly
that students (S2) were expecting to see a broader context in order to get at the meaning of
the paragraph as a whole. This is quite logical in many cases; but to proceed with a more
audacious move is also obvious in some other students. In line 10 another student (S1) said
that she was able to get at the idea of the paragraph because she had noticed that the topic
sentence in the paragraph indicated the main idea of that paragraph. Note that this process
of negotiating meaning among the teacher and the rest of the classmates also engaged all
the students in understanding the process in addition to the product of reading comprehension. This aspect of reading instruction seemed to have enhanced learner development
interestingly. We now turn to look at another episode of the classroom process to see how
other aspects of the strategic reading instruction were teased out.
Extract 4:
23 T:
In our previous lessons, we tried some strategies for efficient or better reading
comprehension. We will try some other strategies in todays session. What ...?
Yes, Lianyi?
24 S5: Er, we did try some other strategies, such as guessing ...
25 S6: We also tried to pre... predict.
26 T:
Good. Yeah, we also tried to predict what the text would be about. Predicting
means to make a logical connection between what you read of the text, , title,
subtitles, etc. and then you feel that you already roughly know the content of
the passage based on your understanding of these or the first sentence.
27 S7: We continued reading although we didnt completely understand the text.
28 T:
Right. Dont stop reading, because, when you read on, some unclear parts will
show their meanings. Dont you think so?
29 S8: What do you mean by predict, sir?
30 T:
It is a very good question. Jiemin, can you try to explain it to your classmates,
not only among your group members?
31 S8: Sir, sorry, I cant do it in English. But I think in Chinese, it is ok for us.
32 T:
You mean you know what it means to predict in Chinese?
33 S8: Yes, I looked it in my electronic English-Chinese dictionary for its Chinese
meaning yesterday. To predict mean something like guess what is going to
happen; you also explain to us last time.
34 T:
Very good. Can we look at the word again and see how it is formed? Now, who
knows that meaning of pre-? Any examples?
35 S9: Humn ... (a short period of silence)
36 T:
Can someone think of any word that begins with pre-?
37 S:
Pre- ... (with majority looking at the teacher)
38 T:
OK. I understand that we need some time to learn these. Pre-means
before, and dict- means say. So what does predict mean?
39 S10: It mean to say something ... earlier ... hmm ...
40 T:
Very good. It means you say something before it really happens. It is
interesting to look at words in this way, isnt it?
41 S10: Yeah. (with the majority nodding their heads).
42 T:
So, you have learned another strategy. What should it be called?
123
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
105
S11: Analyze word?

S12: Break word?
T:
Yes, you can read by using familiar word parts to work out unfamiliar word
meaning... by analyzing words, or looking for word parts ... You are looking for
familiar roots, prefixes and suffixes. Again, you used another strategy ... you
used it just now in order to find out the meaning of an unknown word. What is
it, Lei?
S8: Using dictionary.
T:
Quite right. Even dictionary use is not as simple as what we know about. What
will happen in one reading if you use a dictionary too frequently?
S13: Our reading speed will be very slow. (Many nod heads to show approval)
S14: We will not have enough time. (many others nod heads to show approval)
S16: I agree.
T:
Right. On top of that, we cant read fast enough to complete the reading
material.
S9: Also, as you said, we can guess some words. There is no need to look up every
word in dictionary.
T:
Exactly. So you have to make quick decisions about whether you should use
the strategy, when and where and why you should or should not. Now, which
places in the first paragraph did you think you had to use a dictionary?
S17: Only in the later part of the text. Several new words ... We didnt know what to
do ...
As evident, Extract 4 is a continuation of the previous lesson on finding topic sentences

in order to summarize the main idea. When the teacher started his reading lesson by
asking the students to think of other strategies they could have come up with, the
students immediately became enthusiastic. They mentioned predicting as a strategy
again. This was the opportune time for the teacher to explain and model its use as
reinforcement. To muster up student courage, the teacher focused on cultivating student
initiation to use the dictionary at this stage. Lines 34 to 53 further show the teachers
rationale in bringing in that strategy and the strategy of using familiar word parts to
work out unfamiliar word meaning to share with his students. This was followed by an
evaluative question from the teacher to relate students to previous experiences of reading
strategy use. Surprisingly, in line 55 (Extract 5) Liming (S20) said that he had not used
the guessing strategy before.
Clearly, the classroom processes of reading strategy instruction did not always meet
with success. Some degree of student resistance to such strategy instruction was also
perceivable. Lines 2, 6 and 8 show that, before students really saw the value of a
strategy-based approach to reading comprehension, their cooperation was not unanimous. Therefore, understanding the rationale for such pedagogy was very important.
However, as the sessions went on, students interest in strategic reading grew. Peer
collaboration and classroom talk became very vibrant. The participants finally understood that reading in ESL did not only involve using lexical and grammatical knowledge to derive meaning from the text but also a negotiation process wherein the
primary concern was meaning construction. Notice, however, because of our overall
concern for contextualizing strategy instruction to uncover the issue in relation to the
flow of the lesson, the excerpts are presented in larger blocks instead of in small
segments. It is hoped that in doing so the scenario of how strategy instruction went on
is more accurately depicted.
123
106
L. J. Zhang
Extract 5:
55 T:
You read with a purpose and then you are making hypotheses or guesses about
whether the text is what you expect it is, and in your reading, some of the
wrong guesses will become clear. You confirm whether you make right guesses
and need to correct them or not. This is where predicting is necessary. But
do you think you just used the strategies effectively, Xioa Ying?
56 S20: No, first time I use it.
57 T:
Why? Why did you say so? Can we have someone give us a reason?
58 S21: I was not sure if I should predict or guess.
59 T:
How about you, Jennie?
60 S22: I think we should get more practice using these strategies more often; then we
will know how.
61 T:
Ok. Several examples showed that we must understand what strategy we
should use, why we should use it, where and when we should use it. Got it?
62 S23: Yeah.
63 T:
Now lets see how we can more effectively use this and other strategies just
discussed in the following paragraphs ...
Effects of strategy instruction on learner development

Change in learners perceived use of reading strategies
The strategy instruction program started with awareness-raising activities, followed by
explaining, modeling, monitoring and evaluating strategy use. In this process the experimental group benefited from group sharing and discussion of many of the instances or
contexts where particular strategies were used. However, the control group did not seem to
improve as much as did the experimental group within a period of two months time. The
control group and the experimental group started at the same level, both in terms of their
strategy use and second-language reading proficiency, as shown in Table 3. The mean
scores of both groups perceived use of reading strategies did not exhibit any statistically
significant difference on the pretest administered. However, after two months strategy
instruction, the experimental group outperformed the control group not only in perceived
strategy use but also in reading improvement.
Table 3 show that, of all the strategies in which the experimental group received
strategy instruction, the two most conspicuous strategies prominently distinguishing the
two groups were previewing or survey texts (experimental group M = 6.4 vs. control
group M = 3.20; t = 28.56, P < .001) and identifying organizational patterns of text
(experimental group M = 6.42 vs. control group M = 3.22; t = 29.92, P < .001). On the rest
of the strategies, statistically significant differences between the two groups were found,
suggesting the effect of strategic reading instruction on students perceived use of reading
strategies. As can be seen, the experimental groups overall use of global reading
strategies, namely, strategies that were more concerned with the meaning than the form of
the language, was particularly obvious. However, this does not mean that they did not use
less global strategies. For example, statistics show that the experimental group performed better than did the control group on all the three: scanning for highlighted words
or expressions (M = 5.12 vs. M = 3.66; t = 12.22, P < .05), looking for familiar affixes
and roots in unknown words (M = 5.12 vs. M = 3.06; t = 17.43, P < .05), or using
123
107
Table 3 Perceived reading strategy use by the two groups before and after strategy instruction (N = 99)
Treatment conditions
Pretest
Posttest
Experiment Control
N = 50
N = 49
Experiment Control
t
(twoN = 49
tailed) N = 50
t (twotailed)
Reading strategies
Mean SD Mean SD
Mean SD Mean SD
3.13
.62 3.18
.74 2.12
6.40
.15 3.20
.51 28.56***
2.87
.51 2.85
.45 1.31
4.90
.14 2.98
.37 22.16***
Predicting content
2.10
.43 2.23
.41 1.11
5.89
.39 2.24
.21 23.29***
Scanning for highlighted words or

expressions
3.67
.72 3.72
.52 2.42
5.12
.52 3.66
.15 12.22**
Reading headings, subheadings, etc. 3.21
.32 3.22
.61 2.11
4.23
.48 3.35
.24 10.19**
Self-questioning
3.11
.67 3.00
.77 2.21
4.22
.24 3.10
.59 11.31**
Self-monitoring
3.45
.77 3.51
.71 2.52
5.08
.45 3.50
.28 10.02**
3.23
.72 3.31
.53 2.38
5.12
.44 3.35
.21 12.14**
Relating meaning to what is already 3.21

known
.89 3.01
.72 1.23
3.42
.36 3.12
.34 2.93
Summarizing main ideas after each

chunk of reading
2.95
.68 2.86
.65 1.94
4.28
.76 3.00
.21 11.28**
Asking how the main idea/purpose is 3.12

related to previous paragraph
.67 3.18
.57 1.78
4.34
.29 3.23
.38 10.31**
Looking for familiar affixes and

roots in unknown vocabulary
2.98
.56 3.01
.76 1.67
5.12
.39 3.06
.24 17.43**
Using context to make inferences of 3.11

the meaning of unknown words/
expressions
.49 3.00
.67 2.91
5.14
.76 3.06
.38 13.29**
Identifying main ideas and

supporting details
3.00
.37 2.86
.58 1.62
5.18
.52 3.04
.20 16.13**
Evaluating reading
2.91
.51 2.98
.70 2.44
4.30
.76 2.98
.14 15.17**
2.84
.45 2.78
.64 1.16
4.28
.61 2.79
.44 13.72**
Reviewing to summarize text

meanings
2.89
.23 3.02
.45 2.37
4.34
.79 3.06
.32 12.91**
Checking effectiveness in strategy

use
2.69
.77 2.71
.67 1.10
5.18
.52 3.00
.35 22.73***
Identifying organizational patterns of 2.58

text
.69 2.60
.57 1.51
6.42
.46 3.22
.55 29.92***
** P < .05, *** P < .001
context to make inferences of the meaning of unknown words (M = 5.14 vs. M = 3.06;
t = 13.29, P < .05). Their perceived use of all other strategies except for relating meaning
to what is already known (M = 3.42 vs. M = 3.12; t = 2.93, P > .05, not significant) seems
to suggest that as long as provision of strategy instruction is made available, the students
cooperated with the teacher to construct meaning collaboratively in a form of dialogic
interaction.
As Table 4 further indicates, there was an overall change in the experimental groups
perception of the utility of all the listed reading strategies except one. The most obvious
change was observed in their perception of identifying the organizational patterns of
text. The difference before and after the strategic reading instruction is very illustrative
123
108
L. J. Zhang
Table 4 Instructional effects on the experimental groups reading strategy use (N = 50)
Reading strategies
Treatment conditions
Pretest
Posttest
t (twotailed)
Mean SD Mean SD
3.13
.62 6.40
.15 32.12***
2.87
.51 4.90
.14 24.21***
Predicting content
2.10
.43 5.89
.39 25.35***
Scanning for highlighted words or expressions
3.67
.72 5.12
.52 15.34**
Reading headings, subheadings, etc.
3.21
.32 4.23
.48 13.25**
Self-questioning
3.11
.67 4.22
.24 12.13**
Self-monitoring
3.45
.77 5.08
.45 15.38**
3.23
.72 5.12
.44 18.21**
Relating meaning to what is already known
3.21
.89 3.42
.36 n.s.
Summarizing main ideas after each chunk of reading
2.95
.68 4.28
.76 14.34**
Asking how the main idea/purpose is related to previous paragraph
3.12
.67 4.34
.29 12.32**
Looking for familiar affixes and roots in unknown vocabulary
2.98
.56 5.12
.39 19.34**
Using context to make inferences of the meaning of unknown words/ 3.11

expressions
.49 5.14
.76 16.21**
Identifying main ideas and supporting details
3.00
.37 5.18
.52 17.32**
Evaluating reading
2.91
.51 4.30
.76 12.73**
2.84
.45 4.28
.61 13.72**
Reviewing to summarize text meanings
2.89
.23 4.34
.79 10.69**
Checking effectiveness in strategy use
2.69
.77 5.18
.52 26.22***
Identifying the organization patterns of text
2.58
.69 6.42
.46 32.63***
** P < .05, *** P < .001
(M = 2.58, vs. M = 6.42; t = 32.63, P < .001). This is enlightening, as, after two months of
strategy-based reading instruction, at least the teachers effort was reflected in the students
deliberate articulation of the value of these strategies taught or shared in class. Surprisingly
though, they did not show any statistically significant change in relating to what is read to
what is already known. This might suggest that these students still needed practice in
associating what was newly learned with what had already been in their minds. It is also
possible that in the reciprocal teaching processes, this strategy was not given sufficient
attention. Or, this strategy could be cognitively more demanding, as it involved not only
linguistic knowledge but also conceptual understanding needed for such a strategy to be
fully activated.
On other strategies, the experimental group clearly improved when compared with their
earlier perceptions of these strategies prior to the strategy instruction program. The other
noticeable one is previewing or surveying reading materials before reading (M = 3.13,
vs. M = 6.40; t = 32.12, P < .001). Activating schema knowledge (M = 2.87 vs.
M = 4.90; t = 24.21, P < .001) and predicting content (M = 2.10 vs. M = 5.89; t = 25.35,
P < .001) were highly regarded. This is logical, as most often, when predicting text
contents, readers rely heavily on the schema knowledge stored in their memory. This part
of the results seems to indicate that these students were psychologically ready to absorb
this knowledge. What is more compelling is that they realized the importance of checking
effectiveness in strategy use (M = 2.69 vs. M = 5.18; t = 26.22, P < .001). As mentioned
123
109
Table 5 EFL reading performance before and after strategy instruction for control and experimental groups
Treatment condition
Pretest
Posttest
Groups compared
Control (N = 49) Experimental (N = 50) Control

(N = 49)
Experimental
(N = 50)
EFL reading scores
M = 20.14
M = 20.52
M = 21.38
M = 23.84
SD = 2.20
SD = 2.24
SD = 2.27
SD = 2.19
Significance (2-tailed) t = .851, P = .397 (not statistically

significant)
t = 10.71, P < .001; g2 = .34, P < .001
earlier, learners more frequent use of a strategy without flexibility and proper evaluation
does not necessarily lead to effective learning. If this is taken to be true, then the small
change we have seen here can be regarded as meaningful.
Improvement in reading performance

To see the possible effects of strategy instruction on reading improvement, the EFL reading
scores on the pretest and the posttest were compared. The two groups reading scores were
submitted for independent t-tests. The two groups were at the same starting level, and again
the experimental group seemed to have benefited from such instruction. Although the two
groups reading scores improved over a period of time, results in Table 5 show that there
were statically significant differences between the two groups performance on the posttest
(t = 10.71, P < .001).
The result of a post-hoc test used to test the effect size shows that the value of g2 = .34
is statistically good (Glass and Hopkins 1996, pp. 289290), suggesting that the strategy
instruction can account for about 34% of the variances, indicating a strong association
between strategy training and reading performance improvement for the experimental
group. The control group did not seem to have gained as much on the posttest as did the
experimental group. Furthermore, their perceived reading behavior change, as seen in their
choice of strategies, was also minimal; that is, they did not seem to attribute much value to
the strategies that were given to them for choice possibly because of a lack of teacher
provision or instruction. One may argue that the experimental groups overall growth in
language proficiency would also have contributed to the participants improvement in
reading performance while they were on the EAP program. However, given that the control
group did not improve in either their perceived use of reading strategies or their reading
performance, even though the same teacher used the same authentic reading materials in
both groups, it can be suggested that the strategic reading instruction program helped the
experimental groups perceived reading behavior change as well as improvement in
reading comprehension.
Discussion
Strategic reading instruction with PRC students
The findings from this study indicate that the PRC students showed progress both in
perceived reading strategy use and reading comprehension as a result of the strategic
123
110
L. J. Zhang
reading instruction. There could be several reasons to explain them. The constructivist
nature of the training program, high levels of motivation and possibly the sociocultural
context in which they studied collectively contributed to their taking a positive attitude
towards strategic reading instruction. Since reading is one of the most uniquely human and
complex of all cognitive activities, helping learners to learn how to read and further
develop their reading skills will help them learn from text by themselves. Moreover,
successful reading requires many basic processes, such as the identification of letters, the
mapping of letters onto sounds, and the recognition of words and syntax, with its ultimate
goal of reading to learn from text (Bernhardt 2005; Smith 2004; Zhang 2002a). Based on
these skills, learners can move a step forward by connecting what is read with what they
already have in their minds as schemata or background knowledge and interact with the
text using this knowledge. In order to achieve these objectives, L2 readers have to continue
practicing using the strategies until they have acquired the skills necessary for independent,
self-regulated or autonomous learning. This is exactly why it is necessary to be optimistic
about the kind of strategic reading instruction conducted so far within the constructivist
framework with the PRC students, as a comparison of the data collected before and after
the instruction shows that the strategic reading instruction had effects on their perceived
reading strategy use in connection with their reading performance improvement.
Possibly because of its Western legacy, research related to reading strategies in connection with PRC students is meager. Earlier reports on Chinese EFL learners seem to
suggest that strategies used by Chinese EFL students are of a low-order and that they do
not have the conceptual abilities to use those strategies strongly promoted by researchers
and teachers in the West (Field 1985; Kohn 1992). If this is true, then the instructional
procedures resulted in some degree of change in the participants perceived use of reading
strategies in the experimental group, whereas for the control group their reading behaviors
tended to lapse into dubiety due to a lack of exposure to strategy instruction. One
explanation for the change could be that they might have realized the value of a strategybased approach because they were in a new learning and social context where the
requirements for academic literacy in English were different from what they believed in
while they were in their home country, where they learned EFL simply for satisfying
graduation requirements in the Chinese education system. Moreover, such classroom
intervention was their first experience, as they realized that a predominant part of the
instruction was centered on learner contributions in participatory activities.
As we can see, the instructional component adopted in the present study covered most
of what Paris et al. (1994) have termed declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and
conditional knowledge. The first one deals with what the strategy is and why the strategy
should be used; the second deals with how the strategy should be used; and the third one
deals with when and where the strategy should be used and how to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy used. The experimental groups improvement in strategy use and its
reading performance seems to show that teacher explanations that were inclusive of most
of the six elements in the Winograd and Hare (1988) instructional model worked to a great
extent. Participants endorsement of those strategies usually regarded in the literature as
more beneficial to reading comprehension suggests that at least they made a mental move
away from clinging to basic skill utilization as represented by the use of decoding strategies at the lexical and sentential levels only. Instead, they made attempts at approaching
the reading material holistically, and in addition, they also dealt with local features of the
reading tasks. Considering that Chinese students have been traditionally branded rote
learners, who do not seem to know the use of the strategic resources to enhance learning to
123
111
optimal effects, this change is phenomenally rewarding, refuting some of the assertions
made about PRC ESL/EFL learners (e.g. Field 1985; Kohn 1992).
Vygotskys (1986) sociocultural perspectives emphasize that peer sharing and collaborative learning in conducive environments can lead to effective learning and learner
efficacy. The results of the present study indicate that with instructional intervention
through teacher-student dialogs within the framework of constructivist pedagogy, i.e.
within learners ZPD, reading strategy use can be reinforced, leading to progress in
perceived strategy use and reading performance improvement; whereas neglect of strategy
training could possibly lead to the reduction of effective and flexible strategy use, negatively affecting reading comprehension. Part of the results also lends support to earlier
research findings in second language acquisition research on the effects of instruction on
learner performance improvement (e.g. Anderson 1999; Harris 2003; Nassaji and Swain
2000). This may be particularly relevant when these students will have to meet future
challenges in academic settings where they are required to read large quantities of print and
non-print materials in specific science or engineering fields.
It needs to be highlighted that learners high levels of motivation seemed to have
boosted their engagement with the strategic reading instruction. In one way or another,
strategic reading instruction appeared to be new to some students at the outset of the
program, but when students were briefed on the importance of reading strategies in
effective reading comprehension, and when the teacher/researcher took great care in
implementing the strategic reading instruction program, students became cooperative. As
described earlier, these PRC students were highly motivated, which might be the reason
why a constructivist approach worked well in the present study. Although many of the
strategies given to them in the pre-training session were quite foreign to them, they did not
take a hostile attitude; instead, they were almost ready to learn something new, but were
anxious about how they could manage so many reading tasks by reading more strategically (Zhang 2000b, p. 48). The learning context also functioned to help to take part in
the learning process actively. That accounts for why after two months of strategy training,
clear differences were observed. It has to be borne in mind, however, that these differences
in strategy preferences are only participant perceptions. Woven together with the findings
are participants learning style differences, which are equally important learner variables
not taken into consideration in the present study. At this juncture, it can only be speculated
that their respect for the teacher in the classroom, the change in the learning context and
career orientations in using English could also have functioned in contributing to the
success of the training program.
Alexander (1995) proposes implementing a Domain Model of Learning. She suggests
that self-regulation or metacognition may be affected by the level of knowledge learners
have in a particular domain. Thus, novice and expert learners may be distinguished from
each other in terms of the competence they have in learning to read or reading to learn.
This means that novices are likely to engage in metacognitive activities less often and
less successfully than learners with more subject area knowledge, who are at the competence stage of learning in a domain (cited in Hartman 2001, p. 39). Therefore, one of
the implications of such interventional procedures reported here might be that these students, by virtue of the didactic effects aforementioned, will start thinking about how some
metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies can be successfully translated into new
tasks in the pre-, during-, or post-reading stages and interactively. This rethinking should
be particularly beneficial to EAP students who are to read texts of different domain
knowledge prior to their being streamlined to their future areas of academic concentration.
123
112
L. J. Zhang
Cultures of learning and strategic reading instruction

While the present study attempted to examine students perceived use of reading strategies
before and after the instructional intervention, students could have been asked to indicate
some of the new strategies they adopted and why, in relation to their cultures of learning.
As reported above, several students said that they had not expected that the reading teacher
would spend so many sessions teaching them how to read strategically. What they had
waited for was the teachers explanation of language points through a more intensive/
close reading mode in order to get the precise meaning of texts. Nevertheless, they gained
from such instruction. Instead of resisting such instruction, they responded well. This
suggests that students cultures of learning changed with the new context in which they had
to struggle for academic success. It is clear that, although the Chinese have the saying that
a good reader can read ten lines at a glance (yimu shihang), the students were not taught
sufficient strategies in their L2 reading classes while they were in China, as they had
reported. It could also be true that they had difficulty transferring useful L1 reading
strategies to L2 reading when the orthographies were different. However, it is more
important that these learners should be made aware that the use of reading strategies is
essential to successful reading and some so-called bottom-up strategies such as rereading and checking the exact meaning of words favored in Chinese EFL classrooms
are not necessarily bad strategies; rather they should be informed that the flexibility and
appropriateness in using a particular strategy are crucial to effective reading and that there
should be an interaction between bottom-up and top-down strategies. They should also be
made aware that the orchestration of which strategy depends on whether they have the
metacognitive strategic knowledge that could guide their orchestration of other strategies
they use.
Obviously, though there was the worry that reading strategy instruction, as a concept,
was somewhat foreign to Chinese EFL students, when it was introduced to the students,
they responded to such instructional intervention, indicating their willingness to be engaged in the learning processes. As a result, their strategy use and reading performance
improved. This means that reading teachers, working from an understanding of the prior
learning culture of these students, can teach reading strategies. Of course, care needs to be
taken in classroom procedures so that classroom dynamics can be maintained in participatory activities.
The findings from this study seem to have reflected a scenario where an emphasis on the
effect of mediation and teacher thinking in adapting curricular contents to learning environments benefited students. This suggests that the teaching of second/foreign language
reading is never done in a vacuum. A needs analysis can thus be a good starting point for
all curriculum and instructional designs, particularly in the case of EAP programs such as
the one reported in this study. The analysis has to take into consideration student learning
style differences, motivational levels, cultural inclinations, interests, difficulty levels of
instructional materials, the social context in which learning and teaching take place, and
literacy experiences in students L1 and L2 cultures.
McKay and Wong (1996) argue for a revision of code-based and individual learnerbased views of ESL learning of Mandarin-speaking Chinese students in the USA, in that
students are not only subjected to, but are also the subjects of, mutually interacting multiple discourses. Therefore, students necessarily negotiate dynamic and sometimes contradictory multiple identities that are related to their exercise of agency in terms of their
positioning in relations of power in both the school and society. This makes it imperative
that teachers consider student subjectivity in the learning process, even in ESL classrooms.
123
113
Teachers classroom procedures that include students cultural inclinations and curriculum
objectives should become normal practice. This is because such an instructional environment makes it possible for teachers and students to co-construct the meaning of text
through dialogic communication of the reading processes and other important factors
pertaining to effective and efficient reading. Such classroom procedures also offer students
chances to reveal the processes of reading in classroom activities such as think-aloud.
Through these activities teachers can get relevant information about students deficit in
strategic resources and students get necessary inklings of what they should be doing in
effective reading, how they should be doing it, and why, when and where they should be
doing it when encountering new reading tasks.
Conclusion and recommendation for further research

The present study was set up within a constructivist framework to explore how learner
willingness or receptiveness to strategic reading instruction could contribute to learner
development and the possible effects of such instruction on reading improvement for ESL
students from the PRC. The two assumptions that motivated the present study were: (1)
reading was a high-order skill which could be automatized when provision of sufficient
linguistic input and strategy training was accessible; and (2) reading was also a sociocultural and interactive process of information restructuring. The results suggest that the
PRC ESL learners responded positively to such intervention, in that the strategic component in classroom practice provided opportunities for them to practice reading strategies
and that the kind of constructivist approach engaged them in the sociocultural and interactive processes of information restructuring. Moreover, the reciprocal teaching activities
promoted learner development. It appears that, although different cultures have their own
L1 literacy practices, strongly motivated EAP learners are able to accommodate change
under the guidance of the teacher through dialogic interaction in classroom contexts when
the learning environment changes, as rightly pointed out by other researchers (e.g. Gan
et al. 2004; Gao 2003; Littlewood 1999; Wertsch 1985). The findings of this study also
produced some evidence that lends further support to pedagogical initiatives that have
incorporated strategy instruction in second/foreign-language contexts (e.g. Anderson 1999;
Chamot et al. 1999; Chamot and OMalley 1994; Cohen 1998; Harris 2003; Oxford 2001).
Given the positive effect of such teacher intervention observed in this study, it is important
that teachers acknowledge and adapt to what learners bring to the classroom.
The study has several limitations that need to be pointed out. The small number of
participants, the limited qualitative data and the inherent limitation of the questionnaire as
a research instrument all restrict the generalizability of this study. Given that the results
reported in this study are only students perceived use of reading strategies, which may or
may not reflect their actual use of these reading strategies in authentic reading tasks, they
should be interpreted with caution. Further work is needed to replicate this study and
validate some of the tentative recommendations so that ESL reading instruction will be
able to address the needs of the students who come from culturally divergent backgrounds.
Acknowledgments This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 37th International IATEFL
Conference in Brighton, April 2003, UK. I thank Professors Sandra McKay, Joan Rubin, Andrew Cohen,
Anna Chamot, Rebecca Oxford, Larry Vandergrift, Neil Anderson, Sara Cotterall and Ernesto Macaro for
their encouragement and helpful suggestions in various stages of my writing it up. I owe the Editor,
Professor Peter Goodyear and the reviewers, for their very constructive comments that have substantially
helped improve the clarity of this paper. I am also obliged to my colleagues, Dr Heather Kay, Dr Peter Gu
123
114
L. J. Zhang
and Mrs Donglan Zhang for carefully reading through and making incisive comments on earlier versions of
this paper. I am indebted to all the participants in this study for their warm cooperation. Any error or
omission remains my responsibility.
References
Alexander, P. A. (1995). Superimposing a situation-specific and domain-specific perspective on an account
of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 189194.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the
zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465483.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing.
Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 460472.
Anderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading. Boston, MA: Newbury House.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 25, 133150.
Block, E. (1986). Comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463494.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from text by means of informed, selfcontrol training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 117.
Carrell, P. L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 120.
Carrell, P., Pharis, B., & Liberto, J. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL
Quarterly, 23(4), 647678.
Chamot, A. U., & OMalley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chamot, A. U., OMalley, J. M., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P., & Robbins, B. (1999). The learning strategies
handbook. New York: Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.),
Society and the language classroom (pp. 169206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cotterall, S. (1990). Developing reading strategies through small-group interaction. RELC Journal, 21(2),
5569.
Day, R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension
performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 6288.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 3559). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Field, M. L. (1985). A psycholinguistic model of the Chinese ESL reader. In P. Larson, E. Judd, & D.
Messerchmitt (Eds.), On TESOL 84 (pp. 171183). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Flavell, J. H. (1992). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental
inquiry. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Metacognition: Core readings (pp. 29). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL
students in Chinese universities. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 229244.
Gao, X. (2003). Changes in Chinese students learner strategy use after arrival in the UK: A qualitative
study. In D. Palfreyman & R. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures (pp. 4157). New York:
Palgrave.
Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3),
375460.
Gu, P. Y. (2002). Introduction. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching: Special issue on Teaching
EFL in the Chinese Contexts, 12, 14.
Harris, V. (2003). Adapting classroom-based strategy instruction to distance learning context. In
N. J. Anderson (Ed.), TESL-EJ: Special issue: Strategy research and training, 7(2), A-1.
Hartman, H. J. (2001). Developing students metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H. Hartman (Ed.),
Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 3368). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hartman, P. K., & Blass, L. (1999). Quest: Book 3. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Holschuh, L. W., & Kelley, J. (1988). Academic reading: A content-based approach. New York:
St. Martins Press.
123
115
Janzen, J., & Stoller, F. (1998). Integrating strategic reading in L2 instruction. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 12(2), 251269.
Jimenez, R. T., Garca, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students
who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1),
90112.
Kalaja, P. (1995). Student beliefs (or metacognitive knowledge) about SLA reconsidered. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 191204.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kohn, J. (1992). Literacy strategies for Chinese university learners. In F. Dubin & N. Kulman (Eds.), Crosscultural literacy (pp. 113125). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Kucer, S. D. (2005). Dimensions of literacy (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108124.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics,
20(1), 7194.
Loranger, A. (1997). Comprehension strategies instruction: Does it make a difference? Reading Psychology,
18(1), 3168.
McDonough, S. H. (1999). Learner strategies: State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching, 32(1), 118.
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in
second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577608.
MOE (Ministry of Education, China). (2000). Jiunian yiwu jiaoyu quanrizhi zhongxue yingyu jiaoxue
dagang [Nine-year full-time middle school English language syllabus]. Beijing: Peoples Education
Press.
Naiman, N., Frolich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978/1996). The good language learner. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters (Original work published in 1978 as Research in Education Series No. 7,
OISE, Toronto, Canada).
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of
random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 3451.
OMalley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
OMalley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning
strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 557584.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning strategies. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to
teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 166172). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pakir, A. (2004). Medium of instruction policy in Singapore. In J. Tollefson & A. Tsui (Eds.), Medium of
instruction policies (pp. 153176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117175.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming a strategic reader. In R. Ruddell, M.
Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 788810).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Parry, K. J. (1996). Culture, literacy and L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 665692.
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of
selves. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155178). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, &
P. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 815860). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels
(Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291309). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rubin, J. (2001). Language learner self-management. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11(1),
2537.
Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading (6th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
123
116
L. J. Zhang
Stephens, K. (1997). Cultural stereotyping and intercultural communication: Working with students from the
Peoples Republic of China in the UK. Language and Education, 11(2), 113124.
Szalay, L. B., Stroll, J., Liu, F., & Lao, P. (1994). American and Chinese perceptions and beliefs systems.
New York: Plenum Press.
Veenman, M. V. J., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while
studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and Instruction, 14(4),
619638.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Watkins D. A., & Biggs J. B. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual
Influences. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
Wen, Q., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). L2 learner variables and English achievement: A study of tertiary-level
English majors in China. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 2848.
Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for leaner autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. L. (2002). Learner development in language learning. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 3255.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Culture, communication and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winograd, P., & Hare, V. C. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies: The nature of
teacher explanation. In C. Weinstein, E. Goetz, & P. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies:
Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 121139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wu, Y. (2001). English language teaching in China: Trends and challenges. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1),
191193.
Zhang, L. J. (2000a). Metacognition in L2 literacy learning: The case of ten Chinese tertiary students
learning to read EFL. In A. Brown (Ed.), Developing multiliteracies (pp. 8396). Singapore: Nanyang
Technological University.
Zhang, L. J. (2000b). Uncovering Chinese ESL students reading anxiety in a study-abroad context. Asia
Pacific Journal of Language in Education, 3(2), 3156.
Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in
an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268288.
Zhang, L. J. (2002a). Metamorphological awareness and EFL students memory, retention, and retrieval of
English adjectival lexicons. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 95(3), 934944.
Zhang, L. J. (2002b). Exploring EFL reading as a metacognitive experience: Reader awareness and reading
performance. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 6590.
Zhang, L. J. (2003). Research into Chinese EFL learner strategies: Methods, findings and instructional
issues. RELC Journal, 34(3), 284322.
123

00 B 495291 Cca 92 Ffe 5000000

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

00 B 495291 Cca 92 Ffe 5000000

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Available from: Lawrence Jun Zhang

Instr Sci (2008) 36:89116

Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction:

Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction

Constructivist pedagogy for learner development

Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction

Strategy-based reading instruction in L1 and L2 situations

Strategy-based instruction with Chinese ESL learners

Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction

The bridging program and reading instruction

Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction

Experimental vs. control group design

Selected reading strategies and texts

Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction

checking correctness of comprehension and checking the effectiveness in strategy

Pretest and posttest

Classroom procedures for strategy-based reading instruction

Table 1 Reading strategies selected for instruction

Instructional stage where preparations are made for the

Advance look at text to see its layout, illustrations, etc

Reading headings, subheadings, etc.

Attending to organizational aspects of text

Asking questions about text

Focusing on meaning, not form

Paying attention to meaning, rather than form

Relating meaning to what is already known

Connecting what is read with what is already known

Reviewing main ideas after each chunk

Summarizing main ideas either orally or in written form

Asking how the main idea or purpose is

Looking for logical relationships between paragraphs

Looking for familiar affixes and roots in

Trying to solve vocabulary problems using

Using context to make inferences of the

Guessing at unfamiliar vocabulary items through

Identifying main ideas and supporting

Looking for relationships between main ideas (topic

Identifying organizational patterns of text

Looking for the organizational aspects of text in terms of

Examining how well text is understood

Giving personal response

Making critical/personal comments on text

Reviewing to summarize text meanings

Reading text again to summarize text meanings

Checking effectiveness in strategy use

Reflecting on how effectively a strategy was used

Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction

Table 2 Principles and procedures in strategy instruction

Teacher roles and classroom procedures

What was the strategy?

Teacher described critical, known features of the strategy and provided a

Why should a strategy be

How was the strategy used?

Teacher broke down the strategy, explaining each component of the

When should the strategy be

Teacher illustrated the use of the strategy with reference to particular

Where should the strategy be

Teacher showed examples of when the strategy should be used after

How should the use of the

Teacher demonstrated how to evaluate the successful or unsuccessful

P < .05, * P < .001

P < .05, * P < .001