Z. M. Bobur nomidagi andijon davlat universiteti chet tillar fakulteti ingliz tili va adabiyoti kafedrasi

Lecture-10


Technologies of teaching reading.
(10-11 forms, students of academic lyceums and vocational colleges)

Plan
1. Reading as the aim and a tool of education.

2.The stages of teaching reading.
3.Types of reading and exercises in developing reading skills.
4.Types and forms of control in teaching reading.
5.The importance of using graphic organizers in teaching reading.
6. CEFR requirements of assessing reading for B1 level pupils.


Key words: types of reading, forms of control, graphic organizers, CEFR requirements, reading material, assessing reading, intensive reading, extensive reading, reading strategies.

Reading is an essential part of the EL instruction at every level because it supports learning in multiple ways.

1. 
   Reading to learn the language: Reading material is language input. By giving students a variety of materials to read, instructors provide multiple opportunities for students to absorb vocabulary, grammar, sentence structure, and discourse structure as they occur in authentic contexts. Students thus gain a more complete picture of the ways in which the elements of the language work together to convey meaning.
   
2. 
   Reading for content information: Students' purpose for reading in their native language is often to obtain information about a subject they are studying, and this purpose can be useful in the language learning classroom as well. Reading for content information in the language classroom gives students both authentic reading material and an authentic purpose for reading.
   
3. 
   Reading for cultural knowledge and awareness: Reading everyday materials that are designed for native speakers can give students insight into the lifestyles and worldviews of the people whose language they are studying. When students have access to newspapers, magazines, and Web sites, they are exposed to culture in all its variety, and monolithic cultural stereotypes begin to break down .
   

Teachers want to produce students who, even if they do not have complete control of the grammar or an extensive lexicon, can fend for themselves in communication situations. In the case of reading, this means producing students who can use reading strategies to maximize their comprehension of text, identify relevant and non-relevant information, and tolerate less than word-by-word comprehension.
Within the complex process of reading, six general component skills and knowledge areas have been identified:
1) Automatic recognition skills—a virtually unconscious ability, ideally requiring little mental processing to recognize text, espe­cially for word identification.
2) Vocabulary and structural knowledge—a sound understanding of language structure and a large recognition vocabulary.
3) Formal discourse structure knowledge—an understanding of how texts are organized and how information is put together into various genres of text (e.g.. a report, a letter, a narrative).
4) Content/world background knowledge— prior knowledge of text-related information and a shared understanding of the cultural information involved in text
5) Synthesis and evaluation skills/strategies— the ability to read and compare information from multiple sources, to think critically about what one reads, and to decide what information is relevant or useful for one's purpose
6) Metacognitive knowledge and skills monitoring—an awareness of one's mental processes and the ability to reflect on what one is doing and the strategies one is employing while reading.
To accomplish this goal, the teachers focus on the process of reading rather than on its product.
1) They develop students' awareness of the reading process and reading strategies by asking students to think and talk about how they read in their native language.
2)They allow students to practice the full repertoire of reading strategies by using authentic reading tasks. They encourage students to read to learn (and have an authentic purpose for reading) by giving students some choice of reading material.
3)When working with reading tasks in class, they show students the strategies that will work best for the reading purpose and the type of text. They explain how and why students should use the strategies.
4)They have students practice reading strategies in class and ask them to practice outside of class in their reading assignments. They encourage students to be conscious of what they're doing while they complete reading assignments.They encourage students to evaluate their comprehension and self-report their use of strategies.
As an instructional tool, graphic organizers (GOs) have been highly recommended and used in contemporary classrooms. Over the past decade, a number of concerns have been raised about claims for the effectiveness of GOs. These concerns involve the inconsistent research results on student improvements, the limitation in generalizability from research studies, and the need for research studies with second language (L2) students and with more extended instructional exposure time. This paper argues that GOs, which directly represent the discourse structures of a text, provide stronger evidence for the effectiveness of the technique, and these versions of GOs should be adopted in comprehension instruction. The authors propose a number of generic forms of graphic representations that apply to regularly recurring text structures, and recommend further research on the impact of GOs with learners of English as a second or foreign language as well as research that involves more extended instructional time.
Although the suggestions for using various types of GOs as a technique for facilitating reading comprehension seem intuitively appealing, questions have been raised about whether these claims are supported by specific empirical studies. In fact, research on GOs has produced incongruent findings and has raised questions about the overall effectiveness of GOs in reading instruction. A second major issue lies in the various understandings regarding what a GO is and how it should be designed for research or instructional purposes. GOs are often seen as a very general term and advocates may refer to very different visual formats when they recommend the use of GOs. In some studies, “GOs have taken the form of anything from hierarchical listings of vocabulary terms to elaborate visual-spatial displays with accompanying descriptors and phrases” (Griffin & Tulbert, 1995, p. 86). An issue, then, is to determine what types of GO are most effective for student learning purposes. A third issue involves an apparent lack of GO research with learners of English as a second or foreign language. Almost all the GO studies have been carried out with L1 readers. As L2 students come into contact with more dense and complex reading materials, they need special scaffolding devices to facilitate their reading comprehension. It is important to know if GOs serve this purpose. Finally, another issue involves the limited training time in most research studies. The instructional use of GOs for purposes of reading development is most likely to be an incremental process which benefits from long-term, consistent exposure. Most GO studies provided students with trainings as short as a few hours or a few weeks. Such a minimal period of exposure typically restricts the overall impact of GO practices on students’ reading development and limits their generalizability.
Types of GOs
The paradox in research findings is that researchers in discourse analysis and reading instruction have recognized a well-established association between GOs and specific patterns of text structures, particularly with expository texts. For example, GOs have been adopted as an effective, direct way of teaching knowledge of top-level discourse organization to students. This line of research shows that GOs that reflect the larger discourse structures of a text can help students raise their text structure awareness and, consequently, their reading comprehension.
However, in the literature of GO research, not all GOs are constructed to reflect the discourse structures of a text. Many GOs create a very general frame for listing and sorting information from a text without requiring recognition of how the discourse structure of the text organizes information. If GOs that represent the discourse structures of a text consistently facilitated reading comprehension, then the problem of ineffective GOs may rest with the types of GOs that do not represent the specific discourse structures of a text. In other words, GOs that do not represent the discourse structures of the text may be less effective than the ones that represent the discourse structures. The incongruence of previous findings warrants a systematic comparison of the impact of GOs that represent discourse structures of a text and GOs that only reflect the relationships between main ideas of a text. A review of studies involving different types of GOs may help reveal interesting and important outcomes.
GOs That Do Not Represent the Discourse Structures of a Text
In the literature, GOs have undertaken a variety of definitions, including a visual, hierarchical display of expository prose , spatial arrangements and wording that organize key conceptual relationships graphically, and graphic representation of the hierarchical relationships of information. These GOs typically present information as a semantic web or as an outline of main ideas in a text. They are often seen as advance organizers for textbook chapters. These GOs have emphasized the hierarchical nature in the text information without paying attention to the specific discourse structure of the text. As the following studies show, the effectiveness of these more general GOs in reading research and instruction is questionable.
Bean et al. (1986) explored the effect of GO instruction versus outlining on students’ L1 text recall in 10th-grade world history. The GOs used in the study displayed the interrelationships among ideas in the text but did not focus on the discourse structure of the text. Three groups of students participated in this study: one GO group with previous training in summarizing, another group trained in a generic GO, and the third group receiving instruction in outlining. The results from the first five quizzes did not show significant differences for the three groups; however, the sixth quiz, administered after the strategy had been phased out, indicated that the GO group with previous summarization training achieved significantly higher quiz scores than the basic GO and outlining groups; that is to say, the GO training alone was no more effective than instruction in outlining. The delayed recall involving a difficult college level passage showed that the GO group with previous summarization training achieved a significantly higher score than the other two groups. The authors suggested a cumulative, long-range view of metacognitive instruction and recommended that GO instruction should take at least 14 weeks. However, their results may be based, at least in part, on summary training and practice.
Simmons et al. (1988) compared the effectiveness of three instructional procedures for facilitating L1 sixth graders’ comprehension and retention of science content: the use of teacher-constructed advance organizers, the use of teacher-constructed post-organizers, and the use of a traditional form of instruction. The GOs used in the study reflected the hierarchy of information within the passage and the relationships of individual facts within the hierarchy, but not the discourse structure of the text. The results indicated that there was no significant difference on daily probe measures and an immediate short-answer posttest among all three groups. However, subjects who received advance GO treatment performed significantly better on delayed short-answer posttest than did students who received the post-organizer treatment, but not the traditional instruction treatment.
Griffin, Simmons, and Kameenui (1991) examined the effect of general GOs on L1 fifth- and sixth-grade students with learning disabilities. In contrast to the GO treatment, the comparison group received the critical information from the text in a vertical list form. The GOs employed in this study were not designed to reflect discourse structure of the reading; instead, they were hierarchically arranged to incorporate key vocabulary words and phrases extracted from the passage and to reflect the relationships of the individual units within the hierarchy. Both groups received four consecutive training sessions of 45 minutes each in their classrooms. The results showed no significant difference on both immediate and delayed posttests between the GO group and the list of facts group as measured by oral retells, production response, and choice response. GOs did not significantly enhance students’ comprehension and recall of science content more than the alternative instructional adjunct, a more easily constructed list of facts.
Griffin et al. (1995) investigated the facilitative effect of GO instruction and the degree of explicitness in GO instruction with 99 L1 fifth-grade students in five treatment conditions: explicit GO instruction, explicit-comprehension instruction without GO, implicit GO instruction, implicit-comprehension instruction without GO, and traditional basal instruction. The training was conducted over a 10-day period with 45 minutes per day in the students’ classrooms. The GOs used in the study were designed to reflect the hierarchy of information within the passage and the relationships of this information within the hierarchy, but not the discourse structure of the text. The results showed no significant difference in participants’ performances on the immediate and delayed posttests with short-answer comprehension items, and participants who received GO instruction did not perform better in either immediate or delayed recall of the training material. (Actually, the students who received traditional basal instruction performed significantly better than students who received implicit GO instruction in the delayed recall of the teaching material.) However, students who received GO instruction performed significantly better on the recall of novel social studies text material as a transfer measure than students who received the traditional basal instruction.