Teaching and Researching: Reading

Grabe, William; Stoller, Fredricka L.

doi:10.4324/9781315833743

Cited by 422 publications

(547 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

506

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the following 26 journals were electronically and manually examined: American Educational Research Journal, Applied Linguistics, In addition, in order to search ER studies in Japanese publications, the following journals were also investigated: ARELE (Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan), JACET (Japan Association of College English Teachers) Journal, JALT (Japan Association for Language Teaching) Journal, JLTA (Japan Language Testing Association) Journal, KATE (Kanto-koshinetsu Association of Teachers of English) Journal, LET (Language Education and Technology). 1 Finally, to ensure that additional studies not identified via the above two methods were also discovered, I manually checked eight books on second language reading (Coady, 1997;Day & Bamford, 1998;Grabe, 2009;Grabe & Stoller, 2011;Han & Anderson, 2009;Koda, 2004;Nuttall, 2005;Takase, 2010), and references to additional studies were cross-checked to identify further studies.…”

Section: Searching the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-Analysis of Extensive Reading Research

Nakanishi

2014

TESOL Q

137

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purposes of this study were to investigate the overall effectiveness of extensive reading, whether learners' age impacts learning, and whether the length of time second language learners engage in extensive reading influences test scores. The author conducted a meta‐analysis to answer research questions and to identify future research directions. He included two types of empirical studies—those including group contrasts based on a comparison of a control group and experimental groups, and pre–post contrasts that only include experimental groups—in the analysis. After a thorough literature search with numerous search engines and manual and electronic examination of related journals, the meta‐analysis included 34 studies (two PhD dissertations and 32 research articles) that provided 43 different effect sizes and a total sample size of 3,942 participants. Findings show a medium effect size (d = 0.46) for group contrasts and a larger one (d = 0.71) for pre–post contrasts for students who received extensive reading instruction compared to those who did not. In sum, the available research to date suggests that extensive reading improves students' reading proficiency and should be a part of language learning curricula.

show abstract

Section: Searching the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-Analysis of Extensive Reading Research

Nakanishi

2014

TESOL Q

137

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For a more complete discussion of rauding and its relationship to the causal model of reading achievement, see Carver (2000). 3 Searches of recent book-length reviews of the L2 reading literature (Alderson, 2000;Day & Bamford, 1998;Grabe & Stoller, 2002) Note. Heinemann has become Macmillan.…”

Section: Revised Version Accepted 3 December 2010mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Pleasure Reading on Japanese University EFL Learners’ Reading Rates

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few second‐language (L2) reading studies have examined the relationship between reading large amounts of text and fluency, and those studies that have tend to be problematic in terms of their designs and/or analyses. In order to address this lack of empirical L2 reading fluency research, this study investigates the effects of a 1‐year pleasure reading program on the reading rate development of first‐year Japanese university students (N = 97). The reading rates and reading comprehension of an Intensive Reading Group and three Pleasure Reading Groups were measured at the beginning and end of the academic year. All Pleasure Reading Groups made greater gains than the Intensive Reading Group, and the two Pleasure Reading Groups that read the most made greater reading rate gains than the Pleasure Reading Group that read the least. Reading one book every 2 weeks or more was the most effective means for promoting reading rate gains for the majority of learners. An additional finding was that reading comprehension was consistently high on both the pretest and posttest; thus, the increased reading rates did not come at the expense of passage comprehension. A final finding was that reading simplified rather than unsimplified texts resulted in greater reading rate gains.

show abstract

“…Their cognitive processing was constrained due to a lack of technical vocabulary and background knowledge that would allow them to understand the ESAP news texts and answer the test questions. Grabe and Stoller (2011) emphasize that as readers transform information from clause-level meaning units to text comprehension, and then to the elaborated situations of reader interpretation, both background knowledge and inferencing ability play important roles in reading. Moreover, contextualizing the ESAP texts and constructing the situation in association with one's own interpretation require the abilities to organize, monitor, reassess, and use strategies to repair comprehension problems when necessary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, it remains unclear how far cognitive operations might be involved in metacognitive and executive control processing in working memory (Baddeley, 2007;Baddeley, Eysenck, & Anderson, 2009). Grabe and Stoller (2011) acknowledge that an executive control processor (or monitor) triggers selective attention while comprehending the reading materials, resulting in readers' own assessment of their understanding of a text and evaluation of strategies. Oxford (2011) supports this view by noting that cognitive strategies follow metacognitive guidance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategy Use for Reading English for General and Specific Academic Purposes in Testing and Nontesting Contexts

Chou

2013

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language‐use strategies are considered potentially effective approaches that learners select to accomplish a second‐ or foreign‐language task. In the past three decades, there has been a proliferation of research concerned with learners' strategy use at different levels of language ability and the influence of L1 learner strategies on L2 language learning. The present study, however, looked at an underresearched topic: what strategies EFL learners adopted to read two types of articles (general and subject‐specific) in both testing and nontesting contexts. Ninety‐two Chinese‐major university students taking a Journalistic English course participated in the study. Questionnaires with follow‐up interviews, and retrospective self‐reports were employed. The results showed that the participants used similar strategies but to different degrees while reading general and subject‐specific articles and taking reading comprehension tests. Also, the participants' comprehension of the two types of reading genres in testing and nontesting situations was, in part, determined by their information‐processing stages and accessibility of schemata. When attempts to use cognitive strategies failed, strategies for monitoring, regulating, and managing information were adopted to compensate for the incomprehension of articles. The findings suggest that effective teaching for intermediate university‐level EFL students like the sample group should encompass a combination of subject‐specific language and content reinforcement followed by strategic reading instruction using subject‐specific articles.

show abstract

Teaching and Researching: Reading

Cited by 422 publications

References 0 publications

A Meta-Analysis of Extensive Reading Research

A Meta-Analysis of Extensive Reading Research

The Effect of Pleasure Reading on Japanese University EFL Learners’ Reading Rates

Strategy Use for Reading English for General and Specific Academic Purposes in Testing and Nontesting Contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About