About questions & tasks

Questioning

Even though the usefulness of teaching strategies to aid understanding of texts has been proved, comprehension is still a silent, private process which is difficult to be observed and measured. Brown admits that reading comprehension is “totally unobservable (we have to infer comprehension from other behaviour)” (2001:315). Nuttall (2005) agrees that it is problematic since the comprehension process is invisible. In an attempt to solve this conflict, Nuttall suggests that questions are a way to get access to what is going on in the reader’s minds, but she suggests an improved version of the traditional approach. Questions need to be used as “aids to successful exploration of the text” (2005:182) as she believes that reading tasks are “opportunities for learning, not tests to be escaped if possible” (2005:181).

 Kinds of questions in a reading assignment

Nuttall (2005) claims that the purpose of questioning in a “teaching approach” to reading is not to test but to make students notice the way language is used to carry meaning, and the strategies readers can use to understand texts (p. 181). There is a variety of questions that foster an inquisitive role from readers and they can be classified in four different aspects:

- Presentation of questions: open-ended questions, multiple choice questions (MCQs), and true/false (T/F) questions.

- Forms of questions: according to their grammatical pattern (yes/no question, alternative questions, wh- questions and how/why questions)

- Types of questions: questions of literal comprehension, questions involving reorganization or reinterpretation, questions of inference, questions of evaluation, questions of personal response, and questions concerned with how writers say what they mean.

- Questioner: teacher or student.

 Nuttall (2005) claims that questions can be presented in three ways: open-ended questions, multiple choice questions (MCQs) and true or false (T/F). Open-ended questions can be answered in any way the student considers appropriate, and their typical examples are how and why questions since they offer the greatest scope for the responder; MCQs offer a number of possible answers to choose from; and finally, T/F present a statement about the text and the reader has to decide whether it is true or false, based on his or her understanding of it (pp. 186)

Questions can also be sorted out according to their grammatical form: yes/no question, alternative questions, wh- questions and how/why questions. Answers to yes/no questions are short and do not require readers to compose a larger sentence. Alternative questions demand respondents to choose between two options. Wh- questions, including why and how questions require full sentences as answers which are more challenging since they vary in content and structure (Nuttall, 2005, pp. 184-185).

Nuttall adds that questions can also be classified “according to the skills they require from the reader, [which] is much more important than their grammatical
form” (2005:187). She classifies them into six types “questions of literal comprehension, questions involving reorganization or reinterpretation, questions of inference, questions of evaluation, questions of personal response and questions concerned with how writers say what they mean” (2005:188,189).

First, Questions of literal comprehension are aimed at checking the basic understanding of the text, and answers can be directly and explicitly found in it. Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) explain that words from the text are used in the questions so that readers make use of their short term memory to store data from the text and answer literal questions (p. 49).

Second, questions involving reorganization or reinterpretation are slightly more difficult than the previous type as they require the reader to reinterpret literal information or to put together pieces of information from different parts of the text, considering it as a whole rather than sentences in isolation.

Third, questions of inference demand readers to discover what is implied in the text, not just its explicit meanings. In order to answer these questions, the reader needs a deep understanding of the text, to be able to decipher its implications. They aim at comprehension, making students rebuild the text with their previous knowledge.

Fourth, questions of evaluation require readers to judge the writer´s intentions
and how far these intentions have been achieved in the text. The typical examples are questions of literary appreciation in which readers need to analyse techniques by which the writer tries to influence him/her.

Fifth, questions of personal response do not depend purely on the how the writer influences reader but on how the reader reacts to the text according to textual evidence. That is to say, the reader can explain his/her own feelings towards the text based on his/her understanding of it.

Finally, questions concerned with how writers say what they mean seek to offer strategies for tackling texts in general, making students aware of what they do to interpret texts.

Nuttall (2005) explains that questioning as a reading task follows an analytical bottom-up approach, which differs from other types of tasks which are more global and ask for a top-down approach. In those tasks intelligence and experience become more important than language proficiency (p. 192). She sorts out tasks as follows: tasks with outcomes requiring little or no language, tasks with outcomes involving spoken language and tasks with outcomes involving writing.

The first group of tasks with outcomes requiring little or no language consists of activities using figures: grids, flow charts, graphs, maps, etc., in which the reader has to interpret the text as a whole to be able to transfer information to the figures.

The second group of tasks with outcomes involving spoken language deals with a more creative and integrative way of checking students’ reading comprehension. It consists of a number of varied activities which include drama, simulation, role play, debates, discussions, and reading out loud. In order to carry out these activities students need to work deeply on the texts to combine the information in them with their own creativity and schemata.

The third group of tasks with outcomes involving written language requires students to use what they have read to solve other activities. Typical examples include planning tourist brochures or documentary films based on a text describing a certain place, writing rules or instructions for a procedure or game described in a text, or retelling an incident from a different point of view among others.

 

Strategy 10: Students’ Opinion and emotional response to the text

Considering that reading is the result of the interaction between readers an text this section was added in order to check whether teachers highlighted the importance of students’ opinions and feelings towards the material dealt with.

Strategy 9: Identification of words (Lexical strategy)

Lexical Strategy

Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) start their analysis of these strategies by claiming that expert readers build up the meaning of the text offering their knowledge of the world, not only the one referred to content but also the grammatical and textual ones, regulating their cognitive processes. The acquisition of the written code allows readers to decode words and symbols as well as textual and paratextual elements in order to obtain coherence in the text. Van Dijk and Kintsch model distinguishes different levels within a text: morphological, syntactical, semantic, pragmatic and lexical (pp. 212-213).

 

The latter consists of a linguistic system in the readers’ mind which contains the lexicon, a phonological component dealing with the sounds and a semantic component dealing with the meanings. Emmorey and Fromkin (as cited in Cubo de Severino et al. 2008) support this idea by stating that the mental lexicon is the grammatical component which carries all the information about the words or morphemes: phonological, morphological, semantic and syntactic information about words (p. 224).

 

Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) distinguish two types of words: the lexemes, and the grammatical words. The former are units of lexical meaning such as nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. They can also have attached morphemes which are the minimum units which carry lexical or grammatical meaning through suffixes and prefixes. The latter are considered independent and empty words which lack a lexical meaning. They are also called functional words (p. 216).

 

Following these ideas, Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) assure that the previous knowledge of the topic and the understanding of key words in texts optimize the comprehension of the reading process. That is the reason why understanding how the mental lexicon operates is crucial in comprehension. The authors highlight a number of lexical strategies which aid in the development of metacognitive capacities. They are classified into five groups:

• Use of semantic characteristics: design of semantic maps, charts in order to integrate the new word with the stored information in the readers’ mind.
• Use of context: search of semantic elements in the text which are equivalent, complementary or descriptive in relation to the given unknown word.
• Analysis of word components: associations of lexical items using family of words, suffixes and prefixes among others.
• Recognition of words: use of a phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic or pragmatic processing to decode the word.
• Use of reference material: search of conceptual information which cannot be given by the text or mental lexicon in dictionaries, encyclopedias and text books.

Lewis (1997) claims that language consists of lexical chunks which can produce continuous coherent texts when combined together (p. 7). The author explains that an elemental lexicon consisting of individual words is not adequate to make readers functionally effective to tackle texts. He supports the idea that accurate

noticing of lexical chunks, grammatical and phonological patters “all help convert input into intake, and provide the central strategy of the Lexical Approach” (p. 53). Consequently, a sixth classification needs to be added: recognition of lexical chunks. McCarthy (as cited in Lewis, 1997) expresses that “Over-concentration on learning single words may hinder the development of the L2 phrasal lexicon and deny the opportunities this gives for rapid retrieval and fluent connections” (p. 56). Likewise, the development of foreign language vocabulary might be affected negatively by overconcentration on learning lexical items in isolation.

 

Oxford (Oxford, 1990) acknowledges that research has shifted from what students learn to how the process of learning occurs. That is the reason why it may be crucial to focus teachers’ attention on the training of the aforementioned reading strategies to acquire reading skills in ELT.

 

Strategy 8: Identification of propositions: structure analysis (Propositional strategies)

Propositional Strategies

Readers employ propositional strategies to reconstruct the text base by means of the propositions established in the sentences of the text. Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) define a proposition as the meaning of a sentence which represents events that happen in any possible world. A sentence can have more than one preposition, i.e. it may refer to more than one event (p. 186).

 

Propositions are units which can be analyzed in terms of a predicate, which is syntactically represented by a verb; and one or more arguments, syntactically represented by nouns or noun phrases (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, p. 187). Besides, propositions can be compound and complex in the same way sentences are compound when they contain one or more clauses; or complex when they have at least one subordinate clause (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, pp. 191-192). These clauses may express different degrees of proximities among the events they relate to:

 

• O – No relation: it is characterized by lists of words or incoherent discourse.
• Indirect coherence: the events belong to the same episode in the possible world sharing a setting, plot and meaning. They are expressed by sentences which are not included one after the other.
• Direct coherence: the events are described in linear clauses or sentences and the relation is expressed by connectors such as then, as a result, thus, so, therefore, etc.
• Coordinated connection: the events are related as cause and consequence, forming a single event as unity. Frequently, they form a compound sentence joined by explicit coordinating connectors.
• Subordinated connection: events are not organized as a sequence but in a hierarchical order, since one event is presented as the specification of the other.
• Integration: one event determines on aspect of the other event. They are typically expressed by relative clauses.
• Reduction: the event is reduced to one of its properties, expressing it through adjectivization.

 

These different propositional relationships are expressed in the surface structure of the sentence by using specific connectors, as well as other factors such as context and reader´s knowledge of the world. (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008)

 

When readers make use of these propositional strategies, they represent a possible world, its settings and other circumstances in which those events described in the text may take place. Then, they build the representation of the objects or persons which are included and participate as well as other events

within the situation. After that, the individuals obtain their roles in relation to those events such as agent, object, and instrument. This strategic interpretation aids the reader to build the propositional scheme in order to comprehend the sentences and text. Word order, morphological structure, and syntactic categories at the surface structure of the text help readers build the propositional scheme (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008).

Strategy 6: Identification of local coherence: meaning relation of sentences & Strategy 7: Identification of local coherence: referential relation of sentences – Cohesion

Microstructural Strategies

 

Readers employ microstructural strategies to relate pieces of a new sentence with the previously processed ones in their intention to obtain local coherence. This term is defined as the semantic relations that exist among the sentences included in a text. Readers make use of mental processes in order to comprehend the semantic associations between two sentences which appear one after the other in a text. (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, p. 152)

The relations between sentences can be of two types: based on meaning or based on reference. The first group is also called intentional relations since the associations are based on the concepts that are expressed. These relations are functional and they are established when a sentence specifies, explains or exemplifies the other. Hence, they give coherence to the text. The second group is also referred to as extensional relations since the associations are based on the objects that are denoted. These objects are called cohesive devices and they can be of three types: grammatical, lexical and rhetorical devices. The first group includes reference, ellipsis, substitution, conjunctions, comparatives and tenses. The second group includes reiteration, collocation, substitution and ellipsis. The third group contains questions and parallelism. The typical linguistic elements that establish referential relations are pronouns. Words can also maintain semantic relations such as synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, and others (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, pp.153-154).

Readers make use of their knowledge of the word to establish local coherence. Yet, this is not an isolated phenomenon which occurs on its own, but it is related and also included in the global coherence of the text. Thus, local coherence strategies are unconscious mixed cognitive processes which can be combined with global coherence strategies, use of previous knowledge strategies, pragmatic and communicative strategies (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, p.157).

Strategy 4: Detection of global coherence (Semantic Level) & Strategy 5: Identification of author´s intention (Pragmatic Level)

Macrostructural strategies

Readers employ macrostructural strategies to summarize the global information contained in the text. Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) distinguish two types of macrostructure: the semantic and the pragmatic. The former deals with the main idea of the text or topic whereas the latter deals with the global speech act or general intention (pp. 130-131).

The semantic macrostructure is the abstract representation of the global structure of the meaning of the text and it is formed by the main ideas which are explicitly or implicitly included in it. Readers cannot possibly remember all the details so they combine the textual information with the context and their schemata in order to construct the semantic macrostructure or main idea. The pragmatic macrostructure is the author’s intention to write the text as well as the purpose he/she has in mind: to inform, to entertain, to ask, to give advice, to argue among others. Readers use both macrostructures to reconstruct the global meaning of the text (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, 130-131).

Van Dijk and Kintsch (as cited in Cubo de Severino) recognize two types of macrostructures: contextual and textual. Contextual macrostructural strategies are based on the reader’s knowledge of the world, which proves useful to predict situations; as well as the reader’s knowledge of the contents in the different types of texts, which aid the readers in the predictions of possible topics included. Textual macrostructures are based on the syntactic and semantic structures of the text and its markers which aid the readers in making discursive inferences (p. 132).

Strategy 3: Use of context and paratextual features (Superstructural strategy)

Superstructural strategies

Readers employ superstructural strategies to recognize text types and its internal organization as well as the relations among text types and their combinations.

 Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) explain that each text contains two elements:
content and form. The former includes the information the text conveys whereas the latter refers to the way that information is organized in its structure. The form is varied and depends on different factors which specify the text types. As it has already been mentioned, they can be categorized into argumentative, narrative, expository and instructive texts, with examples such as stories, catalogues, prospects, poems, drama, comics, and recipes among others (p. 65).

 The superstructural schemes can be characterized as conventional or arbitrary; i.e. the forms are agreed by users of the language, they are not universal and they vary according to the different cultures so they need to be learnt. They are also abstract since they are mental schemes which are filled in with content and independent from the language since they can contain diverse codes. (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008, p.66)

These strategies allow the reader to recognize the rhetoric schemes of texts, and its content distribution before, during and after reading. Before reading, users observe the form and paratextual features in order to recognize the categories and assign a text type. Besides, readers can make inferences about the communicative situation and predict the possible content. During and after reading users can confirm or reject the hypotheses made and they may recognize the author´s purpose to write the text. (Cubo de Severino et al., 2008)

Strategies: a taxonomy

Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) suggest a classification of strategies based on Van Dijk and Kintsch’s model (1983) in order to build the text base: superstructural strategies, which are used to deal with the text as a whole; macrostructural strategies, which are used to distinguish main idea and global coherence; microsturctural strategies, which deal with local coherence; propositional strategies; which assign functions and relations among propositions in a sentence; and lexical strategies; which deal with word meanings (pp. 26-29).

Strategy 2: Making inferencs

Making Inferences

According to Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) authors leave in their texts clues or instructions which are supposed to be unraveled in order to comprehend the message that is given. The readers’ only tool is their knowledge of the world so they activate their long term memory in order to interpret those clues making use of mental operations such as hypothesis, analogy, comparison, analysis, synthesis, among others, with the aim of relating the unknown with their own experience. These mental activities are referred to as inferential strategies (p. 43). Van Dijk and Kitsch (1983) claim that inferences are text blanks that should be filled by readers. Texts are not completely explicit, they have information blanks and readers are required to assign meaningful interpretations to them by making inferences in order to comprehend the text (as cited in Cubo de Severino et al, 2008).

 

Cubo de Severino et al. define inferences as the central movement of thought from the known information to the unknown, relating them through hypothesis in order to confirm them and, finally, turn the unknown into known information (2008:42). The authors (2008) claim that inferences allow readers to draw conclusions. This last operation is twofold: the formation of hypotheses or predictions and the confirmation of the hypotheses, which is an inferential process. To make inferences, readers pay attention to paratextual clues as well as textual ones in order to build the scheme of the text base in the long term memory by storing a graphic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic representation of the text.

 

Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) suggest the inclusion of inferential questions as well as literal questions in the reading tasks in order to help readers in their comprehension of the text. Peronard (as cited in Cubo de Severino et al., 2008) claims that literal questions require the memorization of the text whereas the inferential questions are targeted at the comprehension process (p. 49). Nicholas and Trabasso (1979, as cited in Cubo de Severino et al., 2008) describe the type of inferences readers make when reading: 

• Lexical inferences: inferences made in response to the questions what? Who?
• Spatio-temporal inferences: inferences made in response to the questions where? When?
• Extrapolative inferences: inferences made in response to the questions how? Why?
• Evaluative inferences: inferences based on personal, moral social judgment about the text.

Nuttall (2005) supports the importance of inferencing by claiming that readers “who can infer meaning from context have a powerful aid to comprehension and will ultimately read more quickly” (p. 72). She adds that the readers’ knowledge of the world helps to narrow down the possibilities and bridge the gaps in the text (pp. 73).

Strategy 1: Predicting

Prediction as the first strategy

Nuttall (2005) emphasizes the importance of prediction since it activates the schemata, bringing in knowledge and experiences readers have already stored in their minds related to the text. It helps the reader make sense of the text as a whole and of its components individually (p. 12).

Alderson and Urquhart (1984) agree that prediction is the basic reading strategy which includes three processes: sampling information, confirming hypothesis and correcting them if the prediction is miscued.

Smith (1988) gives three reasons why readers need to predict. The first is related to the fact that readers need to anticipate what is going to appear next in the text. A reader who is concerned with the word directly in front of the eye may have difficulties predicting and comprehending the whole meaning of the text. The second reason is related to the ambiguity that exists in the world. There are too many ways of interpreting things so readers need to select the most possible alternatives in advance. And the third is related to the quicker recognition in the text. If alternatives are discarded in advance, the number of possible choices is reduced and it aids the making of decisions to comprehend the text better. As Smith summarizes, “prediction brings potential meaning to texts, reducing ambiguity and eliminating in advance irrelevant alternatives” (1988:18).

Prediction is the backbone of reading, it aids reading to select in advance a number of possibilities in relation to the text that is to be read: its structure, genre, type, places, situations, schemes and even plot. Prediction aims at asking prior questions which comprehension is supposed to answer.

This strategy contains different elements:

 

• information stored in the reader´s minds regarding knowledge of the world,
• knowledge of texts,
• possible content related to the text
• possible vocabulary which may appear in the given text.

Teaching Reading Strategies

 

Bad habits and misconceptions about reading seem to stem from its basic definition and characteristics. Being reading, as well as listening, a receptive skill may lead to the confusion that it might be a passive process in opposition to the other two macro skills, speaking and writing, which are considered active processes (Thornbury, 2006, p. 190). On the contrary, the fact that it is receptive does not mean that it is passive but it is an active and interactive process. Thorndike (as cited in Silberstein, 1994) classified reading as an active process related to problem solving back in the year 1917 (p. 6). He understood that since readers, as well as listeners, bring their own questions, experiences and background knowledge to the classroom; they interrogate the text on their own. As Smith (1988) conceives it “[m]eaning is not contained within the sounds of speech or the printed marks of writing, conveniently waiting to be discovered or decoded, but rather must be provided by the listener or reader” (p. 24).

Consequently, to comprehend a text it is necessary to add context situation to the process of decoding words. Cubo de Severino et al. (2008) support this idea by claiming that deciphering symbols is just the beginning and it is not enough to achieve understanding of texts. The author says that it is necessary to activate the knowledge of the world, knowledge of texts, and background knowledge the reader possess (p. 53). Peronard (as cited in Cubo de Severino et al.) acknowledges that to achieve this integration which aids readers to comprehend better, there are two types of questions which are necessary to accompany reading tasks at school: literal questions and inference questions. The first group consists of questions framed in such a way that the same words and expressions are found in the text so students only use their linguistic processor to identify correct answers. In the second group, neither the questions nor the answers appear directly in the text but it contains clues to build up meaning and formulate answers (2008:49).

 

Therefore, if students are given only literal questions that can be easily found because they are explicitly and directly expressed in the text, this active and interactive process may not occur. Students might be tempted to draw from the paragraph the part that is useful to answer the question in order to complete the
assignment, without combining high-order processing skills to interpret the information and “get meaning from text” (Nuttall, 2005, pp. 187-188).

Smith asserts that comprehension implies much more than reproducing the facts included in the text, assuming that the aforementioned questions with a direct reference do not foster the interaction between text and readers (1988:43). According to Hosenfeld (Alderson, 1984) this type of exercise through comprehension questioning generally emphasizes the importance of understanding the text in detail and it is “linguistically biased” in the sense that it focuses on some aspects of language such as grammar and vocabulary. Hosenfeld adds that this pedagogic practice of focusing on the language of the text could be justified as a language lesson but it may lead to undesired behaviour as a reading lesson (1984:246).

Recent research into reading skills (Nuttall, 2005; Thornbury, 2006) maintains that traditional reading tasks in the form of the so called “comprehension questions” are not enough to help students tackle texts outside the learning situation. In order to show the insufficiency of this method, a distinction has been made between “testing reading” and “teaching reading”. Thornbury (2006) stresses that the former consists of traditional reading tasks which usually involve reading a text and then answering comprehension questions about it, whereas the latter aims to help readers become more effective by training them in reading skills and teaching them reading strategies (p. 191). Nuttall (2005) coincides with Thornbury (2006) when she describes testing reading as an activity in which teachers ask questions with the purpose of obtaining right or wrong answers, whereas she defines teaching reading as the training of strategies that can last a lifetime (p. 34). As Smith (1988) cites, “you do not prove that you have understood anything by repeating it” (p. 43).

Thus, Candlin (Alderson and Urquhart, 1984) asserts that reading sets three centres into motion: a centre on the reader, a centre on the text and a centre on the interaction between reader and text. The author points out that readers cannot prevent their “extra-textual experience, their reading purposes and their affective involvement” influence the text they are reading (p. ix). What is more, when reading, readers establish a dialogue not only with the writer, but also with their previous knowledge and experience of the world. [...] In Widdowson’s terms (as cited in Alderson and Urquhart, 1984), texts have a potential for meaning which is framed by the readers. Widdowson (Alderson, 1984) enlarges this concept suggesting that the meaning of texts vary from reader to reader according to their purpose and knowledge. The author claims that “texts have predictable meanings, which can be extracted if only the reader is sufficiently skilful” (p. xix). In the light of these ideas, meaning is created by the reader in his/her interaction with texts.

Widdowson (Alderson and Urquhart, 1984) explores the interaction between reader and text by defining the communicative character of reading. He
suggests that communication is achieved when the writer formulates particular propositional content and illocutionary intent in such a way as to make it accessible on the one hand and acceptable on the other hand” (p. 218). Consequently, it can be said that writers convey information in a manner that is accessible to the supposed imagined reader, anticipating the likely reactions and negotiating meaning. And the reader, “recognizing the authority of the writing and wanting to access the information given”, will adjust his own frame of reference to that of the writer making connections (Alderson and Urquhart, 1984, p. 222).

The reader puts into practice several complex cognitive processes in his “dialogue with the writer” in order to obtain meaning from text. Therefore, teaching reading comprehension strategies to students becomes a valuable tool in their foreign language learning. (Nuttall, 2005, p. 40).

(Taken from my thesis "Teaching Reading Strategies for Successful Comprehension)


References:

Alderson, J.Ch. & Urquhart A. H. (1984). Reading in a Foreign Language. New York: Longman.

Cubo de Severino, L., De Castillo, E., Duo de Brottier, O., Ejarque, D., Mûller de Russo, G., Lacón de Lucía, G., et al (2008). Leo pero no Comprendo. Córdoba: Comunic-arte Editorial.

Nuttall, Ch. (2005). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. Macmillan Books for Teachers. Oxford, England: Macmillan Education.    

Smith, F. (1988). Understanding Reading. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Thornbury, S. (2006). An A – Z of ELT. Macmillan Books for Teachers. Oxford, England: Macmillan Education.    

 

Some notes about Reading

Teaching to read or Reading to test?

An important disctintion between testing reading and teaching reading should be considered. From generation to generation, students have been asked to complete reading tasks which involved reading a short text and answering “comprehension” questions based on the text. This traditional method is known as the testing approach. On the other hand, the teaching approach aims at the training of reading skills and reading strategies to help students become more effective readers of the second language and achieve the goals of independence, comprehension, and fluency. In this light Swain (1985) pointed out, “A good comprehender may be an effective and appropriate strategy user, rather than someone who necessarily extracts useful syntactic inferences from the language which is being processed”.

 

Teaching to read

No single component of the model, such as word recognition, can accurately account for the subject’s overall comprehension of the text. In other words, no one factor dominates the comprehension process. On the contrary, the data reveal that comprehension is characterized by a complex set of interacting process performed by the reader to construct an understanding of the text. (Bernhardt, 1991, 123).

Following Bernhardt’s ideas, writing questions for students to answer is not enough to achieve comprehension of written texts. In order to promote independance on students’ strategy, such as understanding the meaning of words through context, training should be included in the syllabus. Those strategies which train students to overcome problems include: using contextual and extra-linguistic information, brainstorming background knowledge, skimming the text before a detailed reading, keeping the purpose of the text in mind, guessing meaning of words through context, dictionary use, decoding strategies. Marie Clay (1991), developer of the Reading Recovery Program, encourages teachers to help children learn at least four approaches to decoding: focusing on meaning (semantics), realting sounds to letters (phonics), looking at how words and phrases are formed (syntax) recognizing sight words (visual).

Text talk

The well-known children’s author, Katherine Paterson, described the relationship between reader and writer this way:

Once a book is published, it no longer belongs to me … The work now belongs to the creative mind of my readers … It’s a wonderful feeling when readers hear what I thought I was trying to say, but there is no law that they must. Frankly, it is even more thrilling for a reader to find something in my writing that I hadn’t until that moment known was there (Paterson, 1981).

A good reader is the one who can understand the text as the writer intented (Nuttal,1996) If so, do teachers foster an inquisitive attidude in the students? Do students take an active role while reading? Can students be engaged in the interactive process of reading if they are passive readers? Reading comprehension strategies separate the passive unskilled reader from the active readers. Skilled readers do not just read; they interact with the text, they are involved as they have to work to grasp the meaning. Keene and Zimmerman (1997) stated that: “...thoughtful, active, proficient readers are metacognitive; they think about their own thinking during reading.”

 

Voyage and Reading

My concern nowadays is the way I handle reading situations in my classroom. I know reading Vogaye II is a bit easier because students already experienced reading Voyage I. Yet, I still have the feeling that I'm doing nothing with it except for reading to them, enjoying the story and starting a new project after the "ideas" the story offers.

However, the book has so much more to offer that I feel upset I'm not exploiting the text. Students can't read them on their own, they need to be modelled and helped, but I've not generated any situation in which I give students tools and strategies in order to became more autonomous in the process of reading voyage. So, this will be my next challenge. Give students tools to become independent readers of Voyage.

 

My concerns about reading

 

As claimed by Cubo de Severino, we, as teachers are constantly facing the same dilemma: students read but they can’t comprehend. That is to say, they can’t achieve the appropriate levels of comprehension which are necessary for the school level in which they are placed. I’ve worked in primary school for some years and I have encountered many kids who couldn’t comprehend what they read and I couldn’t successfully help them. So I asked myself, what is it that they cannot comprehend? Why? How can I aid them in their process of understanding texts? For long I’ve attended seminars and read books to investigate what I could do to help them tackle texts. I even travelled to New Zealand in the year 2009 to iexperience and read about their educational system as they are one of the best countries regarding literacy. Even though I only assisted kindergarten teachers in their literacy programmes, I discovered that CONSISTENCY, PATIENCE and GOOD QUESTIONS are key factors in order to obtain observable data regarding student’s reading skills.

I also have a personal issue concerning reading. I love reading, I used to enjoy my grandma’s reading very much. I used to get books as presents and I couldn’t stop reading to eat or have a shower. I gave my mother some headaches because I always kept my nose above books. I felt involved in magical worlds, full of mystery and imagination. I don’t want my students to miss opportunities to enjoy reading as much as I do. 

I really really LOOOOOOVE reading. I think in my other life I must have been a bookworm, a nerd or something of the sort. I have some anecdotes in relation to my life as a reader, which are rather humilliating but I will share them with you. When I started reading, I used to read every single billboard in the street and I used to get mad with my father if he drove the car too fast. Imagine trying to read out Pavón avenue!! Then, my mother used to get angry at me because I always kept reading at my room when I was supposed to be having dinner. Then, after a couple of "shouts" I would go walking slowly through the hall with the book right under my nose, and I would keep reading while eating. Most of my books were always stained! Nowadays I keep walking and reading half a block after getting off the bus at the corner of my house ´cause I can´t stop reading a very interensting paragraph. And worst of all, really embarassing, some time ago I took a book to the shower because I wanted to finish reading David Copperfield! I know I´m a weirdo!