Teaching Reading to EFL Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24203/g28sfv63Keywords:
Reading Strategies, Language Acquisition, Comprehension SkillsAbstract
The capacity to peruse English is fundamental for scholastic and expert achievement, especially for EFL understudies. Be that as it may, perusing cognizance in EFL settings is often frustrated by restricted jargon, deficient openness to legitimate texts, and an absence of key understanding procedures. This study analyzes the effect of unequivocal perusing methodology guidance in tending to these difficulties and advancing understudy independence. It centers around systems like skimming, filtering, foreseeing, and summing up to assist understudies with exploring complex texts autonomously. A semi-trial configuration was utilized with 48 undergrad EFL understudies in a college establishment program. Members were separated into a trial bunch (EG), which got procedure-based guidance, and a benchmark group (CG), which followed conventional techniques. North of 12 weeks, the EG participated in organized perusing exercises consolidating system preparation, while the CG kept a guideline educational program. Information assortment included pre-and present tests on evaluate appreciation, intelligent diaries from the EG, and semi-organized interviews for subjective experiences. Quantitative examination showed a huge improvement in the EG's understanding scores, with a mean increment of 20%, contrasted with a peripheral 7% in the CG. Subjective discoveries showed improved understudy independence, with EG members exhibiting more prominent trust in moving toward understanding undertakings. Moves remembered troubles for applying systems to new or specialized texts, accentuating the requirement for consistent practice and backing. This study highlights the groundbreaking capability of technique-based perusing guidance in EFL settings. Incorporating mental and metacognitive systems into the educational plan can enable understudies to beat understanding troubles and become autonomous students, with suggestions for educational program advancement, educator preparation, and long-haul procedure use.
References
1. Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scaffolding reading instruction in EFL contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 245–273.
2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
3. Clarke, M.A. (1978). Reading in Spanish and English: Evidence from Adult ESL Students, Language Learning, 29(1), 121-150.
4. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage
5. Cubukcu, F. (2008). Enhancing Vocabulary Development and Reading Comprehension Through Metacognitive Strategies, Issues in Educational Research, 18(1), 1-11.
6. Dhieb-Henia, N. (2003). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Metacognitive Strategy Training for Reading Research Articles in an ESP Context, English for Specific Purposes, 22, 387-417
7. Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., and Pearson, P.D. (1991). Moving from the Old to the New: Research on Reading Comprehension Instruction, Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
8. Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Routledge.
9. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
10. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.
11. Ghahari, S., and Basanjideh, M. (2017). Psycho-linguistic Model of Reading Strategies Awareness in EFL Contexts, Reading Psychology, 38(2), 125-153.
12. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2019). Teaching and researching reading (3rd ed.). Routledge.
13. Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., and Onghena, P. (2013). Mixed Methods Research Synthesis: Definition, Framework, and Potential, Quality and Quantity, 47(2), 659-676.
14. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Pergamon.
15. Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
16. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage.
17. Moon, J. (2006). Learning journals: A handbook for reflective practice and professional development. Routledge.
18. Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. Routledge.
19. Oxford, R. L. (2016). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Routledge.
20. Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2012). The role of metacognitive strategies in EFL learners' comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 16(4), 500–518.
21. Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhammad Javed Sajid
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
- Papers must be submitted on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis) and are not currently under consideration by another journal published by any other publisher.
- It is also the authors responsibility to ensure that the articles emanating from a particular source are submitted with the necessary approval.
- The authors warrant that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required.
- The authors ensure that all the references carefully and they are accurate in the text as well as in the list of references (and vice versa).
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
- The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
