Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/172833
Title: READING STRATEGIES USED BY GOOD AND POOR READERS IN NARRATIVE TEXTS : AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
Authors: NORAZIDA BTE JOHAR
Issue Date: 1997
Citation: NORAZIDA BTE JOHAR (1997). READING STRATEGIES USED BY GOOD AND POOR READERS IN NARRATIVE TEXTS : AN EXPLORATORY STUDY. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.
Abstract: This study is an investigation on pupils; reading perception, awareness and behaviour. From this investigation, a strategy use comparison is made between good and poor readers. The study hopes to shed light on pupils' metacognitive awareness and on their meaning-constructing strategies. The present study assumes that most Singaporean pupils are in need of reading strategy instruction. This should be especially true among low-achieving pupils. In this study, a balanced (that is, process- and product-oriented) approach to reading comprehension instruction is adopted, with the aim of helping pupils make transition to reader-independence. To help low-achieving pupils, the study involved pupils in secondary two (14 years old) from the Normal (Academic) course attending a co-educational government secondary school in Singapore. There are two parts to the study. The first part consists of a two-part questionnaire. Part 1 evaluates pupils' perception of their reading abilities and Part 2 measures their awareness of metacomprehension strategies in reading. The second part of the study involved observation of pupils' reading behaviour using the think-aloud technique. For this part of the study, 6 of the 65 subjects were selected. Since think-aloud is a relatively new technique in second language reading research, it was tried out in a pilot study to familiarise the subjects with the research tool. For the second part of the study, the subjects were given three reading tasks with accompanying worksheets (consisting of literal and inferential statements based on the texts). Using the given narrative texts, the 6 subjects were asked to read aloud and think aloud. Red dots were placed after every three sentences to serve as reminders to pupils to verbalise their thoughts. Data gathered from the think-aloud technique are known as protocols and they were audio taped and analysed for the subjects' use of reading strategies. Each subject had to fill up a worksheet upon completion of recording. Each think-aloud protocol was analysed using an adapted strategy categorisation as used by Chamot, Kupper and lmpink-Hemandez (1988). Findings from the questionnaire showed that a majority of the good, average and poor readers consider themselves as in-between readers (neither good nor poor). In terms of awareness of metacomprehension strategies, only one-third of the 65 pupils investigated showed such awareness. The highest level of strategy awareness was for summarising and applying fix-up strategies, while the lowest level of strategy awareness was for self-questioning and purpose-setting strategies. . Analysis of protocols for the 6 subjects showed that good and average readers used metacognitive (self-management and self-monitoring) and cognitive strategies (repetition, summarising, substitution, elaboration and inferencing), while poor readers used only cognitive strategies. Good and average readers used strategies more frequently than poor readers. The former also used a wide range of strategies compared to the latter. There was preference for a more global, meaning-based processing strategy among the good and poor readers in contrast to a more local, word-based processing strategy as favoured by the poor readers. Metacomprehension in second language reading research is a relatively new area in Singapore. Expanding local reading research in this area can help provide ways to improve classroom reading instruction in schools.
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/172833
Appears in Collections:Master's Theses (Restricted)

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
b20403616.pdf7.12 MBAdobe PDF

RESTRICTED

NoneLog In

Page view(s)

1
checked on Oct 15, 2020

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.