Carrell1989 Reading Strategy

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
(TESOL)
Metacognitive Strategy Training for ESL Reading

Author(s): Patricia L. Carrell, Becky G. Pharis and Joseph C. Liberto
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Dec., 1989), pp. 647-678
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587536 .
Accessed: 03/08/2013 11:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TESOL QUARTERLY,Vol.23, No.4, December1989
MetacognitiveStrategyTraining
forESL Reading
PATRICIA L. CARRELL
ofAkron
University
BECKY G. PHARIS and JOSEPH C. LIBERTO
Southern
IllinoisUniversity
Recent researchin second language readinghas focused on

metacognition, literally,cognitionof cognition.These studies
investigatemetacognitive awarenessofreadingstrategies and the
relationships of
amongperception strategies, strategyuse, and
readingcomprehension.
Strategyresearchsuggeststhatless competentlearnersmay
improvetheirskillsthroughtraining in strategies
evidencedby
moresuccessfullearners.Relativelylittleresearchon metacogni-
tivestrategy traininghas been done in a secondlanguagecontext
or,morespecifically, insecondlanguagereading.
This articlereportsa studyof metacognitive strategytraining
forreadingin ESL. Strategy training was providedto experimen-
tal groups.Controlgroupsreceivedno strategytraining, but
participated inpre-andposttesting. Severalresearchquestionsare
addressed:"Does metacognitive strategytrainingenhanceL2
If
reading?" so, "Does one of
type strategy training L2
facilitate
reading betterthan another?""How is the effectiveness of
metacognitive strategytrainingrelatedtothelearning stylesofthe
students?"Resultsshow thatmetacognitive strategytraining is
effectivein enhancingsecond languagereading,and thatthe
effectiveness of one typeof training versusanothermaydepend
upontheway readingis measured.Further, ourresultsshowthat
the effectiveness of the training is relatedto differences in the
learningstylesofthestudents.
The currentexplosionof researchin second language readinghas

begun to focus on, among other things,readers' strategies.In the
same way that an investigation of speakers' communicative
strategies reveals the ways in which speakers manage oral
communication, comprehension, input, and thus, ultimately,
acquisition (Faerch & Kasper, 1983; Wenden & Rubin, 1987),
647

readingstrategiesare of interestforwhat theyreveal about theway
readers manage theirinteractionswithwrittentext,and how these
strategiesare related to reading comprehension.Several empirical
investigationshave been conducted intoreadingstrategiesand their
relationships to successful and unsuccessful second language
reading (Hauptman, 1979; Devine, 1984; Hosenfeld, 1977; Knight,
Padron, & Waxman, 1985; Block, 1986; Sarig, 1987). More recent
researchhas begun to focuson metacognition,literally,cognitionof
cognition.These studiesinvestigatemetacognitiveawarenessof, or
perceptions about, strategies and the relationships among
awareness or perception of strategies,strategyuse, and reading
comprehension (Waxman & Padron, 1987; Padron & Waxman,
1988; Barnett,1988; Carrell,1989a).
Strategyresearchsuggeststhatless competentlearnersare able to
improve their skills throughtrainingin strategiesevidenced by
more successfullearners.The same is trueof readingstrategies:Less
competentreadersare able to improvethroughtraininginstrategies
evidenced by more successful readers. Relevant research on
strategytraininghas been conducted in firstlanguage reading by
Brown and Palincsar (1982), among others. With only a few
exceptions (O'Malley, 1987; Carrell, 1985; Padron, 1985; Sarig &
Folman, 1987), relatively little metacognitive strategy training
research has been done in a second language context,or more
specifically,in second language reading.
This article reports a metacognitivestrategytrainingstudy of
reading in English as a second language. It is designed to address
the following research questions: "Does metacognitivestrategy
trainingenhance L2 reading?" If so, "Does one type of strategy
trainingfacilitateL2 reading better than another?" "How is the
effectivenessof metacognitive strategytrainingrelated to the
learningstylesof the students?"
STRATEGIESAND STRATEGYTRAININGRESEARCH
Imaginethatyouhavebeenassigned toreadthepassageshown
passages)aboutnutrients
in Figure1 (oneofourtraining in food.
Whatwouldyoudo to ensurethatyouunderstood thematerial?
How would you choose to processthe information? What
recommendations wouldyoumaketohelpa readerwhodoesnot
understand thepassage?Whathappenswhenyouaska readerto
skimor scan, to takenoteson,underlineor rereadthepassage, to try
therhetorical
toidentify ofthepassage,toguessunknown
structure
wordsfromcontext,or skipthemand toleratethevaguenessand
648 TESOL QUARTERLY

FIGURE1
SampleTraining
Passage
NUTRIENTS IN FOOD
Nutrientsare partsof foodthatare important forlifeand health.Nutrientsareimportant
forthreereasons.First,somenutrients providefuelforenergy. Second,somenutrients build
and repairbodytissues.Third,somenutrients helpcontroldifferent processesof thebody
liketheabsorption of minerals and theclotting ofblood.Scientiststhinkthereare 40 to 50
nutrients.
Thesenutrients aredividedintofivegeneralgroups:carbohydrates, fats,proteins,
minerals,andvitamins.
The firstgroupof nutrients is carbohydrates.There are two kindsof carbohydrates:
starchesand sugars.Bread,potatoes,and ricearestarches. Theyhavemanycarbohydrates.
Candy,softdrinks, jelly,andotherfoodswithsugaralsohavecarbohydrates. Carbohydrates
areimportant becausetheyprovidethebodywithheatandenergy. Sugar,forinstance,is 100
percentenergy.Ithasno otherfoodvalue.Sugardoesnotbuildbodytissues orcontrol body
processes.If therearetoomanycarbohydrates inthebody,theyarestoredas bodyfat.The
bodystoresfuelas fat.
Therearetwotypesoffats:animaland vegetable.Butter, cream,andthefatinbaconare
animalfats.Oliveoil,cornoil,andpeanutoil arevegetablefats.The bodyhasfatunderthe
skinand aroundsomeoftheorgansinside.The averageadulthas 10 to 11kilograms (20 to
25 pounds)ofbodyfat.Ifadultseattoomanycarbohydrates and fats,theycan add another
45 kilograms (100pounds)to theirbodies.Fat is extrafuel.Whenthebodyneedsenergy, it
changesthefatintocarbohydrates. Thecarbohydrates areusedforenergy. Fatalsokeepsthe
bodywarm.
Thethirdgroupofnutrients is proteins.Theword"protein" comesfroma Greekwordthat
means"offirst importance." Proteins are"offirst
importance" becausetheyarenecessary for
life.Proteinsaremadeof. ..
ambiguity?These are all questions about reading strategiesand

theireffectivenessin the process of reading and of learningfrom
reading. The purpose of this articleis twofold: (a) to explore the
question of how reading strategiescan be taughtmost effectively,
and (b) to examinetheinfluenceof readingstrategieson theprocess
of learningto read, so thatone mightlearnfromreadingin English
as a second language.
Traditionally, reading instructionhas involved either direct
instructionof decoding skillsor informalteachingof comprehen-
sion. However, according to Resnick (1979), thosewho advocate a
heavy emphasis on decoding mechanisms in reading also tend
toward the direct-instructionapproach, whereas those who
emphasize attention to language processing and reading for
meaning,i.e., comprehension,tend to advocate and adopt learner-
directed,informalinstructional approaches. Yet, as Resnickhas also
argued, thereis no reason in principlewhy one cannothave direct
instructionin comprehension,or-perhaps harder to imagine-
informalinstruction in decoding. Our concernin thisarticleis with
METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING FOR ESL READING 649

theformer,thatis,relativelydirector explicitinstruction in compre-
hension. Of particularconcern is the direct,explicitinstructionin
comprehension-fostering strategies.
As Brown,Armbruster, and Baker (1986) have argued,"metacog-
nitionplays a vital role in reading"(p. 49). The termmetacognition
refersto one's understandingof any cognitiveprocess. Metacogni-
tionin the contextof readingis usuallyunderstoodto consistof two
types of cognition:first,one's knowledge of strategiesforlearning
from texts, and, second, the control readers have of their own
actions while reading for differentpurposes. Successful readers
monitortheir reading and the state of their learning; they plan
strategies,adjust effortappropriately,and evaluate the success of
theirongoing effortsto understand(Brown, Armbruster, & Baker,
1986,p. 49).
Metacognitivecontrol,in whichthereaderconsciouslydirectsthe
reasoning process, is a particularlyimportantaspect of strategic
reading.Whenreadersare consciousof thereasoninginvolved,they
can access and apply that reasoningto similarreading in future
situations.However, comprehensioninstructiondoes not always
provide studentswithenoughexplicitinformation to enable themto
assume metacognitivecontrol(Duffy,Roehler,& Herrmann,1988).
The literatureon thedirectinstruction of readingcomprehension
strategiesin language reading (e.g., Brown,Campione, & Day,
first
1981; Brown, 1981; Brown & Palincsar,1982; Cook & Mayer,1983;
Brown,Palincsar,& Armbruster, 1984) has shownsuch an approach
to "yield consistentlypositive results" (Winograd & Hare, 1988,
p. 121). As previouslymentioned,relativelylittleof thismetacogni-
tive strategytrainingresearch has been conducted in second lan-
guage reading, with Padron (1985), Carrell (1985), and Sarig and
Folman (1987) among the few exceptions.Our purpose was to add
to the knowledge in thisarea by undertakinga studyof metacogni-
tive strategytrainingforsecond language reading thatspecifically
focused on trainingin two reading strategies:semanticmapping,
and the experience-text-relationship method.
SemanticMapping
Research has indicated that readers' formalschemata, or back-
groundknowledge about textstructure, affectreadingcomprehen-
sion (e.g., Mandler, 1978; Meyer, 1975; Carrell, 1984a, 1984b).
Related to thiswork is a growingbody of researchdemonstrating
thatinstructionin textstructurefacilitateslearningfromtext.In this
instruction, varietyof textmapping techniqueshave been used,
a
with consistentlypositive results (Bartlett,1978; Reutzel, 1985;
650 TESOL QUARTERLY

Geva, 1983; Armbruster, Anderson,& Ostertag,1986; Carrell,1985).
One of the instructionaltechniques successful in firstlanguage
reading is semantic mapping (SM), a term which "embraces a
variety of strategiesdesigned to display graphicallyinformation
within categories related to a central concept" (Johnson,in the
foreword to Heimlich & Pittelman,1986, p. v). In other words,
categories and associationsare indicated visually in a diagram or
"map." In additionto being effectiveforvocabulary development,
semanticmappinghas proved to be a good alternativeto traditional
prereadingand postreadingactivities.In thisapplication,semantic
mappingcan be used notonlyto introducethekey vocabularyfrom
the passage to be read, but also to provide the teacher with an
assessmentof the students'priorknowledge,or schema availability,
on the topic.
While the semantic mapping procedure may vary according to
individual teacher objectives, the procedure generallyincludes a
brainstormingsessionin which studentsverbalize associationson a
topic or key concept as the teacherwritesthem on theboard. The
teacher then facilitates the students' discussion to organize or
categorize the associations into the formof a map. This phase of
the semantic mapping procedure activates the students' prior
knowledge of the topic, and helps them to focus on the relevant
content schema, thereby better preparing them to understand,
assimilate,and evaluate the informationin the materialto be read.
Students develop a map of the story'stopic before reading,both
to learn the key vocabulary necessary for comprehensionand to
activate theirpriorknowledge bases of thattopic.
The semantic mapping exercise motivatesstudentsto read the
selection,while also providingthe teacherwithan assessmenttool.
After the students have finished reading, a discussion of the
semantic map can be refocused to emphasize the main ideas
presented in the writtenmaterial. Students can then also expand
their maps throughclass discussion, and learn to build bridges
between the known and the new. As a postreading activity,
semantic mapping affords students the opportunityto recall,
organize, and representgraphicallythepertinentinformationread
(Heimlich & Pittelman,1986). See Figure 2 forexamples of pre-
and postreading semantic maps (on the topic of sharks)
constructed by an Li class of eighth graders. For further
references on see Johnson,Pittelman, and
Heimlich (1986);semantic.mapping,
Sinatra,Stahl-Gemake,and Berg (1984); Sinatra,
Berg, and Dunn (1985); Sinatra, Stahl-Gemake, and Morgan
(1986); Stahl and Vancil (1986).

FIGURE2
of
Examples Pre-
and Semantic
Postreading Maps
>LoI
(r S. CS V:))
.?CS
CA~
..V
SW.AL. u L
2Jo
a)ZQ)
<)45 o) 0a
C
u4-.
I'
(ZS
0rQ TC
\(Jn C-2U
, Q)
(0l (.9u-, 05
05t- Du -"c
s~U')
?5~: c(JD
652 TESOL QUARTERLY

From Semanticmapping:Classroomapplications(pp. 32-33) by J. E. Heimlichand
S. D. Pittelman,
1986,Newark,DE: InternationalReadingAssociation.Reprintedwith
thepermissionofJoanHeimlichand theInternational
ReadingAssociation.
L, O S.
Sw
_3 r) 4l L.
0 0 )
??,
\n3LO E s 4.)rs
toa
U I 010
p-
di Q_ 0
00
JCL n u
S.L c/D i :r
C) _ 0 C~ 3 J t J(
D DJ
IZd)CL) )C0 O)
16
ar
SSlie in cor 0
LOr
Zy 'nQ
-2-5
JCJ
S.---
s Vu
~ *.;2i

Experience-Text-Relationship Method
The experience-text-relationship (ETR) method is one of a
variety of methods developed as a total readingprogramthat
emphasizescomprehension, i.e., readingformeaning.ETR not
only explicitlytakes into considerationthe students' prior
backgroundknowledge,but facilitatesits role in the reading
process(Barnitz,1985,pp. 19,22). It has been foundto be useful
withminority L1 students;Au (1979),forexample,documentsits
effectivenesswithchildrenin Hawaii. This method,whichuses
discussionto linkwhatthereaderalreadyknowsto whatwill be
encounteredin the text, has essentiallythree simple steps:
experience,text,and relationship.In the experiencestep, the
teacherleads thestudentsin discussionof theirown knowledgeor
experiencesthatarerelatedinsomeway to thepassagetobe read.
This is importantnot only because the studentsactivate any
relevantpriorbackgroundtheymayhave and beginto relateitto
thetextto be read,but also because theexperiencestepprovides
a motivationforreadingthetext.In thetextstep,theteacherhas
the studentsread shortpartsof thetext,usuallya page or two,
askingthemquestionsaboutthecontentaftereach sectionis read.
In thisstep,theteachermay also need to correctany misunder-
standingsof thetextevidencedby thestudents.In thefinalstep,
the relationshipsequence, the teacher attemptsto help the
studentsdraw relationships betweenthe contentof the text(as
developed in the text step), and theiroutside experienceand
knowledge(as discussed in theexperiencestep). In all threesteps
the teacher attemptingto model and to guide the students
is
systematically throughthe cognitiveprocessesrelatedto under-
standinga writtentext.An importantrequirementof the ETR
methodis thatthe teacherbe adept in leading the studentsto
discoverthe correctanswersforthemselves,ratherthantelling
themtheanswersdirectly.The goal of themethodis to enablethe
students,who have had the processesmodeled forthemby the
teacher,to use thesesame cognitiveprocesseson theirown.
Like semanticmappingwhen used as a pre- and postreading
activity,ETR has studentsactivateappropriatepriorbackground
knowledge,read textsagainstthe activatedbackgroundknowl-
edge, and, finally, relateinformation gainedfromthe readingto
priorbackground knowledge.Unlikesemanticmapping,ETR does
not attemptto organizethe information (eitherpriorto or after
reading), nordoes it attempt to have thestudentsproducea visual
learningadjunct such as a map.
654 TESOL QUARTERLY

THE STUDY
PilotPhase
The researchdesign,as well as thematerialsand procedures,was
pilot testedduringthe fallsemesterof 1988. Changes were made as
needed, and the studywas runin the springof 1989.
Subjects
Subjects consistedof a heterogeneousgroupof 26 ESL studentsin
Level 4 of the intensiveprogram of the Center for English as a
Second Language (CESL) at SouthernIllinois University.Their
native language backgrounds included Arabic (8), Japanese (5),
Bahasa Malaysian (4), various Africanlanguages' (4), Chinese (2),
Greek (1), Spanish (1), and French (1). Of the 26 subjects,17 were
undergraduate studentsand 9 were graduate students; 19 were
male, 7 were female. Ages ranged from19-43,with27 the average
age. Their assignmentto Level 4 was due to eithertheresultsof a
placement test(TOEFL scores in the range of 470-524),or to their
advancementfrompreviousstudyat Level 3.
Subjects were in fourintactreading classes: nine in the class that
received the semantic mapping training,nine in the class that
received the ETR training,and threeand five,respectively,in the
classes that functioned as the control group.2 Although their
assignmentto any of these four classes was arbitrary,we had no
control over these matters,and, therefore,make no claims to
randomnessin theassignmentof subjectsto treatments.
TrainingProceduresand Materials
One teacher taughtboth trainingclasses; anotherteachertaught
the controlgroup. Since the controlgroup was simplyto take the
pre- and posttests,and otherwisereceived the usual CESL Level 4
readingcurriculum,it was feltthathavinga different teacherin this
class was not consequential;what was importantwas thatwe have
the same teacherin the two trainingclasses.
In total the trainingperiod was four days, with both training
1 Studentsdid not listnativelanguages. Countriesof originwere Zaire (2), the Congo (1), the
CentralAfricanRepublic (1).
2 The firsttime the
experimentwas run, only three control subjects took both pre- and
posttests.Therefore,a second control group was run,of whom five took both pre- and
posttests.Since the controlgroups received no specialized training,and merelytook the
pre-and posttests,data are reportedon theeightcontrolsubjectsas thoughtheyconstituted
a singlecontrolclass.

groups spending the same amount of time on any given passage.
During this period, the control group worked on materials
suggestedby the language center'ssyllabus(described below). For
the two experimentalgroups,threereadingpassages of appropriate
reading level were selected. "CultureShock" (approximately1,200
words) was selected (from Baudoin, Bober, Clarke, Dobson, &
Silberstein,1988; adapted fromO'Berg, 1972) foritsease of reading
and its highinterestvalue; "Nutrientsin Food" (approximately800
words) was selected (fromSonka, 1981) forits detail and easy-to-
see structure;and "Stress" (approximately1,500 words and more
complex than the other two passages) was selected (from Saitz,
Dezell, & Stieglitz,1984; reprintedfrom"SituationalStresses,"and
"Biological Stresses")foritslengthand organization.
In the semanticmappinggroup,on the firstday, the studentsand
teacher discussed the meaning of the term culture shock. The
followingquestionswere used to stimulatediscussion:(a) What are
some of the problemsthatyou,or people you know,have had since
arrivingin the U.S. to study? (b) How did these problems come
about? (c) What can be done (or was done) to alleviate these
problems? As ideas were brought up, they were writtenon the
blackboard. Following the suggestionsof the students,the ideas
were thenorganized into a semanticmap. The organizationof the
map was discussed in termsof the relationshipbetween the topic,
main and subcategories,supportingdetails, and new vocabulary.
The studentsshowed particularinterestin thepossibilityof learning
new vocabulary in the context of a subject domain, ratherthan
depending merelyon sentenceor paragraphcontext.The students
copied the prereadingmap fromtheblackboard. They were asked
to read thepassage "CultureShock" and to expand theclass map for
homework.
On the second day, the teacher and the class discussed the
"Culture Shock" passage. Then one of the studentswent to the
board and, gatheringinput fromthe rest of the class, developed
a class postreading map. Figure 3 shows the class pre- and post-
reading maps. Pre- and postreading maps were discussed along
with the notion thatsuch maps are an externalrepresentationof
an internal schema for processing new information.The same
procedure was used to create a prereading map for"Nutrientsin
Food."
On thethirdday, aftercomparingpre-and postreadingmaps, the
students brought up the idea that semantic mapping might be
particularlyusefulfordealing withreadingpassages thatcontaina
lot of details,but less suitableforpassages whose meaningcould be
easily grasped withoutsuch elaboration.For the next assignment,
656 TESOL QUARTERLY

FIGLRE 3
Class Pre-and PostreadingMaps
PREREADINGMAP
Causes Effects
1. language 1. surprise-shock
2. customs(religion/clothes) 2. unhappy-depressed
3. food 3. confused
4. race (discrimination) 4. homesick
5. lonely-isolated
Solutions
1. learn/uselanguage
2. learn about country'sculture& history
3. make friends
4. make jokes-humor
5. accept differences
POSTREADING MAP
Causes Results
1. loss of social cues 1. frustration
2. examples of social cues 2. anxiety
a. when to shake hands 3. rejectforeigncountry
b. when to greet 4. regression
c. whenand who to give tips
d. how to make purchases
Symptoms Stages
1. excessive hand-washing 1. honeymoon
2. excessive concernwith 2. hostility
water,food and bedding 3. adjustment
3. blank stare 4. acceptance
4. helpless feeling
5. anger
6. longingto go home

withoutany discussionof the new topic,thestudentswere asked to
make a semanticmap on the topic of stressforhomework.
On what would have been the fourthday, the studentshad just
handed in theirmaps when a bomb threatforced the evacuation
of the building. Aftera brief reflectionon the irony of such a
stressfulinterruption, the studentswere given the "Stress"passage
and asked to read itand make a postreadingmap. At the nextclass
meeting,the articleon stresswas discussed, pre- and postreading
maps compared, and the nature and uses of semantic mapping
summarized. This concluded the training for the semantic
mapping group.
On the firstday in the ETR group, discussion was begun by
askingthe studentsto name problemsthey(or someone theyknew)
had had in comingto or adjustingto the United States.These were
listed on the blackboard. Working in groups of three or four,
studentsthenselected the five most importantproblems and rank
ordered them.Studentsthenbegan guided readingof the "Culture
Shock" passage, readingshortsectionson theirown, and, underthe
teacher's guidance, stopping periodically to work throughques-
tions, relatingideas to the passage itselfas well as to the earlier
discussionof personal experiences.Reading was finishedat home.
Follow-up activitieson the second day included comprehension
questions,discussionquestions,and vocabularyin contextactivities
related to the passage.
In the timeremainingon thesecond day, as an introduction to the
"Nutrientsin Food" passage, studentslisted in chart form,on the
board, a typicalday's dietaryintakein theircountries.These were
compared forsuch featuresas similaritiesin food groupsand nutri-
tional content.Discussion followed concerningwhat constitutesa
healthfuldiet, how differentcountriesmeet those requirements,
and so on. Guided reading of the text was begun in class, with
studentsassigned to finishthe reading outside of class. Answering
discussion questions and findingcertaininformationin the article
were among the follow-upactivities.
On the thirdday, to introducethe passage on stress,the main
causes of stressat the language centerand outside (in the U.S. and
in thenativecountry)were discussed,notingindividualand cultural
differenceswithinthe group. These were listedon the blackboard,
but not mapped. Guided reading followed, relatinginformationin
the article to informationon the blackboard. The fourth day
involved furtherdiscussionof the "Stress"passage and a cloze test
on a version of the passage, followed by discussion of the ETR
process itself.This concluded the ETR training.
658 TESOL QUARTERLY

During the semanticmappingand ETR trainingperiod,the
controlgroupworkedwiththe usual materialsthatcomprisethe
Level 4 readingsyllabusat the languagecenter.These include
readingvocabularyand grammarexercises,suchas vocabularyin
context,discourseconnectors, uses of punctuation,restatement,
inference,
speed-buildingpassages,longerreadingsforcomprehen-
sionand discussion, The focusof thesematerials
and so forth. is on
the various kinds of academic reading that college students
encounter.
TestingProcedures andMaterials
One day priorto the onset of the training, all subjectswere
givena pretest.Ninedayslater,immediately afterthetraining, all
subjectswere given the same testas a posttest.The rationalefor
usingexactlythe same testforbothpre-and posttesting was to
assure exactlycomparabletests,thusavoidingthe problemof
equating differentformsof pre- and posttests.The nine-day
intervalbetween administrations was deemed long enough to
controlforanyshort-term memoryeffects; sincesubjectswerenot
providedwiththe correctanswersafterthe pretest,even were
theyto rememberhow theyhad answereda questionthe first
time,theyhad no way of knowingwhetherthat answerwas
correct.Further,the intervalwas consideredshortenough to
controlfor any significant learningexcept for thatdue to the
training.Moreover,any effectsdue to experiencewiththe test
would be comparableforeach of thethreegroups.And,finally,
one of themostcommontypesof testreliability in psychometrics
consistsof suchtest-retestreliability.
The testconsistedof threepassages,rangingfrom302 to 333
wordsinlength.The passages,drawnfrompopularwritings orESL
sourcematerialsat theappropriate proficiencylevelofoursubjects,
were selected on the basis of theirpresumedinterestto and
readabilityby subjects:(a) "America"(316 words),abouttourists'
impressions ofAmerica(fromYorkey,1970);(b) "Cholesterol" (302
words), about good and bad cholesterol(fromthe pamphlet
CholesterolControl,1985); and (c) "Malnutrition" (332 words),
about the widespreadincidenceof malnourishment in the world
and the symptomsof the two majortypesof malnutrition (from
Nuttall,1982;adapted fromChulalongkorn University Language
Institute).
Threeformsof thetestwereconstructed, witheach of thethree
passagesalternatelyappearingfirst, second,and last:

Form A: America,Cholesterol,Malnutrition
Form B: Cholesterol,Malnutrition,
America
Form C: Malnutrition,America,Cholesterol
Whatever form of the test subjects received for the pretest,that
same form was received for the posttest.(A copy of Form A is
included in the Appendix.)
Aftereach passage therewere threemultiple-choicecomprehen-
sion questions: (a) a factual informationor detail question, (b) a
direct inferencequestion, and (c) an indirectinferencequestion.3
Multiple-choicequestionswere used as themostbasic and common
measure of reading comprehension. As in most such uses of
multiple-choicequestions, subjects were able to referto the text
when answeringthe questions, although the text was not on the
same page, but on a precedingpage. In addition,aftereach passage
therewere two open-ended, shortanswer questions. One of these
inquiredabout themain idea of thepassage or theauthor'spurpose,
theotherwas a wh-questionrequiringsubjectsto draw togetherand
generalize informationfromdisparateparts of the passage. It was
felt that these open-ended questions should tap deeper levels of
informationprocessing.
In addition,aftereach of the firsttwo passages in each formof
the test,a partial semanticmap was set up to be completed much
like a cloze test. Figure 4 shows one of the cloze semanticmaps
fromthe test.Directionsto subjectsincluded an example of how to
complete such a map. Althoughsubjectswere notreceivingtraining
in producing cloze semanticmaps, but ratherin creatingsemantic
maps from scratch, the cloze semantic map was included as a
potentiallymore directmeasure of the semanticmapping strategy.
3 The followingwere the principleswhich guided the constructionof the multiplechoice
questions:
(a) Specific informationor detail questions asked about specific informationor details of
the passage, the answers to which could be found directlyin a specific part of the
passage, possiblyparaphrased.
(b) Direct inferencequestionsrequired the reader to make a directinference,i.e., draw a
logical implicationfrominformation presentedin thepassage. For example, one of the
passages had a chain of causes and effectsas follows:"(LDL causes plaque), plaque
blocks the arteries,this impairsblood flow and can lead to heart attack,stroke,and
death." From this the reader was to logically,directlyinfer[by reversingthe cause-
effectrelationship]that"people can have a heartattackand even die if the arteriesare
blocked withplaque."
(c) Indirect inferencequestions required the reader to make an indirectinference,i.e.,
draw a conclusion which,while not followinglogically fromthe passage, nonetheless
follows given the contextand the requisitebackgroundknowledge of the content.For
example, one of the passages containedthe statement"the most common complaintof
all was .... " From thisthe reader was required to draw the inferencethat"the most
negativeimpressionwas ... ."
660 TESOL QUARTERLY

FIGURE4
ClozeMapfrom
Sample Pre-
andPosttest
Completethediagram.
fromthepreceding
5. Fillintheblankswithinformation passage.
Kinds MayCause
a. a.
b. b.
c. death
RiskFactorsfor
CHOLESTERO
HeartDisease
a. cholesterol
b.
C.
To ReduceinDiet To ReduceinGeneral
Choose: Tryto:
a. a. maintain
idealweight
b. b.
Finally,afterthelastpassage in each formof thetest,subjects

wereaskedto construct theirown map,usingthecloze mapsfrom
theprevioustwopassagesas samples.Obviously,in thepretest, all
groups were equallyignorantof how to do and
this, coulduse only
thecloze mapsaccompanying theothertwopassagesas guides.In
theposttest,our expectationwas thatthisitemwouldbe a direct
measureofthetraining receivedby thesemanticmappinggroup.
Also, because of the potentialinteraction between the two
trainingtreatments(semanticmapping and theETR method)and
the students'own cognitiveor learningstyles,it was feltthata
measure of learningstyleshould be taken and the interaction
betweenlearningstyleand training treatment tested.
Learning TheInventory
Styles: ofLearning Processes
Researchintothe training of learningstrategies
has frequently
been flawedby failingto considerindividualdifferences
between
learners.Schmeck(1988) has suggestedthat"learningstrategies

trainingand researchprogramsshould routinelyinclude individual
differencemeasures. . to studyand take advantage of interactions
between personal attributesand the treatmentsused in training"
(p. 171). Therefore, this study attempted to take into account
individual differencesamong students in cognitive or learning
styles, anticipatinga potential interactionbetween the students'
own cognitive or learningstyles and the two trainingtreatments
(semantic mapping and the ETR method). The Inventory of
Learning Processes (ILP), constructedby Schmeck, Ribich, and
Ramanaiah (1977), was used to measuresubjects'learningstyles.
Before the ILP was administered,studentsread a passage on the
topic of learningstyles,then took part in a class discussionon the
topic. This served to make the inventoryseem a naturalfollow-up
to this class reading, as well as to lower any potentialanxietyor
apprehensionabout its possibly being an intelligencetest,or that
therewere any "wrong,"or "right"answers.
The ILP questionnaire,consistingof62 true-falseitems,is divided
into four subscales or factors.The first,originallylabeled "syn-
thesis-analysis" and later renamed "deep processing,"assesses "the
extentto which studentscriticallyevaluate, conceptuallyorganize,
and compare and contrastthe informationtheystudy" (Schmeck,
1983, p. 245). The second factor,called "elaborative processing,"
provides informationabout the tendency of an individual to
personalize information.The thirdfactor,"factretention,"signifies
the tendencyof a person to memorizeinformation. The last factor,
"methodological study,"represents the degree to whicl a student
engages in regular and drill-typestudy behavior. Scores are
calculated as thenumberof responseson each subscale in thekeyed
(T or F) direction(e.g., deep vs. shallow). Numbers of items on
each subscale vary.
All fourof the subscales are not independent.In particular,the
deep and elaborative processing scales of the ILP are not
independent. Because research into learning processes (Craik &
Lockhart,1972; Craik & Tulving,1975) suggeststhatboth are effec-
tive strategiesfor understandingand retaininginformation,we
decided to focus on these two subscales. We felt they mightbe
closelyrelatedboth to readingcomprehensionand to thetwo types
of strategytrainingwe were conducting.Subjects with different
learning styles mightprocess informationdifferently and benefit
fromdifferent kindsof training.Recall thateach of thetwo training
methods attemptsto enhance studentreading comprehensionin a
differentway. Semantic mapping trainsstudentsto categorize and
organize information, both priorinformation as well as information
in the passage, whereas the ETR method asks studentsto activate
662 TESOL QUARTERLY

theirpersonal knowledge to improve comprehensionof the text
withouttheircategorizingor organizingthatinformation.
Personshighon thedeep processingscale are good at abstracting,
comparing, and contrastinginformation.Therefore, we would
expect themto comprehendtextswell. In the case of Ll research,
Schmeck (1980) and Schmeck and Phillips(1982) were indeed able
to find significant correlations between scores on the deep
processingscale and the vocabulary and comprehensionsubscales
of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test and the Iowa Silent Reading
Test. Personshighon the deep processingscale mightbe expected
to benefitmost fromthe trainingin semanticmapping.
Other firstlanguage studies demonstratethatsubjectswithhigh
scores on the elaborative scale are high in academic achievement
(Schmeck & Grove,1979) and outperformthosewho are low on the
scale in free recall of adjectives (Schmeck & Meier, 1984). With
respect to reading, however, results have been contradictory.
Whereas Schmeck (1980) did not finda correlationbetween scores
on the elaborative scale and the vocabulary and comprehension
subscales of the Nelson-DennyReading Test, Schmeckand Phillips
(1982) did find a significantcorrelationbetween scores on the
elaborative scale and reading comprehensionas assessed by the
Iowa Silent Reading Test. Persons high on elaborative processing
might be expected to benefit most from trainingin the ETR
method.
Thus, we used the ILP to explore any potentialinteractionsbe-
tween our two metacognitive strategy training treatments-
semanticmapping and ETR-and subjects' individualdifferences
in learningstyle.
Scoring
Each pre- and posttest was scored by two judges working
independently.Discrepancies were resolved by a thirdjudge.
The nine multiple-choice questions were scored as correct or
not, with a possible maximum total of 9. The two cloze semantic
maps were scored as percentages of possible correctresponses to
the numbered blank spaces provided, with a possible maximum
total of 100. The six open-ended questions were each scored on
a three-pointscale of how well the student's answer demon-
strated understandingof the passage, with a possible maximum
total of 18:
3 Answer must be in student'sown words and demonstratea
fundamental,deep understandingof the passage;

2 Answermay or may not be in student'sown words,but must
demonstratesome understandingof thepassage;
1 Answer may or may notbe in student'sown words,but failsto
demonstratean understandingof thepassage;
0 Answeris devoid of content,or not related to the question or
passage, or is simplywrong. (Carrell,1989b)
The one open-ended semantic map was scored on a three-point

scale based on completenessand fitto the passage, as well as on
how well the map demonstratedthe student'sunderstandingof the
passage, witha possible maximumtotalscore of 3:
3 Map is relativelycomplete and shows clearlythatstudenthas

understoodthe passage;
2 Map is somewhat complete, and what is theredemonstrates
thatthe studenthas some understandingof the passage;
1 Map is quite or relativelyincomplete,and what is theredoes
not demonstratethat the studenthas really understood the
passage;
0 Map is devoid of any meaningfulcontent,or does not go with
the passage;
* Missing,nothingprovided. (Carrell,1989b)
Analysesand Reliability
Statistical
Statisticalanalyses were performedon an IBM 3081 mainframe
computer at SouthernIllinois Universityat Carbondale using the
SAS package of statisticalprogramsand the General Linear Models
procedures.4An alpha level of .05 was establishedforsignificance.
Significant results have the exact probabilities reported; non-
significantresultsare indicated withns.
Interraterreliabilitiesin scoring the open-ended questions, the
cloze semanticmaps, and the open-ended maps were as follows:
Open-ended questions:r = .91
Cloze semanticmaps: r = .98
Open-ended semanticmaps: r = .81
Reliabilityin scoringthemultiple-choicequestionsand theILP was,
obviously,100%.
4 The GLM procedure does not produce traditionalANOVA tables. Instead, it produces F-
values and p-values foreach main effectand interaction.
664 TESOL QUARTERLY

RESULTS
Our basic resultsare reportedin Table 1, which shows thatthe
control group did not have significantgain scores between their
pre- and posttestson any of the fourdependentmeasures,whereas
each traininggroup showed significantgain scores on two of the
four dependent measures. Thus, in answer to our firstresearch
question, it appears that metacognitive strategy trainingdoes
enhance L2 reading when compared to nonstrategytraining,as in
the controlgroup.
TABLE 1
Gain Score MeansforTrainingGroups
Traininggroups
Reading
comprehension Semanticmapping ETR Control
measure (N = 9) (N = 9) (N = 8)
Multiple-choicequestions M = 0.33 M = - 0.11 M = 0.88

(Max = 9) ns ns ns
Open-endedquestions M = 3.33 M = 2.78 M = - 0.63
(Max = 18) t = 2.50 t = 2.61 ns
p = .0369 p = .0311
Cloze semanticmap M = 3.22 M = 7.11 M = - 0.37
(Max = 100) ns t = 3.01 ns
p = .0169
Open-endedsemanticmap M = 1.80 M = 0.50 M = 0.60
(Max = 3) t = 3.67 ns ns
p = .0213
Table 1 furthershows that neitherof the two traininggroups

gained significantlyon the multiple-choicequestions, the most
common measure of reading comprehension. Thus, either our
trainingwas not effectiveenough to be reflectedby thiscommon
readingmeasure,or,as we suspect,themeasurewas notsufficiently
sensitiveto detect the trainingeffects.Table 1 also shows thatboth
strategytraininggroups gained significantlyon the open-ended
questions.Presumablyopen-ended questionsmoredirectlyreflecta
student'smentalprocessingof textualinformation thando multiple-
choice questions, and while students may get multiple-choice
questions correctforthe wrong reasons,thisis less likelyto occur
withopen-ended questions.Thus, theopen-endedquestionsappear
to have been particularlysensitivein measuring the facilitating
effectsof both strategytrainingtreatments.
Interestingly,Table 1 also shows that the ETR group made the
only significantgain on the cloze semanticmap items.Because the

group thatreceived trainingin semanticmapping was not trained
with cloze semantic maps, they would not be expected to show
significantgain scores on these items.We cannot,however,readily
explain why the ETR group (which received no trainingwhatever
in semantic maps) did gain significantlyon these items. Finally,
Table 1 shows that,as one would expect, the only group to gain
significantlyon the open-ended semantic maps was the group
receivingtrainingin semanticmapping.
To summarize, the semantic mapping and ETR groups both
showed similar significantgain scores on one of the dependent
measures (open-ended questions), yet each group showed dif-
ferences in gain scores on other dependent measures (cloze
semanticmaps, and open-endedsemanticmaps). Thus, in answerto
our second researchquestion-Does one type of strategytraining
facilitateL2 readingbetterthananother?-it appears thatthereare
both some similaritiesand some differencesin the effectivenessof
the two: Both appear to facilitatereading,but it depends upon how
one measuresthatreading.
Table 2 shows thatwhen subjects' learningstylesare taken into
account along with the differencesin strategytraining,thereis a
significantaptitude-by-treatment interaction,namelyan interaction
between learner characteristics (aptitude) and instructional
methods (treatment)(Cronbach & Snow, 1977). Two sets of eight
analyses were performedwith the learningstylesdata. One set of
analyses included all three groups; the second set of analyses
included only the two traininggroups,since we were interestedin
the effectsof trainingand possible interactionsbetween training
and learningstyles.Each set of analyses focused separatelyon the
two ILP subscales of interest (deep-shallow and elaborative
processing) and each set investigatedseparately each of the four
dependent measuresof readingcomprehension.
Looking at all threegroups (SM, ETR, and control),there is a
statisticallysignificantinteractionbetween the deep-shallow scale
of the ILP and strategytrainingtreatmenton the open-ended
semanticmap scores of the posttest.In both the semanticmap and
ETR traininggroups,both deep and shallow processorsperformed
well on the open-ended posttest map; however, in the control
group,onlydeep processorsperformedwell on thisposttesttask.In
addition to this significantaptitude-by-treatment interaction,we
also see a significantmain effect for training, other words, a
in
statistically significant difference among the three treatment
groups. The semantic mapping group outperformedboth the ETR
group and the control group on the open-ended map task on the
posttest. There were no other significantaptitude-by-treatment
666 TESOL QUARTERLY

m
0
0
zCI
H
3,
H
TABLE 2
and InteractionsBetweenLear
SignificanceofMain Effects
0
d'T
0
H
C1 Posttest Learner Learn
Training
z measure style group style
0
Open-endedsemanticmap Deep SM, ETR, Control F = 0.3
(N = 26) df = 1,2
v,
p = .58
Open-endedquestions Elaborative SM, ETR only F = 2.4

(N = 18) df = 1,1
p = .14
z
0

interactionsbetween any of the subscales of the ILP and training
when all threegroupswere takenintoconsideration.
When just the two traininggroups are taken into consideration,
Table 2 shows that there is a significantaptitude-by-treatment
interactionbetween the elaborative scale of the ILP and strategy
trainingon the open-ended question scores of the posttest.In the
group thatreceived trainingin semanticmapping,thosehighon the
elaborative scale of the ILP outperformedthose lower on the
elaborative scale, whereas in the group that received trainingin
ETR, those low on the elaborative scale of the ILP outperformed
those higher on the elaborative scale. There were no other
significantaptitude-by-treatment interactionsbetween any of the
subscales of the ILP and trainingwhen just the two traininggroups
were considered.
Thus, in answer to our thirdresearch question-How is the ef-
fectivenessof metacognitivestrategytrainingrelatedto thelearning
stylesof the students?-the effectivenessof our two metacognitive
strategytrainingmethodsdoes seem to be related to differencesin
the learningstylesof students.
DISCUSSION
Our resultsshow thatmetacognitivestrategytrainingin semantic
mapping and in the experience-text-relationshipmethod are
effectivein enhancingsecond language reading. Our resultsalso
show thatwhile thereare similaritiesbetween the two methodsin
theirenhancementof second language reading on some measures,
on othermeasuresthereare differencesbetween them.Finally,our
resultsshow thatthereare significantinteractionsbetween students'
learningstylesand the effectivenessof trainingin the two different
strategies.
These resultsshould,of course,be interpretedcautiously.The N-
size of each group was rathersmall. Also, since in many ways this
research is a firstof its kind, additional studies are needed to
replicateand stabilizethe effectsmeasured.5
5 This experimenthas already been replicated in a slightlyaltered formwith subjects of
somewhat lower proficiencylevels (Level 3 at CESL, TOEFL scores 420-480). In the
replication experiment, training in semantic mapping and in the experience-text-
relationshipmethod were combined into one experimentalclass which met over an eight-
week period. Everythingelse in the experimentwas the same as in the basic experiment
described in thebody of thepaper. Resultsyieldedsignificantgain scores on thepartof the
experimental group (N = 13) on two dependent measures--open-ended questions
(t = 3.87, p = .0022) and open-ended map construction(t = 5.29, p = .0011). This was in
contrastto a controlgroup (N - 11), which showed no significantgain scores on any of the
668 TESOL QUARTERLY

Nonetheless,theresultsof thisstudysuggestthatsecond language
reading pedagogy, especially for adult studentsin academic ESL
programs,shouldbenefitfromtheinclusionof explicit,comprehen-
sion-fosteringmetacognitivestrategytraining.Furthermore,our
resultssuggest thatthe types of such trainingshould be varied to
accommodate individualstudents'differing learningstyles.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This articleis a revised version of a paper presentedat the 23rd AnnualTESOL
Convention in San Antonio,TX, March 1989. The authorswish to thankresearch
assistantsMaria Linz, Donna Kiehnhoff,and Anne Calek, and Fulbrightscholars
Veronica Diptoadi and Manuela Julien.Withouttheirhelp we could not have
conducted the researchreportedin thispaper. We also wish to acknowledge the
cooperationof the CESL administration and staffat SouthernIllinoisUniversityat
Carbondale, as well as the cooperation of the studentswho participatedin the
study.
THE AUTHORS
Patricia L. Carrell is Dean of the Graduate School and Professorof Englishat the
Universityof Akronin Ohio. Her researchon schema theoryand second language
reading has been widely published in refereedjournals and in two recentlyco-
edited books, Research in Reading in English as a Second Language (TESOL,
1987), and InteractiveApproaches in Second Language Reading (Cambridge,
1989). She has recentlybecome interestedin metacognitionand readers'strategies.
Becky G. Pharisis a memberof the LinguisticsDepartment/CenterforEnglishas

a Second Language at SouthernIllinois University-Carbondale.She is currently
withtheSIU-C projectin Niigata,Japan. Her researchinterestsincludeclassroom-
centeredresearch,and learningstrategiesand styles.
JosephC. Liberto teaches ESL at the Center forEnglishas a Second Language at

SouthernIllinois University.He has taughtESL in adult education programsand
forthe IllinoisAdultIndochineseRefugee Program.Currently,he is workingon a
cross-culturalstudyin reflectivejudgment.
four dependent measures. Furthermore,there was a significantaptitude-by-training

interactionbetween the traininggroups and the deep-shallowscale of the ILP on the gain
scores of the open-ended semanticmap task (F = 9.26, p = .0188). The shallowprocessors
in the experimentalgroup gained more fromthe trainingthandid the deep processors,but
the deep processorsin thecontrolgroup (withoutanyspecificSM or ETR training)gained
more than did the shallow processors. This suggeststhat,at this proficiencylevel, both
explicitcomprehension-fosteringstrategytrainingmethods(SM and ETR) are particularly
beneficialforshallow processors,whereas deep processorsmay gain significantly on their
own, withoutthe advantages of specialized training.

REFERENCES
B. B., Anderson,
Armbruster, T. H., & Ostertag,
J. (1986).Does text
instruction
structure/summarization facilitate
learningfromexpository
text? (Tech. Rep. No. 394). Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of
Reading, Universityof Illinois.
Au, K. H-P. (1979). Using the experience-text-relationship
method with
minoritychildren.The Reading Teacher,32, 677-679.
Barnett,M. A. (1988). Reading throughcontext:How real and perceived
strategyuse affectsL2 comprehension.Modern Language Journal,72,
150-162.
Barnitz,J. G. (1985). Reading developmentof nonnativespeakersof
English.Orlando, FL: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
B. J. (1978).Top-levelstructure
Bartlett, as an organizational for
strategy
recall of classroom text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Arizona
State University.
Baudoin,E. M., Bober,E. S., Clarke,M. A., Dobson, B. K., & Silberstein,S.
(1988). Cultureshockand theproblemof adjustmentin new culturalen-
vironments.In Reader's choice (2nd ed., pp. 31-33). Ann Arbor, MI:
Universityof MichiganPress.
Biological Stresses.(1982, December). Bostonia,pp. 20-21.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language
readers. TESOL Quarterly,20, 463-494.
Brown, A. L. (1981). Metacognition: The development of selective
attentionstrategiesfor learning from texts. In M. L. Kamil (Ed.),
Directionsin reading:Researchand instruction
(pp. 21-43).(Thirtieth
Yearbook of the National Reading Conference). Washington,DC:
National Reading Conference.
Brown, A. L., Armbruster,B. B., & Baker, L. (1986). The role of meta-
cognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading
Fromresearchto practice(pp. 49-75).Hillsdale,NJ:
comprehension:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown,A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J.D. (1981). Learningto learn: On
trainingstudentsto learnfromtexts.Educational Researcher,10, 14-21.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar,A. S. (1982). Inducing strategiclearningfrom
textsby means of informed,self-control training.Topics in Learningand
2, 1-17.
LearningDisabilities,
Brown,A. L., Palincsar,A. S., & Armbruster, com-
B. B. (1984). Instructing
prehension-fostering activities in interactive learning situations. In
H. Mandl, N. L. Stein,& T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learningand comprehen-
sion of text(pp. 255-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carrell,P. L. (1984a). Evidence of a formalschema in second language
comprehension.Language Learning,34,87-112.
Carrell,P. L. (1984b). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL
readers. TESOL Quarterly,18, 441-469.
Carrell,P. L. (1985). FacilitatingESL reading by teachingtextstructure.
19,727-752.
TESOL Quarterly,
670 TESOL QUARTERLY

Carrell,P. L. (1989a). Metacognitive awareness and second language
reading.Modern Language Journal,73, 121-134.
Carrell,P. L. (1989b). Scoringsystemforopen-endedquestionsand open-
ended semantic map. Unpublished manuscript, Southern Illinois
University,Carbondale.
Cholesterolcontrol.(Pamphletin The WellnessWay series,available from
Krames Communications,312 90thStreet,Daly City,CA 94015-1898)
Chulalongkorn UniversityLanguage Institute.Foundation Reading II
(Vol. 3). Bangkok,Thailand. [No date available]
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Reading strategiestrainingfor
meaningfullearningfromprose. In M. Pressley& J. R. Levin (Eds.),
Cognitivestrategyresearch:Educational applications(pp. 87-131). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A
framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior,11, 671-684.
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving,E. (1975). Depth of processingand retentionof
words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General,104, 268-294.
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional
methods:A handbookforresearchon interactions. New York:Irvington.
Devine, J. (1984). ESL readers'internalizedmodels of thereadingprocess.
In J. Handscombe, R. Orem, & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83
(pp. 95-108). Washington,DC: TESOL.
Duffy,G. G., Roehler,L. R., & Herrmann,B. A. (1988). Modeling mental
processes helps poor readers become strategicreaders. The Reading
Teacher, 41, 762-767.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1983). Strategies in interlanguage
communication.London: Longman.
Geva, E. (1983). Facilitating reading through flowcharting.Reading
Research Quarterly,18, 384-405.
Hauptman, P. C. (1979). A comparison of firstand second language
reading strategies among English-speaking university students.
InterlanguageStudiesBulletin,4, 173-201.
Heimlich,J. E., & Pittelman,S. D. (1986). Semanticmapping: Classroom
applications. Newark,DE: InternationalReading Association.
Hosenfeld,C. (1977). A preliminaryinvestigationof thereadingstrategies
of successful and nonsuccessfulsecond language learners.System,5,
110-123.
Johnson,D. D., Pittelman,S. D., & Heimlich, J. E. (1986). Semantic
mapping. The Reading Teacher, 39, 778-783.
Knight,S. L., Padron, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1985). The cognitive
reading strategiesof ESL students.TESOL Quarterly,19, 789-792.
Mandler,J. M. (1978). A code in the node: The use of storyschemata in
retrieval.Discourse Processes,1, 14-35.

Meyer,B. J.F. (1975).The organization
of proseand itseffecton recall.
New York: NorthHolland.
Nuttall,C. (1982). Malnutrition.In Teaching reading skillsin a foreign
language (p. 199). London: HienemannEducational Books.
O'Berg, K. (1972). Culture shock and the problem of adjustmentin new
culturalenvironments.In D. S. Hoopes (Ed.), Readings in intercultural
communication (Vol. 2, pp. 43-45). Washington,DC: Society for
InterculturalEducation, Trainingand Research.
O'Malley, J. M. (1987). The effectsof trainingin the use of learning
strategieson learningEnglish as a second language. In A. Wenden & J.
Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategiesin language learning (pp. 133-144).
Englewood Cliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Padron,Y. N. (1985). Utilizingcognitivereadingstrategies
to improve
Englishreadingcomprehension bilingualstudents.
of Spanish-speaking
Unpublished doctoraldissertation,Universityof Houston.
Padron, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1988). The effectof ESL students'
perceptions of their cognitive strategies on reading achievement.
TESOL Quarterly,
22,146-150.
Resnick, L. B. (1979). Theories and prescriptionsfor early reading
In L. B. Resnick& P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theoryand practice
instruction.
of earlyreading (Vol. 2, pp. 321-338).Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reutzel, D. R. (1985). Storymaps improve comprehension.The Reading
Teacher,38,400-404.
Saitz, R. L., Dezell, M., & Stieglitz,F. B. (1984). Sources of Stress. In
Contemporary An advanced reader/rhetoric
perspectives: in English
(pp. 86-89). Boston:Little,Brown & Co.
Sarig,G. (1987). High-levelreadingin thefirstand in theforeignlanguage:
Some comparative process data. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, &
D. E. Eskey(Eds.), ResearchinreadinginEnglishas a secondlanguage
(pp. 105-120).Washington,DC: TESOL.
Sarig, G., & Folman, S. (1987). Metacognitiveawareness and theoretical
knowledge in coherence production. Paper presented at the XXth
AnniversaryCommunication and Cognition InternationalCongress,
Ghent,Belgium. (Forthcomingin M. Spoelders [Ed.], Communication
and Cognition,special issue)
Schmeck, R. R. (1980). Relationshipsbetween measuresof learningstyle
and readingcomprehension.PerceptualMotor Skills,50, 461-462.
Schmeck, R. R. (1983). Learningstylesof college students.In R. Dillon &
R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differencesin cognition(pp. 233-279).
New York: Academic Press.
Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Individual differencesand learningstrategies.In
C. Weinstein,E. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study
Issuesinassessment,
strategies: and evaluation(pp. 171-192).
instruction,
New York: Academic Press.
Schmeck, R. R., & Grove, E. (1979). Academic achievement and
individual differencesin learning processes. Applied Psychological
Measurement,
3, 43-49.
672 TESOL QUARTERLY

Schmeck, R. R., & Meier, S. (1984). Self-referenceas a learningstrategy
and a learningstyle.Human Learning,3, 9-17.
Schmeck, R. R., & Phillips,J. (1982). Levels of processingas a dimension
of differencebetween individuals.Human Learning,1, 95-103.
Schmeck, R. R., Ribich, F. D., & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of
a self-reportinventoryfor assessing individual differencesin learning
1, 413-431.
Measurement,
processes.AppliedPsychological
Sinatra,R. C., Berg, D., & Dunn, R. (1985). Semanticmapping improves
reading comprehension of learning disabled students. Teaching
17,310-314.
ExceptionalChildren,
Sinatra,R. C., Stahl-Gemake,J.,& Berg,D. 'N. (1984). Improvingreading
comprehensionof disabled readers throughsemantic mapping. The
ReadingTeacher,38,22-29.
Sinatra,R. C., Stahl-Gemake,J.,& Morgan,N. W. (1986). Using semantic
mapping afterreadingto organize and writeoriginaldiscourse.Journal
ofReading,30,4-13.
SituationalStresses.(1982, December). Bostonia,pp. 17-19.
Sonka, A. L. (1981). The nutrientsin food. In Skillfulreading:A textand
workbookforstudentsof Englishas a second language(pp. 91-93).
Stahl,S. A., & Vancil,S. J. (1986). Discussionis what makes semanticmaps
work in vocabularyinstruction.The Reading Teacher,40, 62-67.
Waxman, H. C., & Padron, Y. N. (1987). The effect of students'
perceptionsof cognitivestrategieson readingachievement.Paper
presentedat the annual meetingof the SouthwestEducational Research
Association,Dallas, TX.
Wenden,A., & Rubin,J. (1987).Learnerstrategies
in languagelearning.
Winograd, P., & Hare, V. C. (1988). Direct instructionof reading
comprehensionstrategies:The natureof teacher explanation.In C. E.
Weinstein,E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study
Issuesinassessment,
strategies: and evaluation(pp. 121-139).
instruction,
San Diego: Academic Press.
Yorkey, R. C. (1970). What foreignvisitorsthinkof America. In Study
skillsforstudentsof Englishas a secondlanguage(pp. 178-179).New
York: McGraw-Hill.
APPENDIX
FormA of Pre-and Posttest
Instructions
Read each of the followingpassages and answer the questions followingeach passage.
Work on one passage at a time,and when you have finishedwiththatpassage, go on to the
next. Work as quickly as you can, and tryto do as much as you can as well as you can.
However, you may not be able to complete everything.
If you change your mind about an answer, completelyerase your originalresponse and
clearlyindicateyournew response.

Most of the questionsare of the multiple-choiceor open-ended formswithwhich you are
already familiar.However, some questionsask you to complete a diagramwithinformation
fromthe passage. The followingis an example to show you how to answer thesequestions.
Passage: "Althoughthere are more than 3,000 varietiesof tea, there are only three major
types:black, green,and oolong. They all come fromthesame kindof bush; differencesin the
curingprocess determinethe type."
Completethediagram.
TEA
MajorTypes
b.
Answer: You should writethe words "black," "green"and "oolong" in the blank spaces by
the lettersa., b., and c. The orderis not important.
AMERICA
Last year more thana millionand a halfforeigntouristsvisitedthe United States.In order
to understandintercultural problemsbetter,and perhaps to findways to improveAmerica's
image abroad, a reporterrecentlyinterviewedsome of these visitorsas theywere leaving to
returnhome. He especially wanted to find out theirfirstimpressionsof the United States,
what places theymostenjoyed visiting,and some of theirlikes and dislikes.
As faras firstimpressionsare concerned,almostall of theforeignerswere impressedby the
tremendoussize of the country.The United States,of course,is a large country.The distance
between San Francisco and New York is about the same as that between Gibraltarand
Baghdad. Indeed, the entireMediterraneanSea could easily fitwithinthe country'sborders.
Even expectingthis,foreignerswho visitthe UnitedStatesforthe firsttimeare overwhelmed
by the vast distances.Apparentlyto be believed, such distanceshave to be traveled.
The foreignvisitorswere also impressedby therangeof climateand thevarietyof scenery
in the country.Many were amazed to discover that,in the same day, theycould travelfrom
thesnowycold of New England winterto the sunnywarmthof Florida sunshine.Even in the
single state of California,theycould findsandy beaches, rockyshores,tropicalvegetation,
hot drydeserts,redwood forests,and toweringsnow-capped mountains.
They were also impressedby the informalfriendlinessof Americans.Whetheron buses,
trains,planes, or at vacation or scenic resorts,these visitorsgenerallyagreed thattheyhad
been greeted warmly.On the otherhand, some reportedthathotel clerks,waiters,and taxi
driverswere oftenunsympathetic, impatient,and rude. The most common complaintof all
was thatso few Americanscan speak any language but English,and some foreignvisitors
claimed thattheyhad difficulty understandingtheAmericanaccent.
Based on the preceding passage, please circle the letterof the best answer to each of the
followingquestions:
1. What does "this"in "Even expectingthis.. ." (paragraph2, line 5) referto?
a. The distancebetween San Francisco and New York.
b. The vastnessof the country.
c. The size of the MediterraneanSea.
d. The country'sborders.
674 TESOL QUARTERLY

2. Whatmadethemostnegative impression on foreign
visitors?
a. The country'svastness.
b. The informal friendlinessofAmericans.
c. The factthattheAmerican accentis hardtounderstand.
d. The factthatnotmanyAmericans canspeaka foreign language.
3. Whichstatement is nottrueaccordingtothepassage?
a. The distancebetweenSan Franciscoand New Yorkis muchless thanthatbetween
Gibraltarand Baghdad.
b. New Englandwinters arecold.
c. Sometaxidrivers areimpatient.
d. The U.S.A.is a popularplacefortourists.
Basedon thepassage,butinyourownwords,pleaseanswerthefollowing:
4. The mainidea ofthispassageis:
5. Whatis itabouttheclimateandscenery
thatimpresses visitors?
foreign
CompletetheDiagram
5. Fillinthefollowing
blankswithinformation
fromthepreceding
passage.
TOURISTS' IMPRESSIONS OF AMERICA
Good Bad
Size Climate/Scenery American Who How

& Types Characteristics
Variety
a. a. a. a. clerks a.
b. b. informal b. b.
c. c. c.
d. mountains d. unable
to speak
a foreign
language

CHOLESTEROL
All aroundthiscountry, breakfast tablesare takingon a new look.Gone are theeggs,
bacon,sausage,cream,andbuttered toastAmericans havebeenaccustomed to.Heretostay
are freshfruit, wholegrains,and low-fatdairyproducts.Why?Becausemoreand more
people are becomingconcernedabout cholesterol. Researchshowsthata highlevel of
cholesterolinthebloodisa majorriskfactorforcoronary heartdisease.Fortunately, youcan
controlcholesterol by makingsimplechangesinyourdietand exercisehabits.
Alongwithsmoking andhighbloodpressure, isoneofthemajorriskfactors
cholesterol for
coronary heartdisease.But,it'salso one oftheeasiestto control.Allotherriskfactors aside,
a 25%reduction inserum(blood)cholesterol canreduceyourriskofheartdiseaseby50%.
Cholesterol is a vitalpartofeverybodycell.In theblood,ittravelsina "package"coated
withprotein. "Bad" cholesterol (LDL) has a thinner proteincoatingthan"good"cholesterol
(HDL). LDL depositsitselfon thewallsof yourarteriescausinga waxybuild-upcalled
plaque,whileHDL carriescholesterol outofthebloodstream. Plaquenarrows orblocksthe
openingsofyourarteries, whichimpairsbloodflowandcanlead toheartattack,stroke, and
death.
Saturatedfatis a dietaryfatthatraisesthelevelofcholesterol in theblood.Saturated fat
can also causearterial plaque.Whentrying to reduceyourcholesterol levels,itis important
toreduceyourintakeofsaturated fatsas well.
You can reduceyourcholesterol and fatlevelsby makingsomesimplelow-cholesterol,
low-fatchoicesin thefoodsthatyoueat. You can also maintain youridealweightand get
regularexercisewhichcan lower total cholesteroland increaselevels of the "good"
cholesterol,HDL.
Based on theprecedingpassage,please circletheletterof thebestanswerto each of the
followingquestions:
1. Peoplecan havea heartattackand evendie if
a. theirHDL levelis low.
b. theyhaveLDL intheirblood.
c. thewallsoftheirarteriesarewide.
d. thearteriesareblockedwithplaque.
riskof
are at greatest
2. We can inferfromthepassagethatpeople whodo thefollowing
havinga heartattack:
a. Eat wholegrains, andvegetableseveryday.
fruits,
b. Eat eggs,bacon,sausage,andlotsofbuttereveryday.
c. Drinkmilkandexerciseregularly.
d. Eat a pieceofcandyandwalkfor20 minutes everyday.
3. To reducetheirriskofheartdiseasebyhalf,peopleshould
a. eat onlyfruitsandvegetables.
b. reducetheirbloodcholesterolby50%.
c. reducetheirbloodcholesterolby25%.
d. eliminate fromtheirdietandblood
all cholesterol
4. Whatis theauthor's aboutcholesterol?
purposeinwriting
withcholesterol?
totheproblems
5. In whatwaysdoesfatcontribute
676 TESOL QUARTERLY

CompletetheDiagram
blankswithinformation
5. Fillinthefollowing fromthepreceding
passage.
Kinds MayCause
a. a.
b. b.
c. death
RiskFactorsfor
CHOLESTEROL
HeartDisease
a. cholesterol
b.
C.
To ReduceinDiet To ReduceinGeneral
Choose: Tryto:
a. a. maintain
idealweight
b. b.
MALNUTRITION
The struggle againstmalnutritionandhungerisas oldas manhimself, andneveracrossthe
faceofourplanethastheoutcomebeenmoreindoubt.Malnourishment afflicts
an estimated
400 millionto 1.5 billionof theworld'spoor.Even in theaffluent U.S.A.,povertymeans
undernourishment foran estimated tento twenty million.Hardesthitare children, whose
growing bodiesdemandtwoand a halftimesmoreprotein, poundforpound,thanthoseof
adults.Nutrition expertsestimatethat70 percentofthechildren inlow-income countries are
affected.
Misshapen bodiestellthetragicstoryofmalnutrition.Medicalscienceidentifies twomajor
typesofmalnutrition whichusuallyoccurincombination. The first,kwashiorkor,is typified
by thebloatedlook,theoppositeof whatwe associatewithstarvation. Accumulated fluids
pushingagainstwastedmusclesaccountfortheplumpness of hands,feet,belly,and face.
Emaciated shouldersreveal strikingthinness.Caused by an acute lack of protein,
kwashiorkor (a WestAfrican word)can bringbraindamage,anemia,diarrhea, irritability,
apathy,and lossofappetite.
On theotherhand,sticklimbs,a bloatedbelly,wideeyes,and thestretched-skin faceof
an old personmarkvictimsof marasmus, a wordtakenfromtheGreek"to wasteaway."
Lackingcaloriesas wellas protein, sufferersmayweighonlyhalfas muchas normal.With
fatgone,theskinhangsinwrinkles ordrawstight overbones.Withmarasmus comesanemia,
diarrhea, dehydration, and an enormous appetite.Children, whosegrowing bodiesrequire
largeamounts ofprotein, areafflicted
ingreaternumbers, butperhapsonlythreepercentof
all childvictimssuffertheextreme stagesdescribed.
Scientistsare workingfeverishly to develop new weapons againstmalnutrition and
starvation.Buttwo-thirds ofthehumanpopulation of3.9 billionliveinthepoorestcountries
whichalsohavethehighest birthrates.Fouroutoffivepeopleborneachyeararebornina
have-not country-acountry unabletosupplyitspeople'snutritional needs.

Based on theprecedingpassage,please circletheletterof thebestanswerto each of the
following questions:
1. Whoarethemostlikelyvictims ofmalnutrition?
a. Old people.
b. WestAfricans.
c. Children ofthepoor.
d. Homelesspeople.
2. The bloatedlookassociatedwithkwashiorkor is causedby:
a. The absenceofprotein.
b. Loss ofappetite.
c. Diarrheaandanemia.
d. Fluidspushingagainstwastedmuscles.
3. According to thepassage,howmanypeopleintheworldsuffer malnourishment?
a. 400millionto 1.5billionpeople.
b. 3.9 billionpeople.
c. Ten to twenty millionpeople.
d. Fouroutoffivepeopleborneachyear.
4. In general,whatis theauthor's purposeinthispassageaboutmalnourishment?
and marasmus.
5. Comparewhathappenstoappetiteinkwashiorkor
fromtheprevioustwopassagesas
Based on theprecedingpassage,and usingthediagrams
a completediagramforthepreceding
samples,pleaseconstruct passage.
QUARTERTION TESOL
MALNUTRI678
678 TESOL QUARTERLY


Carrell1989 Reading Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carrell1989 Reading Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

Metacognitive Strategy Training for ESL Reading

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

Recent researchin second language readinghas focused on

The currentexplosionof researchin second language readinghas

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

648 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

ambiguity?These are all questions about reading strategiesand

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING FOR ESL READING 649

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

650 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING FOR ESL READING 651

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

652 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING FOR ESL READING 653

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

654 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING FOR ESL READING 655

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

656 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING FOR ESL READING 657

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

658 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

660 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

Finally,afterthelastpassage in each formof thetest,subjects

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING FOR ESL READING 661

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

662 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING FOR ESL READING 663

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

The one open-ended semantic map was scored on a three-point

3 Map is relativelycomplete and shows clearlythatstudenthas

664 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

Multiple-choicequestions M = 0.33 M = - 0.11 M = 0.88

Table 1 furthershows that neitherof the two traininggroups

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING FOR ESL READING 665

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

666 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

Open-endedquestions Elaborative SM, ETR only F = 2.4

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

668 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

Becky G. Pharisis a memberof the LinguisticsDepartment/CenterforEnglishas

JosephC. Liberto teaches ESL at the Center forEnglishas a Second Language at

four dependent measures. Furthermore,there was a significantaptitude-by-training

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING FOR ESL READING 669

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

670 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM

METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING FOR ESL READING 671

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:32:46 AM