Adrian (aka Dr E) wrote:

> My feeling is that students often dislike reading in L2 because they find
> it difficult. Why do they find it difficult, partly because of new
> vocabulary and different syntax, but I would also say that it may well be
> that they don't have a particular skill that we employ when we read.
>
"My feeling...I would say....it may well be..."

And pigs may fly, too. Enough "feelings" and "maybes", Dr E! Let's have some
facts. Here are some facts - or at least, some research findings - about
reading and the transfer of reading skills from L1 to L2 (cannibalised from
an article by Catherine Walter (yes, THE Catherine Walter) whose title - and
gist - is: "Transfer of Reading Comprehension Skills to L2 is Linked to
Mental Representations of Text and to L2 Working Memory" in Applied
Linguistics 25/3, 2004.

She starts by reviewing the research evidence that suggests that there is a
"threshold effect" in the transfer of reading skills from L1 to L2, i.e.
transfer is not a continous, incremental process, but kicks in at a critical
"turning point". It has been often noted, for example, that the ability of
low level learners to understand text lags behind their ability to
understand individual sentences. At some point - post-intermediate level -
this gap closes. What might be the cause of this? It could, of course, be
that they haven't been trained (by dr E) in microskills, such as skimming
and scanning. Or it could be that they don't have a critical mass of
language (e.g. vocabulary and grammar) to sustain them "beyond the
sentence". CW argues that, in order to investigate possible causes, it is
necessary first to explain what is meant by "understanding". From cogntiive
psychology she borrows the view that "comprehension involves the building
of coherent mental representations or structures for texts". As the reader
begins to read a text(or as the listener begins to listen to one) the
foundation of a structure is laid down, and subsequent information, if
deemed relevant, is mapped on to that foundation. New elements are fitted
into the approrpiate place in the developing structure. As each new element
is integrated, it activates preceding related elements, reinforces them, and
makes therm easier to recall. Poor comprehension, on the other hand, results
from a failure to build a cohesive and reliable structure, as a result of
failing to see the links between new informaiton and the exisiting
structure. "A failure to link appropriately even once or twice at crucial
early points in the building of the mental representation might be enough to
prevent the building of a cohesive structure, and hence to prevent recall of
earlier information". Failure to recall informaiton results in failed
understanding. This happens in L1 reading and it has been shown that there
is a strong correlation between low working memory and poor reading
comprehension. It seems that - for a while at least - the L2 reader is also
unable to activate working memory effectively. Walter tested the reading
ability and working memory of two groups of readers in both their L1 and L2.
Her research showed that learners who were skilled comprhenders in their L1
differed in their ability to transfer their comprehesnion skills to L2. The
difference correlated with their language level: a lower intermediate group
failed to transfer their L1 ability to build cohesive representations of
texts, even when the texts were comprehensible at a sentece-by-sentence
level. An upper-intermedate group, on the other hand, were able to do so.
She concludes: "If successful structure building is accomplished in L1 but
not in L2, it is not the ability to build mental structures that is absent,
what is lacking is the ATTAINMENT OF SOME LEVEL OF L2 ABILITY which acts as
a precondition for the structure-building skill to operate" (emphasis
added).

Unfortunately, she doesn't suggest what this level of L2 abiltiy might
consist of , apart from showing that structure building does seem to relate
to the ability to connect pronouns with their referents even over large
stretches of text. Clearly, there must be more to it and this, and
recognising discourse markers must also be critical. But I also imagine
there is a speed effect: the slower you read, the quicker you forget. This
is not an argument for skimming and scanning, since you are just as likely
to ignore crucial information by skimming or scanning as you are by simply
not recognising a word or phrase. As in spoken fluency, speed is probably a
funciton of recognising not just individual words but chunks of words:
fluent reading is structure-building based on a chunk-by-chunk, rather than
a word-by-word, processing of the text. This is why learners invariably
understand texts more thoroughly and more quickly when they are READ ALOUD
to them by a profiicient reader (e.g. the teacher but NOT another learner of
their same level), where the chunking is done for them in the form of tone
groups and relevant pauses. Reading aloud to learners (as they follow the
text) or getting them to follow subtitles on movies or TV, or reading
messages in online chat, helps develop reading fluency, as does the strategy
of "reading on", i.e. not dwelling on unfamilair words but reading on to see
if the meaning of the unfamiliar word will be revealed in the co-text. These
principles underly the "reading recovery" approach to L1 reading as
developed in NZ by Marie Clay and Courtney Cazden. They advocate a "whole
reading" approach, and write: "For all children, the larger the chunks of
printed language they can work with, the richer the network of information
they can use and the quicker they can learn. Teaching should only dwell on
detail long enough for the child to discover its existence and then
encourage the use of it in isolation only when absolutely necessary". (But
again I insist this does not mean encouraging skimming and scanning, which
are skills appropriate only to certain kinds of texts, and, if applied to
the wrong type of texts may actually encourage non-reading, as oppsoed to
reading). A key element of the "reading recovery" cycle is RE-reading texts:
just as repeating speaking tasks develops spoken fluency, re-reading texts
can help develop reading fluency. (Think how often children re-hear and
re-read fairy stories, for example).

To sum up: reading ability depends on the reader's capacity to hold a mental
representation of a given text in working memory. This in turn seems to
depend on overall language proficiency and (perhaps) on ther abiltiy to
process etxt at the level of chunks rather rather than indvidual words. The
capacity to transfer L1 readign skills to the L2 may be facilitiated by
activities that encourage processing at speed, and that encourage informed
(rather than wild) guessing. None of this vindicates a microskills approach
(ie breaking reading down into such skills as predicting, skimming, scanning
etc, and practising these in isolation). Rather, reading develops through a)
having a critical mass of language (vocabulary, grammar) and b) fluent
practice. Reading coursebook texts in class is probably a poor way of
developing the latter. Better to read extensively out of class, in the way
that is advocated in books like Extensive Reading Activities for Language
Teaching (Bamford and Day), and use reading activities in class mainly as
preparation and motivation for these kinds of activities.

S.