Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rill20

Using literature circles to teach graded readers in

English: an investigation into reading performance
and strategy use

Mu-Hsuan Chou

To cite this article: Mu-Hsuan Chou (2021): Using literature circles to teach graded readers in
English: an investigation into reading performance and strategy use, Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching, DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2021.1885412

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1885412

Published online: 14 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 70

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rill20
INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1885412

Using literature circles to teach graded readers in English:

an investigation into reading performance and strategy use
Mu-Hsuan Chou
Department of Foreign Language Instruction, Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose: Graded readers can help English language learners to improve Received 30 November 2020
their reading ability. Literary texts with simplified language often differ Accepted 31 January 2021
from expository texts for teaching EFL learners. Although reading
KEYWORDS
strategies have been used to facilitate comprehension, how students Literature circle; graded
use strategies to process literary texts is underexplored. The present reader; reading
study investigates the effect of graded readers, literature circles (LCs) comprehension; reading
and reading strategies on university students in Taiwan. strategy; EFL intermediate
Design/Methodology: This study adopted a quasi-experimental design learner
with 60 first-year students reading two graded readers from the Oxford
Bookworms collections. Of the 60 participants, 30 were in the control
group and the other 30 who received the LC intervention were in the
experimental group. Reading comprehension tests and a questionnaire
for reading strategies were adopted.
Findings: The findings revealed that the students with the LC
intervention outperformed the control group. The tasks in the LC were
found to promote reading comprehension and strategy practice. In
general, though reading strategies were similarly adopted, monitoring
strategies were more frequently used by the experimental group.
Originality/Value: LCs offered EFL learners a way to build linguistic and
cultural schemata, to develop and practice metacognitive reading
strategies, to enhance main-idea comprehension, and to form long-term
memories for retention.

Introduction
In the secondary and tertiary levels of education in Taiwan, reading ability has a dominant role in the
development of the four language skills (listening, reading, speaking, and writing) in English
language education. Reading texts are generally categorised into two types: expository and narrative
texts (Alderson 2000; Hill 2008; Wolfe and Mienko 2007). Expository texts usually have clear specific
structures (e.g. causation, comparison, problem/solution, and argumentation) and a greater variety
of topical content and subject-specific vocabulary, such as in academic/specific purpose texts (EAP/
ESP). Processing expository texts requires the activation and integration of relevant prior knowledge
to facilitate comprehension. Literary or narrative texts, on the other hand, follow the course of a the-
matic event that holds the structure together (Blake 1985; Wolfe and Mienko 2007) and focus on
understanding the story’s organisation of character and events.
Over the last two decades in Taiwan, English reading tests in the high-stakes College Entrance
Examination (CEE) adopted mainly expository texts (College Entrance Examination Center 2020).
While there is a tendency for these national English tests and the EAP/ESP courses at Taiwan’s uni-
versities to incorporate expository texts (Chou 2013; College Entrance Examination Center 2020),

CONTACT Mu-Hsuan Chou mhchou@gmail.com

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M.-H. CHOU

narrative texts with simplified grammars, such as graded readers, are frequently used as extensive
reading material in English classes.
By definition, graded readers are a series of books written for learners of English using controlled
lexis (frequent and useful vocabulary) and syntax (simplified grammars) from beginning to advanced
stages (Hill 2008). Graded readers have been used as extensive reading material to expose English as
a Second and Foreign Language (ESL and EFL) learners to a more input-rich English environment
where students read for gist, fluency, and pleasure (Grabe 2009; Hill 2008; Macalister 2014). Numer-
ous studies have dealt with (1) the benefits of extensive reading and graded readers on positive
learner attitudes and motivation for learning (e.g. Al-Homoud and Schmitt 2009; Taguchi,
Takayasu-Maass, and Gorsuch 2004), (2) textual authenticity (Allen 2009; Claridge 2005), and (3)
the effects of graded readers on language acquisition (e.g. Green 2005; Waring and Takaki 2003;
Webb and Chang 2015). Despite its benefits, however, extensive reading without pedagogical inter-
vention and teacher supervision has been criticised for its limited effect on promoting language
acquisition, comprehension, and reading strategies (Green 2005; Hill 2008; Macalister 2014; Renan-
dya 2007). To address this deficiency, literature circles (LCs) are used as a pedagogical approach to
linking second/foreign language acquisition with learner engagement and so increase reading com-
prehension (McElvain 2010; Shelton-Strong 2012). Although extensive reading with graded readers
features autonomous learning of numerous texts, comparatively little research has focused on how
LCs impact reading comprehension and how EFL students process graded readers in LCs.
In addition to teaching graded readers, the strategies students use to comprehend literary texts
and deal with problems remain underexplored. For this reason, the present study investigates the
effect of literature circles and graded readers on university students and explores the students’
reading strategies. The study should broaden our understanding of how LCs can help teach
reading and enhance comprehension, how EFL learners carry out LC tasks, and what strategies
are perceived as essential for reading literary texts.

Literature circles (LCs) in graded readers

Literature circles are small peer-led discussion groups whose members choose (or are assigned) to
read the same story or book, make notes to summarise information, and meet regularly to share
interpretations of what they have read (Daniels 2002; Furr 2004; Shelton-Strong 2012). To create a
cooperative, responsible, and pleasurable environment for students to read, the beginning of the
1990s saw a number of attempts to implement LCs in the L1 classroom in the USA. In subsequent
years, several studies investigated the effectiveness of LCs for increasing reading motivation, com-
prehension, and encouraging active learning attitudes in L1 contexts (Burns 1998; Mills and Jennings
2011; Pearson 2010; Scott 1994). Researchers found that LCs provide a medium for students: (1) to
converse about literature, (2) to share personal responses, (3) to enhance understanding, and (4) to
see their own growth during participation. According to Daniels (2002, 18), LCs in L1 contexts typi-
cally contain the following features:

(1) Students choose their own materials. (*)

(2) Small temporary groups are formed, based on book choice. (*)
(3) Different groups read different books. (*)
(4) When books are finished, readers share the results with their classmates, and then new groups
form around new reading choices. (*)
(5) Groups meet on a regular, predictable schedule to discuss their reading.
(6) Students use written or drawn notes to guide both their reading and discussions.
(7) Discussion topics come from the students.
(8) Group meetings aim to be open, natural conversations about books, so personal connections,
digressions, and open-ended questions are welcome.
(9) The teacher serves as a facilitator, not as a group member or instructor.
 INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 3

(10) Evaluation is by teacher observation and student self-evaluation.

(11) A spirit of playfulness and fun characterises the LC.

Concerning the differences in learning needs and objectives between L1 and EFL students, Furr
(2004) states that the first four features (with an asterisk) in the EFL classroom should be replaced
with the following:

(1) Instructors select materials appropriate for their students.

(2) Small temporary groups are formed according to student choice or at the instructor’s discretion.
(3) Different groups are usually reading the same text.
(4) When books are finished, readers may prepare a group project and/or the instructor may provide
additional information to ‘fill in some of the gaps’ in student understanding (Furr calls this ‘back-
loading the instruction’).

To guide the reading and discussion of students (Daniels 2002), there are six task roles:

(1) Discussion leader: prepares at least five questions, asks questions and maintains the interaction of
the discussion
(2) Summariser: makes notes about the characters, events, and ideas, paraphrases the story, and
talks about the summary in the discussion
(3) Connector: looks for connections between the story content and real people and events based
on personal experiences, and invites comments and questions
(4) Word master: looks for new and/or important words and/or short phrases in the story, and
explains vocabulary
(5) Passage person: chooses important and interesting passages relating to the plot and explains the
characters to group members
(6) Culture collector: looks for cultural similarities and differences between the reader’s culture and
the story; invites comments and asks questions from group members

It is recommended that students rotate through different roles for different sections of the story.
For example, if a student acts as a discussion leader in the first assignment of reading, say, Chapters
1–3, he/she will act as a summariser in the second assignment. Through experiencing different roles,
students can engage with narrative texts in various ways. For processing reading texts, van Dijk and
Kintsch (1983) propose three levels of memory representation of text information: surface structure,
textbase, and situation models. Surface structure is the basic mental representation of the text’s literal
wording; the textbase level organises and represents the meaning of the text and transfers the
knowledge to what the reader already possesses (Wolfe and Woodwyk 2010); and the situation
model refers a mental representation to a higher level in which readers make inferences, incorporate
content into their knowledge, and add to their mental representation. To complete the tasks via the
six roles in LCs, participants process the three levels of memory representation by understanding the
texts, negotiating and interpreting their meaning, both by themselves and with group members, and
transferring knowledge to expand existing schemata. Although LCs have been around for almost 30
years, they have attracted interest in EFL classrooms only recently (e.g. Awada, Ghaith, and Diab
2020; Fredricks 2012; Hsu 2004; Li 2010; Shelton-Strong 2012). For example, studies by Fredricks
(2012) and Li (2010) explored the role of LCs as a medium for integrating the cultural aspects of
stories into the students’ cultures. Similarly, studies by Hsu (2004) and Shelton-Strong (2012)
show how EFL students respond to literary texts in LCs and how LCs provide students with new
and positive, albeit unfamiliar, reading and cultural experiences. Still, until recently, no research
has inquired into (1) the effect of LCs on intermediate EFL university students’ reading comprehen-
sion, (2) the relationship between reading strategy and LCs as an instructional method, and (3) how
far LCs influence the mental representation of narrative text information.
4 M.-H. CHOU

Reading strategies
It is well known that using appropriate reading strategies for learning languages helps students to
think about and process the target language in specific contexts (Chamot 2005; Cohen 2007; Oxford
2017). Reading strategies have been classified in different ways. Metacognitive strategies, which are
closely associated with knowledge about readers’ cognition, function as the self-control mechanisms
that readers exercise when planning, organising, monitoring, regulating, and evaluating text com-
prehension based on cognition processes (Mokhtari and Reichard 2002; Oxford 2017). They
involve significant cognitive processing for comprehending the target language and for solving
tasks. Grabe and Stoller (2011) summarise several reading strategies (Grabe 2009; Block and Duffy
2008; Mokhtari, Sheorey, and Richard 2008) and divide them into three types: global, monitoring,
and support reading strategies. Global strategies involve previewing and predicting the text, connect-
ing it to background knowledge, paying attention to structure, inferencing, creating mental images,
and guessing the meaning from context. Monitoring strategies focus on monitoring main-idea com-
prehension, identifying difficulties, re-reading, and reflecting on what has been learned. Support
reading strategies, on the other hand, involve using outside reference materials, such as dictionaries,
notetaking, paraphrasing, summarising, synthesising, and highlighting information in the text. While
reading strategies play an important part in assisting language learners to notice, absorb and inte-
grate information into schemata (Oxford 2017), LC tasks allow language learners to practice the new
language information and associate it with their existing linguistic knowledge and life experiences.
For example, the role of ‘Summariser’ may call for global strategies (e.g. paying attention to text
structure), monitoring strategies (e.g. monitoring main-idea comprehension, re-reading, reflecting),
and support strategies (e.g. paraphrasing, summarising, synthesising, and highlighting information
in the text).
Over the last few decades, research has seen a dramatic increase in the number of studies on (1)
learning strategies and their relationship with reading proficiency (e.g. Chou 2017; Chamot 2005), (2)
the influence of non-linguistic variables such as culture, motivation, or self-efficacy on strategy use
(e.g. Chou 2017; Sheridan and Condon 2020), (3) strategy use in different reading contexts (e.g. Chou
2013; Karimi and Shabani 2013), (4) strategy-based instruction (SBI) in reading classrooms (e.g. Peng
and Goodrich 2020; Sato and Loewen 2018), and (5) text characteristics in language teaching and
learning (e.g. Hebert et al. 2016; Wolfe and Woodwyk 2010). The results generally show that
skilled readers or readers with a high language proficiency tend to use more learning strategies
than less proficient readers do. Furthermore, using reading strategies is strongly tied to learning
motivation and self-efficacy towards the target language; it also varies according to learning and/
or testing purposes. Furthermore, SBI was shown to increase learners’ vocabulary sizes and
improve literacy development. By analysing text structure and characteristics, researchers found
that text structure instruction improves expository reading comprehension. Research also shows
that LCs increase participation and motivation in reading texts, together with cultural understanding
(Al-Homoud and Schmitt 2009; Taguchi, Takayasu-Maass, and Gorsuch 2004). However, because
research into the effect of LCs on graded readers and the relationship between reading strategies
and reading and comprehension progress is scarce, the present study addresses the following
four research questions:

(1) Is there a significant difference in the comprehension scores of graded readers after implementing
(a) LC intervention and (b) story retelling tasks?
(2) Is there a difference in the three types of reading strategy use for the Experimental Group (EG) and
Control Group (CG)?
(3) Which reading strategies are considered (a) most useful and (b) least useful for reading graded
readers in English in both groups? Why?
(4) Which of the six roles in the LC do the students think enhance their reading comprehension ability?
Why?
 INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 5

Research method
Participants
This study involved 60 students from two intact classes taking an EAP reading course at a university
in Taiwan. All 60 participants were first-year university students majoring in modern foreign
languages (English, French, German, Spanish, and Japanese), social science (business administration
and politics), and art and design. One month before taking the EAP reading course, the participants
sat the College Student English Proficiency Test® (CSEPT), a nationwide criterion-referenced test
developed according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment, by the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC) in Taiwan. CSEPT,
which consists of listening, reading, and grammar test items, is a highly dependable test with a
reliability coefficient of .91 (LTTC 2020). For more than 10 years, it has been used as a placement
test to assign students to appropriate levels of study at this university. The 60 participants scored
from 201 to 219 in the CSEPT test and were placed at the same level – Common European Frame-
work of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) B1 Threshold level (low-
intermediate) (LTTC 2020) – of the EAP course. In the present study, the participants’ CSEPT
scores were viewed as one of the pre-tests, and their scores indicated similar English proficiency.
The university randomly divided the 60 participants into two intact classes with 30 in each (30 in
the EG and 30 in the CG) regardless of major.

Course design
The EAP reading course lasted for 18 weeks (an academic semester) with 100 min of reading each
week. The study employed a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design. In addition to the above-
mentioned CSEPT test, a second pre-test was conducted in Week 1 to ensure no statistically signifi-
cant difference in English reading proficiency between the two groups (see the next section). For
both groups, in-class teaching materials included a commercial EAP reading textbook – Active:
Skills for Reading 3 (Anderson 2014) – and two graded readers at Stage 5 (Great Expectations and
The Great Gatsby) from Oxford Bookworms. Graded readers were taught from Week 5–8 (Great Expec-
tations) and Week 10–13 (The Great Gatsby). The post-test was conducted in Week 14. According to
the Oxford Bookworms Library (2020), the language of both readers is rated at the CEFR B2 level with
24,045 and 23,445 words, respectively.

Pre-test
To ensure greater accuracy in assessing students’ English reading ability, another pre-test using the
Oxford Bookworms Level Test was implemented in addition to the CSEPT. In Week 1, the two groups
took the Level Test (Stage 5) that consisted of a narrative text with 30 multiple-choice questions
(Oxford Bookworms Library 2020). An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the
reading comprehension scores for the CG (M = 62.03, SD = 9.95) and the EG (M = 61.23, SD = 10.54;
t (58) = .302, p = .763, two-tailed). Like the CSEPT results, the English reading ability for both
groups via the Oxford Bookworms Level Tests was similar.
After the test, the two groups completed a questionnaire on reading strategy use by Grabe and
Stoller (2011) (Appendix 1). Twenty-nine items covered the three general types of reading strategy:
global, monitoring, and support. The questionnaire was translated into Chinese (the participants’
native language) and piloted with a second group of students in the same study year and English
proficiency level. No problems with wording were reported. The reliability of the questionnaire
was 0.93 by Cronbach’s α. An independent-samples t-test result showed no statistically significant
difference in mean scores for both CG and EG: t (58) = –.391, p = .697 (Global Strategies); t (58)
= –.684, p = .497 (Monitoring Strategies); t (58) = –.680, p = .499 (Support Strategies).
6 M.-H. CHOU

Experimental group
The 30 students in the EG were divided into five groups of six. Students in each group were assigned
one of six roles – Discussion Leader, Summariser, Connector, Word Master, Passage Person, and Culture
Collector – and these rotated each week. The teacher explained each role and what was required in
the worksheets, giving examples when needed. Next, the teacher specified the chapters one week
before LC and all students read the same chapters. Although participants could finish reading the
graded reader before the LCs, they would not know which roles they were assigned and which chap-
ters they needed to read until one week before the LC.
To prepare for the LCs, participants were required to finish the worksheets, which could be down-
loaded from the Oxford Bookworms Library (2020), printed/photocopied, and brought to class for
group discussion. After the discussion, the teacher nominated three to four students for the same
role, say, ‘Culture Collector’, to share what they found with the class. By the end of the LC each
week, the teacher gave general feedback to the students’ six roles and suggestions on their
worksheets.

Control group
While the EG received LC tasks, the CG carried out story-retell tasks, following the retelling procedure
modified from Alderson (2000). A story retelling technique is one type of free-recall test (also known
as immediate-recall tests), and is viewed as a popular classroom assessment task for reading com-
prehension (Alderson 2000; Bellinger and DiPerna 2011; Cohen, Krustedt, and May 2009). In a retell-
ing task, students are asked to read a text, put it aside, and retell immediately what they have read
(Alderson 2000; Bellinger and DiPerna 2011). This type of task is common with K-12 pupils in L1 con-
texts (Alderson 2000; Bellinger and DiPerna 2011; Cohen, Krustedt, and May 2009; Reed and Vaughn
2012). The rationale behind retelling is that text information is assimilated, recalled, and recon-
structed in a meaningful way by readers, and retelling reflects their comprehension (Cohen, Krustedt,
and May 2009; Klingner 2004; van den Broek and Kremer 2000).
One week before teaching the graded readers, the students drew lots to retell the stories. Of the
30 participants, approximately 7–8 students retold the story every week, and another 7–8 continued
the story the following week until the story was finished. Unlike the immediate recall protocol carried
out in L1 contexts (Alderson 2000), CG participants were given one week to memorise a part of the
story. The two graded readers contained 24,045 and 23,445 words, and each student retold part of
the story in approximately 800 words. CG participants retold the story either by using the same
wording as the two readers or by replacing the content words with synonyms. Although the partici-
pants could finish reading the graded reader before retelling the story, they did not know which part
they were to retell until they drew lots one week before retelling. They were required to retell the
story in front of their classmates and notes were not allowed. At the end of the story retelling
each week, the CG received a text-based instruction involving the teacher reading, explaining,
and analysing texts to help participants understand their meaning. Also, they were nominated to
answer reading comprehension questions prepared by the teacher. CG participants were expected
to finish the story for the post-test, which formed part of their total score in this EAP course (the same
as EG), regardless of the parts they retold.

Post-test
After finishing the two graded readers, participants answered the same reading strategy question-
naire they had completed in Week 1, to see if there was any variation in the two groups using
the three types of strategy. By the end of the questionnaire of the EG, an open-ended question
asked which role in the LC they thought enhanced their reading comprehension ability. The partici-
pants were required to choose the role and explain in sentences their reasons for doing so. Their
 INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 7

responses were analysed based on the frequency of the roles chosen, and any similarities and differ-
ences were given in their reasons. While the purpose of the pre-tests was to measure whether the
English reading proficiency between the two groups was similar, the post-test was designed to
measure the participants’ reading comprehension of the two graded readers. To evaluate the
reliability and validity of the post-test, the post-test items were modified from the Oxford Book-
worms Comprehension Tests (Oxford Bookworms Library 2020), validated, and piloted an academic
year before the present study was conducted. In the Oxford Bookworms Comprehension Tests, mul-
tiple-choice, true or false, match, and gap-filling items with unique answers were utilised, and these
test techniques ensured the objectivity and reliability of the scoring. In total, 100 items asked about
the setting, characters, dialogue, and plots, divided equally between Great Expectations and The
Great Gatsby. Figure 1 summarises and illustrates the procedure of the two groups.
To validate the test content, the 100-item test was given to two teachers who taught the same
course. The teachers gave a few suggestions regarding the wording of the questions and the
options in the multiple-choice items. The test was revised and given again to the same teachers
to enhance its content validity. Next, the test was piloted and students were asked to highlight
any questions and wording they found ambiguous. After the test, students reported no specific pro-
blems with test items. The students’ test scores were then assessed using a split-half method, with a
Guttman Split-Half coefficient of .854 for Great Expectations items and .837 for The Great Gatsby
items.

Results
Descriptive statistics
For both CG and EG participants, the descriptive statistics of reading strategies in Appendix 1
showed that monitoring and support strategies were more frequently adopted than global strat-
egies. The top three most frequent monitoring strategies were (1) monitoring main-idea comprehen-
sion, (2) identifying difficulties, and (3) judging how well objectives were met. As for support
strategies, the participants frequently employed (1) mental translations, (2) paraphrasing, and (3)
using the dictionary. In the case of global strategies, (1) guessing meaning from context, (2)
making inferences, and (3) predicting, were most commonly used.

Control group
Of the 30 CG participants, 90% retold the story using the same words in the two readers. The remain-
ing 10% paraphrased the texts, using their own words. On average, it took each student five minutes
to retell their part of the story (approximately 800 words in English).
RQ1: Is there a significant difference in the reading comprehension scores for the two groups of participants?

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the reading comprehension scores for
the CG and EG. For the CG, there was a statistically significant difference in scores (M = 66.23, SD =
10.96) and the EG (M = 77.07, SD = 7.80; t (58) = –4.41, p < .0005, two-tailed). The magnitude of the
differences in the means was 10.84, with a large effect size (eta squared = 0.25).1
RQ2: Is there a difference in reading strategy use for university students in the CG and EG?

The pre-test result of the questionnaire survey indicated no statistically significant difference in
mean scores for the two groups. The post-test of the questionnaire was conducted in Week 13
after the two groups had finished the second graded reader. Paired-sample t-tests were conducted
to evaluate the impact of the intervention on the two groups of students’ scores on the three types
of reading strategy; that is, global, monitoring, and support. In general, all three strategies show stat-
istically significant increases for both groups (Table 1).
8 M.-H. CHOU

Figure 1. Summary of the teaching procedure for Control and Experimental Groups.
 INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 9

Table 1. Paired-samples t-test of reading strategies in the pre- and post-test.

Mean (SD)
Group Strategy Pre-test Post-test t df Sig. (two-tailed) Eta squared
CG Global 38.63 (5.24) 41.03 (5.41) –23.34 29 .000 .95
Monitoring 16.37 (2.80) 17.73 (3.10) –13.46 29 .000 .86
Support 20.63 (4.47) 23.07 (4.96) –18.31 29 .000 .92
EG Global 39.27 (7.16) 43.67 (7.37) –48.37 29 .000 .99
Monitoring 16.83 (2.48) 19.70 (3.00) –19.16 29 .000 .93
Support 21.33 (3.44) 24.30 (3.93) –19.11 29 .000 .93

Next, independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the scores for the three reading
strategies for the CG and EG in the post-test. There was a statistically significant difference in scores
for ‘Monitoring Reading Strategies’ for the CG (M = 17.73, SD = 3.10) and the EG (M = 19.70, SD = 3.00;
t (58) = –1.97, p = .015, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the mean was 2.97, with a
medium effect size (eta squared = 0.10). For ‘Global Strategies’, there was no significant difference
in scores for the CG (M = 41.03, SD = 5.41) and EG (M = 43.67, SD = 7.37; t (58) = –1.58, p = .120,
two-tailed). Similarly, there was no significant difference in ‘Support Strategy’ scores for the CG
(M = 23.07, SD = 4.96) and EG (M = 24.30, SD = 3.93; t (58) = –1.07, p = .290, two-tailed).
RQ3: Which reading strategies were considered (a) most useful and (b) least useful for the two groups reading
the graded readers? Why?

In the last section of the questionnaire, both groups were asked two open-ended questions indi-
cating which reading strategy they considered to be the most and least useful for reading graded
readers and to give reasons why. Of the 29 strategies in the questionnaire, the most and least
useful reading strategies were selected by both groups (Table 2), which was unexpected. The four
top useful strategies chosen by both groups were: creating mental images (10–11 students/
group), using the dictionary (5 students/group), underlining or highlighting (4–5 students/group),
and notetaking (3–4 students/group).
The most useful reading strategy for reading graded readers was to create mental images. Par-
ticipants in both groups explained that creating mental images facilitated understanding, mem-
orising storylines, and remembering specific events that happened in the stories, and these in
turn increased reading speed. For dictionary use, many participants said that due to their
limited English vocabulary, looking up words was an efficient way to understand the story.
Also, underlining or highlighting texts in the graded readers helped students to remember
and memorise the story content, retrieve important ideas and details quickly, and synthesise
main points from different chapters. As with underlining and highlighting, participants considered
notetaking a useful strategy for comprehension and memorisation, particularly for longer texts (as
in the graded readers).
Apart from the abovementioned reading strategies, both groups reported critiquing the author
and/or text (5–6 students/group) and using graphic organisers (GOs) (5–6 students/group) as the
least useful strategies. To these participants, the process of reading comprehension by critiquing
the author and text did not enhance comprehension. The students claimed that readers should
learn to see and digest the story content from the author’s perspective. If the readers hastily
judged the story, this would lead to misunderstanding or misinterpreting its content. In the case

Table 2. Self-reported most and least useful strategies for reading graded readers.
Most useful strategies Least useful strategies
No. 11 – Creating mental images No. 15 – Critiquing the author, the text
No. 22 – Using the dictionary No. 27 – Using graphic organisers
No. 26 – Underlining or highlighting
No. 23 – Notetaking
10 M.-H. CHOU

of GOs, the participants claimed that it was more efficient to picture the relationship between char-
acters and to create a narrative timeline than to generate GOs themselves. They also emphasised
that producing a GO required a thorough understanding of the story – if they managed to compre-
hend the story, they would not need to generate a time-consuming GO. Two students pointed out
that they preferred verbal descriptions through note-taking or summaries to graphics.
RQ4: Which of the six roles in the LC do the students think enhance their reading comprehension ability? Why?

In the EG, every participant experienced all six roles at least once. When asked which role in LCs
most enhanced their reading comprehension, four were emphasised: Summariser (12 students),
Connector (5 students), Passage Person (5 students), and Culture Collector (5 students). The partici-
pants said that to summarise part of the story, select its main points, and synthesise them logically
required understanding the story completely and reading parts of the story multiple times. By
writing summaries in their own words, their impressions of the stories deepened and they
became more familiar with them. Worksheet samples from the role of summariser are provided in
Appendix 2. When taking the role of Connector, the participants complained about not knowing
what the links between their lives and the story’s fictional lives (usually in the past) were, or how
to connect them. After the guidance and assistance from the teacher and examples from their class-
mates, the participants reported that they became more interested and involved in the story since
they learned to connect the story content with their experiences. This helped them see the story
from the author’s perspective (Appendix 3).
For the role of ‘Passage Person’, participants answered that choosing key passages helped them
grasp the main ideas of the story and this made it easier to review the story for tests (Appendix 4).
Last but not least, the participants considered Culture Collector essential for integrating themselves
into the cultures of the stories and in apprehending stories from different angles (Appendix 5).
Though a few participants raised issues about difficulties in imagining western cultures in the
past, they managed to find some similarities and differences between East and West and
between past and present. Compared with the four roles, Discussion Leader and Word Master
were not reported as effective roles in enhancing reading comprehension by the participants.

Discussion
Statistical analysis reveals that EG with LC instruction produced higher reading comprehension
scores and more frequent monitoring strategies than CG that conducted the story retelling tasks.
Of the 29 reading strategies, the findings from Research Question 3 show both groups reporting
that creating mental images is the best strategy for comprehending and recalling storylines and
specific events and that these, in turn, increase reading speed. Research has consistently shown
that the construction of mental images encourages the use of prior knowledge as part of creating
vivid representations of narrative and informational texts (Boerma, Mol, and Jolles 2016; Gambrell
and Jawitz 1993; Leopold and Mayer 2015). Students use imagery skills to integrate information
from words and images, which contributed to successful reading comprehension. In particular,
researchers have found that it is easier to invoke mental imagery through narrative texts because
readers are more likely to connect storylines with characters (Boerma, Mol, and Jolles 2016; Mar
and Oatley 2008). The result in the present study agrees with previous studies and provides a
new finding regarding the effect of imagination on increasing reading speed – although this poten-
tial benefit was based on the participants’ self-reporting and needs further investigation.
Next, support strategies, including using the dictionary, underlining or highlighting and taking
notes, were considered useful strategies. Several studies show that dictionary use, notetaking and
underlining have a positive influence on reading comprehension (Knight 1994; Lonka, Lindblom-
YlÄnne, and Maury 1994; Ma and Cheon 2016; Rahmani and Sadeghi 2011; Slotte and Lonka
1999). Slotte and Lonka (1999) found that the extent of notetaking and the process of reviewing
notes resulted in deep-level text comprehension. Also, an underlining strategy relates to success
 INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 11

in tasks requiring synthesising text (Lonka, Lindblom-YlÄnne, and Maury 1994). For both the EG and
CG in the present study, the tasks (or roles) in LCs (e.g. Summarisers, Discussion Leaders, and Passage
Person) and the story-retelling required a high degree of synthesis ability.
On the other hand, using GOs and critiquing the author and the text were regarded as least
helpful strategies for reading graded readers. GOs have been used as an instructional instrument
to promote reading comprehension (Grabe and Stoller 2011; Roehling et al. 2017; Stull and Mayer
2007), but in a study by Stull and Mayer (2007) the effect of researcher- and learner-generated
GOs on reading for U.S. university students showed no significant differences in the participants’
retention of reading comprehension with either type of GO – although the students with
researcher-generated GOs performed better on problem-solving transfer tests. From this, the
authors concluded that the students did not learn by doing. Considering the participants’ negative
opinions towards producing GOs for graded readers in both the present study and that by Stull and
Mayer, it appears that GOs are more beneficial when used for instructional purposes than as a
learner-generated strategy.
Next, critiquing the author and the text involves critical thinking, which is closely related to meta-
cognition and deep reading comprehension (Chou 2017; Ku and Ho 2010; LaRusso et al. 2016). None-
theless, the participants in the current study thought that critiquing led to misinterpreting or
misunderstanding the story. It might even distort the author’s intention and thus undermine the stu-
dents’ comprehension. Inasmuch as using appropriate strategies for learning a language is believed
to help learners think and process the target language in specific contexts (Chamot 2005; Cohen
2007; Oxford 2017), GOs and critical thinking are no exception. For language learners, it appears
that whether or not a reading strategy is considered practical and necessary lies in the purpose of
reading and its genre type. From a pedagogical perspective, it is suggested that specific reading
genres can be selected and tasks can be designed to train students to practice certain strategies.
While EG and CG participants in the present study both used global and support strategies simi-
larly and viewed all strategies for reading much the same, only EG participants with the LC interven-
tion outperformed in the reading comprehension test. As reported by the participants, LC tasks,
which involved a high level of metacognitive and cognitive processing (e.g. monitoring of main
ideas, summarisation, analysis, synthesis, and paraphrasing), and organisational ability were highly
effective for promoting reading comprehension. Studies show that metacognitive knowledge or
using metacognitive strategies contribute to better reading comprehension (Baker 2008; Chou
2017; Oxford 2017). In schema theory, Mandler (2001) noted that the very act of organising infor-
mation makes the material more memorable since the transfer of information from short-term to
long-term memory involves building and elaborating schemata, making both more flexible for prac-
tice and authentic use. In the present study, the tasks in the LCs provided the students with oppor-
tunities to build and elaborate on schemata by organising information and interrelationships among
components in the two stories and consequently helped them form long-term memories.
Also, the better performance with the reading comprehension test for the EG group might be
attributable to cultural schemata. Accomplishing some LC tasks, such as ‘Connector’ and ‘Cultural
Collector’, required the activation and use of cultural schemata specific to a particular era in a literary
work. The importance of prior knowledge and context familiarity in second and foreign language
reading comprehension has been shown in several studies (Alptekin and Erçetin 2011; Freebody
and Luke 1990; Pritchard 1990; Song and Bruning 2016). In the current study, comprehending the
story content might not be a problem for participants, but linking the culture in the literature and
the reader’s culture, or personal experiences, challenged a few participants.
In his early study of cultural schemata on reading strategy processing, Pritchard (1990) discovered
that when the American students made connections between familiar texts and personal experi-
ences, they followed the ‘genre-experience-conclusion’ pattern (namely, recognising text type, refer-
ring to specific personal experience, and evaluating the relationship between text and personal
experience). In the case of unfamiliar texts, though the same pattern was detected, its frequency
decreased. Pritchard emphasised that the absence of a ‘conclusion’ process (i.e. evaluation)
12 M.-H. CHOU

represented an inability to integrate information of the text into the students’ knowledge. Although
a few participants reported difficulties with the ‘experience-conclusion’ process at the beginning of
the LC tasks, teacher assistance and successful examples from classmates helped them to bridge
their life experiences and different cultures, and so improve their understanding of the text. This
finding also corresponds to van Dijk and Kintsch’s (1983) three levels of mental representation of
text information. In the present study, participants who received LCs processed narrative texts
from the surface structure (literal meanings), the textbase (knowledge organisation and transfer),
to the situation model (inference making, schemata linkage, and storage to new mental represen-
tation). Unlike the story retelling tasks in the CG, where each participant only memorised their
parts, the assigned roles in LCs guaranteed that every student read the story and participated in
the weekly discussions. Through experiencing the six roles, the LCs helped students to develop
deeper reading comprehension, build linguistic and cultural schemata, and form long-term mem-
ories; this in turn resulted in better performance in the test. This study recommends using LCs to
teach graded readers to intermediate EFL learners to promote reading comprehension, increase cul-
tural awareness, and encourage the use of multiple strategies for comprehending and appreciating
literary texts.

Conclusion
This study adopted a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design to investigate the effect of using
LCs and story-retelling tasks followed by text-based instruction to teach two graded readers in
English on intermediate EFL university students’ reading comprehension and strategy use. The
results show that, although monitoring strategies were more frequently adopted by the LC group,
reading strategies were widely used by the readers and the most and least practical reading strat-
egies were the same according to both groups (LC and CG). However, the LC group outperformed
in the reading comprehension test.
Since the present study involved only two groups of university participants, the results cannot be
generalised. The first limitation concerns the English proficiency of the participants who were at the
CEFR B1 Threshold Level. The second limitation resulted from the selection of graded readers.
Additional research focusing on EFL students with differing English proficiencies and with other
kinds of literary text would be of considerable interest and value in understanding the role of strat-
egies and their influence on reading comprehension.
Graded readers have been commonly used as a type of extensive reading to enhance motivation
and positive attitude (Al-Homoud and Schmitt 2009; Taguchi, Takayasu-Maass, and Gorsuch 2004). A
number of researchers agreed that extensive reading without pedagogical intervention and teacher
supervision had limited effects on promoting language acquisition, monitoring comprehension, and
developing reading skills (Green 2005; Hill 2008; Macalister 2014; Renandya 2007). This is supported
by Grabe (2009), who agreed that explicit instruction in reading benefited skill development strat-
egies. In the present study, the LC provided an appropriate pedagogical model for teaching
graded readers and opportunities for peer learning. As for language learning, LC offered an
avenue to build linguistic and cultural schemata, to develop and practice metacognitive reading
strategies, to enhance main-idea comprehension, and to form long-term memories for retention.

Note
1. According to Cohen (1988), eta squared of .01 indicates a small effect size, .06 refers to a medium effect size, and
.14 indicates a large effect size.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
 INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 13

Funding
This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology: [Grant Number 109-2410-H-160 −015].

Notes on contributor
Mu-Hsuan Chou is an associate professor in the Department of Foreign Language Instruction at Wenzao Ursuline Uni-
versity of Languages, Taiwan. Her current research interests include educational psychology, language assessment,
learning strategy, and EFL teaching and learning.

ORCID
Mu-Hsuan Chou http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8458-4386

References
Al-Homoud, F., and N. Schmitt. 2009. “Extensive Reading in a Challenging Environment: A Comparison of Extensive and
Intensive Reading Approaches in Saudi Arabia.” Language Teaching Research 13: 383–401. doi:10.1177/
1362168809341508.
Alderson, J. C. 2000. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, D. 2009. “A Study of the Role of Relative Clauses in the Simplification of News Texts for Learners of English.” System
37: 585–599. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.004.
Alptekin, C., and G. Erçetin. 2011. “Effects of Working Memory Capacity and Content Familiarity on Literal and Inferential
Comprehension in L2 Reading.” TESOL Quarterly 45: 235–266. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.247705.
Anderson, N. J. 2014. Active: Skills for Reading Student Book 3. 3rd edn. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Awada, G., G. Ghaith, and N. M. Diab. 2020. “Using Third Space and Literature Circles (TSLC) as Transformative Pedagogy
for Marginalized EFL Learners.” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–9. doi:10.1080/17501229.2020.
1819288.
Baker, L. (2008). “Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction: What We’ve Learned since NRP.” In Comprehension
instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, 2nd ed., edited by C. C. Block and S. R. Parris, 65–79. New York: Guilford
Press.
Bellinger, J. M., and J. C. DiPerna. 2011. “Is Fluency-Based Story Retell a Good Indicator of Reading Comprehension?”
Psychology in the Schools 48: 416–426. doi:10.1002/pits.20563.
Blake, M. E. 1985. “The Relationship between Field Dependence-Independence and the Comprehension of Expository
and Literary Text Types.” Literacy Research and Instruction 24: 53–62. doi:10.1080/19388078509557848.
Block, C. C., and G. G. Duffy. 2008. “Research on Teaching Comprehension: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going.”
In Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, 2nd ed., edited by C. C. Block, and S. R. Parris, 19–37.
New York: Guilford Press.
Boerma, I. E., S. E. Mol, and J. Jolles. 2016. “Predicting Pictures for Story Comprehension Requires Mental Imagery Skills.”
Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1630. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01630.
Burns, B. 1998. “Changing the Classroom Climate with Literature Circles.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 42: 124–
129.
Chamot, A. U. 2005. “Language Learning Strategy Instruction: Current Issues and Research.” Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 25: 112–130. doi:10.1017/S0267190505000061.
Chou, M.-H. 2013. “Strategy Use for Reading English for General and Specific Academic Purposes in Testing and
Nontesting Contexts.” Reading Research Quarterly 48: 175–197. doi:10.1002/rrq.42.
Chou, M.-H. 2017. “Modelling the Relationship among Prior English Level, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Strategies
in Reading Performance.” The Journal of Asia TEFL 14: 380–397. doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.3.1.380.
Claridge, G. 2005. “Simplification in Graded Readers: Measuring the Authenticity of Graded Texts.” Reading in a Foreign
Language 17: 144–158.
Cohen, J. W. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cohen, A. D. 2007. “Coming to Terms with Language Learner Strategies: Surveying the Experts.” In Language Learner
Strategies, edited by A. D. Cohen, and E. Macaro, 29–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L., R. L. Krustedt, and M. May. 2009. “Fluency, Text Structure, and Retelling: A Complex Relationship.” Reading
Horizons 49: 101–124.
College Entrance Examination Center. 2020. 歷年學科能力測驗試題–英文 [English test papers in the General Scholastic
Ability Test from 1994 to 2020]. Retrieved from https://www.ceec.edu.tw/xmfile?xsmsid=0J052424829869345634.
14 M.-H. CHOU

Daniels, H. 2002. Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in Book Clubs and Reading Groups. 2nd edn. Portland, ME: Stenhouse
Publishers.
Fredricks, L. 2012. “The Benefits and Challenges of Culturally Responsive EFL Critical Literature Circles.” Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy 55: 494–504. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00059.
Freebody, P., and A. Luke. 1990. "Literacies Programs: Debates and Demands in Cultural Context." Prospect: An Australian
Journal of TESOL 5: 7–16.
Furr, M. 2004. “Literature Circles for the EFL Classroom.” http://resourcesforteflteachers.pbworks.com/f/Literature
+Circles+for+EFL+Students.pdf.
Gambrell, L. B., and P. B. Jawitz. 1993. “Mental Imagery, Text Illustrations, and Children’s Story Comprehension and
Recall.” Reading Research Quarterly 28: 264–276. doi:10.2307/747998.
Grabe, W. 2009. Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., and F. L. Stoller. 2011. Teaching and Researching Reading. 2nd edn. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Green, C. 2005. “Integrating Extensive Reading in the Task-Based Curriculum.” ELT Journal 59: 306–311. doi:10.1093/elt/
cci059.
Hebert, M., J. J. Bohaty, J. R. Nelson, and J. Brown. 2016. “The Effects of Text Structure Instruction on Expository Reading
Comprehension: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Educational Psychology 108: 609–629. doi:10.1037/edu0000082.
Hill, D. R. 2008. “Graded Readers in English.” ELT Journal 62: 184–204. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn006.
Hsu, J.-Y. 2004. “Reading Without Teachers: Literature Circles in an EFL Classroom.” Paper presented at the Cross-Strait
Conference on English education, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492558.pdf.
Karimi, M. N., and M. B. Shabani. 2013. “Comparing the Strategic Behavior of More Successful vs. Less Successful Readers
of Multiple Technical Reading Texts.” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 7: 125–138. doi:10.1080/
17501229.2012.726223.
Klingner, J. K. 2004. “Assessing Reading Comprehension.” Assessment for Effective Intervention 29: 59–70. doi:10.1177/
073724770402900408.
Knight, S. 1994. “Dictionary Use While Reading: The Effects On Comprehension and Vocabulary Acquisition For Students
Of Different Verbal Abilities.” The Modern Language Journal 78: 285–299. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02043.x.
Ku, K. Y. L., and I. T. Ho. 2010. “Metacognitive Strategies That Enhance Critical Thinking.” Metacognition and Learning 5:
251–267. doi:10.1007/s11409-010-9060-6.
Language Training and Testing Center. 2020. Conversion Table for the Tests of GEPT, FLPT, and CSEPT. Retrieved from
https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/CEFRbyLTTC_tests.htm.
LaRusso, M., H. Y. Kim, R. Selman, P. Uccelli, T. Dawson, S. Jones, and C. Snow. 2016. “Contributions of Academic
Language, Perspective Taking, and Complex Reasoning to Deep Reading Comprehension.” Journal of Research on
Educational Effectiveness 9: 201–222. doi:10.1080/19345747.2015.1116035.
Leopold, C., and R. E. Mayer. 2015. “An Imagination Effect in Learning from Scientific Text.” Journal of Educational
Psychology 107: 47–63. doi:10.1037/a0037142.
Li, Y.-S. 2010. “Cultural Tools as Analytic Framework for Teaching and Learning: An Exploratory Case on Literature Circle.”
Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly 18: 79–119.
Lonka, K., S. Lindblom-YlÄnne, and S. Maury. 1994. “The Effect of Study Strategies on Learning from Text.” Learning and
Instruction 4: 253–271. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90026-4.
Ma, J. H., and H. J. Cheon. 2016. “An Experimental Study of Dctionary Use on Vocabulary Learning and Reading
Comprehension in Different Task Conditions.” International Journal of Lexicography 31: 29–52. doi:10.1093/ijl/
ecw037.
Macalister, J. 2014. “Teaching Reading: Research Into Practice.” Language Teaching 47: 387–397. doi:10.1017/
S026144481400007X.
Mandler, G. 2001. “Remembering.” In Oxford Guide to the Mind, edited by G. Underwood, 30–32. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mar, R. A., and K. Oatley. 2008. “The Function of Fiction is the Abstraction and Simulation of Social Experience.”
Perspectives on Psychological Science 3: 173–192. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x.
McElvain, C. M. 2010. “Transactional Literature Circles and the Reading Comprehension of English Learners in the
Mainstream Classroom.” Journal of Research in Reading 33: 178–205. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01403.x.
Mills, H., and L. Jennings. 2011. “Talking About Talk: Reclaiming the Value and Power of Literature Circles.” The Reading
Teacher 64: 590–598. doi:10.1598/RT.64.8.4.
Mokhtari, K., and C. A. Reichard. 2002. “Assessing Students’ Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies.” Journal of
Educational Psychology 94: 249–259. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249.
Mokhtari, K., R. Sheorey, and C. Richard. 2008. “Measuring the Reading Strategies of First- and Second-Language
Readers.” In Reading Strategies of First- and Second-Language Learners: See How They Read, edited by K. Mokhtari,
and R. Sheorey, 43–65. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Oxford, R. L. 2017. Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: Self-Regulation in Context. 2nd edn. New York:
Routledge.
Oxford Bookworms Library. 2020. Oxford Bookworms Library: Graded Readers for Secondary and Adult learners. https://elt.
oup.com/catalogue/items/global/graded_readers/oxford_bookworms_library/?cc=tw&selLanguage=en.
 INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 15

Pearson, C. 2010. “Acting up or Acting out? Unlocking Children’s Talk in Literature Circles.” Literacy 44: 3–11. doi:10.
1111/j.1741-4369.2010.00543.x.
Peng, P., and J. M. Goodrich. 2020. “The Cognitive Element Model of Reading Instruction.” Reading Research Quarterly 55:
S77–S88. doi:10.1002/rrq.336.
Pritchard, R. 1990. “The Effects of Cultural Schemata on Reading Processing Strategies.” Reading Research Quarterly 25:
273–295. doi:10.2307/747692.
Rahmani, M., and K. Sadeghi. 2011. “Effects of Note-Taking Training on Reading Comprehension and Recall.” The
Reading Matrix 11: 116–128.
Reed, D. K., and S. Vaughn. 2012. “Retell as an Indicator of Reading Comprehension.” Scientific Studies of Reading 16:
187–217. doi:10.1080/10888438.2010.538780.
Renandya, W. A. 2007. “The Power of Extensive Reading.” RELC Journal 38: 133–149. doi:10.1177/0033688207079578.
Roehling, J. V., M. Herbert, J. R. Nelson, and J. J. Bohaty. 2017. “Text Structure Strategies For Improving Expository
Reading Comprehension.” The Reading Teacher 71: 71–82. doi:10.1002/trtr.1590.
Sato, M., and S. Loewen. 2018. “Metacognitive Instruction Enhances the Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback: Variable
Effects of Feedback Types and Linguistic Targets.” Language Learning 68: 507–545. doi:10.1111/lang.12283.
Scott, J. E. 1994. “Literature Circles in the Middle School Classroom: Developing Reading, Responding, and
Responsibility.” Middle School Journal 26: 37–41. doi:10.1080/00940771.1994.11494408.
Shelton-Strong, S. J. 2012. “Literature Circles in ELT.” ELT Journal 66: 214–223. doi:10.1093/elt/ccr049.
Sheridan, R., and B. Condon. 2020. “Letting Students Choose: How Culture Influences Text Selection in EFL Reading
Courses.” Journal of Asia TEFL 17: 523–539. doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.2.14.523.
Slotte, V., and K. Lonka. 1999. “Review and Process Effects of Spontaneous Note-Taking on Text Comprehension.”
Contemporary Educational Psychology 24: 1–20. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0980.
Song, M., and R. Bruning. 2016. “Exploring Effects of Background Context Familiarity and Signaling on Comprehension,
Recall, and Cognitive Load.” Educational Psychology 36: 691–718. doi:10.1080/01443410.2015.1072133.
Stull, A. T., and R. E. Mayer. 2007. “Learning by Doing versus Learning by Viewing: Three Experimental Comparisons of
Learner-Generated versus Author-Provided Graphic Organizers.” Journal of Educational Psychology 99: 808–820.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808.
Taguchi, E., M. Takayasu-Maass, and G. Gorsuch. 2004. “Developing Reading Fluency in EFL: How Assisted Repeated
Reading and Extensive Reading Affect Fluency Development.” Reading in a Foreign Language 16: 70–96.
van den Broek, P., and K. E. Kremer. 2000. “The Mind in Action: What It Means to Comprehend During Reading.” In
Reading for Meaning: Fostering Comprehension in the Middle Grades, edited by B. Taylor, M. F. Graves, and P. van
den Broek, 1–31. New York: Teachers College Press.
van Dijk, T. A., and W. Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press. doi:10.1037/
0278-7393.31.2.359.
Waring, R., and M. Takaki. 2003. “At What Rate Do Learners Learn and Retain New Vocabulary from Reading a Graded
Reader?” Reading in a Foreign Language 15: 130–163.
Webb, S., and A. C.-S. Chang. 2015. “How Does Prior Word Knowledge Affect Vocabulary Learning Progress in an
Extensive Reading Program?” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37: 651–675. doi:10.1017/S0272263114000606.
Wolfe, M. B., and J. A. Mienko. 2007. “Learning and Memory of Factual Content from Narrative and Expository Text.”
British Journal of Educational Psychology 77: 541–564. doi:10.1348/000709906X143902.
Wolfe, M. B., and J. M. Woodwyk. 2010. “Processing and Memory of Information Presented in Narrative or Expository
Texts.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 341–362. doi:10.1348/000709910X485700.
16 M.-H. CHOU

Appendices
Appendix 1. Student questionnaire on reading strategy use (Grabe and Stoller 2011, 226)

Descriptive Statistics (%)

While reading, how often did you use any of these strategies? Never Rarely Often Always
Global reading strategies 1. Identifying goals for reading (i.e. purposes) 0 25.0 58.3 16.7
2. Previewing 1.7 48.3 45.0 5.0
3. Predicting 1.7 21.7 61.7 15.0
4. Checking predictions 1.7 23.3 51.7 23.3
5. Forming questions 10.0 50.0 31.7 8.3
6. Answering questions 5.0 43.3 40.0 11.7
7. Connecting text to background knowledge 0 28.3 55.0 16.7
8. Paying attention to text structure 1.7 35.0 56.7 6.7
9. Connecting one part of text to another 1.7 35.0 46.7 16.7
10. Making inferences 1.7 20.0 63.3 15.0
11. Creating mental images 5.0 21.7 40.0 33.3
12. Recognising discourse organisation 1.7 43.3 48.3 6.7
13. Using discourse markers to see discourse relationships 6.7 26.7 50.0 16.7
14. Guessing meaning from context 1.7 18.3 48.3 31.7
15. Critiquing the author, the text 16.7 43.3 30.0 10.0
Monitoring reading strategies 16. Monitoring main-idea comprehension 1.7 11.7 68.3 18.3
17. Identifying difficulties 0 18.3 63.3 18.3
18. Taking steps to repair faulty comprehension 0 28.3 56.7 15.0
19. Judging how well objectives are met 0 18.3 61.7 20.0
20. Rereading 1.7 31.7 41.7 25.0
21. Reflecting on what has been learned 1.7 23.3 58.3 16.7
Support reading strategies 22. Using the dictionary 6.7 15.0 41.7 36.7
23. Taking notes 3.3 38.3 40.0 18.3
24. Paraphrasing 0 20.0 56.7 23.3
25. Translating (mental translations) 1.7 16.7 55.0 26.7
26. Underlining or highlighting 10.0 30.0 25.0 25.0
27. Using graphic organisers 15.0 40.0 30.0 15.0
28. Summarising 5.0 26.7 50.0 18.3
29. Synthesising 6.7 30.0 48.3 15.0
 INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 17

Appendix 2. Worksheet samples from the role of summariser (Students with B1 Threshold
level)
18 M.-H. CHOU

Appendix 3. Worksheet samples from the role of Connector (Students with B1 Threshold
level)
 INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 19

Appendix 4. Worksheet samples from the role of Passage Person

20 M.-H. CHOU

Appendix 5. Worksheet samples from the role of Culture Collector