|
left
|
|
|
|
PDF Document
| September
2005 home |
MS Word |
Volume
7. Issue 3
Article 2
Article
Title
Extensive
Reading Reports - Different Intelligences,
Different
Levels of Processing
Author
Marc Helgesen
Bio
Data:
Professor
Marc Helgesen,
Department of Intercultural Studies, Miyagi
Gakuin Women's University, Sendai, Japan
and adjunct, Columbia University Teachers
College MA TESOL Program, Tokyo, Japan.
Marc
is a well-known writer and teacher-trainer.
He is the author of over 100 professional
articles, book chapters and textbooks
including the popular English Firsthand
series (Longman) and "Listening"
in Practical English Language Teaching,
David Nunan (ed.), (McGraw-Hill). Marc
has been a featured speaker at KOTESOL,
JALT, ThaiTESOL and other conferences.
He is particularly interested in language
planning, extensive reading and brain-friendly
teaching.
|
|
Extensive
Reading Reports - Different Intelligences,
Different Levels of Processing
Extensive
Reading (ER) is an important aspect of any
English as a Foreign/Second Language reading
program. In this paper, I will consider a
definition of ER and benefits of including
it in a program. In the main part of the paper,
I will explain four reporting forms that work
with different intelligences and levels of
processing.
While there are many variations in ways to
implement an ER program, what they all have
in common is that the learners read very large
amounts of material in the target language.
Extensive Reading can be defined as:
Students
reading a lot of easy, enjoyable books (Helgesen,
2005).
Each
element of this definition includes elements
which contrast ER with skills-based methodologies
that focus on skimming, scanning, main idea
identification and the like. The first point
is that the students spend most of their time
actually reading, not answering comprehension
questions, writing reports or translating.
They may do those things, but such tasks are
subordinate to actually reading. The second
element is that the students are reading a
lot. Bamford and Day (2004) suggest that,
although specific targets will vary, goals
such as "a book a week or 50 pages a
week" are realistic. This is in sharp
contrast to traditional reading programs which
had learners reading a single book over a
term or a year and doing a detailed analysis
of it. The easy aspect of the definition is
important. Easy books build speed and reading
fluency. Anderson (1999) suggests that 200
words per minute is a useful and realistic
goal for second language readers.
To achieve this target, the books need to
be easy. Enjoyable is also a key part of ER.
ER is much like the way people read for pleasure
in their native languages. Enjoyable is, of
course, a relative term - it can only be determined
by the reader. For that reason, Day and Bamford
(1998) suggest that it is best if the books
are self-selected. There is no assumption
that learners are all reading the same book.
Indeed, it would be unusual and perhaps impossible
to find a single title that all members of
a class find interesting. Different learners
will prefer mysteries, love stories, biography
and other forms of non-fiction, even comics.
In the ER classroom, these genre preferences
are respected. The final element of the definition
is books. While any reading material can be
used, graded readers which present stories
with controlled vocabulary and, at times,
limited grammar and information flow are often
used.1
These are books that can help learners
become fluent, skilled readers.
In a review of ER research, Day and Bamford
identify several benefits of ER including
the following:
o Increased reading ability. This is
unsurprising since that is the stated goal
of ER.
o Increased affect and motivation.
It should a be noted that reading is one type
of study that can actually be enjoyable as
it is being done. Students are reading books
they choose at a level they can enjoy. This
pleasure orientation seems to impact their
overall feeling about learning English.
o Improved vocabulary. Students need
to meet vocabulary in context many times to
acquire it. ER seems to be a good way to achieve
this.
o Improved listening, speaking and
spelling abilities. Interestingly, even if
listening and speaking are not the goals of
the class, ER seems to support these skills,
possibly because of the increased exposure
to English vocabulary and discourse.
o Facilitation of acquisition. Most
current theories of second language acquisition
recognize the roles of language input and
intake. ER provides these necessities.
Typically, much of the student reading in
ER happens largely outside the classroom.
With students required to read large amounts
of English - typically several books a month
rather than one book a term or a year - there
simply is not enough class time for all that
reading to happen during class time. (Helgesen
1997, Anderson, 2005). If the goal of ER is
to develop a reading habit, it can not be
limited to being a classroom activity. Also,
teachers often choose to provide a balance
of extensive and intensive reading activities
(Waring, 2005). In such cases, class time
is frequently used for skill building activities
while ER is done outside of class.
Classroom management and grading requirements
may require a way to keep track of what learners
are reading. In some cases, this involves
having learners keep a reading portfolio (Markovic,
2005) or, in a portfolio's simpler form, a
reading notebook (Helgesen, 1997) to report
on books they are reading.
The remainder of this paper is to present
four written report models. The models intend
to accomplish several goals:
o to allow students to report using
several different sensory modalities (Jensen,
1995) and intelligence types (Gardner, 1993),
thus insuring that, at times, everyone is
working in the type(s) that they find most
comfortable.
o to provide variety and avoid habituation
(Howard 2000). That is, by giving learners
a range of ways to report on the books, teachers
can avoid the fatigue and boredom that comes
with repeating the same task many times.
o to reach several levels of comprehension.
Barrett (cited in Richards, 1990) suggests
that comprehension can be considered on a
the following continuum:
5. Appreciation (affective) - highest level
of comprehension
4. Evaluative
3. Inference
2. Reorganization
1. Literal (lowest level of comprehension).
The
forms provided here exercise comprehension
across this range of levels.
Four reading reaction report forms.
The following are the forms2
students in my university use in their ER
classes. They are introduced in the order
given here. Each form is introduced two to
three months after the previous one. Learners
must use each type at least once. After that,
they are free to use whichever previously
introduced form they like. Reports are glued
into a student reading portfolio notebook.
The portfolios are collected weekly and read
by the teacher who stamps "OK" on
the page and writes an occasional comment
or question.
The "student voice" comments following
each form are taken from anonymous questionnaires
my students submitted. On the questionnaire,
they rated each form for interest and wrote
comments about each. Comments were accepted
in either English or their native language.
"Summary/reaction"
form
This is the first form the learners meet.
It is the most traditional, asking them simply
to summarize what happened in the story and
give their opinion. It deals with what Gardner
(1993) calls "linguistic intelligence."
They are reacting to language and using language
to do so. Since they are reporting what happened
in the story, they are processing primarily
on a literal level. Asking for their opinions
about the story is an attempt to encourage
them to incorporate their feelings (intrapersonal
intelligence) and process at a level of evaluation
or appreciation.

Figure
one: Summary / opinion form
Student voices:
o
I like this because it fits any type of story.
o
This type is good because I can write any
kind of feelings.
o
This is easy to write.
Teacher's
reaction.
o The fact that this is the most standard
school task-type included in the forms may
be why the learners find it easy to do. Since
the idea of ER and of reading English for
pleasure is new to most learners, it is probably
useful to start with a fairly simple task.
"Draw a picture" form
Two months after starting the ER program,
students get this form. Note that they are
asked to draw a picture from their imaginations,
not copy one from the book. This reporting
method is an attempt to get them to use "bodily-kinesthetic"
intelligence. At a minimum, learners have
to reorganize information - transfer the words
into a mental, then a drawn image. In practice,
their pictures often reflect emotion more
typical of an evaluative or appreciative response.

Figure
two: "Draw a picture "form
Student voices:
o I used this many times. This type
is good for thinking and imagining.
o
I can't draw pictures well but I like this
type.
o
It was useful when I didn't (know the words
to) explain the story.
o
I like this because sometimes I want to change
forms.
Teacher's
reaction.
o The comment "I can't draw well"
was frequent. It caused some learners to dislike
this form. Others, like the one who commented
here, weren't satisfied with their drawings
but still like the form.
o The student who commented that drawing
a picture was useful when she didn't know
a word was touching on the fact that reading
is a receptive skill. We can always understand
more language than we can produce so the drawing
task works well here as a compensation strategy.
o The comment about wanting to change
forms deals with habituation. When teachers
and students follow the same routine too rigidly,
boredom and disinterest can set in. Using
a different form can combat this.
"Your own questions" form
Learners using this form are asked to preview
the book by looking at the title and cover
illustration and to read the blurb on the
back of the book. They then look through the
book and find three illustrations, ideally
one near the beginning, one in the middle
and one toward the end. They write a question
about each picture - something they actually
want to know. This appeals to an analytic
"logical-mathematical" type of intelligence
and requires inferencing and speculation.
It also gets student to "think ahead."
That is, they preview the book and think about
what may be happening. This is similar to
what we do in our first language when reading
something like a magazine where we often look
ahead. Also, when we read in our first language,
we normally know why we are reading - for
pleasure, to find out certain information,
and so on. Writing their own questions allows
learners to set their own tasks. They decide
what they want to find out.
Of course, this task requires books with pictures.
While not all ER graded readers are illustrated,
most are so this requirement is not usually
a problem.

Figure
three: "Your own questions " form
Student voices:
o It is interesting to write questions
and find the answers.
o I like this because I can understand
the book's substance more and more. And I
enjoyed writing these reports.
o This is the best to understand all
parts of the story in detail.
Teacher's reaction.
o The learners commented that this
form helped them focus on details. While the
questions they write often focus on literal
elements of the book3,
reading to find out specific information can
be a useful task for any learner. For university
students who will be expected to use the Internet
and other resources for research in English,
in can be invaluable.
"The book and you" form
Judging from the students' responses, this
is the most challenging form. Part of the
challenge probably comes from the fact that
it is requires high-level processing. It is
an interpersonal task requiring self-knowledge
and usually includes reactions at a level
of appreciation or evaluation. While sometimes
the reports are somewhat superficial (e.g.,
a student reading Gulliver's Travels and commenting
"I have never been around little people"
prompting her teacher to ask playfully, "How
about when you were in kindergarten?"),
other learners write more significant, heartfelt
responses. A student who had read a biography
of Princess Diana, wrote: "Diana's life
had tragedy." The student went on to
point out incidents of sadness before the
princess' heartbreaking fatal accident. Then,
in the parallel panel, she wrote about her
own life: "I know tragedy, too. Last
year, my father died from cancer." She
went on to explain and draw comparisons.

Figure
four: "The story and you" form
Student voices:
o I can compare my life to the hero.
o
This is good because I think about my life
again. I feel it's interesting.
o
It's useful but I think it's hard to find
a book (with) which we can compare my life
and the story.
o
I think the "kind of book" is important.
o
This is good for (books about) the history
of the person (biography).
o
This is not good for mysteries.
Teacher's
reaction.
o Several students commented that this
form is easiest with biographies. Of course,
it is possible to compare nearly any kind
of book to one's own life by comparing personalities
or experiences but biographies tend to be
less abstract than some other books so the
comparisons are easier.
In this paper, I have attempted to make a
case for Extensive Reading in the EFL/ESL
classroom and present a series of forms which
allow learners to report on their own reading
in ways that fit a variety of intelligences
and levels of understanding. ER can be a useful,
powerful tool for our students.
References
Anderson, N. (1999). Exploring second language
reading: Issues and strategies. Boston,
MA: Heinle & Heinle
Anderson, N. (2005). Extensive reading
in the BYU intensive English program.
Paper presented at the meeting of Teachers
of English to Speakers of Other Languages
(San Antonio, Texas, USA, April 2005).
Bamford, J. and Day, R. R. (2004). Extensive
reading activities for teaching language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Day, R. R. and Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive
reading in the second language classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The
theory of multiple intelligences. New
York: Basic Books.
Helgesen, M. (1997). What one extensive reading
program looks like. The Language Teacher,
21(5) 31-33.
Helgesen, M. (2005). Extensive reading,
effective reading. Paper presented at
the meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers
of Other Languages (San Antonio, Texas, USA,
April, 2005).
Howard, P. (2000). The owner's manual for
the brain: Everyday applications from mind-brain
research. Atlanta, GA: Bard Press.
Jensen, E. (1995). The learning brain.
San Diego, CA: The Brain Store.
Markovic, J. (2005). Reading Portfolios:
A Way to Assess Extensive Reading. Paper
presented at the meeting of Teachers of English
to Speakers of Other Languages (San Antonio,
Texas, USA, April, 2005).
Richards, J. (1999). The language teaching
matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Notes:
1. For information
on various graded readers series, see http://www.extensivereading.net/er/materials.html
For a somewhat impressionistic description
of the the most popular series, see http://eltnews.com/features/thinktank/023_mh.shtml
2.
These forms are available as downloadable
jpgs on the Internet http://www.extensivereading.net/er/marcreports.html
3.
For a critique of literal comprehension questions
and more information on Barrett's taxonomy
of comprehension, see http://www.mgu.ac.jp/~ic/helgesen/marc.article1.htm
Internet
resources
www.extensivereading.net - a resources site
for teachers
http://www.ials.ed.ac.uk/eper.html - The Edinburgh
Project for Extensive Reading
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ExtensiveReading/
- a discussion list for teachers interested
in ER
www.erfoundation.org - The Extensive Reading
Foundations, an independent, non-profit organization
which promotes ER. The foundation awards the
"Language Learner Literature" awards
to the best graded readers each year
|
|
right
|