| . |
. |
. |
|
A
Ready-Made Reading Class: "Warming-up for Reading"
|
|
|
Teaching reading is not an easy task due to the
complex nature of the reading process. In teaching reading for students at Universidad
Simón Bolívar (USB), I have realized that while constantly searching for a better
understanding of the phenomenon of reading, it is possible to create better materials to
enhance the effectiveness of the reading lessons. This article shows an example of one of
the most useful activities I have devised for my students at the USB. The name of this
activity is "Warming- up for Reading" (WFR). This article begins with a
description of the WFR worksheet, then describes a typical class using WFR, referring to
the specific roles of teachers and students. The last section of the article explains how
using WFR tackles skills, strategies, and other relevant aspects that, according to the
literature, are supposed to be central to reading. WFR is an alternative in terms of
reading materials, and a framework for teachers to design new reading materials.
|
|
|
The "Warming-up for Reading" form in detail
|
|
|
WFR is an activity which is completely contained
in a single worksheet (See Figure 1
). It can be used extensively with any text, audience, and level. The worksheet style,
with lines to be filled out and boxes for check marks, seems to motivate students because
it invites them to fill it out and gives the task an easy look. It includes clear
instructions which are intended to make the activity self-contained, that is to say, an
activity that can be used with little or no help from the teacher.
|
|
|
The worksheet also provides space for students
to write their names (one or two names; to work individually or in pairs), the date and
number of the class. This may be useful for evaluation purposes and for the teacher to
keep track of the activities already done. The title of the text, normally given by the
teacher at the beginning of the activity, is written by the students in a blank space. It
is important to point out that leaving free space to write the title makes the worksheet
flexible enough to be used with any text.
|
|
|
A class with "Warming-up for Reading"
|
|
|
During the WFR activity I normally explain the
instructions to my students, although they are written clearly on the form. It is always
good to introduce the activity so that students feel that you, the teacher, will accompany
them through the experience.
|
|
|
In part 1, the teacher provides students with
the title of the text. Based on the title, and before reading, students are asked to write
questions in English which they think they will find the answers to in the text. At this
stage it is important to tell the students that what they are doing is just predicting,
and that their predictions do not necessarily have to be true later when they read the
text. In a separate column, beside the questions, students will also write words that they
predict will appear in the text according to the topic suggested by the title. It is
advisable for the teacher to select titles that contain relevant information about the
text. The teacher should also select text titles that are explicit and which do not
contain ironical or sarcastic elements. In case the selected text does not have an
appropriate title, the teacher should adapt the title, in order to make it appropriate for
the activity. The real title should be given to the students at the end of the activity.
|
|
|
Ask the students to write their questions
(predictions) in English. It is very important to give students extra practice in the
formulation of information (Wh-) questions in English, especially in the reading class
where students have less opportunity to practice other skills.
|
|
|
After they finish part 1, the next step for
students is to read the text. They read carefully, trying to check if the questions
previously formulated are answered in the text. They also check if the vocabulary they
predicted appears in the text. The students should indicate on the WFR form if their
predictions were correct.
|
|
|
Students often see the task as a challenge, and
that increases their motivation. Motivating tasks are said to give a purpose to read
(Harmer 1983). Tobias (1994) suggests that motivation and interests seem to go hand in
hand, leading readers to engage in deeper cognitive processing. It is important to point
out that WFR makes reading purposeful. Students focus their attention on the necessary
information.
|
|
|
To round up this activity, in part II of the WFR
worksheet, students have the chance to write the main idea of the text. This section of
the activity is very important because during the initial tasks students concentrate on
specific information, probably neglecting the general content of the text.
|
|
|
Finally, the teacher may discuss the results
with the students, checking how many of their predictions were correct. The teacher may
also promote a follow-up discussion about the topic of the text.
|
|
|
It is important to mention that success in using
WFR will depend on the attitude that teachers and students assume during its
administration. The next section deals with that specific aspect.
|
|
|
The role of teachers and students
|
|
|
During the WFR activity the teacher becomes a
facilitator. The teacher monitors students, helping them to clear up doubts. Dole, Duffy,
Roehler, and Pearson (1991) state that the reading teacher is seen as a mediator between
the text and the reader, and that should be the teacher's attitude during the WFR
activity.
|
|
|
It is important to mention that one of the
teacher's tasks during the post-reading phase is to inform students about that fact that
predictions do no necessarily have to be correct. The teacher needs to make students
understand that predicting implies hypothesizing and this in turn implies confirming or
rejecting their hypotheses. This will help students not to feel discouraged in case most
of their predictions were incorrect.
|
|
|
The role of each student is to participate
actively, reading the text, writing the questions, and predicting. The activity is
designed to be student-centered. The students take the responsibility for their own
learning processes. "The most valuable information is in our students' perceptions
and not our own" (Carrell and Eisterhold, 1983:88). Sometimes the reading teacher
devotes much time to talk about the reading and the students just listen, but learning to
read by reading and working seems to be the most appropriate alternative for the student
(Grabe 1991).
|
|
|
"WFR theoretical framework"
|
|
|
So far, the article discussed the way WFR can be
administered and how flexible it can be. Now we will deal with another important aspect of
WFR, its theoretical basis. WFR has been created with the purpose of having students
practice abilities that are considered to be important in developing reading
comprehension.
|
|
|
Grabe (1991:379) states six general component
skills and knowledge areas of reading as part of the continuous attempts made by
researchers to describe the process of reading.
|
|
|
- Automatic recognition skills
- Vocabulary and structural knowledge
- Formal discourse structure knowledge
- Content/world background knowledge
- Synthesis and evaluation skills/ strategies
- Metacognitive knowledge and skills monitoring
|
|
|
From these six components WFR is intended to
have students develop at least four. The development of vocabulary knowledge, which many
authors claim is a crucial aspect of reading (Anderson and Freebody 1979; Davis 1968; Koda
1989; Rumelhard 1977), is one of the aims of WFR. Another aspect that the activity tackles
is the use of headings or text titles to encourage students' metacognitive knowledge and
skills monitoring. When they anticipate the information to come, this is addressed by
Grabe (1991) as synthesis and evaluation skills/strategies. WFR also works on the
students' metacognitive knowledge and skills monitoring. When the students skim the text
to get a general impression of it, scan the text looking for specific information,
summarize information, or preview headings, we are at the same time raising students'
awareness about the importance of the use of these techniques. Students tend to
incorporate these techniques into their repertoire later on.
|
|
|
WFR also takes advantage of the students'
background knowledge to understand a given text. Many authors have pointed out background
knowledge as an essential component of the reading process. Much research has been done in
this area and some authors have specifically emphasized the value that this component of
reading has in the class (Grabe 1991; Carrell and Eisterhold 1988; James 1987).
Pre-reading activities are said to be very useful in the reading class because they have
been referred to as instruments teachers can use in the class to activate students'
background knowledge. Part I of the WFR worksheet is basically questioning used in a
pre-reading fashion (See Figure 1 )
which has been widely used in reading research, (Royer et al. 1984; Johnson Taglieber, and
Yarbrough 1988; Wilhite 1983; Rickards and Denner 1978).
|
|
|
Mikulecky (1985) also lists some strategies that
readers are supposed to manage. Among the strategies Mikulecky refers to, we can mention
previewing, predicting, questioning (asking questions as if having a
"conversation" with the writer), scanning, stating main ideas, and skimming, as
strategies which are somehow covered by WFR.
|
|
|
This article presents the "Warming-up for
Reading" activity which may be useful to many reading teachers who are looking for
practical solutions. Besides providing a reading activity, this article shows what makes
WFR a theoretically sound reading activity. I hope this article encourages reading
teachers to optimize the design of their own reading materials following these ideas.
|
|
|
- Anderson, ?. and ? Freebody. 1979. Vocabulary knowledge and reading (Reading Education
Rep. No. 11). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service no. ED. pp. 177-470).
- Carrell, P. and J. Eisterhold. 1983. Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL
Quarterly, 17, pp. 553-573.
- Davis, ?. 1968. Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 3.
- Dale, Duffy, Roehler and Pearson. 1991. Moving from the old to the new: Research on
reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 2, pp. 239-264.
- Grabe, W. 1991. Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL
Quarterly, 25, 3, pp. 375-406.
- !#LIST_ITEM Harmer, J. 1983. The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.
~~!*LIST_ITEM James, M. 1987. ESL reading pedagogy: Implications of schema-theoretical
research. In Research in Reading as a Second Language. eds. J. Devine, P. Carrel and D.
Eskey. Washington, D.C.: TESOL, pp. 175-573.
- Johnson, L., L. Taglieber, and D. Yarbrough. 1988. Effects of prereading activities on
EFL reading by Brazilian college students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, pp. 455-469.
- Koda, ?. 1989. The effects of transferred vocabulary knowledge on the development of L2
reading proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 22, pp. 529-540.
- Mikulecky, B. 1985. Reading skills instruction in ESL. In On Tesol '84, pp. 261- 277.
eds. Larson, L., E.L. Judd and D. Messerchmitt. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages.
- Rickards, J., and P. Denner. 1978. Inserted questions as aids to reading text.
Instructional Science, 7, pp. 313-346.
- Royer, J., J. Bates and C. Konold. 1984. Learning form text: Methods of effecting reader
intent. In Reading in a Foreign Language. eds. J. Alderson and A. Urquhard. London:
Longman, pp. 65-81.
- Rumelhart, D. 1977. Toward an interactive model of reading. In Attention and Performance
IV. ed. S. Dornic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 573-603.
- Tobais, ?. 1994. Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 1, pp. 37-54.
- Wilhite, S. 1983. Pre-passage questions: The influence of structural importance. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 75, pp. 234-244.
|
|
Figure 1
Figure 1
Back to Article
|
. |
. |