英语阅读策略的三大理论:传统观、认知观、与元认知观
(2018-01-25 11:15:51)This article is in two
parts.
- The traditional view
- The cognitive view
- The metacognitive view
- Conclusion
Just like teaching methodology, reading
theories have had their shifts and transitions. Starting from the
traditional view which focused on the printed form of a text and
moving to the cognitive view that enhanced the role of background
knowledge in addition to what appeared on the printed page, they
ultimately culminated in the metacognitive view which is now in
vogue. It is based on the control and manipulation that a reader
can have on the act of comprehending a
text.
The traditional view
According to Dole et al. (1991), in the traditional view of
reading, novice readers acquire a set of hierarchically ordered
sub-skills that sequentially build toward comprehension ability.
Having mastered these skills, readers are viewed as experts who
comprehend what they read.
- Readers are passive recipients of information in the text. Meaning resides in the text and the reader has to reproduce meaning.
- According to Nunan (1991), reading in this view is basically a matter of decoding a series of written symbols into their aural equivalents in the quest for making sense of the text. He referred to this process as the 'bottom-up' view of reading.
- McCarthy (1999) has called this view 'outside-in' processing, referring to the idea that meaning exists in the printed page and is interpreted by the reader then taken in.
- This model of reading has almost always been under attack as being insufficient and defective for the main reason that it relies on the formal features of the language, mainly words and structure.
Although it is possible to accept this
rejection for the fact that there is over-reliance on structure in
this view, it must be confessed that knowledge of linguistic
features is also necessary for comprehension to take place. To
counteract over-reliance on form in the traditional view of
reading, the cognitive view was introduced.
The cognitive
view
The
- Goodman (1967; cited in Paran, 1996) presented reading as a psycholinguistic guessing game, a process in which readers sample the text, make hypotheses, confirm or reject them, make new hypotheses, and so forth. Here, the reader rather than the text is at the heart of the reading process.
-
The schema theory of reading also fits within the cognitively based
view of reading. Rumelhart (1977) has described schemata
as
"building blocks of cognition" which are used in the process of interpreting sensory data, in retrieving information from memory, in organising goals and subgoals, in allocating resources, and in guiding the flow of the processing system.
- Rumelhart (1977) has also stated that if our schemata are incomplete and do not provide an understanding of the incoming data from the text we will have problems processing and understanding the text.
Cognitively based views of reading
comprehension emphasize the interactive nature of reading and the
constructive nature of comprehension. Dole et al. (1991) have
stated that, besides knowledge brought to bear on the reading
process, a set of flexible, adaptable strategies are used to make
sense of a text and to monitor ongoing understanding.
The metacognitive
view
According to Block (1992), there is now no more
debate on
Metacognition involves thinking about what one is doing while
reading. Klein et al. (1991) stated that strategic readers attempt
the following while reading:
- Identifying the purpose of the reading before reading
- Identifying the form or type of the text before reading
- Thinking about the general character and features of the form or type of the text. For instance, they try to locate a topic sentence and follow supporting details toward a conclusion
- Projecting the author's purpose for writing the text (while reading it),
- Choosing, scanning, or reading in detail
- Making continuous predictions about what will occur next, based on information obtained earlier, prior knowledge, and conclusions obtained within the previous stages.
Moreover, they attempt to form a
summary of what was read. Carrying out the previous steps requires
the reader to be able to classify, sequence, establish whole-part
relationships, compare and contrast, determine cause-effect,
summarise, hypothesise and predict, infer, and
conclude.
Conclusion
In
the
This article published: 23rd March, 2006 was first published in Iranian Language Institute Language Teaching Journal Volume 1, No.1 Spring 2005.
Further
reading
Barnett, M. A.
(1988).
Block, E. L. (1992).
Dole, J. A. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., and Pearson, D. D.
(1991).
Dubin, F., and Bycina, D. (1991).
Duke, N. K., and Pearson, D. P.
(n.d.).
Estes T. H. (1999).
Fitzgerald, J.
(1995).
Klein, M. L., Peterson, S., and Simington, L.
(1991).
Lebauer, R. (1998).
McCarthy, C. P. (n. d.)
Nunan, D. (1991).
Paran, A. (1996).
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977).
Steinhofer, H. (1996).
Ur, P. (1996).
Vaezi, S. (2001).
Van Duzer, C. (1999).
Shahin Vaezi Ph.D. Assistant professor, University of Science and Technology, Iran