an analysis of the efl secondary reading curriculum...
Post on 27-Mar-2020
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFL SECONDARY READING
CURRICULUM AND READING THEORIES IN IRAQI
KURDISTAN
Hamsa Hameed Ahmed
UNIVERSITI SAINS ISLAM MALAYSIA
AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFL SECONDARY READING
CURRICULUM AND READING THEORIES IN IRAQI
KURDISTAN
Hamsa Hameed Ahmed
(Matric No. 4110112)
Thesis submitted in fulfillment for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN EDUCATION
FACULTY OF MAJOR LANGUAGE STUDIES
UNIVERSITI SAINS ISLAM MALAYSIA
Nilai
August 2016
ii
DECLARATION
بـسـم هللا الـرحـمـن الرحـيـم
I hereby declare that the work has been done by myself and no portion of the work
contained in this Thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other
degree or qualification on this or any other university or institution of learning.
Date: 22nd August 2016 Signature:
Name: Hamsa Hammed Ahmed
Matric No.: 4110112
Address: Kajang
iii
COPYRIGHT
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act
1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the University Science Islamic Malaysia
Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the
use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
© Hamsa Hameed Ahmed, 2015 All rights reserved
iv
BIODATA OF AUTHOR
Hamsa Hameed Ahmed was born in 1985. She earned her Bachelor of English
Language from University of Baghdad in 2007, Iraq. She got Master in English
Language Studies from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in 2011, Malaysia. Currently,
she is on leave to study PhD in Education, at Faculty of Major Language Studies,
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Nilai, Malaysia.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to thank our Almighty Allah for his mercy, grace and
blessings.
The past three years have been thus far the most challenging, interesting, and
rewarding part of my life. I am very thankful and grateful that I have crossed paths
with many wonderful people who have helped me in many ways in my pursuit of a
PhD at Faculty of Major Languages, University Science Islamic Malaysia.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor, Dr. Fariza Puteh -
Behak for her supervision, guidance, patience and support in this research. And for
Dr. Harison Mohd Sidek for her guidance and support. Without their guidance and
consistent help, this thesis would not have been possible.
Special thanks to my mother and my sisters, who have helped and supported me over
these years. And for my great husband. Thank you so much to all of you.
vi
ABSTRAK
Penggunaan Bahasa Inggeris semakin meningkat di peringkat institusi tertinggi.
Bagaimanapun bagi pelajar-pelajar Tingkatan 6 di Iraqi Kurdistan, penguasaan
pembacaan Bahasa Inggeris adalah masih lemah terutamanya dalam kemahiran
berfikir secara kritikal. Ini bermakna mahasiswa dan mahasiswi yang memulakan
pengajian ke tahun pertama kurang bersedia untuk mengikuti kursus-kursus di mana
mata pelajaran diajar di dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Kita tidak mengetahui strategi yang
digunakan di Tingkatan 6, maka kajian ini adalah untuk mengetahui secara mendalam
serta mengenalpasti faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi proses pembacaan secara
kritikal. Kaedah kualitatif digunakan untuk mengumpul data dan data diperolehi
melalui empat sumber. Pertama, kurikulum berkaitan dengan pembacaan serta buku
teks dikaji secara mendalam dan dapatan diperhatikan. Kedua, guru-guru yang
mengajar di Tingkatan 6 diperhatikan serta ditemuduga untuk mendapat maklumbalas
yang lebih jelas. Temuduga ini direkodkan dan kemudian ditukar menjadi kod.
Keempat, mahasiswa-mahasiswi di universiti-universiti di Iraqi Kurdistan ditemuduga
dan maklumbalas mereka juga direkodkan dan kemudian ditukar sebagai kod. Data-
data dalam bentuk kod kemudian diproses dan beberapa keputusan (dapatan) didapati.
Dapatan-dapatan ini menunjukkan bahawa kebanyakan petikan pembacaan Bahasa
Inggeris serta aktivitinya telah dipengaruhi oleh proses bawah-atas (bottom-up) dan
tidak dari proses atas-bawah (top-down) atau proses meta-cognitive. Tambahan pula
analisa menunjukkan bahawa kebanyakan petikan pembacaan (67%) dalam buku teks
adalah berunsur cerita (narrative), sedangkan petikan pembacaan di peringkat
universiti adalah berunsur penjelasan (expository). Perbincangan berdasarkan dapatan
kajian menunjukkan bahwa hanya 31% daripada jumlah soalan berkaitan dengan
penstrukturan semula (reorganization) dan kemahiran membaca secara inferensi
(inferential). Ini bermakna lebih kurang 77% soalan pemahaman di dalam buku teks
‘Sunrise Student’s Book 12’ adalah soalan pemahaman yang tidak melibatkan
pemikiran kritikal. Maka perubahan yang besar diperlukan pada kurikulum Tingkatan
Enam yang sedia ada supaya ia dapat membantu perkembangan pemikiran yang lebih
mendalam. Kajian ini juga penting kerana dapatan-dapatan ini boleh digunapakai di
negara-negara di Timur Tengah.
vii
ABSTRACT
As English Language is increasingly being used in tertiary education, there is growing
concern that students graduating from Form Six classes in Iraqi Kurdistan have poor
reading skills in particular higher order thinking skills. Therefore, the students
entering university are ill prepared to follow courses where the subject matter is taught
primarily in English. Little is really known on the reading skills and strategies used in
Form 6 and the factors that contribute to poor reading skills. Against this concern, this
study was undertaken with the aim to unfold and understand the need for developing
critical reading comprehension skills. This study is a content analysis research and
qualitative methods were used to collect data. The data used in this research study was
obtained through four sources. First, the reading curriculum and the Form Six
textbooks were scrutinized in detail and the ensuing comments were documented.
Second, two teachers teaching the Form Six classes were observed and this was
followed by teacher interviews. Fourth, the first year undergraduate students in
universities in Iraqi Kurdistan were interviewed and their feedback were transcribed
and carefully coded to find out the difficulties they faced at their respective
universities. The findings from this study have shown that most of the reading
passages and reading tasks found in the student’s textbook are influenced by bottom-
up strategy. There has been a lack of reading passages and reading tasks related to top-
down processing and meta-cognitive processing respectively. On the contrary, the
findings reflect that most of the passages in the student’s textbook are narrative in
nature while at tertiary level more expository type of passages are used. Discussion
based on findings, reveal that only a small number of reading comprehension
questions refer to reorganization and inferential reading skills. This means that the
majority of the reading comprehension questions in the textbook are literal
comprehension questions where no critical thinking is involved. The study findings
have further shown that most of the reading passages and reading tasks found in
Sunrise Student’s Book 12 are influenced by bottom-up strategy. In addition to these,
most of the passages in the student’s Book 12 are narrative in nature while at tertiary
level more expository type of passages is used. This means that the majority of the
reading comprehension questions in the textbook are literal comprehension questions
where no critical thinking is involved. Thus, there is a necessity to bring out radical
changes to the existing EFL secondary reading curriculum so that new tasks and
activities can aid in developing higher order thinking skills. The present study is
significant as it can be applicable to other Middle-East countries.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .......................................................................................................... ii
COPYRIGHT .............................................................................................................. iii
BIODATA OF AUTHOR ........................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................... v
ABSTRAK ................................................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1
1.1 Problem Background ....................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 English Language Teaching in Iraq ................................................... 5
1.2 Introduction To Iraqi Kurdistan Curriculum ................................................... 6
1.2.1 Meaning of Curriculum ..................................................................... 7
1.2.2 Changes in Iraqi Kurdistan Curriculum ............................................. 7
1.3 The English New National Curriculum in Iraq ............................................. 11
1.4 Problem Statement ........................................................................................ 13
1.5 Purposes of the Study .................................................................................... 15
1.6 Objectives of the Study ................................................................................. 16
1.7 Research Questions ....................................................................................... 16
1.8 Definition of Terms ....................................................................................... 16
1.8.1 Curriculum ....................................................................................... 16
1.8.2 Reading Theories ............................................................................. 17
1.8.3 Higher Order Thinking Skills .......................................................... 17
1.9 Thesis Organization ....................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 19
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 19
2.2 Reading Passages .......................................................................................... 20
2.2.1 Past Studies on the Length of Reading Passages ............................. 20
2.2.2 Past studies on Type of Passages, Why Expository More Important
than Narrative. ................................................................................. 21
ix
2.2.3 Past Studies on Reading Comprehension Question Types of Higher
Order Thinking Skills (Explain Barroom’s Taxonomy). ................. 23
2.3 Inferential Comprehension ............................................................................ 24
2.3.1 Inferring Supporting Details ............................................................ 26
2.3.2 Inferring Main Ideas ........................................................................ 26
2.3.3 Inferring Sequence ........................................................................... 26
2.3.4 Inferring Comparisons ..................................................................... 27
2.3.5 Inferring Cause and Effect Relationships ........................................ 27
2.3.6 Inferring Character Traits ................................................................ 27
2.3.7 Predicting Outcomes ........................................................................ 27
2.3.8 Interpreting Figurative Language .................................................... 28
2.4 Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 28
2.4.1 Judgments of Reality or Fantasy ..................................................... 28
2.4.2 Judgments of Fact or Opinion ......................................................... 28
2.4.3 Judgments of Adequacy and Validity .............................................. 29
2.4.4 Judgments of Appropriateness ......................................................... 29
2.4.5 Judgments of Worth, Desirability and Acceptability ...................... 29
2.5 Appreciation .................................................................................................. 29
2.5.1 Emotional Response to the Content ................................................. 30
2.5.2 Identification with Characters or Incidents ..................................... 30
2.5.3 Reactions to the Author’s Use of Language .................................... 30
2.5.4 Imagery ............................................................................................ 30
2.6 Techniques for Asking More Effective Questions ........................................ 31
2.7 Reading Theories ........................................................................................... 31
2.7.1 Traditional Bottom-Up View ........................................................... 32
2.7.2 Top-Down Processing (Cognitive View) ........................................ 34
2.8 Schema Theory .............................................................................................. 36
2.9 Content and Formal Schemata ...................................................................... 37
2.10 Activating and building schemata ................................................................. 38
2.11 Applying Schema Theory to L2 Reading ...................................................... 39
2.12 Pre-Reading Activities .................................................................................. 40
2.12.1 The Meta-Cognitive View .................................................................. 42
2.13 Effective Reading .......................................................................................... 42
2.14 Critical Review on EFL Secondary Reading Curriculum in Iraqi Kurdistan 43
2.15 Past Studies on Curriculum ........................................................................... 48
x
2.16 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................ 52
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 52
3.2 Research Approach ....................................................................................... 52
3.3 Content Analysis ........................................................................................... 52
3.3.1 Inductive Content Analysis ............................................................. 55
3.3.2 Deductive Content Analysis ............................................................ 55
3.4 Research Procedure ....................................................................................... 56
3.5 Research Context ........................................................................................... 59
3.5.1 Educational Context of EFL in Iraqi Kurdistan ............................... 59
3.5.2 The Secondary EFL Educational Framework in Iraq ...................... 61
3.5.3 Form Six EFL Educational Framework of the Secondary School in
Iraq ................................................................................................... 62
3.5.4 The Form Six English Language Curriculum Specifications .......... 62
3.5.5 Participants of the Study .................................................................. 63
3.5.6 Site of the Study / Location of Study .............................................. 64
3.6 Data Collection .............................................................................................. 64
3.7 Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 68
3.8 Trustworthiness ............................................................................................. 72
3.9 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................... 75
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ............................................ 76
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 76
4.2 Research Question One ................................................................................. 77
4.3 Research Question Two .............................................................................. 112
4.4 Research Question Three ............................................................................ 117
4.5 Research Question Four .............................................................................. 122
4.6 Summary ..................................................................................................... 138
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 139
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 139
5.2 Findings of the Research Study ................................................................... 139
5.3 EFL Reading Tasks at Tertiary Level ......................................................... 143
5.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 147
xi
5.5 Future Work ................................................................................................ 148
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 150
APPENDICES……...................................................................................................163
APPENDIX A: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION WITH MISS MAY……....163
APPENDIX B: TEACHERS INTERVIEW…………………………….....…..170
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Iraqi education scenario .............................................................................. 59
Table 3.2: Data display matrix for analyzing patterns of responses for Miss May (1)
and Mr. Ibrahim (2) ..................................................................................... 71
Table 3.3: Summary of teacher interviews .................................................................. 72
Table 3.4: Guba’s four criteria for trustworthiness (shenton, 2004) ............................ 73
Table 4.1: Analysis of reading theories and strategies in EFL reading text ................ 82
Table 4.2: Getting organized ........................................................................................ 88
Table 4.3: Analysis on types and length of reading passages in sunrise student’s book
12 ............................................................................................................... 113
Table 4.4: Comprehension question based on Unit 2 ................................................ 118
Table 4.5: Distribution of questions ........................................................................... 121
Table 4.6: Analysis of reading passages and their relationship with language learning
theories ...................................................................................................... 126
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Aligning Curriculum with Teaching Learning and Assessment………….9
Figure 1.2: Curriculum Dimensions………………………………………………….10
Figure 2.1: Framework…………………………………………..…………………...19
Figure 2.2: Barrett Taxonomy………………………………………………………..25
Figure 2.3: Sample Reading Passage from Sunrise 12 Student’s Book Page 20…….45
Figure 2.4: Comprehension Questions 1……………………………………………..46
Figure 2.5: Second Reading Passage on Erbil’s Ancient Citadel…………………….47
Figure 2.6: Comprehension Questions ......................................................................... 47
Figure 3.1: Preparation, Organizing and Resulting Phases in the Content Analysis
Process……………..…………………………………...…………………54
Figure 3.2: The Research Methodology That Used by the Researcher ....................... 58
Figure 3.3: Data Collection Steps ................................................................................ 64
Figure 3.4: Data analysis Steps .................................................................................... 68
Figure 4.1: Iraqi Curriculum Framework: Learner Key Competencies...…………….78
Figure 4.2: Languages, Literature and Communication (Page 35) .............................. 79
Figure 4.3: Iraqi Curriculum Framework: Teaching and Learning Strategies (Page
45)………………………………………………………………….81
Figure 4.4: They Wanted a Better Life (Unit 1-Lesson 3 & 4) .................................... 86
Figure 4.5: Reading Comprehension Questions Based on Unit 1 ............................... 87
Figure 4.6: Getting Organized (Unit 2- Lesson 3 & 4) ................................................ 90
Figure 4.7: Saving the Past for the Future (Unit 3 Lesson 1 & 2) ............................... 91
Figure 4.8: Comprehension Questions for Unit 3 (Lesson 1 & 2) ............................... 91
Figure 4.9: Saving the Past for the Future (Unit 3 – Lesson 3 & 4) ............................ 93
Figure 4.10: Comprehension Questions for Unit 3 (Lesson 3 & 4) ............................. 93
Figure 4.11: It Couldn’t Have Gone Better! (Unit 4 – Lesson 1 & 2) ......................... 96
Figure 4.12: Reading Comprehension Questions Based on Unit 4 ............................. 97
Figure 4.13: Feeding Nine Billion (Unit 5 – Lesson 3 & 4) ........................................ 98
Figure 4.14: Reading Comprehension Questions Based on Unit 5 ............................. 99
Figure 4.15: Into the Information Age (Unit 6 – Lesson 3 & 4) ................................ 100
Figure 4.16: Reading comprehension questions based on Unit 6 .............................. 101
Figure 4.17: Working Together for a Better World (Unit 7 – Lesson 3 & 4) ............ 103
Figure 4.18: Reading Comprehension Questions Based On Unit 7 - Lesson 3 & 4) 103
Figure 4.19: They are the people working with us (Unit 8 – Lesson 1 & 2) ............. 105
Figure 4.20: Reading Comprehension Questions Based on Unit 7 - Lesson 3 & 4 ... 106
xiv
Figure 4.21: Observation Transcript for Unit 3 ......................................................... 109
Figure 4.22: Observation Transcript based on the Literary Reader ........................... 110
Figure 4.23: Observation Transcript Based on Unit 7 (Lesson 3 & 4) ...................... 111
Figure 4.24: Pattern Reflecting the Length of Reading Passages .............................. 115
Figure 4.25: Part of Teacher Interview Transcript ..................................................... 116
Figure 4.26: Teacher Interview Transcript on Higher Order Thinking Skills ........... 120
Figure 5.1: Developing Critical Thinking Skills (Page 26)…………………..……..140
Figure 5.2: Summary of the Findings of the Present Study ....................................... 140
Figure 5.3: Insight into Teaching Approaches and Methodologies - Page 46 of Iraqi
Curriculum Framework ............................................................................. 142
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Background
Recently, in non-native English language speaking countries, there has been growing
concern regarding the English proficiency level. English is a language which has great
reach and influence; it is a language of establishment and it maintains connection and
relationship among people all around the world. English has been widely used in the
private sector and it is becoming a significant factor in the development of economics
and education (Crystal, 2003). Moreover, English has been used widely in the
economic sector, the political bodies and commercial organisations. In addition,
according to (Ellis 2005), more than 85% of the scientific, technological and academic
materials in the world today are in English. To date, many university students in
Middle East in general and in Iraq in particular have learned English for 12 years, but
their English proficiency is still poor. Most students cannot express their thoughts or
even speak well in the English language despite having learnt Reading, Writing,
Listening and Speaking for about 12 years (Kareem, 2009). So that the researcher is
going to examine reading curriculum in Iraqi Kurdistan.
19
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The design of this chapter explained through Figure 2.1 that provides a flowchart of
the various stages in literature review. It starts with an introduction followed by
explanation about the reading passages. Next, the reading theories are given focus
followed by some significant pointers to achieve effective reading. A critical review
on EFL secondary reading curriculum was done and at the end of the chapter some
past studies on curriculum has been highlighted.
Figure 2.1: Framework
20
2.2 Reading Passages
One of the more complex tasks facing the English as a foreign language (EFL) reading
teacher is the selection of appropriate reading passages. In reading seminars I conduct
with EFL teachers, we often exchange views on criteria used to select such passages.
Some of the criteria are on everyone list and are obvious; this is important, for it
reassures the participants that their insights are valuable.
2.2.1 Past Studies on the Length of Reading Passages
Long reading comprehension passages are between 400-700 words and they usually
have between 7-10 questions per passage. Long passages give more scope to set
questions that require higher order thinking skills and they usually involve main idea
questions in some form. Students usually do not like to read long passages as their
focus become less as they progress in reading.
Pearson & Camperell (1981: 33) in their research assert that when complexity of
structure and sentence length come together, text comprehension will be reduced. So,
one of the factors that can affect text comprehension is text length. Chastain (1988:
234) noted that language teachers usually favour short reading passages. The tendency
of short passage use may have its roots in a desire not to overload the students. But it
probably is an outgrowth of the idea of reading as a laborious process of deciphering a
complex and sometimes unfamiliar linguistic code for which the students were
required to know all grammar and vocabulary. Studies have shown that in a long
passage, students focus too much attention on language than meaning, and they read
52
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discussed the methodology of the current study. Specifically, the chapter
explained the research approach, qualitative paradigm and content analysis, as both
are the foundations of the study. Then, it discussed the trustworthiness, research
context, data collection, and data analysis.
3.2 Research Approach
This study used a content analysis approach; which is deductive content analysis in
analyzing the curriculum of Iraqi Kurdistan for Form Six of the secondary school. The
interview sessions and the notes from the teacher observations would later be
transcribed and then analyzed using a coding process. Please refer to appendix D for
the coding details(Elo & Kynga, 2008).
3.3 Content Analysis
Content analysis is a systematic and objective means of describing and quantifying
phenomena Krippendorff (2000). According to Babbie (2010) content analysis is a
53
method of analyzing written, verbal or visual communication messages. The
researcher mentioned that through content analysis, it is possible to distill words into
fewer content related categories and when classified into the same categories, words,
phrases and the like shared the same meaning.
There are two approaches or ways to content analysis namely inductive and deductive
content analysis based on theoretical knowledge. The aim is to attain a condensed and
broad description of the phenomenon and the outcome of the analysis is concepts or
categories describing the phenomenon. The choice of the approach depends on the
purpose of the study. If there is not enough knowledge about the phenomenon or if
this knowledge is fragmented, the inductive approach is recommended (Lauri &
Kynga, 2005). On the other hand, Kynga & Vanhanen (1999) explained that deductive
content analysis was used when the structure of analysis was carried out on the basis
of previous knowledge and the purpose of the study was theory testing. In inductive
approach, the data collected moved from the precise or specific to the general so that
particular instances were observed and then combined into a larger whole or general
statement (Chinn & Kramer, 1999).
Conversely according to Burns & Grove (2005), a deductive approach is based on an
earlier theory or model and therefore it moves from the general to the specific. Both
the inductive and deductive analysis processes go through three main phases namely
preparation, organizing and reporting. Figure 3.1 diagrammatically represents these
three phases.
76
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The focus of this chapter is to analyze the reading comprehension passages and seek
answers to the research questions. This chapter is divided into five sections and each
section discussed a particular research question. The First Section looked at research
question one and examine how reading theories and strategies underpin the English
Curriculum of Iraqis' Kurdistan secondary school form six). The Second Section of
this chapter looked at the second research question and examine the type of reading
passages that are currently being used in the English language curriculum at Form Six
level in Iraqi Kurdistan. It addressed the different types of reading passages are
discussed in detail. In addition, the passages are examined to find out if the passages
are narrative or expository. The length and scope of the passages was also examined.
Next, the Third Section of this chapter looked at the third research question and find
out if the reading passages used in Form Six classes in Iraqi Kurdistan help in
developing higher order reading and thinking skills it further discussed in detail, the
reasons for incorporating higher order thinking skills into reading passages. In the
Fourth Section of this chapter which relates to research question four would look at
language learning theories that are reflected in the Iraqi reading curriculum. The last
section outlines the summary of this chapter.
77
4.2 Research Question One
This section answer research question one, what are the reading theories underpinning
the English Curriculum of Iraqis' Kurdistan secondary school (form six)? The reading
theories and strategies which are directly or indirectly implied in the English
Curriculum of Iraqis' Kurdistan secondary school would become clearer when one
examines the Iraqi Curriculum Framework which was developed in 2012. The new
Iraqi Curriculum Framework as outlined in Page 27 of Iraqi Curriculum Framework
and depicted in Figure 4.1 outlines the Key Learner Competencies which includes
critical and independent thinking, inquiry and information processing, creative
thinking and problem solving, evaluation and decision making and finally
communication.
139
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the entire research study and its findings. It provides
explanations on the research process and the ways in which the study contributes to
knowledge about teaching and learning in Iraqi Kurdistan secondary schools at Form
Six Level. The first part discusses the research findings and this is followed by EFL
reading tasks in institutions of higher learning. This chapter concludes by outlining the
gist of this study and it is followed by studies on future work.
5.2 Findings of the Research Study
Research studies have found that many undergraduate students at university level face
problems in following their professional studies in the arts and sciences primarily due
to not only low English proficiency but also due to poor development of higher order
thinking skills in relation to reading (Kareem, 2009). He suggested that the roots of
the problems were related to poor reading information processing strategies being
used in class. On the one hand, the foreword by the Minister of Education in Baghdad
on Page 7 of the Curriculum Framework says that the Curriculum Framework
“supports the attainment of learner’s competencies such as creative thinking,
140
constructive criticism, problem-solving, sound communication and correct decision
making”. In addition, Page 7 of the Iraqi Curriculum Framework mentions the same
point of developing creative and critical thinking skills. This is depicted in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.2 on the other hand provides the summary of the findings of the present
study.
Figure 5.1: Developing Critical Thinking Skills (Page 26)
Figure 5.2: Summary of the Findings of the Present Study
150
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdullatif A. Al-Jumaily. 2002. “The ELT Syllabus in Iraq: Problems and Solutions”.
Baghdad: Al-Adab Journal. No. 61.
Alberto Angosto, Patricia Sánchez, María Álvarez, Irene Cuevas & José Antonio
León. 2013. “Evidence for Top-Down Processing in Reading Comprehension of
Children”. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Spain.
Alexander Seeshing Yeung, H.W. Marsh & R. Suliman. 2000. “Can Two Tongues
Live in Harmony?: Analysis of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988
(NELS88) Longitudinal Data on the Maintenance of Home Language”. American
Educational Research Journal. Vol. 37. (4): p. 1001-1026.
Al-Ghalbi, A.A. 2011. “A General View on How to Teach the New English Language
Curriculum: Iraq Opportunities”. AL-Nasria News Website.
<http://nasiriyah.org/nar/ifm. php?recordID=23365>. accessed: 20 January 2012.
Al-Hamash, I.K. & B. Hammo. 1990. Teacher’s Guide of Book -1- (NECI). Baghdad:
Iraqi Technical Printing Co. Ltd.
Ana Marusic & M. Marusic. 1999. “Small Scientific Journals from Small Countries:
Breaking from a Vicious Circle of Inadequacy”. Croatian Medical Journal. Vol. 40
(4): p. 508-514.
Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), D.R. Krathwohl (Ed.), P.W. Airasian, K.A. Cruikshank, R.E.
Mayer, P.R. Pintrich, J. Raths & M.C. Wittrock. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
(Complete Edition). New York: Longman.
Anderson, N.J. 2003a. Reading. In D. Nunan (Ed.). Practice English Language
Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Armbruster, B.B., D. Lapp, J. Flood & N. Farnan (Eds.). 2004. Considerate Texts. In
Content Area Reading and Learning: Instructional Strategies. (2nd ed.). NJ: Erlbaum.
p. 47-58.
Arthur N. Applebee, J.A. Langer, M. Nystrand & A. Gamoran. 2003. “Discussion-
based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student
performance in middle and high school English”. American Educational Research
Journal. Vol. 40. p. 685-730.
Babbie, E.R. 2010. The Practice of Social Research. Cengage Learning. Scarborough:
Canada.
Baretta, L., L.M.B. Tomitch, N. Mcnair, V.K. Lim & K.E. Waldie. 2009. “Inference
Making While Reading Narrative and Expository Texts: An ERP study”. Psychology
& Neuroscience. Vol. 2. (2): p. 137-145.
151
Beck, I.L. & M.G. McKeown. 2001. “Inviting Students into the Pursuit of Meaning”.
Educational Psychology Review. Vol. 13 (3): p. 225–241.
Bernard, H.R. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology. Rowman Altamira.
Berns, M.S., S. Savignon & M.S. Berns (Eds.). 1984. Functional Approaches to
Language and Language Teaching: Another Look. Initiatives in communicative
language teaching. A book of readings. PA: Addison-Wesley. p. 3-21.
Bette S. Bergeron. 1990. “What Does The Term Whole Language Mean?
Constructing a Definition from the Literature”. Journal of Reading Behavior. Vol. 22.
P. 301-329.
Bishop, R. & M. Berryman. 2007. Culture Speaks: Cultural Relationships and
Classroom Learning. Huia Publishers.
Blenkin, G.M., A.V. Kelly & G. Edwards. 1992. Change and the Curriculum.
London: Paul Chapman.
Block, E.L. 1992. “How They Read: Comprehension Monitoring of L1 and L2
Readers. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 26. (2).
Bloor, A.M. 1985. “Some Approaches to the Design of Reading Courses in the
Foreign Language”. Reading in the Foreign Language. Vol. 3 (1): p. 341-361.
Boling, C.J. & W.H. Evan. 2008. “Reading Success in the Secondary Classroom”.
Preventing School Failure. Vol. 52. (2): p. 59-66.
Bonnie J.F. Meyer & R.O. Freedle. 1984. “Effects of Discourse Type on Recall”.
American Educational Research Journal. Vol. 21. (1): p. 121–143.
Brinton, D.M., M.A. Snow & M.B. Wesche. 1989. Content-Based Second Language
Instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Brown, A.D. 2000. Principles of Language Learning And Teaching. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Burnard, P. 1996. “Teaching the Analysis of Textual Data: An Experiential
Approach”. Nurse Education Today, Vol. 16. (4): p. 278–281.
Burns, N. & S.K. Grove. 2005. “The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique
& Utilization”. Elsevier Saunders, St Louis.
Canale, M. & M. Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to
Second Language Teaching and Testing”. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 1. p. 1-47.
Carrell, Devine & Eskey. 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
152
Carrell, P.L. 1985. “Facilitating ESL Reading by Teaching Text Structure”. TESOL
Quarterly. Vol. 19. (4): p. 727-745.
Carroll, J.B. 1966. The Contribution of Psychological Theory and Educational
Research to the Teaching of Foreign Languages. In A. Valdman 108 (Ed.). Trends in
Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 93–106.
Castagnaro, P.J. 2006. “Audio-Lingual Method and Behaviorism: From
Misunderstanding to Myth”. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 27. (3): p. 519-526.
Catanzaro, M. 1988. Using Qualitative Analytical Techniques. In Nursing Research;
Theory and Practice. P. Woods & M. Catanzaro (eds.). C.V. Mosby Company. New
York. pp. 437–456.
Charles J. Alderson & Y. Lukmani. 1989. “Cognition and Reading: Cognitive Levels
as Embodied in Test Questions”. Reading in a Foreign Language. Vol. 5. (2): p. 253-
270.
Chinn, P.L. & M.K. Kramer. 1999. Theory and Nursing a Systematic Approach.
Mosby Year Book. St Louis.
Clymer, T. 1968. “What Is Reading?: Some Current Concepts”. 67th Yearbook of
National Society for the Study of Education. p. 7-29.
Cohen, E.G. 1994. “Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small
Groups”. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 64. p. 1-35.
Coxhead, A.J. 2000. The Development and Evaluation of an Academic Word List.
(Unpublished M.A. Thesis). Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.
Creswell, J.W. & V.L. Plano Clark. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. 2002. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Research. Upper Saddle River. NJ:
Merrill/Pearson Education.
Creswell, J.W. 2005. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative And Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River. NJ: Pearson
Education.
Crookes, G. 1986. “Task Classification: A Cross-Disciplinary Review”. Technical
Report No. 4. Center for Second Language Classroom Research. Social Science
Research Institute. University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press.
Curzon, L.B. 1985. Teaching in Further Education. An Outline of Principles and
Practice. 3rd ed. Cassell: London.
153
Dana Gurney, R. Gersten, J.A. Dimino & D. Carnine. 1990. “Story Grammar:
Effective Literature Instruction for Learning Disabled High School Students”. Journal
of Learning Disabilities. Vol. 23. (6): p. 335-342.
Daniel, I.M. 1983. On First-Year University German Foreign Language Learning: A
Comparison of The Language Behavior In Response To Two Instructional Methods.
(Ph.D. dissertation). University of Southern California, United States -California.
Retrieved February from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT
0553511).
Danielle S. McNamara, T. O’Reilly, R. Best & Y. Ozuru. 2006. “Improving
Adolescent Students’ Reading Comprehension with ISTART”. Journal of Educational
Computing Research. Vol. 34. p. 147–171.
Darwesh, A.A., I.A. Hisham & S.A. Khudair. 2002. Teacher's Guide –1 for Fifth
Grade of the Primary Education Stage. Baghdad: Ministry of Education.
David W. Moore, T.W. Bean, D. Birdyshaw & J.A. Rycik. 1999. “Adolescent
Literacy: A Position Statement”. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Vol. 43. p.
97-112.
Dey. 1993. “Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-Friendly Guide for Social Scientists”.
Routledge. London.
Diller, K.C. 1978. The Language Teaching Controversy. Rowley. MA: Newbury
House.
Dole, J.A., G. Duffy, L.R. Roehler & P.D.P. Pearson. 1991. “Moving from the Old to
the New: Research on Reading Comprehension Instruction”. Review of Educational
Review. Vol. 61. p. 239-264.
Dolly N. Young. 1999. “Linguistic Simplification of SL Reading Material: Effective
Instructional Practice?”. The Modern Language Journal. Vol. 83 (3): p. 350–366.
Duffy, G.G. 2009. Explaining Reading: A Resource for Teaching Concepts, Skills,
and Strategies. (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Eljana, L. 2009. “Implications about L2 Reading and Motivation”.
<https://eltaal.sslpowered.com/.../implications_about_l2_reading_and_motivation.pdf
>. accessed: 31 July 2010.
Ellis, R. 2005. “Instructed Second language Acquisition: A Literature Review”. New
Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Faizah, A.M., M.J. Zalizan & A. Norzaini. 2002. “Selected Malaysian Adult Learners’
Academic Reading Strategies: A Case Study”. <http://www.face. stir.ac.uk/
Majidp61.htm>.
154
Fodor, J.A., T.G. Bever & M.F. Garrett. 1974. The Psychology of Language. New
York: McGrawHill.
Fooder, J.D. 1995. Comprehending Sentence Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gao. 1996. “Content Analysis a Methodology for Structuring and Analyzing Written
Material. Program Evaluation and Methodology Division”. United States General
Accounting Office. Washington.
Garcia, G. 2000. Bilingual Children’s Reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3. Mahway, NJ:
Erlbaum. p. 813-834.
Ghaith, G. & M.A. El-Malak. 2004. “The Effect of Jigsaw II on Literal and Higher
Order EFL Reading Comprehension”. Educational Research and Evaluation. Vol. 10.
(2): p. 105-115.
Gill, P., K. Stewart, E. Treasure & B. Chadwick. 2008. “Methods of Data Collection
in Qualitative Research: Interviews and Focus Groups”. British Dental Journal. Vol.
6. (204): p. 291–295.
Gough, P.B. 1972. One Second of Reading. In James F. Kavanagh and Ignatius G.
Mattingly (eds.). Language by Ear and by Eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 813-
834.
Grabe, W. 2001. Reading–Writing Relations: Theoretical Perspectives and
Instructional Practices. In D. Belcher and A. Hirvela, (Eds.). Linking literacies:
Perspectives on L2 Reading–Writing Connections. University of Michigan Press: Ann
Arbor. p. 15-47.
Grabe, W. 2004. “Research on L2 Reading Instruction”. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics. Vol. 24. p. 44-69.
Graneheim, U.H. & B. Lundman. 2004. Qualitative “Content Analysis in Nursing
Research: Concepts, Procedures and Measures to Achieve Trustworthiness”. Nurse
Education Today. Vol. 24. p. 105–112.
Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publications.
Guthrie, J., K. Yongvanich & F. Ricceri. 2004. “Using Content Analysis as a Research
Method to Inquire Into Intellectual Capital Reporting”. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 5. p. 282–293.
Hakim, S. 1977. Learning and Teaching Foreign Languages in Iraq. MID Eighteenth
Century to 1950, with Emphasis on Training. (Unpublished M. Phil. Dissertation).
Haval Hussein Saeed. 2015. “The Kurdish educational curriculum: an Unreflected
Philosophical Base. Problemy Wczesnej Edukacji / Issues in Early Education. Vol. 4.
(31): Salahaddin University-Erbil. The Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
155
Hook, P. & S. Jones. 2004. “The Importance of Automaticity and Fluency for
Efficient Reading Comprehension”. International Dyslexia Association. Vol. 24 (2):
p. 16-24.
Hosoki, Y. 2011. “English Language Education in Japan: Transitions and
Challenges”. Kokusai kankeigaku bulletin. Vol. 6. (1): p. 199–215.
Hsieh, H.F. & S.E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content
Analysis”. Qualitative Health Research. Vol. 15. (9): p. 1277-1288.
Jeffrey P. Bakken, M.A. Mastropieri & T.E. Scruggs. 1997. “Reading Comprehension
of Expository Science Material and Students with Learning Disabilities: A
Comparison of Strategies”. The Journal of Special Education. Vol. 31. p. 300-324.
K. Shaaban, & G.M. Ghaith. 2005. “The Theoretical Relevance and Efficacy of
Using Cooperative Learning in the ESL/EFL Classroom”. TESL Reporter. Vol. 38 (2):
p. 14-28.
Kamil, M.L. & S.J. Samuels. 1988. Models of the Reading Process. In Carrell, Devine
and Eskey (eds.). p. 22–36.
Kareem, N.T. 2009. “A Survey Study of the Syllabuses of English used in Iraq (1873
– 2003 A.D.)”. Diala. Jour. Vol. 34.
Kaur, S.K. & R. Thiyagarajah. 1999. “The English Reading Habits of ELLs Student in
University Science Malaysia”. Original ultiBASE publication. Paper presented at the
Sixth International Literacy and Education Research Network Conference on
Learning. p. 27 – 30.
Kawulich, B.B. 2005. Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 6. (2): Art. 43,
<http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0502430>.
Keene, E.O. & S. Zimmerman. 2007. “Mosaic of Thought: The Power of
Comprehension Strategy Instruction”. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kelly, A.V. 1983:1999. The Curriculum. Theory and Practice. (4ed). London: Paul
Chapman.
Kesler, T. 2010. “Shared Reading to Build Vocabulary and Comprehension”.
International Reading Association.
Ketch, A. 2005. “Conversation: The Comprehension Connection”. The Reading
Teacher. Vol. 59. (1): p. 8-13.
Khalid, M. 2004. Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004. United Nations Development
Programme Website: <htp://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/education.htm>. accessed 7
December 2011
156
King, N. & C. Horrocks. 2010. Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. England: Cambridge
University Press.
Koda, K. 2005. Insights into Second Language Reading: Across-Linguistic Approach.
Cambridge Press: New York.
Krathwohl, D.R. 2002. “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview [Electronic
Version]”. Theory into Practice. Vol. 41. (4): p. 212-218.
Krippendorff, K. 2000. Content Analysis. An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Kucer, S.B. 1987. The Cognitive Base of Reading and Writing. In The Dynamics of
Language Learning, J. Squire (ed.). p. 27–51. Urbana, IL: National Conference on
Research in English.
Kynga¨ H.S. & L. Vanhanen. 1999. “Content Analysis (Finnish)”. p. 3–12.
Lauri, S. & H. Kynga¨ s. 2005. “Developing Nursing Theories (Finnish: Hoitotieteen
Teorian Kehitta¨minen)”. Werner So¨ derstro¨m, Dark Oy, Vantaa.
Lavadenz M. & E. Armas. 2011. “Fostering Home-School Collaboration in Diverse
Communities. In: Including Families and Communities in Urban Education”.
Information Age Publishers.
Leslie, L. & J. Caldwell. 2004. Qualitative Reading Inventory - 3. Boston. MA:
Pearson Education Company.
Margo A. Mastropieri, T.E. Scruggs & K. Butcher. 1997. “How Effective is Inquiry
Learning for Students with Mild Disabilities?”. The Journal of Special Education.
Vol. 31. p. 199–211.
Marilyn Cochran-Smith. 2001 b. “Learning to Teach Against the (New) Grain”.
Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 52. (1): p. 3-4.
Marshall, C. & G.B. Rossman. 1995. Designing Qualitative Research. Sage
Publications: London.
Marva A. Barnett. 1988. “Reading through context: How Real and Perceived
Strategies Use Affects L2 Comprehension”. Modern Language Journal. Vol. 72. p.
150-162.
Marya Shardakova & A. Pavlenko. 2004. “Identity Options in Russian
Textbooks”. Journal of Language, Identity and Education. Vol. 3. (1): p. 25-46.
Marzano, R.J. 2000. Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Thousand Oaks. CA: Corwin Press.
157
Mason, L.H., H. Meadan, L. Medin & L. Corso. 2006. “Self-Regulated Strategy
Development Instruction for Expository Text Comprehension”. Teaching Exceptional
Children. Vol. 38. (4): p. 47–52.
MASTIC (Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre). 2004. Science and
Technology knowledge Productivity in Malaysia bibliometric study 2003. Technical
Report. Ministry of Science. Technology and Innovation Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur.
McCain, G.C. 1988. “Content Analysis: A Method for Studying Clinical Nursing
Problems”. Applied Nursing Research. Vol. 1. (3): p. 146–150.
Mcdonough, S.H. 1995. Strategy and Skill in Learning a Foreign Language. New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
McNamara, D.S. 2004. “Interactive Strategy Trainer for Active Reading and
Thinking”. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers. Vol. 36. p. 222-
233.
McNamara, D.S. 2004. “SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training”. Discourse
Processes. Vol. 38. p. 1–30.
Mekheimer, M.A. 2011. “Impact of the Target Culture on Foreign Language
Learning: A Case Study in Cross-Cultural Communication”. Vol. 7. (1).
Merriam, S. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San
Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, B.J., D.M. Brandt & G.J. Bluth. 1980. “Use of Top-Level Structure in Text:
Key for Reading Comprehension of Ninth-Grade Students”. Reading research
quarterly. p. 72-103.
Meyer, B.J.F. 2003. “Text Coherence and Readability”. Topics in Language
Disorders. Vol. 23. p. 204-225.
Miles, M.B. & M.A. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Analysis: An Expanded Source
Book (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ministry of Education Baghdad. 2004. Actual Status of Education and Teaching: New
Concepts: A. Al-Alwan.
Morgan, N. & J. Saxton. 1994. “Asking Better Questions”. Markham. ON: Pembroke.
Moss, B. 2005. “Making a Case and a Place for Effective Content Area Literacy
Instruction in the Elementary Grades”. The Reading Teacher. Vol. 59. p. 46-55.
Muna Mohammed Abbas & J.M.I. India. 2012. “Iraq Opportunities: The New
National Curriculum and Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Iraqi Primary
Schools”. International Journal of Education. Curriculum Section. Vol. 2. p. 1-1.
158
Nassaji, H. 2003. “L2 Vocabulary Learning From Context: Strategies, Knowledge
Sources, and Their Relationship with Success in L2 Lexical Inferencing”. TESOL
Quarterly. Vol. 37. (4): p. 645-670.
Nell K. Duke. 2000. “For the Rich it’s Richer: Print Experiences and Environments
Offered to Children in Very Low- and Very High-Socioeconomic Status First-Grade
Classrooms”. American Educational Research Journal. Vol. 37. (2): p. 441–478.
Nist, S.L. & K. Kirby, 1986. “Teaching Comprehension and Study Strategies through
Modeling and Thinking Aloud”. Reading Research and Instruction. Vol. 25. (4): p.
254-264.
Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-Centered Curriculum: A Study in Second Language
Teaching. Cambridge/ New York/ Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Oberholzer, B. 2005. The Relationship between Reading Difficulties and Academic
Performance among a Group of Foundation Phase Learners. University of Zululand.
Oebel, G. 2001. So-Called Alternative FLL Approaches. Grin Verlag: Germany.
Retrieved from <http:\\ www.books.google.com/books?isbn=3640187792>.
Omaggio, M.A. 1993. Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Oxford, R.L., R.Z. Lavine & D. Crookall. 1989. “Language Learning Strategies,
Communicative Approach and Classroom Implications”. Foreign Language Annals.
Vol. 22. (1): p. 29-39.
Paas, F., J.E. Tuovinen, H. Tabbers & P.W.M. Van Gerven. 2003. “Cognitive load
measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory”. Educational Psychologist.
Vol. 38. p. 63-71.
Parviz Ajideh. 2003. “Schema Theory-Based Pre-Reading Tasks: A Neglected
Essential in the ESL Reading Class”. The Reading Matrix. Vol. 3. (1).
Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publications,
Newbury Park.
Pearson, D.P., L.R. Roehler, J.A. Dole & G. Duffy. 1992. Developing expertise in
reading comprehension. In S. Jay Samuels and Alan E. Farstrup (Eds.). What
Research Has To Say About Reading Comprehension? IRA. p. 145-199.
Perlovsky, L.I. 2009. “Language, Cognition, and Cultural Evolution”. Keynote Talk at
the International Conference on Neural Computation (ICNC’09). Madeira, Portugal.
p. 4-7.
Pervez, G. & K. Gronhaug. 2005. Research Methods in Business Studies. Third
Edition. United Kingdom. Pearson Education Limited.
159
Peter Afflerbach, P.D. Pearson & S.G. Paris. 2008. “Clarifying Differences between
Reading Skills and Reading Strategies”. The Reading Teacher. Vol. 61 (5): p. 364–
373.
Polit, D.F. & C.T. Beck. 2004. Nursing Research. Principles and Methods. Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins. Philadelphia. PA.
Porter, J.C. & T.P. Gordon. 2009. “Reading and Understanding Academic Research in
Accounting: A Guide for Students”. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education.
Vol. 6. p. 25-45.
Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pratt, D. 1994. Curriculum Planning: A Handbook for Professionals. Fort Worth:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Pressley, M. 2006. Reading Instruction that Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching
(3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Pretorius, E.J. 2002. “Reading Ability and Academic Performance In South Africa:
Are We Fiddling While Rome is Burning?”. Language mat Jers. (33). P. 169-196.
Pugh, S.L., F. Pawan & C. Antommarchi. 2000. Academic Literacy and the New
College Learner. In R.F. Flippo & D.C. Caverly (Eds.). Handbook of College Reading
And Study Research. Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum. p. 25-42.
Rababah, G. 2001. An Investigation into the Strategic Competence of Arab Learners
of English at Jordanian Universities. (PhD Dissertation). University of Newcastle
upon Tyne. UK.
Rasinski, T. & N. Padak. 2000. Effective Reading Strategies: Teaching Children Who
Find Reading Difficult (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Rayane Abusabha & M.L. Woelfel. 2003. “Qualitative VS Quantitative Methods: Two
Opposites that Make a Perfect Match”. American Dietetic Association. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association. Vol. 103. May. p. 566-9.
Reutzel, D.R. & R.B. Cooter. 2003. Strategies for Reading Assessment and
Instruction: Helping Every Child Succeed (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Richard, J.C. & R. Schmidt. (Eds.). 2002. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching
and Applied Linguistics (3rd ed.). London: Longman.
Richards, J. & T. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, M.J. & G. Erdos. 1993. “Strategy Selection and Metacognition”. Educational
Psychology. Vol. 13. p. 259-266.
160
Robson, C. 1993. Real World Research. A Resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioner–Researchers. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Rudaw. 2013. The Rise of English Language in Kurdistan.
Rumelhart, D.E. 1980. Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition. In R.J. Spiro,
B.C. Bruce & W.F. Brewer (Eds.). Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension:
Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, and
Education. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. p. 35-58.
Samuels, S.J. & M.L. Kamil. 1988. “Models of the Reading Process”. In Carrell,
Devine and Eskey (eds.). p. 22–36.
Sa-ngiamwibool, A. 2002. The Effects of Different Types of Reading Instructions on
Executive Summary Writing and Critical Thinking”. The 3rd International
Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences April 2, 2011 Faculty of Liberal Arts,
Prince of Songkla University Proceedings- Teaching Techniques.
Sa-ngiamwibool. 2011b. “The Effects of Different Types of Reading Instructions on
Executive Summary Writing and Critical Thinking”. Proceedings of the 3rd
international conference on humanities and social sciences, Prince of Songkla
University, Thailand.
Satu Elo & H. Kyngäs. 2008. “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process”. Journal of
Advanced Nursing. Vol. 62. (1): p. 107–115.
Savignon, S.J. 1991. “Communicative Language Teaching: State of the Art”. TESOL
Quarterly. Vol. 25. p. 261-277.
Saville-Troike, M. 1973. “Reading and the Audio-Lingual Method”. TESOL
Quarterly. Vol. 7. (4): p. 395-405.
Sawaki, Y., H.J. Kim & C. Gentile. 2009. “Q-Matrix Construction: Defining the Link
between Constructs and Test Items in Large-Scale Reading and Listening
Comprehension Assessments”. Language Assessment Quarterly. Vol. 6. (3): p. 190–
209.
Scott A. Crossley, M.M. Louwerse, P.M. McCarthy & D.S. McNamara. 2007. “A
Linguistic Analysis of Simplified and Authentic Texts”. Modern Language Journal.
Vol. 91. p. 15–30.
Shehadeh, A. 2005. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching: Theories and
Applications. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.). Teachers Exploring Tasks in English
Language Teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 13–30.
Shenton. 2004. “Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research
Projects”. Education for Information. Vol. 22. p. 63-75.
161
Sidek, H.M. 2012. “EFL Textbook Analysis”. Language and Literacy. Vol. 14. (3): p.
27.
Sikhi, A.H.G. 2008. “Study System in Iraq”. Ministry of Higher Education and
Scientific Research Department of Cultural Relations and Scholarship Cultural Office
/ New Delhi.
Singhal, M. 2001. “Reading Proficiency, Reading Strategies, Metacognitive
Awareness and L2 Readers”. The Reading Matrix. Vol. 1. (1): p. 1-9.
Slavin, R.E. & A. Cheung. 2003. “Effective Programs for English Language Learners:
A Best-Evidence Synthesis”. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
Slavin, R.E. & A. Cheung. 2003. “Synthesis of Research on Beginning Reading
Programs for English Language Learners”. Educational Leadership. p. 52-57.
Slavin, R.E. 1988. “Cooperative Learning and Students Achievement”. Educational
Leadership. Vol. 45. (2): p. 3-33.
Smith, F. 1994. Understanding Reading. (5th ed.). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stanovich, K.E. 1980. “Toward an Interactive-Compensatory Model of Individual
Differences in the Development of Reading Fluency”. Research Reading Quarterly.
Vol. 16. (1): p. 32-71.
Stern, H.H. 1992. Issues and Options in Language Teaching (edited posthumously by
Patrick Allen & Birgit Harley). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Svjetlana Kolić-Vehovec & I. Bajšanski. 2007. “Comprehension Monitoring and
Reading Comprehension in Bilingual Students”. Journal of Research in Reading. Vol.
30. p. 198-211.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input
and Comprehensible Output in its Development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.). Input
In Second Language Acquisition. Rowley. MA: Newbury House. p. 235-253.
Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, B.M. 1980. “Children’s Memory for Expository Text after Reading”. Reading
Research Quarterly. Vol. 15. p. 399-411.
Tierney, R.J. & P.D. Pearson. 1994. Learning to Learn from Text: A Framework for
Improving Classroom Practice. Ruddell and Singer (eds.). p. 496–513.
Ting, S.H. & P.F. Tee. 2008. “Relative Difficulty of Academic Text-Types for TESL
Undergraduates”. Asiatic Journal. Vol. 2. (2).
162
Tochon, F.V. 2009. “The Key to Global Understanding: World Languages
Education”. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 79. (2): p. 650-681.
Vehovec, S.K. 2011. “Relation between Self-Assessment and Performance Measures
of Metacognition in Reading during Adolescence”. 11th European Conference on
Psychological Assessment. Riga.
Wang, X. 2009. “Second Language Theories and Their Influences in China”. English
Language Teaching. Vol.2 (4): p. 149-153.
Wang, X. 2009. “Second Language Theories and their Influences in China”. English
Language Teaching. Vol. 2. (4): p. 149-153.
Williams, D. 2005. “A New Approach to Reading / Discussion Focused Language
Learning”. Research Note.
Williams, M. & R. Burden. 1997. Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Willig. 1985. “A Meta-Analysis of Selected Studies on the Effectiveness of Bilingual
Education”. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 55. (3): p. 269-317.
Yang, Y. 2002. “Reassessing Readers’ Comprehension Monitoring”. Reading in a
Foreign Language. Vol. 14. (1): p. 18-42.
Yusuf ùena & Mesut Kulelia. 2015. “The Effect of Vocabulary Size and Vocabulary
Depth on Reading in EFL Context”. GlobELT: An International Conference on
Teaching and Learning English as an Additional Language. Antalya - Turkey.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 199. p. 555 – 562.
Zaid, M. 2011. “Caught between Scylla and Charybdis: Teaching English in a
Plethora of Dialects and Cultures”. Paper scheduled for presentation at Rhizomes
VI (11-12 February 2011). The University of Queensland. Brisbane. Australia.
Zaidah, Z. 2003. An Investigation into the Effects of Discipline-Specific Knowledge,
Proficiency and Genre on Reading Comprehension and Strategies of Malaysia ESP
Students. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis).
Zelander, E. 2006. “English as a Global Language - Good or Bad?”.
Mid Sweden University.
top related