Theoretical framework
This study is grounded on the theories related on the following theories:
Vygotsky's theory on reading
Lev Vygotsky's theory suggests that students learn by connecting what they know to new learning.
This why teachers need to show the students the connections between what they know and what they
are learning. This can be apply to reading fluency and reading comprehension.
Goodman's theory of reading
Goodman (1967; cited in Parang 1996) presented reading as a psycholinguistic guessing game, a
process in which readers sample the text, make hypotheses, confirm or reject them, make new
hyphotheses and so forth. Here, the reader rather than the text is at the heart of the reading process.
The traditional view
According to Dole et al. (1991), in the traditional view of reading, novice readers acquire a set of
hierarchically ordered subskills 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 readers
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 "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 take 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, maily words and structure.
Although it is possible to accept this rejection for the fact that there is over reliance on this view, it must
be confessed that knowledge of linguistic feature 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 "top-down" model is in direct opposition to the "bottom-up" model. According to Nunan
(1991) and Dubin and Bycina the psycholinguistic model of reading and the top down model are in exact
concordance.
Goodman (1967; cited in Parang 1996) presented reading as a psycholinguistic guessing game, a
process in which readers sample the text, make hypotheses, confirm or reject them, make new
hyphotheses 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 describes schemata as "building blocks of cognition" which are used in the process of interpreting
sensory data, in retrieving Information from memory, in organizing goals and subgoals, in allocating
resources, and in guding 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 problem processing and understanding
the text.
Cognitively based views of reading comprehension emphasize the interactive nature of reading and
constructive nature of comprehension. Dole et Al 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 "whether reading is a bottom-up, language-
based process or a top-down knowledge based process" it is no more problematic to accept the
influence of background knowledge on both L1 and L2 readers. Research has gone even further to
define the control readers execute on their ability to understand a text. This control Block (1992) has
referred to as metacognition.
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 an features of the form or type of the text. For instance, they
try to locate a topic sentence and follow a supported details toward the conclusion
• projectingthe author's purpose for writing the text while reading it
• choosing scanning or reading in details
• Making continuous predictions about what will occur next, based on information obtained earlier,
prior knowledge, and conclusions obtained within the previous stages.
Morover, 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, hyphothesise and predict, infer and conclude.
Statement of the problem
This inquiry was undertaken to make an assessment of the Reading Strategies Used by the
languages teachers in As-salihien Integrated School Foundation; it's effect to students reading
comprehension.
Specifically it sought to answers the following questions:
Q1: Reading Strategies
1. What is Reading Strategies in terms of Pre-reading
2. What is Reading Strategies in terms of During-Reading Strategies
3. What is Reading Strategies in terms of Post-Reading Strategies
4. What is Reading Strategies in terms of Supporting Strategies
Q2: Effects to Students
5. What is the Effects to Students Reading Comprehension in terms of literal
6. What is the Effects to Students Reading Comprehension in terms of influential
7. What is the Effects to Students Reading Comprehension in terms of evaluation
Scope and Limitation of the study
This study is focus on the reading strategies used by the languages teachers in As-salihien
Integrated School Foundation; it's effect to student's Reading comprehension.
Related Literature
" The study is grounded in the constructionist framework of text comprehension, which
posits that readers actively construct meaning from texts through their congintive
processess and interaction with the text. The study operates on the premise that
questions aimed at eliciting causal explanations from readers are not only important but
essential components of effective and strategic reading comprehension. These questions
are believed to facilitate a deeper understanding of the text by promoting readers to
consider the cause-and-effect relationships within the material, there y enhancing their
comprehension and ability to construct meaning. For example the questions that require
readers to explain the reason for an unexpected event in a text or a characters motives
help to model the meaning-making process and aid the construction of a coherent
representation of the text's meaning. Thus according to the constructionist view, the use
of interrogative questions asked by the teachers during reading comprehension
instruction can foster deeper understanding."
Recent research highlights the importance of using proven reading strategies to boost comprehension.
For example, "The Balanced Literacy Framework" popular sinced 2015, advocates for a well-rounded
approach to reading instruction. This method combines phonics (the relationship between letters and
sounds), fluency (smooth reading), and comprehensions strategies to create a comprehensive literacy
program (Fountas & pinnell, 2017). It reflects to a broad understanding of what makes reading
instruction effective.
Another effective approach is the "Gradual Release of Responsibility" model. This strategy starts with
the teacher guiding the students and gradually shifts responsibility to the students themselves. This
progression helps students become more engaged and better at applying reading strategies own their
own (Fisher & Frey, 2018). Research show that this model enhances students ability to use reading
strategies independently and improves comprehension (Fisher & Frey, 2018).
Metacognitive strategies are also crucial for reading comprehension. These strategies teach students to
be aware of their own thinking while reading, such as checking their understanding and adjusting their
approach as nedeed. Studies have shown that these techniques significantly improve reading
comprehension by encouraging self-regulation and critical thinking (Duke & Pearson, 2016; Zimmerman,
2019).
Active Engagement with in the constructionist framework, the study views students as active
participants in the reading comprehension process. They actively engaged with the text, and the
questions posed to them are seen as tools to stimulate their active involvement in constructing meaning
from the text.
Prior knowledge the study recognizes that students bringing their prior knowledge and experiences to
the reading comprehension process. When students responda to questions their prior knowledge
influences the construction of meaning and the linguistic complexity of their responses.
Mental representation in line with the constructionist framework, the study acknowledges that students
contract mental representations or mental models of the text as they read. The type of questions they
encounter may shape the nature and complexity of these mental representation.
Respondents and Sampling procedure
The respondents were the teacher's and Asaatid's members of As-salihien Integrated School Foundation.
The respondents were given the questionnaire to fill out after the permission of the principals in the
school.
We choose them because we want to know what strategies they used on teaching Reading and it's
effect to the students. Because as I heard sometimes most of the students that having a struggle to read
or have a slow reading comprehension is because of the strategies that teachers used.
References:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
345362543_Effect_of_Teaching_Reading_Strategies_on_the_Students'_Reading_Comprehension
https://www.nwmissouri.edu/library/ResearchPapers/2013/Brinker,%20Amy.pdf theories
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/professional-development/teachers/knowing-subject/articles/
theories-reading#:~:text=Goodman%20(1967%3B%20cited%20in%20Paran,heart%20of%20the
%20reading%20process.
https://medium.com/@rdelagarza_28805/jean-piaget-what-does-it-take-to-improve-reading-
comprehension-c1e68776ddd8#:~:text=Piaget's%20theory%20suggests%20that%20children,develop
%20from%20infants%20to%20adults.
https://repository.ump.ac.id/1224/3/CHAPTER%20II_Anisa%20Oktafiana.pdf
https://dspace.uii.ac.id/bitstream/handle/123456789/13023/11.1%20chapter%201.pdf?
sequence=13&isAllowed=y
https://www2.csudh.edu/tsr/schema-theory.html#:~:text=According%20to%20Transactional%20theory
%20(Rosenblatt,acted%20upon%20by%20each%20other.
