Studies on Reading Strategies and Teaching Literary Works: Interactive Model in Readers Theater

Chin-ching Lee Lecturer, Department of English Language, Da-Yeh University

Abstract
Reading is a complex cognitive activity. In this case, fluent reading is the product of long-term efforts and improvement. should be adopted. This paper begins with the discussion of three pedagogical and theoretical issues in reading, including Bottom-up Model, Top-down Model, and Interactive Model. Then a discussion of i+1 input proposed by Stephen Krashen will be integrated with literary work teaching. Readers Theater is an instructional activity; its inherent interactive model, embodies by its script-writing and repeated reading, can enhance students ability of reading literary works Keywords: bottom-up model, i+1 input, interactive model, Readers Theater,top-down model To make EFL reading more efficient and effective, proper teaching materials, reading strategies and teaching approaches

I. Discussion of pedagogical and theoretical issues in reading

Three teaching strategies have been proposed and discussed for their respective benefits and drawbacks: bottom-up, top-down, and interactive. Aebersold & Field (1997) contended that diverse factors would affect which model to adopt, such as the type of text, learners background knowledge, language proficiency, and learning goals. However, before any option chosen, a clear understanding of the three models is a must. (i) Bottom-up strategy Bottom-up approach focuses on the text as the convergence of encoded messages to be deciphered. Instructors who uphold bottom-up processing focus on how learners extract information from the printed page, and on whether or not learners deal
181

Studies on Reading Strategies and Teaching Literary Works:Interactive Model in Readers Theater

with letters and words in a systematic fashion. Therefore, the goals of the bottom-up approach are automatic word recognition and rapid reading rate. word-bound in bottom-up processing (Grabe, 1991). This bottom-up teaching approach has been proved of its effectiveness through eye-movement experiment, and been realized in Grammar-Translation Method, in which native language may be adopted to translate the target language to make sense the whole verbal construction. From the bottom-up viewpoint, therefore, reading is a process of decoding written symbols into their aural equivalents. Its a text-centered move in which texts are the containers of rules and codes to be deciphered. Specifically speaking, in this lower-level reading process (Grabe 1991), readers are passive recipients of textual information. During the decoding process, understanding the hierarchal, linguistic structures of the language promises reading comprehension. The focus is never the meaning of the whole text, but detailed linguistic formsfrom phoneme to lexical, syntactic levels. (ii) top-down strategy As to top-down teaching strategy, the learners prior knowledge is activated, which is capable of enhancing learners language learning, and making possible reading comprehension. In other words, in top-down strategy, content schemata are to be activated; prior knowledge plays a major role in learners comprehension. Carrell (1988) argued that a lack of content schemata activation would lead to insurmountable processing difficulties with second language readers. Hudson (1982) has even argued that a high degree of background knowledge can overcome linguistic deficiency. In addition to prior knowledge as a key point, top-down model is actually a whole-language teaching approach, in which readers focus on the context, and manage to construct meanings in the text (Treiman, 2001). 1991). In this sense, top-down reading strategies contain predicting, inferring, and focusing on meanings (Grabe Reading is actually a psychological guessing game, in the words of Goodman (1970). (iii) interactive strategy To reach the aims, explicit instruction in phonics and spellings is crucial; students should not be

182

The most salient difference between bottom-up and top-down approaches is the role of readers: the previous as passive decoders while the latter as active encoders. Speaking of interactive strategy, two modes of interaction are referred to here: the interaction between bottom-up and top-down, and the interaction between text and reader. The two modes are actually inseparable. These component Grabe (1991) proposed six component skills necessary in reading, including automatic recognition skills, content background knowledge, etc. skills contains both lower-level identification skills and higher-level comprehension and interpretation skillswhich all together make possible fluent, effective reading. In this sense, Carell (1998) asserted that reading is a receptive language processin that it starts with a linguistic surface representation encoded by a writer and ends with meaning which the reader constructs (p12). Such a cognitive view of reading puts both the text and reader at the heart of the reading process. In reading, automatic word decoding is the prerequisite for meaning-construction to come; afterwards, readers decode a message that a writer has encoded into a text. An accurate, successful word-decoding upgrades readers to the stage of connecting information with prior knowledge, so as to reach textual meanings/comprehension eventually (Bramford & Day, 2004). Reading comprehension should be the result of readers Kern (2000) defined reading as a dynamic, Therefore, reading decoding language to thought.

interactive process which produced meanings and derived discourse from texts. Reading is an active, constructive, and meaning-making process. meanings as well (Fielding & Pearson, 1994). Iser (1980) further developed the cognitive view of reading to reader-response theory. In reading process, readers stand at the center; readers prior knowledge and There is textual reading interact. Meanings are thus eventually incited in this way. comprehension is generally associated with the ability to read, and to construct

a dynamic relationship between reader and text, in which reading is a creative process rather than a textual decoding only. The reader is therefore granted an authorial role. Therefore, the interactive model for teaching and reading refers to the dynamic relationship between bottom-up and top-down, between decoding and interpretation, and between text and reader. This approach is best applied to teaching literary works because the reading/teaching goalsinterpretation and meaning constructionare likely to be reached, and the reader/learners are not excluded from the text/learning process.

183

Studies on Reading Strategies and Teaching Literary Works:Interactive Model in Readers Theater

II. i + 1 input & literary works teaching

(i) the idea of i+1 input Anderson (2000) contended that an efficient literary works reading should comprise both shallow reading processing and deep reading processing. The notion of shallow and deep processing comes from the study of memory discussed in cognitive psychology. Shallow processing recognizes new information on the superficial level; this echoes the explicit information drawn from textual reading. Deep processing, however, is meaning-based, which is likely to form a rich, more coherent mental representation; this addresses to the implicit information or inference drawing from textual reading. A fluent reader is capable of completing the two processing mentioned above, and then satisfies the requirements of literary works reading. Likewise, pedagogy for teaching literary works should comprise both the bottom-up and top-down approaches; the interactive approach is the key. With bottom-up instruction, students wont get word-bound or incapable of any further thinking activities; with top-down instruction, students wont be trapped in linguistic activities only, without any venue for interpretation and guessing game. In addition to pedagogy, teaching materials (input) is also a factor for L2 teaching. Krashen (1981) proposed Input Hypothesis to explain how learners The main concern is acquisition, not learning-- in acquire a second language. teaching/learning.

other word, input transformed into intake is a presupposition for effective According to Input Hypothesis, the learner, in the direction toward improvement and progression, should receive second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. This 'i + 1' input can ensure the lowest anxiety and defensiveness, and in consequence the best acquisition will occur. Speaking of texts, literary works are verbal constructs stratified within (Bakhtin 265). In addition to explicit information on the textual surface, implicit information is hidden between the lines, expected to be disclosed by inference-drawing. To achieve complete reading comprehension, readers should get the two-level information of literary works . In view of reading as a meaning-constructed process in multi-leveled texts,

184

literary works can be considered for language instruction. Brumfit & Carter (1986) proposed that literature can encourage in students abilities to interpret, to construct meanings, and to provoke thought. In reading literary texts, students can learn how to integrate information, draw inference, and think critically. Very often Taiwanese EFL readers perform insufficient reading processes while reading English literary texts. Their reading processes are abortive in that implicit All these affect Taiwanese information is bypassed, and critical reading is deterred. EFL readers comprehension of literary texts. (ii) Readers Theater Based on the prerequisites that efficient reading can be cultivated, and that literary texts contains within stratified information, proper texts should be chosen at 'i + 1' level, and instruction should comprise both bottom-up and top-down models. expectations. Readers Theater (RT) is a pedagogical activity for teaching literary works. In classroom, teachers firstly introduce the literary work, its author and contextual background. Then traditional teacher-centered instruction is launched to acquaint students with the text. Afterwards, students are asked to, based on the literary work, write a script, rehearse, and then act it out. RT is in fact a cooperative learning, in which students benefit from each other in language learning and literary work interpretation. Besides, the embedded activities of script writing and repeated reading can not only enhance students lower-level language abilities, such as word recognition, but also advance students language ability and critical thinking because of the reciprocal relationship between reading and writing in script-writing activities. The interactive model of reading and teaching, between reader and text, and between top-down and bottom-up, can really be acted out by adopting RT in literary work teaching. In this sense, Readers Theater can be a way to fulfill all these requirements and

III. Teaching plan:

Bai (2007) considered the top-down teaching approach the best for teaching literary works to EFL students. However, my experience goes for the interactive processing to be more proper in that it integrates within both top-down and bottom-up approaches, and also both text and reader.

185

Studies on Reading Strategies and Teaching Literary Works:Interactive Model in Readers Theater

(i) teacher-centered lecturing & bilingual vocabulary list Take teaching Alfred Tennysons The Lady of Shalott as an example. The instructor is firstly to have a 2-hour lecturing. Age), and authors contextual time (Victorian Age). literary text. In the first hour, there will be a brief introduction to Alfred Tennyson the poet, the textual time (King Arthur This is because students need to activate their prior knowledge of the topic related before they begin to read the If students have no sufficient prior knowledge, they should be given at least minimal background knowledge from which interpreting the text is possible. Then, while discussing the literary work, a bilingual vocabulary list is offered. This is to make students not word-bound. Many students find the first and most When difficult obstacle in literary works is the vocabulary beyond recognition.

students bottom-up processing is insufficient because of too many insurmountable words, they cannot conduct higher-level interpretation and meaning construction, which literary works are ultimately aimed for. During the instruction in EFL classroom for literary works, teachers can interpret the literary works more completely in native language. Interpretation is actually not only a language process, but a thinking process as well. Therefore, the traditional Grammar-Translation Method will be adopted, which is to clearly display the literary work interpretation, and also initiate the potential interaction between the text and the readers/students. (ii) Readers Theater activity 1: script writing After the instruction of the literary work, students are asked to cooperate in reading the text, writing a script, and then acting it out. Here writing a script based on the literary text is an interactive model especially proposed for its potential benefits. In fact, reading and writing are two cognitive skills, which can reciprocally influence each other. Kern (2000) found that an efficient pedagogy should have the relationship between reading, writing, and talking overlapping, as shown in Figure 1.

186

Figure 1: The relationship of reading, writing, and talking in a literacy-based curriculum

This overlapping relation will be more effective in language teaching than traditional linear relationship of reading-talking-writing taught separately, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Traditional linear relationship of reading-talking-writing

Kern (2000) contended that the pedagogical combinations of reading, talking and writing can not only enhance language skills and produce a greater awareness of language itself, but also elicit discourse processing and critical reading. skillsreading, speaking, listening and writing, are bridged. In the overlapping pedagogy, the traditional divisions among the four language What is more, the gap that separate language teaching from literature teaching can be bridged as well.

187

Studies on Reading Strategies and Teaching Literary Works:Interactive Model in Readers Theater

Readers Theater is therefore an option for such instructional goals. (iii) Readers Theater activity 2: repeated reading/script rehearsal Script rehearsal is a kind of repeated reading. This is a required move in RT. Many researchers agreed that repeated readings improve word recognition, word decoding, accuracy, and consequently, reading fluency (OShea, Sindelar, & OShea, 1985; Stoddard et al., 1993). reading fluency. firmly embraced. Harris & Hodges (1995), however, expanded reading fluency to comprehension level, defining it as freedom from word identification problems that might hinder comprehension. In other words, reading fluency built up in repeated reading deliberates the brain for comprehending what is actually being read, and ultimately leads to reading comprehension. Pikulski & Chard (2005) also find a reciprocal relationship within this cause-effect ties among repeated reading, reading fluency and reading comprehension. That repeated reading may enhance reading comprehension is confirmed too. (iv) Readers Theater activity 3: script performance The final script performance, based on the literary work discussed, is the last activity conducted in Readers Theater. This final activity actually embodies the interactive model between reader and text, and also between top-down and bottom-up model. The performance is to disclose students/readers interpretation of the text; besides, the process also pushes students toward fast, accurate reading and automatic word recognition. The Report of the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) even recommended repeated reading be an efficient procedure to develop The close relation between repeated reading and reading fluency is

IV. Conclusion
As Grabe (1991) proposed, an ideal reading instruction should be a content-centered, integrated skills curriculum (p.396); teaching literary works is an option, whose content provides students motivation and enjoyment, and whose integration of skills reinforces language learning. Besides, Readers Theater can be an instructional strategy, which contains within an interactive model between reader and text, and between bottom-up (by repeated reading) and top-down (by script-writing). Integration of language teaching and literature teaching can therefore be fulfilled and promising.

188

Reference
Aebersold, J. A. & Field, M. L. Cambridge UP. Anderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, UL: Cambridge UP. 4(7), 27-31. Bai, Qui-mei. (2007). Study on Reading Strategies in College English Teaching: Top-down or Bototm-up? Sino-US English Teaching. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) Discourse in the Novel. (259-422) Texas: Texas UP. Bamford, J. & Day, R.R. (2004). Cambridge UP. Brumfit, C. & Carter, R. (1986). Carrell, P. L. (1988). English Literature and English Language. Oxford: Oxford UP. In Literature and Language Teaching. (pp.2-21) language reading classrooms. NY:Cambridge UP. Fielding, L.G., & Pearson, P.D. (1994) Reading Comprehension: What Works. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62-67. Goodman K. (1970) Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game. In H. Singer, & R. Ruddell (Eds.) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, P259-272. Grabe, W. (1991). Research. Neward, DE: International Reading Association. Current Developments in Second Language Reading TESOL Quarterly 25(3), 375-406. A Cognitive View of Reading. In Extensive Reading Activities for Teaching Language. (pp.10-20) Cambridge, UK: In The Dialogic Imagination. (1997). From Reader to Reading Teacher: Melbourne: Issues and Strategies for Second Language Classroom.

Interactive Text Processing: Implications for ESL/second In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey

(Eds.)Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. (PP. 239-259).

Harris, T.L. & Hodges, R.E. (1995). The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Associaton. Hudson, T. (1982). The Effect of Induced Schemata on the Short-Circuit in 32, 1-31. L2 Reading: Non-decoding Factors in L2 Reading Performance. Language Learning Iser, W. Kern, R. (1980). (2000). Johns Hopkins UP. Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP. Second Language Acquisiton and Second Language Krashen, S. (1981). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore:

189

Studies on Reading Strategies and Teaching Literary Works:Interactive Model in Readers Theater

Learning. Oxford: Pergamon P. National Institute of Child Health and Huan Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (NIH Publication NO. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. OShea, L. J., OShea, D. J., & Sindelar, P. T. (1985). The effects of repeated reading and attentional cues on reading fluency and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 129-142. Pikulski, J.J., & Chard, D.J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510-519.

Stoddard, K., Valcante, G., Sindelar, P., OShea, L., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Increasing Reading Rate and Comprehension: The Effects of Repeated Readings, Sentence Segmentation, and Intonation Training.Reading Research and Instruction, 32(4), 53-65. Treiman, R. (2001) Reading. Blackwell Handbook England:Blackwell. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.) of Linguistic. (pp. 664-672). Oxford,

190

(Bottom-up Model) (Top-down Model) (Interactive Model)Stephen Krashen +1(i+1 input) (Readers Theater) : +1

191