Current state of knowledge and theories on second language reading
Abstract
There is a thorny controversy regarding defining second language (L2) reading based on the required levels of interacting with the decoded texts and including theories that could prevent or facilitate the L2 process. This research attempts to fill the gap through providing a comprehensive analysis to the current state of knowledge and theories on second language reading; schema theory, orthographic depth hypothesis, socio-cultural theory, as well as influence from prior educational experiences, the concept of common underlying proficiency, and cross-language interference. Understanding such second language reading-related theories and hypotheses could enhance redirecting the attention to more practicality and reliability in the field as well as justifying insufficient learning outcomes of second language reading; dedicated particularly to Saudi EFL learners.
References
Al-Hazmi SH (2003). EFL teacher preparation programs in Saudi Arabia: Trends and challenges. TESOL Quarterly 37(2): 341–344. doi: 10.2307/3588509
Al-Karroud I (2005). New, interesting methods and techniques: English as it should be taught. Al-Ma’rifah Journal 1: 120.
Al-Mansour N (2009). Bilingualism and the need for early EFL education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. King Saud University Languages & Translation Journal 21: 1–12.
Al-Nujaidi A (2003). The Relationship Between Vocabulary Size, Reading Strategies, and Reading Comprehension of EFL learners in Saudi Arabia [PhD thesis]. Oklahoma State University.
Al-Qahtani A (2010). The Effectiveness of Metacognitive Strategies on Secondary Stage Students’ Achievement and Attitudes Towards English Language (Master’s thesis). Taif University.
Alshammari HA (2021). Assessing the reading skills of the Saudi elementary stage EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 12(1): 55. doi: 10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12n.1.p.55
Alshammari HA (2022). Investigating the low english proficiency of Saudi EFL learners. Arab World English Journal 13(1): 129–144. doi: 10.24093/awej/vol13no1.9
Al-Roomy M (2013). An Action Research Study of Collaborative Strategic Reading in English with Saudi Medical Students [PhD thesis]. University of Sussex.
Baluch B (1993). Lexical decisions in Persian: A test of the orthographic depth hypothesis. International Journal of Psychology 28(1): 19–29. doi: 10.1080/00207599308246915
Baluch B, Besner D (1991). Visual word recognition: Evidence for strategic control of lexical and nonlexical routines in oral reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, And Cognition 17(4): 644-652. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.17.4.644
Donato R, MacCormick D (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal 78(4): 453–464. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02063.x
Davis JN, Bistodeau L (1993). How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think aloud protocols. The Modern Language Journal 77(4): 459–472. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01993.x
Do HM, Phan HLT (2021). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies on second language Vietnamese undergraduates. Arab World English Journal 12(1): 90–112. doi: 10.24093/awej/vol12no1.7
Gaffney JS, Anderson RC (2000). Trends in reading research in the United States: Changing intellectual currents over three decades. In: Kamil ML, Mosenthal PB, Pearson PD, Barr R (editors). Handbook of Reading Research. Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 53–74.
Gawi A (2012). The effects of age factor on learning English: A case study of learning English in Saudi schools, Saudi Arabia. English Language Teaching 5(1): 127–139.
Jarvis S, Pavlenko A (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. Routledge.
Kant I, Smith, Norman Kemp. (1958). Critique of Pure Reason. New York, Modern Library
Katz L, Frost R (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In: Frost R, Katz L (editors). Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning (pp. 67–84). Elsevier Science Publishers.
Koda K (1995). Cognitive consequences of LI and L2 orthographies. In: Taylor I, Olson DR (editors). Scripts and Literacy: Reading and Learning to Read Alphabets, Syllabaries and Characters. Kluwer Academic. pp. 311–326.
Koda K (2004). Insights into second language reading: a cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press.
McVee M, Dunsmore K, Gavelek J (2005). Schema Theory Revisited. Review of Educational Research 75(4): 531–566.
Moll LC (2001). Through the mediation of others: Vygotskian research on teaching. In: Richardson V (editor). Handbook of Research on Teaching, 4th ed. American Educational Research Association. pp. 111–129.
Nezami S (2012). A critical study of comprehension strategies and general problems in reading skill faced by Arab EFL learners with special reference to Najran University in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education 2(3): 306–316.
Mustafa G (2002). English Language Teaching and Learning at Government Schools in the United Arab Emirates (PhD thesis). University of Exeter.
Roman G, Pavard B (1987). A comparative study: How we read in Arabic and French. In: O'Reagan JK, Levy-Schoen A (editors). Eye Movements: From Physiology to Cognition. Elsevier Service.
Rumelhart DE, Ortney A (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In: Anderson RC, Spiro RJ, Montague WE (editors). Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 99–135.
Saito A (1996). Social origins of cognition: Bartlett, evolutionary perspective and embodied mind approach. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 26(4): 399–421. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1996.tb00299.x
Schmalz X, Marinus E, Coltheart M, Castles A (2015). Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 22(6): 1614–1629. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0835-2
Vygotsky LS (1986). Thought and Language. MIT Press.
Wang M, Park Y, Lee KR (2006). Korean-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language phonological and orthographic transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(1): 148–158. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.148
Copyright (c) 2023 author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The author(s) warrant that permission to publish the article has not been previously assigned elsewhere.
Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher right for the first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under:
OA - Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows for the copying, distribution and transmission of the work, provided the correct attribution of the original creator is stated. Adaptation and remixing are also permitted.
This broad license intends to facilitate free access to, as well as the unrestricted reuse of, original works of all types.
_%E5%89%AF%E6%9C%AC1.png){kind=logo}
