Language Teaching Research 2010 Gorsuch 27 59

7/29/2019 Language Teaching Research 2010 Gorsuch 27 59

1/34

http://ltr.sagepub.com/Language Teaching Research

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1362168809346494

2010 14: 27Language Teaching ResearchGreta Gorsuch and Etsuo Taguchi

Evidence from longitudinal student reportsDeveloping reading fluency and comprehension using repeated reading:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Language Teaching ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 3, 2010Version of Record>>

at Saudi Digital Library on March 24, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27.refs.htmlhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27.refs.htmlhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27.full.pdfhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27.full.pdfhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27.full.pdfhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/27http://ltr.sagepub.com/


2/34

LANGUAGE

TEACHING

RESEARCH

Developing reading fluency andcomprehension using repeatedreading: Evidence fromlongitudinal student reports

Greta Gorsuch

Texas Tech University

Etsuo TaguchiDaito Bunka University

AbstractIn recent years, interest in reading fluency development in first language, and second and foreign

language (L2/FL) settings has increased. Reading fluency, in which readers decode and comprehend

at the same time, is critical to successful reading. Fluent readers are accurate and fast in their ability

to recognize words, and in their use of prosodic and syntactic knowledge to better comprehendtext. Reading is a significant and viable means of developing L2/FL ability, particularly in FL settings

in which L2 input sources are limited, such as Vietnam or Japan (for English as a foreign language),

or the USA (for Japanese or Russian as a foreign language). Yet many L2/FL learners read slowly and

laboriously, likely because of poor word recognition skills. Repeated reading (RR) is one method

of fluency-building long used in first language (L1) settings and more recently in L2/FL settings,

and seems successful in increasing the reading fluency and comprehension of both L1 and L2/FL

learners. Nonetheless, it is likely that teachers and learners in L2/FL settings may be unaware of

or unconvinced of the role increased reading fluency plays in reading comprehension and, as a

result, may not see the utility of devoting class or personal time to repeated reading or, indeed, any

reading fluency activity. Because quantitative evidence for positive effects of RR has already beenoffered (see Taguchi, Sasamoto, & Gorsuch, 2006; Gorsuch & Taguchi, 2008), we offer additional

evidence in the form of open-ended, post-reading student reports written over the length of an

11-week RR treatment for 30 young adult EFL learners in Vietnam. Iterative analyses of over 200

pages of student reports provided nuanced evidence of the positive effects RR has on FL learners

reading fluency and comprehension development, and general language development. Learners

comments revealed information that suggested a meaningful role for extended experience with

RR to increasing use of learner metacognition in reading strategy use, and growing awarenesses

on the part of learners of (1) the relationship between fluency and comprehension, (2) the utility

Corresponding author

Greta Gorsuch, Department of Classical and Modern Languages and Literatures, Texas Tech University,

Lubbock, TX 79409-2071, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Language Teaching Research

14(1) 2759

The Author(s) 2010Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermission.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1362168809346494

http://ltr.sagepub.com

http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/


3/34

28 Language Teaching Research 14(1)

of developing fluency as a stand-alone skill, and (3) RR as a causal agent in the development of

listening, writing, and speaking skills.

Keywordsreading fluency, reading comprehension, reading in foreign language programs

I Introduction

In recent years, interest in reading fluency development in first language (National Read-

ing Panel, 2000; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003), and second and foreign language (L2/FL) settings

has increased (Nation, 2001; Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Grabe, 2004). Reading fluency,

defined by Samuels (2006, p. 9) as the ability to decode and comprehend text at the

same time is critical to successful reading. Fluent readers are accurate and fast in their

ability to recognize words, and in their use of prosodic and syntactic knowledge to better

comprehend text (Grabe, 2004; Samuels, 2006).

Reading is a significant and viable means of developing L2/FL ability (Krashen, 1995;

Day & Bamford, 1998), particularly in FL settings in which L2 input sources are limited

(Gebhard, 1996; Redfield, 1999), such as Vietnam or Japan (for English as a foreign lan-

guage), or the USA (for Japanese or Russian as a foreign language). Yet many L2/FL learn-

ers read slowly and laboriously (Anderson, 1999), likely because of poor word recognition

skills (Gorsuch & Taguchi, 2008). They then descend into the vicious cycle posited by

Nuttall (1996, p. 127) wherein non-fluent readers do not read much because they cannotunderstand, and thus do not engage in the reading practice they need to improve. Consider-

ing the challenges facing L2/FL readers to develop word recognition skills (Koda, 1996,

2005; Grabe & Stoller, 2002) for sustained silent reading, it is worth looking at intensive and

extensive reading practice approaches specifically focused on developing reading fluency.

One such approach is repeated reading (RR), long used in first language (L1) settings

(for reviews, see National Reading Panel, 2000; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003), and devised by

Samuels (1979) in order to instantiate Automaticity Theory (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974)

in use. RR has been adopted by some educators and researchers in L2/FL settings, and in

this approach learners read specified passages from graded readers (books that havereduced vocabulary range and simplified grammatical structures) repeatedly in order to

increase learners sight recognition of words and to develop automaticity in lower-level

processing, resulting in increased fluency and comprehension (Blum, Koskinen, Tennant,

et al., 1995; Taguchi, 1997; Dlugosz, 2000; Taguchi & Gorsuch, 2002; Taguchi, Taka-

yasu-Maas, & Gorsuch, 2004; Gorsuch & Taguchi, 2008). Accumulated evidence sug-

gests that assisted RR (where learners read along with an audio model for part of each

treatment) is effective (T. Rasinski, personal communication, June 15, 2008), and works

best through consistent, extended treatments of months or more, where L2/FL readers

gains in fluency, and, in some cases, comprehension, transfer to new reading passages. Wesuggest that the implied ultimate goal of RR is to lead learners into becoming independent

readers, with the ability to achieve sustained silent reading, to comprehend a variety of

texts of personal choice, and to effectively choose and use reading strategies according to

the texts being read (see Nuttall, 1982; Eskey, 1986; Kern, 2003; Koda, 2005).



4/34

Greta Gorsuch and Estuo Taguchi 29

Nonetheless, we believe that teachers and perhaps learners in L2/FL settings may be

unaware of or unconvinced of the role that increased reading fluency plays in reading

comprehension and, as a result, may not see the utility of devoting class or personal time

to repeated reading or, indeed, any reading fluency activity. Reasons for this gap in aware-ness may stem from prevailing attitudes in FL education towards reading as a vehicle for

the study of lexis and grammar (Bernhardt, 1991) and test preparation (Carr & Pauwels,

2006), or beliefs about the primacy of oral language as the goal for lower-division FL

courses (Maxim, 2006). And while quantitative evidence for positive effects of repeated

reading can be offered (see Taguchi et al., 2006), we believe that qualitative evidence in

the form of open-ended, post-reading student reports written over the length of an 11-week

RR treatment may provide nuanced evidence that may be more convincing and more truly

reflective of the positive effects RR has on FL learners reading fluency and comprehen-

sion development, and general language development. In this article, we present learners

comments that were analysed using an iterative, inductive process in which themes

emerged from the data (in other words, the themes were not initially preconceived).

Learners comments revealed information that related their extended experience with

assisted RR to reading strategy use, links between fluency and comprehension, fluency as

a stand-alone skill, and links between assisted RR and other language skills.

II Literature review

1 Reading comprehension and fluencyReading fluency long a key issue in English as a first language (L1) settings (e.g.

National Reading Panel, 2000; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003) seems to be critical for successful

reading comprehension. Fluent readers are both fast and accurate in word recognition,

and can additionally use prosodic and syntactic knowledge to process text with a mini-

mal amount of attention; that is to say, automatically (National Reading Panel, 2000;

Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; for L2 commentary, see also Grabe, 2004). Because their decoding

of text is done effortlessly and efficiently, fluent readers can read connected text silently

or orally with speed and good comprehension, and are able to read aloud with appropri-

ate phrasing and expressiveness. And, while it is true that background knowledge andhigher-order comprehension skills such as predicting, making inferences, and monitoring

ongoing understanding contribute to readers comprehension (e.g. Carrell & Eisterhold,

1983; Anderson & Pearson, 1984), we argue that some level of automaticity in lower-

level processes of reading is essential. Good readers likely have well-developed word

recognition skills (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Perfetti, 1985; Samuels, 1994; see also

Segalowitz, 1991; for L2 commentary, Segalowitz, Segalowitz, & Wood, 1998).

Some researchers operating in L2/FL settings have come to recognize readers particu-

lar need for well-developed, automatic lower-level processing skills, hence well-known

characterizations of their L2 reading as a slow, laborious process (Jensen, 1986; Segalowitz,Poulsen, & Komoda, 1991; Anderson, 1999). Many L2/FL readers decode word-by-word so

slowly that they cannot retain enough information in their working memories long enough

to comprehend connected text. This is likely due to poor word recognition skills (but on FL

textbook- and classroom-based pressures on learners to read word-by-word, see also

http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/


5/34


Bernhardt, 1991). As a result, some FL/L2 researchers and educators indicate the need to

find effective methods to help learners develop their reading fluency (Grabe, 1991, 2004;

Silberstein, 1994; Day & Bamford, 1998). Yet many teachers and program directors in L2/

FL contexts avoid adequate consideration of reading fluency partly because of tremendousdifficulties involved in providing L2 students with the time, resources, and practice needed

to develop word recognition skills (Grabe & Stoller, 2002, p. 21), the basis of reading flu-

ency. More notably, the avoidance is due to a limited understanding of the role of rapid and

automatic word recognition processes (p. 21). L2/FL teachers, learners, and programs do

not see reading fluency as a specific goal to reach for language learning.

Much commentary from Vietnamese L2 learners, teachers, and administrators support

this account of avoidance. Foreign language study is construed as the study of vocabulary

and grammar (V.V. Nguyen, personal communication, April 27, 2005; T.T. Tran, personal

communication, March 14, 2005). While there is a new emphasis on teaching language

skills in addition to vocabulary and grammar (N. Phuong, personal communication, March

3, 2005; T.B. Tien, personal communication, March 2, 2005), reading and writing skills

classes remain grammar and translation centred, largely carried out in the students L1

(T.B. Tien, personal communication, March 2, 2005; V.V. Nguyen, personal communica-

tion, April 27, 2005). L2 educators in higher education typically test students on abstruse

vocabulary and archaic and unusual grammar points that would not help them commu-

nicate in English (H. Oanh, personal communication, May 26, 2005). L2 learning oppor-

tunities are much sought after in Vietnam (English, French, Chinese, and Korean are

popular), yet are provided in conditions which are not likely to result in fluency-building

opportunities. Classrooms at the secondary and university levels are crowded with 4080students and are held with limited schedules of one to two classes per week for an hour or

two (V.V. Nguyen, personal communication, April 27, 2005; T.T. Tran, personal communi-

cation, March 14, 2005; H. Vu, personal communication, March 9, 2005). There are severe

shortages of L2 teachers (H.S. Long, personal communication, June 11, 2005), and while

currently teachers are working to get education beyond the BA level (N. Phuong, personal

communication, March 3, 2005), most teachers wish to stick with a grammar translation

approach (T.B. Tien, personal communication, March 2, 2005). Thus, L2 programs in

Vietnam, where this study took place, do not provide time or opportunity for fluency-build-

ing. Teachers have limited access to continuing education, which might (but does not)address language processing issues (Gorsuch, 2007). For detailed commentary on the geo-

graphical and educational context in which this study took place, see Gorsuch (2006, 2007).

2 Creating independent readers

Two viable and effective types of reading instruction programs have arisen in L2/FL

contexts in response to the perceived need to build readers fluency: One is extensive

reading (Paran, 1996; Day & Bamford, 1998; Donnes, 1999). In this approach, L2 learn-ers self-select materials from a collection of graded readers for pleasure reading both

inside and outside the classroom. Learners are encouraged to read for meaning, and to

engage in sustained silent reading (Susser & Robb, 1990; Davis, 1995; Krashen, 1995).



6/34


Another approach is repeated reading (RR) (Blum et al., 1995; Taguchi, 1997; Dlugosz,

2000; Taguchi & Gorsuch, 2002), where L2 learners read specified passages from graded

readers repeatedly in order to develop automaticity in lower-level comprehension proc-

esses, thus freeing cognitive resources for comprehension of texts.It can be argued that both approaches to developing learners reading fluency have the

ultimate goal of creating independent readers who can use reading as a significant source

of linguistic input, particularly in FL settings where written texts may, for practical rea-

sons, comprise the only source of such input. To develop learners reading fluency and

comprehension is in line with calls for a shift in traditional views of reading in L2/FL set-

tings (reading for grammar study or translation of literary texts) towards a focus on liter-

acy, which is concerned with developing reading skills to access the informational

content of texts (Kern, 2003, p. 40). Approaches aimed at improving reading fluency and

comprehension through intensive and extensive exposure to print may also be necessary

for pedagogical reasons. Nuttall (1982, p. 194) stipulates that language learners must read

one FL book at least every week for months in order to improve as readers. Eskey (1986,

p. 20) concurs, noting that there is no way that a reader can develop better comprehension

skills without doing a lot of reading. Clearly, for L2/FL learners to successfully use

reading to learn language, then programs and also learners themselves, as independent

readers must devote meaningful blocks of time to the act of reading, and expect reading

development to be a long-term proposition.

In one study done with both extensive and RR treatments, Taguchi et al. (2004) found

that in open ended reports, the Japanese English language learner participants made com-

ments suggesting the approaches encouraged their development as independent readers.For instance, participants noted that the approaches helped them enjoy reading long

passages in English, whereas before the treatments, reading long passages had been

painful. Participants also noted longitudinal growth in their use of a variety of reading

strategies. Examples cited by participants were using context clues to guess at word

meaning, and skipping words that seemed unimportant. The majority of participants

using the fluency-building approaches made comments suggestive of increasing use of

metacognitive reading strategies, an important characteristic of independent readers, tak-

ing place over the length of the 17-week, twice and thrice a week treatment. Participants

using the RR treatment (but not the extensive reading treatment) in the study noted thatthe repetition specific to the method helped their comprehension of English texts, which

was highly motivational. Several participants noted that assisted RR improved their lis-

tening skills, particularly in their ability to pronounce unknown words they encountered

in the passages, an important lower-level reading skill that many L2/FL learners have

trouble developing (Gorsuch & Taguchi, 2008).

3 Automaticity Theory and Verbal Efficiency Theory

Two theories are thought to form the basis for the RR method, Automaticity Theory

(AT; see LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Samuels 1994) and Verbal Efficiency Theory (VET;

see Perfetti, 1985, 1988). Both assume that the attention resource capacity that readers



7/34


can allocate at one time is limited (Benjafield, 1997). AT posits that part of the reading

process should be executed with minimal attention in order to achieve reading compre-

hension. AT differentiates between lower-level and higher-level comprehension proc-

esses. Lower-level reading processes are letter feature extraction, orthographicsegmentation, and phonological coding, which are thought to comprise lexical access or

word recognition (readers identify the meanings of words in texts they read). Higher-

level processes, also called post-lexical access, are comprehension of sentences, para-

graphs, and entire passages. Fluent readers use both types of processes, engaging in

literal and inferential comprehension of texts and monitoring whether they are success-

fully comprehending.

Because comprehension processes are demanding on cognitive resources, helping

learners automatize lexical access the lower-level processes is the most logical goal.

When learners can recognize words automatically, this frees cognitive resources for

higher-level comprehension. Automaticity in lexical access can be achieved through a

great amount of repeated exposure to print, and this forms the basis for the RR method.

VET (Perfetti, 1985, 1988) also focuses on automaticity in decoding text, but expands

the notion beyond lower-level decoding processes (Walczyk, 2000) to higher-level

reading processes beyond lexical access, such as syntactic parsing and proposition

assembly and integration.

Empirical support can be found for AT and VET in many L1 reading studies using RR

where learners increase fluency through repeated exposure to text (Dahl, 1974; Chomsky,

1976; Samuels, 1979; Carver & Hoffman, 1981; Herman, 1985; Rashotte & Torgesen,

1985; Dowhower, 1987; Young, Bowers, & MacKinnon, 1996) and thus improve compre-hension (Herman, 1985; OShea, Sindelar, & OShea, 1985; Dowhower, 1987; Young et

al, 1996). Increases in fluency and comprehension have been found to transfer to new,

unpractised passages (Morgan & Lyon, 1979; Samuels, 1979; Carver & Hoffman, 1981;

Herman, 1985; Rashotte and Torgesen, 1985; Dowhower, 1987; Faulkner & Levy, 1994;

Young et al, 1996). RR seems to enable readers to read in larger and more syntactically

and phonologically appropriate phrases (Dowhower, 1987), considered to be a hallmark

of reading fluency (Samuels, 2006).

Some empirical support has been found for AT and VET in RR studies conducted in

FL and L2 settings as well (e.g. Blum et al., 1995; Taguchi, 1997; Dlugosz, 2000; Taguchi& Gorsuch, 2002; Taguchi et al, 2004). In Gorsuch & Taguchi (2008), experimental

group participants (Vietnamese learners of English) were found to read significantly

faster by the end of an 11-week assisted repeated reading treatment, and to comprehend

new, unpractised passages significantly better than a control group.

III Research purpose and questions

Much research on RR in L1 and L2/FL settings has employed quantitative data collectionand analysis methods. While such research is informative and supports positive effects

of RR on reading fluency and comprehension and support for AT and VET, it may not

reveal the full range of potential positive or unexpected effects of RR that qualitative

data may illuminate. This is particularly true in foreign language learning settings where:



8/34


1. Reading may be the main available source of L2 input and as a result FL learners

must learn to become independent readers.

2. Teachers and learners in the FL setting may be unaware or unconvinced of the

role increased reading fluency plays in reading comprehension; and3. Teachers and learners are unaware of how assisted RR may aid in the acquisition

of other language skills.

One additional positive aspect of this set of qualitative data featured in this study is that

it has been collected longitudinally, over the course of an RR treatment of moderate

intensity and length (16 treatments in an 11-week period). This would enhance the itera-

tive process planned for data analysis, beginning with analysis of the first session com-

ments and ending with the final and sixteenth session, as in Huberman and Miles (1998,

p. 186): we use an iterative procedure that entails examining a given set of cases and

then refining them and modifying those cases on the basis of subsequent ones. More

importantly, developmental patterns may emerge from the data which illuminate the rela-

tionship between an actual assisted RR course of treatment and the two theoretical mech-

anisms through which RR is thought to increase fluency and comprehension: Automaticity

Theory and Verbal Efficiency Theory.

Research questions, which were formed after initial analysis of the data (see details

in the Analyses section below), for this report are: Does the evidence suggest that RR

encourages the development of participants as independent readers? Specifically:

1. Do readers report the use of reading strategies? Do their reports change over time?2. Do participants report being motivated to read, or apply knowledge learned from

treatments to reading or learning situations outside of class? Do their reports

change over time?

Is there evidence that reading fluency exists as a stand alone skill in participants eyes?

Specifically:

3. Do participants report changes in their reading speed and comprehension?

Are there additional benefits of RR that may point to RR or simply reading fluency

instruction in general may contribute to learners general language development?

Specifically:

4. Does assisted RR appear to develop other language skills, in participants eyes?

Finally, is there evidence in participants reports which suggest evidence supporting AT

and VET? Specifically:

5. What features of FL text do participants report as being attention resource-

demanding? What evidence is there that changes are taking place in the degree to

which these features of text are resource demanding as the assisted RR treatment

continues?



9/34


IV Method

1 Participants

Participants were 30 members of an intact class of intermediate college-level English

language learners in provincial Vietnam. There were 6 males and 24 females, and their

mean age was 22. All intended to become L2 teachers in rural secondary schools in the

same province as the university. The participants generated both quantitative and qualita-

tive data for a larger study, and this report focuses on the qualitative data. Details on the

quantitative quasi-experimental study can be found in Gorsuch & Taguchi (2008).

Changes in participants comprehension and fluency from a quantitative point of view:Participants reading comprehension scores on the pre- and post-test quantitative measures

are given here as an indication of their reading comprehension at the beginning and end of

the study, during the same time frame they generated the written reports which comprise

the qualitative data. The short answer test texts were 578 words for the pre-test and 565

for the post-test, with readability estimates of FleschKincaid Grade Level of 2.7 (pre-test)

and 2.9 (post-test). The recall test texts were 416 words for the pre-test (FleschKincaid

Grade Level of 2.2) and 429 for the post-test (Grade Level of 2.3). The pre-tests and post-

tests were taken 12 weeks apart (for the tests and complete details of test development, see

Gorsuch & Taguchi, 2008). Participants answered the short answer items and did the recallin Vietnamese but read the texts in English. See their comprehension scores in Table 1.

Pre- and post-tests were administered the same as the RR treatment sessions with five

readings of the test texts. Participants took a test immediately after their first reading of

a text, and again after their fifth reading the same text. The results showed significant

increases in learners comprehension in a cumulative, long-term sense from the first

readings of both pre-tests (short answer pre-testM= 14.4%, recall testM= 8.5%) to the

first readings of both post-tests (short answer pre-testM= 41.2%, recall testM= 26.1%).

A control group for the quantitative study (n = 26) showed no increases in comprehen-

sion from the first readings of the pre-test (short answer pre-testM= 21.5%, recall testM= 28.7%) to the first readings of the post-test (short answer post-testM= 21.5%, recall

testM= 19.3%). The control group for the quantitative study received reading instruc-

tion typical for the university (grammar translation, intensive reading of short passages)

during the experiment in a class taught by another instructor.

Table 1 Percent of propositions used to complete pre- and post-short answer items andrecall tasks

Short answer test Recall test

M SD M SD

Pre-test (Form B): Pre-test (Form A):First reading 14.4 7.8 First reading 8.5 5.1Fifth reading 38.8 11.7 Fifth reading 30.3 11.0

Post-test (Form A): Post-test (Form B):First reading 41.2 12.9 First reading 26.1 10.3Fifth reading 58.2 12.4 Fifth reading 61.5 10.9



10/34


Participants fluency, measured as words-per-minute reading rate, also increased sig-

nificantly from the first to the sixteenth and final RR session. See Table 2.

For each RR session, participants timed their reading of the session text the first,

fourth, and fifth time they read (only first and fifth reading times are reported here).

Treatment texts (more details given below) had a mean word length of 526 words, with

an average readability level of 2.8 on the FleschKincaid Grade Level (text length and

readability were the same for the RR treatment texts and the pre- and post-tests). Note

that participants read significantly faster for the first reading (a new, unpractised pas-

sage) on the sixteenth session (from first sessionM= 163.200 wpm to sixteenth session

M= 217.775 wpm), suggesting a cumulative, long-term increase in reading fluency.

2 Materials

a Assisted repeated reading treatment texts and audio tapes: The RR treatmenttexts were comprised of three short stories from a graded reader in the Penguin Readers

series (Doyle, 1999), segmented into 16 texts. The text segments were from 274 to 670

words, with a mean length of 526 words. Texts were on average at the readability level of

2.8 on the FleschKincaid Grade Level. The graded readerA scandal in Bohemia (Doyle,

1999) is rated by the publishers as being pre-intermediate and is written with a vocabulary

range of 1200 words. The RR treatment texts were chosen on the basis of information onreadability of reading passages used in placement tests at the university where the study

took place. Three passages used in the university placement test averaged 9.37 on the

FleschKincaid Grade Level, and we noted that only a few students did well on items

based on the passages. With repeated reading, it is important to choose texts that are not

too difficult in order to maximize the fluency-building effects of the treatments. An

accompanying audiotape was used in the treatments, which included a male voice reading

the text aloud, word for word. On several occasions the power failed and so the teacher

(one of the authors) read the passage aloud when called for by the assisted RR protocol.

b Participants end-of-session reports: At the end of each RR session, participantswrote a report by hand, which they then handed in before leaving the classroom. All data

for this study come from participants reports. As participants had 16 RR treatments, each

participant wrote 16 reports spaced over an 11-week period. Participants were not told

Table 2 Reading rates (words per minute) on first and fifth readings, first and last RR session

M SD Mean difference

First reading:Session #1 163.200 wpm 49.093 54.575 wpmSession #16 217.775 wpm 62.890

Fifth reading:Session #1 261.020 wpm 98.312 90.705 wpmSession #16 351.725 wpm 201.005



11/34


what to write (Please write anything that came up to your mind), although some questions

were posed on the report form, such as: For example how did you like reading with the

tape? and How do you think your reading has changed? Participants largely wrote in

English, although they were told repeatedly they could write in Vietnamese if they sochose. Only two participants wrote in Vietnamese, and then only once or twice during the

11-week treatment period. When Vietnamese reports were encountered, they were trans-

lated into English by a person not connected to the study and added to the rest of the data.

Reports varied in length by participant and by occurrence during the 11-week RR treat-

ment. To conduct a random check, five participants reports were perused, and the number

of words they wrote were counted for the second, eighth, and fifteenth sessions. Participants

wrote an average of 89 words across the three sessions, with one participant writing a mini-

mum of 44 words and another writing a maximum of 135 words. The five participants wrote

an average of 76 words for the second session (38 min, 96 max), 80 words for the eighth

session (30 min, 119 max), and 114 words for the fifteenth session (64 min, 205 max).

3 Procedure

Each RR session followed the same procedure:

1. Participants read an approximately 500-word segment of a short story once while

timing themselves with a stopwatch. They wrote their times on a time log sheet.

2. Participants then read the text a second and then a third time while listening to iton an audiotape or being read aloud by one of the authors.

3. Participants finally read the text a fourth and fifth time, timing themselves for

each reading and marking each time on their time log sheet.

4. At the end of the session, participants wrote a short report either in English or

Vietnamese (their choice).

Assigned segments for each RR session were contiguous, except when a new short story

was begun. In other words, RR session one utilized the first 500-word segment ofA

scandal in Bohemia (Doyle, 1999), session two the next 500-word segment ofA scandalin Bohemia, and so on until the short story was finished. Then the next story in the book

was begun. In all, approximately three stories were read.

4 Analyses

Participants comments were typed into a word processing document. No changes were

made to participants grammar, usage, or punctuation. Data analysis was exploratory,

inductive, and iterative, which is advised in cases where the terrain is unfamiliar and/orexcessively complex, a single case is involved, and the intent is exploratory and descrip-

tive (Huberman & Miles, 1998, p. 185). This study involved one case (the class of partici-

pants). Further, we wished to describe data that, on the one hand, we were not sure would

be focused or specific (recall we did not specify to students what to write about) but, on the

other hand, we were reasonably certain would reflect longitudinal change of some kind.



12/34


Specifically, data analysis took place in two steps. We note here that both steps

involved examining participants comments sequentially from the beginning of the study

(the first session, then the second, etc.) to the end of the study (the sixteenth session).

This allowed us to confirm and further refine our early analyses against data from latersessions. For the first step, participants comments (at or above the sentence level) were

examined and grouped into themes that emerged from the data. Example themes were:

Method is beneficial for comments such asAfter three reading times and twice listening

I feel my speed of reading having increasedand Reading with tape helps for comments

such asI like reading with a tape because I can hear the native voice, thus it helps me

imitate pronunciation. For example, I cant pronounce Coburg Square first, but after

listening the tape I can. After all data had been categorized into themes from the begin-

ning to the end of the study, the data was examined a second time and re-categorized with

more fine-grained themes that emerged after discussion and reflection. For example

Story is interesting contained comments that seemed simply to say that a story was

interesting (When I read another session, I feel its quite interesting), but also contained

themes that suggested that participants had simply liked the story (I enjoy reading this

story and the way the author wrote, too) vs. they felt motivated to read further (I like the

details of the story. It makes me want to discover whatll happen next). The Method is

beneficial contained comments that belonged into a number of more fine-grained

themes, such as Method improved comprehension and Method improves reading

speed. This omnibus theme also contained comments that directly ascribed changes in

reading speed, etc. to the RR method (Now I could understand the story. However, if I

hadnt read the story for the 5th time, I wouldnt have had a deep understanding aboutthe story) and others that did not (And my reading has changed from 3 mins 0 secs to 2

min 3 secs). We felt it was important to ascribe changes in reading to the RR method only

when participants directly claimed that was the case.

The second, more fine-grained categorizations resulted in 50 categories, which

seemed to cover all participants comments. The dependability of the categorizations was

estimated by having a researcher not connected with the project judge whether the par-

ticipants comments suggested the categories. There was complete agreement. At the

time this manuscript was being reviewed (about one year after the initial categorization

of data), the first author reviewed her research notes, and re-analysed the data. Her notesand re-analyses suggest the categorizations of participants comments are sound and

have withstood the test of time.

To enhance the transparency of our analysis, the categories are presented below with

definitions where necessary. Representative participant comments are shown in italics.

For the readers interest, the total frequency of participants comments in each category

is given. See Table 3.

To answer research question 1 on reading strategy use, participants comments made

that suggested use of reading strategies were identified, following Salataci and Akyel

(2002), who categorized strategies into cognitive (bottom-up and top-down) and meta-cognitive (assessing the effectiveness of strategies used; Salataci & Akyel, 2002, p. 2).

Reading strategies have been well researched and described in the field (for fine-grained

analyses of second language learners metacognitive reading strategies, see, for example,

Mokhtari, Sheorey, & Reichard, 2008), and we felt confident in applying the fairly broad,



13/34


Table 3 Categories of participant comments with examples and frequencies

Categories focused on RR method:

Method helps memory; Frequency = 4

This method helped me improve my reading quickly, remembering exactly the contents of the text.Method improves reading (Comments which stated that RR improved reading without statingspecifically what had improved are included here); Frequency = 38This method helps me a lot in improving my reading.

Method improves comprehension; Frequency = 33Through 3 times of reading and twice of listening I understand more clearly the detail of the tape.

Method improves concentration; Frequency = 2This method is useful so I can help me concentrate highly while it has changed gradually.

Method improves reading speed; Frequency = 17After reading 5 sessions of the story. I found that my speed reading gradually increases and betters.

Method improves speed and comprehension; Frequency = 19I can read faster and efficiently. I can remember in detail after five times of reading.

Method improves other language skills; Frequency = 21This method help me to learn new words, structures.

Method connects reading and listening; Frequency = 1This method is a connection between reading and listening. I can feel my change in reading from it.

Method spills over (This category contains students descriptions of using the method to readtexts outside of class, or applying something they learned outside class to their experience usingRR.); Frequency = 17

This method of Mr. XXXX remind me to read my material more often, and it reminds me should raisemy reading process by choosing from easy to difficult gradually.

Method raises questions about language skills; Frequency = 1Both reading and listening with tape still make me curious about improving my speaking skill. I know

between these skills, they has a close relationship.

Method new to student; Frequency = 1This is a very new method that I have learnt and it is very useful.

Misgivings about method; Frequency = 10But sometimes we have no time to read for so many times for example while we are taking the exam.

Method is beneficial (Comments which stated the method helped them without specifying what

it helped are included here.); Frequency=

8I also learned something through this method.

Method has changed reading (This category contains comments which state that RR haschanged their reading but does not state how their reading has changed.); Frequency = 2This method helps me a lot. My reading has changed.

Hopeful about method; Frequency = 3I think if we read many English story in many time, as many as possible well feel it is very easier for us

to understand the content of the story.

Categories focused on a single aspect of RR method (reading with audio tape):

Reading with tape helps comprehension; Frequency = 15I can feel the situation of story through her voice.

Reading with tape helps focus attention; Frequency = 8The voice of the reader helps us to concentrate on the text much more than we read in silent.

Reading with tape improves reading speed; Frequency = 4Reading with the tape helps me much to improve the speed of reading.



14/34


Table 3 (Continued)

Reading with tape helps reading (Comments which state that reading with the tape helpedreading but did not specify what aspect of reading.); Frequency = 2

I always want to read and listen to the tape at the same time. I think it is really useful for my reading.Likes reading with tape; Frequency = 32I like reading this tape very much. Its very interesting and attractive.

Reading with tape improves other language skills; Frequency = 78Moreover with the tape I can know how to make intonation.

Speaker on tape fast/not clear; Frequency = 10Some accent of speaker are not clear (suitable to characters role).

Categories in which changes in reading or language ability are described but RR is not directly cited:

Reading speed faster; Frequency = 33My speed of reading is improving day by day.

Reading speed slower; Frequency = 7Today I didnt read as fast as the previous time (coming to 5 minutes). The reason for that is I didnt

keep on the story and stopped sometimes.

Reads faster and comprehends; Frequency = 28Now I can read it quickly and understand the content of all part Ive read.

Reading has changed; Frequency = 5I am sure that my reading has changed very much. Im happy as that.

Comprehension improved; Frequency = 8

I get used to reading English detective story. Thus it is very easy to understand what the author wanted to say.Reading improved; Frequency = 11The important thing is that my reading is improved day by day.

Other language skills improved; Frequency = 6I understand many new words, structure, & pronunciation.

Motivated to read; Frequency = 94I am very eager to finish and read more.

Comments on relationship between comprehension and reading speed; Frequency = 6I feel that when I like reading and understand about what I am reading, I will read faster.

Categories where the story is focused on:Likes detective genre; Frequency = 14Its a detective story I like it so much.

Story is interesting; Frequency = 51Todays reading session is very interesting and it make me surprised.

Liked reading story; Frequency = 24I enjoy reading this story and the way the author wrote, too.

Story easy; Frequency = 60I can read fluently because there is no new words.

Story difficult; Frequency=

65The story has many strange details that are not easy for me to catch up with content of story.

Partially comprehends; Frequency = 2I cant remember every detail in the story except for the main ideas.

(Continued)



15/34


Table 3 (Continued)

Comprehends story; Frequency = 12I am reading the middle part of the story and I can understand the story.

Speculates on story (Comments comprised of questions raised about events in the story orevents participants may be struggling to understand.); Frequency = 102Who is John Clay? Why Inspector Lestrade said that we would get him? John Clay is really a thief?

Comments on story (Comments about specific events in the story which are stative, rather thanspeculative in nature.); Frequency = 111He also asked his fr iends Mr. Lestrade and Mr. Merryweather to help him.

Speculates on character (Comments comprised of questions raised about the personality orintentions of a character in the story.); Frequency = 6Its hard to believe that Mr. Holmes was happy to his failure under the cleverness of woman. I supposed

Holmes like Irene Norton.

Comments on character (Comments focused on story characters about personality andintention which are stative rather than speculative.); Frequency = 59I really like the way Holmes working, secretly, but after that everyone know the way he solves problem,

so excellent.

Can predict story (Comments in which participant states he or she can predict the story butdoes not offer a prediction.); Frequency = 10I can guess the ending (what happened in the last session) before reading.

Predicts story (Specific predictions offered by participants. Comments in this category may besimilar to those in Speculates on Story but clearly states a concept as predicted, not speculated

on.); Frequency=

40I think Mr. Duncan Ross wants to get something from Mr. Wilson when Wilson leaves the shop.

Comments on previous prediction; Frequency = 13My guessing is quite right because Vincent Spaulding is a liar exactly, oh my god!

Categories in which the reader is focused on:

Reading English difficult (Comments in this category focus on readers perceived difficultyreading English without direct reference to texts used in the RR treatment.); Frequency = 29The difficulties about reading in English is that the way of writing English is different than Vietnameses.

Emotional or physical state affects reading; Frequency = 13

Today Im not interested in reading because my best friend was ill and she couldnt come to class with me.

Reading session causes fatigue; Frequency = 2Dont like when I read the previous session, when I read this sessions I have headache.

Feels happy; Frequency = 2Im very proud of being an English student because I can read English story in their native language.

Describes reading behavior during session; Frequency = 78I focused on the event and activities, saying of characters, etc.

Describes reading behavior outside of class; Frequency = 8Thus when Im at home I read some stories in which there are beautiful pictures.

Reading skill improvement brings happiness; Frequency = 12But I feel happy when my reading skill is better and better.

One category that cannot be placed:

Comments on pedagogic issues (Comments focused on how the class was conducted or suggestionsfor alternatives on how to conduct class.); Frequency = 12I think to get a good result in reading skill, we should practise as much as possible.



16/34


inclusive preconceived categories from Salataci and Akyel (2002) to our emergent,

meaning-based categories of student comments. Strategies with examples for each are

given in the Results section. Comments were drawn from nearly all meaning-based

categories found in Table 3 above. For example, top down: questions came from meaning-based categories such as describes reading behaviour during session and speculates on

story. To check for consistency in strategy categorizations, five comments were ran-

domly chosen from each reading session and a researcher not associated with the study

(not the one noted above) was asked to categorize them according to reading strategy

category (judgements were found to be 80% consistent, which is moderate to high for

interrater reliability). Participants comments on reading strategy use were tracked for

frequency by bottom-up, top-down, and metacognitive strategies from the first to the

sixteenth and last reading session.

To answer research question 2 on motivation to read, participants comments from

Method spills over and Motivated to read categories in Table 3 above were counted

for each RR session.

To answer research question 3 on reading speed and comprehension changes, partici-

pants comments from relevant categories presented in Table 3 above (Method improves

comprehension, Method improves reading speed, and Method improves speed and

comprehension) were counted and presented by session. Participants comments that

described changes in fluency and comprehension but could not be attributed directly to

RR are presented separately (Comprehension improved, Reading speed faster, and

Reads faster and comprehends).

To answer research question 4 on language skill improvement, participants com-ments from relevant categories presented in Table 3 above (Method improves reading,

Method improves other language skills, and Reading with tape improves other lan-

guage skills) were counted and presented by session.

To answer research question 5 on changes in attentional resource demands, two analy-

ses were done. First, participants comments on resource-demanding features of the FL

text they read (for example, new words) were counted and characterized by session.

Second, also by session, participants comments in any relevant category were examined

for evidence that these features of the text demanded or did not demand the same degree

of attentional resources as the RR treatments progressed. This included: (1) participantsreports suggesting use of lower-level, pre-lexical processes to comprehend text; and (2)

their reports suggesting use of higher-level, post-lexical processes to comprehend text.

V Results

1 Reading strategy use

Table 4 gives the results for research question 1 on reading strategy use. The results showthat participants reported using a number of reading strategies during their time spent in

assisted RR sessions, even though they were not specifically asked to report on them. In

each session participants reported using a wide range of bottom-up, top-down, and cog-

nitive strategies, and the numbers suggest many participants (out of the total of 30) felt

that they used at least one if not more during a given session. For session two, for



17/34


Table4

Read

ingstrategyuse(frequency)reportedbyparticipantsfromthefirsttosixteenthRRsession

s

Strategy

Session

one

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

Eight

Nine

Ten

Bottomup:

Wordfocus

12

6

11

1

1

2

8

0

0

1

Ialwaysworryabout

newwor

dsinth

epassages.

Structuralfoc

us

3

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Ihavethe

follow

ing

difficu

lties:

com

plicategram

marstructures.

Translating

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Toun

derstand

itImust

translated

itinto

Vietnamese.

Pronunciation

3

5

5

4

0

0

2

0

2

0

Therearenewwor

dsw

hich

Icannot

knowthe

pronounce.

Storystructur

e

3

2

0

1

2

1

1

0

0

0

The

difficultiesaboutread

ing

inEngl

ishared

ifferentstory

buildingty

pe.

Totals:

22

15

6

8

3

4

11

0

2

1

Topdown:

Predicts

1

1

2

1

2

2

3

5

6

2

Iguess

Ireneaftercan

keep

photo

for

herse

lf.

Confirms

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

Ithought

Sherloc

kHolmes

wou

ldget

photogra

phbutnot.

Questions

1

0

1

1

0

1

7

13

7

8

What

isre

lations

hipbetween

E.H

opkinsand

D.R

oss?



18/34


Table4

(Continued)

Strategy

Session

one

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

EightN

ine

Ten

Comments

4

2

5

2

1

7

5

1

8

7

Onlycharacterist

ichave

appeared:Mr.D

uncan

Ross.

Personalcomm

ents

6

2

10

9

10

17

6

10

1

3

17

Xincentseemsto

be

asecret

person.

Skimming

1

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

The

firsttimeo

fread

ing

Itr

ied

closeread

ing,th

enIsk

immed.

Summarizing

0

3

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

2

Eehaventcometoanen

d

ofeverymysteryyet.

Associationsw

ith

8

3

3

0

1

1

0

2

0

2

priorknowled

ge

Iwatched

Sher

lock

Holmeson

TVan

dread

ing

thisstorymakesme

understandmoreabout

itscontent.

Totals:

21

11

24

14

15

29

21

31

3

5

41

Metacognitive:

Monitorscomprehension

8

11

6

6

9

9

6

13

4

8

Ididntun

derstan

dthe

contentofthes

tory.

Monitorscomprehensionand

9

4

12

6

7

3

9

10

7

10

evaluatesreadingstrategy

Irea

dveryquic

klythe

firsttime

andthesecond

time

Irea

dmore

slow

lytogetinformat

ion.

(Continue

d)



19/34


Table4

(Con

tinued)

Strategy

Session

one

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

Eight

Nine

Ten

Readingproce

ssdescription

11

12

16

1

8

1

1

5

3

3

4

Thissess

ionma

demeread

morequ

ickly.

Readingproce

ssdescriptionand

13

7

8

3

5

5

6

6

1

6

evaluatesread

ingstrategy

Myspee

dofread

ingateach

period

isnotsim

ilar.It

dependsmuc

h

onmycontratin

g.

Totals

41

34

42

16

29

1

8

26

32

15

28

Strategy

Session

eleven

Twelve

Thirtee

n

Fourteen

Fifteen

Sixteen

Bottomup:

Wordfocus

2

3

1

1

0

0

Structuralfoc

us

0

0

0

0

0

0

Translating

0

0

0

0

0

Pronunciation

1

1

0

1

0

1

Storystructur

e

1

1

0

2

1

1

Totals:

4

5

1

4

1

1

Topdown:

Predicts

9

0

0

3

9

6

Confirms

2

3

2

0

0

5

Questions

9

4

2

7

12

6

Comments

4

2

3

7

5

6

Personalcomments

15

23

18

26

16

2

1

Skimming

1

1

0

0

0

0

Summarizing

2

4

8

8

3

4

Associationsw

ithprior

0

0

0

3

0

v1

knowledge

Totals:

42

37

33

54

45

4

9



20/34


Table4

(Con

tinued)

Strategy

Session

eleven

Twelve

Thirteen

Fourteen

Fifteen

Sixteen

Metacognitive:


5

3

2

1

0

5


0

0

0

3

0

1

andevaluatesreadingstrategy

9

10

2

1

0

5

Readingproce

ssdescription

8

3

3

8

1

4

Readingproce

ssdescription

5

1

3

8

8

7

andevaluatesreadingstrategy

Totals

27

17

14

24

19

18



21/34


example, participants used a total of 15 bottom-up strategies, 11 top-down ones, and 34

metacognitive ones (for a total of 60 reported uses). This is even more remarkable when

a review of lesson plans for the 11-week RR treatment revealed that no reading strategy

instruction was offered. Apparently, the RR treatments developed participants use of anumber of strategies thought to aid independent reading, comprehension, and reading

development, perhaps mentioned or learned in other courses in their English program

(for example, participants knew the phrase skim and scan in English).

There are shifts in the number and type of strategies used: For example, the number

of reported uses of bottom-up strategies, in particular word- and structure-focus, and

translating, drops as the treatments continue. Twenty-two bottom-up strategies were used

in session one, down to 11 in session seven, down to 1 in session sixteen. This may be a

result of improved word recognition in context, given that session texts were contiguous

parts of three stories with overlapping themes and vocabulary (Now I like reading this

story because there are not too many new words and I can understand). Texts were also

simplified (For this part I dont face up new words that usually prevent me from under-

standing). One other explanation for a reduced number of bottom-up strategies may be

found in participants comments that suggest that although they did not know all words

in a given RR passage, they decided to read anyway and guess at word meaning (I forget

the past form of shine which is shone so I get a little bit of difficulty. However I guest

[sic] and finally I remember shones meaning).

Participants seemed to report more use of top-down strategies: In session one, 21 top-

down strategies were reported to be used, steady at 21 for session seven, and up to 49 for

session sixteen. The greatest increases were found in more participants reporting use ofquestioning, personal comments, and summarizing strategies. Participants comments

made along these lines seemed to suggest a genuine engagement with and comprehension

of the RR texts (It means Vincent Spaulding related to the Red-Headed League, andMerry-

weather should pay Holmes well, I think) and confirmed increases in comprehension found

on the non-RR-text-based short answer and recall post-tests (see Table 1 above).

Finally, in terms of metacognitive strategies reported being used: On the one hand, a large

number of such strategies were reported, suggesting most of the 30 participants actively evalu-

ated their mode of reading. Many of the comments seemed related to the RR method, suggest-

ing the repeated readings may have offered an experiential platform on which to test out newmodes of reading (with varying level of attention or speed) based on perceived reading pur-

pose: Today I keep my strategy. The first time I understand the content of the session. I concen-

trate more on the 2nd and 3rd that the 1st. In the 5th of reading I concentrate more on the

problem I feel not easy in the previous reading. Even though participants were never told to

read fast, the fact they used stopwatches to time their own reading and kept time logs must

have kept the issue of speed on their minds. For some participants, this raised the issue of per-

haps heretofore unreflected-on trade-offs between reading speed and comprehension, which

may serve as a guide when encountering future texts in real life: When I have fast reading I had

some difficulties, firstly difficult to remember the name of street, bridge, houses. Secondly, dif-ficult to understand deeply. However, on the other hand, reports of metacognitive strategy use

did not increase over time: In session one, 41 comments appeared. For session eleven, partici-

pants reported 27 uses of metacognitive strategies, and for session sixteen, 28 reported uses.

Nonetheless, the data show that participants reported using a variety of reading strategies,



22/34


Table5

FrequencyofparticipantcommentsrelatedtoreadingmotivationbyRRsession

CommentS

ession

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

Eight

Nine

Ten

Eleven

Twelve

Thirteen

Fourteen

Fifte

en

Sixteen

category

o

ne

Method

3

0

1

0

2

1

0

2

0

2

1

1

1

2

0

1

spillsover

Motivated

2

7

7

6

5

4

4

9

8

10

5

8

1

7

7

4

toread



23/34


including metacognitive strategies, such as monitoring comprehension, the decisive metacog-

nitive capability separating good from poor readers (Koda, 2005, p. 212).

2 Motivation to read

Table 5 shows the results for research question 2 on motivation to read. Reports of

method spills over did not change appreciably over the course of the eleven-week RR

treatment, although one or two students per session mentioned it. Participants reported a

number of ways the method spills over into their reading done outside of class, which

suggests a potential for long-term interest in RR. Some comments were non-specific:

From this method I can see when reading an article or something we should read quickly

to catch content, and read again, andI intend to do this method as u [sic] gave us. Read

story, in each part and listen to the tape as my own voice. Some comments were specific

and action-oriented:At home, I also practise reading with 3 times but I do not check the

time. By this way, I could remember what I read and improve my readings speedandI

applied this method in my reading class and other comments suggest that the fluency and

comprehension-building effects of RR were transferred to texts that participants read on

their own: When I stay at home I read some newspapers or story and I see that I can read

much more quickly than before and get much information in a short time.

Participant comments on Motivated to read increased somewhat over the treat-

ment period. Two comments were made in session one, 10 in session ten, and 7 in

session fifteen. Comments in this category can be split into two groups, one of whichseemed related to the level of interest learners felt in the text being read that day and

another which suggested longer term interest in reading English texts. The short-term

comments reflected great interest in the text being read, and emphasizes the impor-

tance of using interesting texts for fluency-building: Features of the story is very

attractive and detective so Im interested in reading to look how the rest says about

these characters. These comments suggested that participants genuinely compre-

hended the texts and actively followed specific characters and events: In this session,

the process is happening very surprisingly and mystery [sic] so I am very interested in

fulfilment. Long-term comments ranged from general: Now I really like reading somuch, andIt amazes me that I now enjoy reading in English much more than before, to

specific:I like reading in English so much, because it helped me understand not only

grammar but also the plot of the story, and I feel interested in reading very much

because it helped me much with speaking and listening.

3 Participant perceptions of changes in reading speed and comprehension

Table 6 shows the results for research question 3 on changes in reading speed and compre-hension. Throughout the RR treatment of 11 weeks, a number of participants reported

increases in their comprehension and reading speed, even though they were not specifically

requested to comment on these issues in their post-session reports. Some of the comments

attributed increases in comprehension and reading speed directly to the RR treatment (I can



24/34


Table6

Participantcommentsonreadingfluencyandcomprehensionby

RRsession

Category

Sessionone

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

SevenE

ight

Nine

Ten

Eleven

Tw

elve

Thirteen

FourteenFifteen

Sixteen

Methodimproves

8

3

4

1

2

1

3

3

0

1

2

0

0

2

1

2

comprehension

Methodimproves

0

0

4

1

2

1

0

0

1

2

0

1

1

2

1

1

readingspeed

Methodimproves

0

3

0

1

4

2

1

0

2

1

1

1

0

0

2

1

speedand

comprehension

Comprehension

0

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

improved

Readingspeed

3

4

3

0

0

4

3

1

2

0

4

1

2

5

0

1

faster

Readsfasterand

3

1

4

2

2

7

0

5

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

comprehends



25/34


remember in detail after five times in reading. Now I can read all the session fastly [sic] and

catch the meaning of the story) while others simply observed the changes without implying

causality (My speed of reading is faster and faster). However, both types of comment, based

on participants perceptions, underpin factual increases in comprehension and speed foundin the group quantitative data (see Tables 1 and 2 above). For nearly all comment categories,

frequency of mention remained steady throughout the treatment. This suggests that the

positive effects of longer-term RR treatments are additive and perhaps cumulative, as shown

in Table 1 where first session first reading word-per-minute reading rate for the group is

162.200 and the sixteenth session first reading rate is 261.020. Participants could read a new

text faster at the outset of the five readings in the sixteenth session.

4 Language skill developmentFor the results of research question 4 on language skill development, see Table 7. Partici-

pants comments strongly suggested a perception that assisted RR (RR done with an

audiotaped or live model for one or two readings in each session) helped improve their

languages skills, and not only reading. Throughout the treatment, participants made 36

comments to the effect that assisted RR improved their reading skills.

Participants seemed to attribute their improvement to the added practice RR engenders

(This method help me practise reading much. Days by days [sic] my reading will improve )

and to helping them see more options on how to interact with texts (This method help me a

lot. I have changed my reading habit. Because I used to read quickly, just to get meanings orto understand. I didnt care about the details. Therefore I easily forgot what I had just read,

andMy brain can be widen by interthink [sic] all step and thought in the story so I can think

and guess more exactly). These last two comments emphasized other data presented above

(Table 4) on participants use of metacognitive reading strategies during the RR treatment.

A total of 20 participants noted that the method helped them improve other language

skills, including listening, grammar, pronunciation (This method helps me read correctly into-

nation of questions sentences such as yes/no question and wh question), vocabulary (This

method not only helps me in reading and listening but also build up many new skills for exam-

ple learning new words, pronunciation), writing (I am very surprised my writings skill is alsoimproved. I think that reading many times may help me to remember the structures and the

styles. Also I could use many words skillfully), speaking and, interestingly, discourse aware-

ness (Throughout I learn many structures and know how to build a dialogue). Several partici-

pants referred again to one possible mechanism for this skill building: extended and intensive

practice in processing English (Havent practised writing much before this time).

Participant comments on perceived language skill building through reading with an audio

model (Reading with tape improves other language skills) provided further explanation.

Because each RR session consistently involves five readings of a given text, and because

learner comprehension increase with each reading, participants are freed from painful word-by-word decoding and can project their attention on whatever interests them as learners (After

two times listening, I try to read in the same way with the tape at the 4th and 5th reading, and

I find out some words that I pronounced wrongly last time and through reading with the tape

now my pronunciation is right and more exact). Fully 78 comments on building



26/34


Table7

Participantcommentsonlanguageskillim

provementbysession

Category

Sessionone

Two

Thre

e

Four

Five

Six

Seven

Eight

Nine

Ten

ElevenTwelve

Thirteen

FourteenFifteen

Sixteen

Methodimproves

5

6

4

3

0

1

1

2

2

2

2

0

3

0

2

3

reading

Methodimproves

2

1

3

0

0

1

2

3

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

4

otherlanguageskills

Readingwithtape

5

3

2

6

7

8

3

6

7

3

8

3

2

9

5

0

improvesother

languageskills



27/34


other language skills through assisted RR appeared in the data. Comments referred to

improvements in speaking skill (mainly pronunciation) and also in listening (Reading and

listening at the same time also help me to improve my listening). Participants comments on

skill improvement in pronunciation started out general in tone (Reading with the tape helpsme much to improve my pronunciation), but from the fifth session became more specific

(Besides, reading with the tape can make me recognize or hear stressed words in a

sentence).

Participants noted that assisted RR helped them with segmental pronunciation of pre-

viously known words (Reading with tape also help me much in improving pronunciation

even the words I already know) and unknown words (I especially like reading with tape

because this helps me so much to pronounce some words that are strange to me), includ-

ing proper nouns (I can pronounce Briony Lodge and Coburg Square). Participants also

pointed out improvements in suprasegmental aspects of pronunciation, such as sentence

stress, an often unreported skill that can help comprehension (Reading with tape also

helps me to practise the stress and pronunciation. I think its time to pay attention to the

speakers voice because it has an effect on showing content of the story to some extent).

Many participants commented on improvements in their understanding of intonation

(The thing I learn from the tape is I know how to raise the voice with questions without

question-word) and began assigning unexpected and specific intonation patterns to

meaning by session nine (When reading with the tape, I recognize one strange things in

the intonation. For example with the question Has he really? strong down tone. Its not

fits with the general question and The conversation between Dr. Watson and Holmes

There is going to be a crime your help has 3 crime. However, each time it is readdifferently on the tape. The first and third time, the speakers reads with an affirmative

voice. The second time crime is read with interrogative way, showing the surprise of the

reader. And the word is always emphasized when it is read).

5 Changes in attentional resource demands

Partial results for research question 5 on attentional resource demand changes are presented in

Table 8. From the first to the sixteenth session, the number of resource-demanding text featuresreported by participants decreased in number, suggesting that these features demanded fewer

resources as the treatment progressed. Further, there was a trend towards participants becom-

ing more specific in what they found difficult. The fact that some participants could name, after

the fact, specific words or other text features causing difficulty suggests a shift beyond pre-

lexical processing or simple word recognition. New vocabulary was reported frequently in the

first three sessions, and then were not mentioned again until the twelfth and thirteenth sessions

when participants commented on specifics:Hard to extract meaning of words from story, and

I do not understand why the word earth is used in there was earth on his knees.

Participants did not cite specific words causing difficulty in the first three sessions.Grammatical structures were cited in the first, second, and fourth sessions and then did not

appear again (many complicated structures). Rhetorical structure appeared occasionally

throughout the RR treatment (first, second, twelfth, and thirteenth sessions). In the first

and second sessions, participants noted: different story building type, andstory structure.



28/34


Table 8 Participants reports of resource-demanding English text features by session

Session one:

9 New vocabulary2 Grammaticalstructures3 Slang1 Rhetoricalstructure2 Pronunciation3 Rememberingdetails

Session two:

2 New vocabulary3 Grammaticalstructures3 Rhetoricalstructure4 Pronunciation3 Rememberingdetails

Session three:2 New vocabulary4 Pronunciation6 Rememberingdetails1 New characters

Session four:1 Grammaticalstructures2 Pronunciation4 Rememberingdetails

Session five:

1 Rememberingdetails

Session six:1 Rememberingdetails

Session seven (beginnew story):7 Rememberingdetails

Session eight:

1 Rememberingdetails1 Long sentences

Session nine:

2 Pronunciation1 Relationshipbetweentwo characters

Session ten:1 New vocabulary1 Rememberingdetails

Session eleven:1 Remembering

details1 Names are toolong

Session twelve:2 New vocabulary1 Rhetoricalstructure1 Fast-paced action

Session thirteen:

1 Rhetoricalstructure1 New usage ofknownvocabulary

Session fourteen:(begin new story):1 Pronunciation

Session fifteen:No reports

Session sixteen:1 Pronunciation

Later in the treatment, participants were more specific, noting: style of writing too liter-

ary, andHolmes monolog (as opposed to a conversation) proved difficult to process.

Pronunciation was cited in most sessions, but in decreasing numbers. From the third

session, participants began to report specific instances of what they found resource-

demanding in terms of pronunciation: intonation, stress, proper names, Briony Lodge,

Edgeare, Coburg Square, andLestrade. Remembering details appeared in the first eleven

sessions and was mentioned frequently in the first seven sessions. From the second session,

some participants named specifics: names La Scala, Briony Lodge, Godfrey Norton,

When I distinguish the name of Holmes and Norton it is really difficult to me to know whosename,Mr. Ezekiah Hopkins of Pennsylvania,proper names such as people and places, and

Dr. Watson or the fat man with red hair.

Participants commented less on remembering details as the RR treatment continued,

suggesting they found these features of text less resource-demanding. Further, that some



29/34


participants seemed to know they were details, could remember and write them down for

the post-session report, and in using grammatical knowledge knew that some of the

details were proper names suggests use of post-lexical processes.

In early sessions of the RR treatment, a few participants made comments about theirbehaviour during the session that suggested pre-lexical processing, such as translated

(first session) and reads word by word to memorize events (first session). As soon as the

fourth session, participants were commenting on their reading behaviour in such a way

as to suggest they no longer focused on word identification:I can read faster because I

even neednt look at the words but I can understand(fourth session);I tried my best to

focus on content of story, especially I focused on each person (fifth session);I especially

concentrate on the young man: Spaulding(seventh session);For short sentences I can

read 4 or 5 words at a glance, so the reading speed is faster (tenth session); I try to

remember how to write and pronounce personal names I used to skim before (eleventh

session);I completely understan[d] the details and progress of the story, I pay less atten-

tion on vocabulary and structure (thirteenth session); When I read third time I seem not

to see all words I only see main words (fourteenth session); and After the second and

third time, I notice that when reading conversation, I do not read the names of speakers,

I only read what they speak(sixteenth session). The last two comments cited above sug-

gest the link between the RR methodology and participants apparently faster and differ-

ent processing as they proceeded from the first to the final re-readings of a text. We stress

this evidence is at best fragmentary and is merely suggestive.

VI Discussion

1 An experiential platform for language processing and skills building

The findings, in the form of learner comments collected longitudinally, strongly suggest

that an RR program of moderate length and intensity developed learners as independent

readers. In particular, learners report using a variety of top-down and bottom-up reading

strategies, including metacognitive strategies. Learners also report being motivated to read,

even though the sessions were low-key. That learners were not given concurrent instruction

in reading strategies and yet seemed to develop use of them on their own by using RR asan experiential plat

Language Teaching Research 2010 Gorsuch 27 59

Documents

Transcript of Language Teaching Research 2010 Gorsuch 27 59