The Efficacy of Academic Reading Strategy Instruction among Adult English as an Additional Language Students: A Professional Development Opportunity Through Action Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This action research project empirically evaluated the efficacy of reading strategy instruction to help advance adult English as an additional language (EAL) students’ development of academic reading skills and strategy use. The study involved 16 adult participants attending English for Academic Purposes (EAP) programs in British Columbia. These participants received reading strategy instruction over nine sessions during a 6-week period. To capture participants’ reading strategy use, Mokhtari and Sheorey’s Survey of Reading Strategies instrument was used in the pre- and post-intervention stages. Similarly, to measure participants’ reading comprehension abilities, an identical, standardized reading comprehension test was administered in the pre- and post- intervention stages. Participants’ weekly post-task verbal reflections and post-intervention interviews provided qualitative data for the study. Findings showed that reported reading strategy use obtained from the instrument and reading performance increased significantly after the intervention. The results from the analysis of participants’ reflections and interviews revealed a positive association between participants’ strategy use and reading performance. Conducted as a part of professional development, this study aims to resolve EAP professionals’ practical concerns about the use of reading strategies in academic reading as well as provide action researchers with suggestions for future implementation.
 Ce projet de recherche-action a permis d’effectuer une évaluation empirique de l’efficacité de l’enseignement de stratégies de lecture afin de faire avancer le développement des compétences académiques de lecture et du recours aux stratégies de lecture chez les étudiants adultes inscrits à un cours d’anglais comme langue additionnelle. Ont participé à l’étude 16 adultes inscrits à des programmes d’anglais académique en Colombie-Britannique. Ces participants ont pris part à neuf séances d’enseignement de stratégies de lecture sur une période de 6 semaines. L’instrument de mesure Reading Strategies de Mokhtari et Sheorey a été utilisé pour évaluer le recours des participants aux stratégies de lecture avant et après la période d’intervention. Un test identique et standardisé de compréhension de la lecture a également été administré avant et après la période d’intervention afin d’évaluer les capacités de compréhension des participants. Les réflexions verbales offertes par les participants après les exercices et les entrevues réalisées après l’intervention ont produit des données qualitatives pour l’étude. Celle-ci a permis de constater un accroissement significatif du recours aux stratégies de lecture fournies par l’instrument et de la performance de lecture suite à l’intervention. Les résultats de l’analyse des réflexions et des entrevues des participants ont permis de constater une association positive entre l’utilisation de stratégies de lecture et la performance de lecture des participants. Menée dans le cadre du perfectionnement professionnel, cette étude vise à répondre aux inquiétudes pratiques des professionnels de l’enseignement de l’anglais académique relativement au recours aux stratégies de lecture tout en fournissant aux praticiens et praticiennes de la recherche-action des suggestions à mettre en œuvre dans le futur.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".