Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Introduction
There are very polarized opinions about the value of oral paired reading in the ESL
classroom. While some educators are advocates of this practice by claiming that it helps students
to develop fluency, pronunciation and word recognition, some others strongly believe that this
practice goes in detriment of reading comprehension, which is in their opinion, a more valuable
and useful skill to develop. This action research is aiming to shed some light in this discussion by
understanding how students perceive paired rereading and the effective impact of this activity in
the acquisition of English. This action research paper will provide with insights and impressions
of a group of novice high students during an oral paired rereading activity at the English
Language Center of Brigham Young University. The objective will be to find out if there are
preferences when it comes to working with a partner and if this type activity is, from the point of
view of the students, beneficial for the acquisition of their second language. To find answers to
these questions, an oral paired rereading activity was conducted over the course of 6 sessions in a
period of 3 weeks.
develop skills of decoding and vocabulary recognition (among others) at the beginning levels of
second language development. It is believed that the efficacy of this practice decreases when
used with more proficient students of a second language and as a consequence, this activity
becomes less used in the ESL classroom. Contrary to this idea some researchers have identified
benefits that can help students at any time of their learning process. Griffin, S.M. (1992) listed
among the benefits of oral reading, expansion of oral vocabulary, developing awareness of
3
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING
sounds of the language, facilitation of chunking of words in meaningful groups and development
of self-confidence. The benefits of this practice are evident; however, it is still in discussion to
what degree these benefits are the same for more advanced students. Some researchers such
as Fuchs et al. (2001) suggested that if oral reading fluency is a good predictor of student
performance, then it should influence our teaching practices. This idea has been embraced by
some educators in different parts of the world and some have developed oral reading materials
with tasks more appropriate for advanced learners. In Japan, for instance, Shinozuka, Mizusawa,
and Shibata (2014) developed a “read-aloud instruction package”. This packet includes a series
of instructional and classroom activities that focus on oral reading for developing English
proficiency. This method was tested on college students whose English proficiency was at an
elementary level (TOIC IP) and who surprisingly reported significant improvement in only 3
weeks. After 3 months of using this method, they reported a considerable increase in the students
listening and reading scores. In the study conducted by Griffin (1992) among teachers who use
oral reading, the results showed that oral reading allows sound-symbol relationship and helps
them with their predicting pronunciation of words found in texts, provides them with auditory
experience of words that are not usually found in spoken language, keeps all students involved in
All these findings strongly support the benefits of oral reading when tailored to the
students' needs. Making further research on the subject is highly needed to draw conclusions
about in which ways this teaching method can benefit the most ESL students.
4
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING
Pair and Group Work in the ESL Classroom and Paired Reading
Pair work or group work are among of the most common and well accepted practices in
the ESL classroom. Among the pedagogical benefits of this methodology we have, increased
opportunities for practicing, improved quality of talking, it additionally offers opportunities for
Some of the most relevant contributions in this fields were made by Gass et. al (1983) and his
study focused on understanding pair and group work in the acquisition of a second language
second language acquisition, and Watanabe et.al (2007) and the negotiation work possible in
conversation between non-native speakers, or interlanguage talk. All these studies concluded that
language acquisition occurs when learners communicate to others, that symbiotic relationship is
essential for the development of communicative skills. About student pairing or grouping
Watanabe et.al (2007) concluded that “that peers of different proficiency levels could benefit
from working with one another,” and that “social mediation comes not only from an expert such
as teachers but also from peers, and even from less proficient peers. Therefore, SLA researchers
and teachers should be careful not to assume that grouping different proficiency peers is less
conducive to L2 learning.”
Oral paired reading is highly valued as an important part of L1 learning and development.
However, its role in the learning of a second language role is controversial. Li et. al (2001), an
advocate of this practice, reported his findings of the use of paired reading in an ESL class. The
conclusions obtained from his research show that all the students who participated in paired oral
5
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING
reading demonstrated, at some degree, a steady increase in reading fluency and reading accuracy.
Paired oral reading should be implemented in the classroom because “paired reading
reduces students' pressure and anxiety, which they often experience in reading classes at
school. Because many ESL students have a poor command of English, they tend to be
shy or reluctant to speak out. This reduces their chance to practice the new language.
Paired reading is a form of individualized tutoring. In this learning context, students feel
Oral paired reading has a profound cognitive and emotional impact on second language
learners Understanding their feelings and views about this practice and can provide a teacher
with the necessary information to tailor this type of task for the benefit of the students.
Methodology
Participants
A total of 16 ESL student with Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Algerian, Creole, and
Russian background participated in this activity. Eleven of them male and the rest female. The
English proficiency of this group was determined by a placement test designed by the English
Language Center of Brigham Young University which consisted of testing students on their
reading comprehension, writing, listening and speaking skills. The evaluations were based on the
proficiency descriptors of the ACTFL scale. The results of this test placed these students in a
Foundation C class which is the equivalent of a novice high rating in the ACTFL scale. The ages
Procedures
Six sessions were conducted on Tuesday and Thursday for a period of 3 weeks. The first
session was a pilot session and data from this session was not considered for analysis. In the first
introductory session, students were explained about the task. A mocking oral paired reading was
introduced and carried out to explain how they should proceed in the next couple of sessions.
They were asked to choose a partner to read with. Once they found their partner and sat next to
them. They were given a reading passage from a book they had read in their reading class.
Additionally, they were given a set of questions that they had to answer at the end of the
experience. The students were instructed to read aloud the given passage for 1 minute, taking
turns with his classmate and marking how far they reached after the first reading. Students were
not explicitly encouraged or discouraged to help each other if needed. Once they both counted
the number of words read they would read again for the second time. Repeating the procedure in
the first reading. This time students are supposed to reach further down in the passage. Once this
part of the activity was finished students were asked to answer the questionnaire about their
reading times, their impressions about the activity, and their overall experience working with
their classmate.
Instruments
For this activity, two types of instruments were used: reading passages and a
questionnaire. The reading passages were taken from the book Charlotte’s Web, which they had
previously read in their reading class. Passages were randomly selected from this book and given
to the class to read aloud. The questionnaire was made by the teacher to keep track of the people
the students were working with and their experience working with their classmate. No names
7
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING
were required for this log entry. Students wrote their names in the questionnaire, but their
classmates’ names were kept anonymous. The questions of the questionnaire were the following:
4. How satisfactory was the oral reading with your partner (choose one)?
About you
On the final day, there were three additional questions that students had to answer.
Collecting Data
Data collection took place after the introductory activity and in five subsequent sessions.
This activity took place twice a week. Students were given a questionnaire that the students
would complete. Right after that, the teacher would collect all of them. In total 80 pages of action
8
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING
research were collected. The data gathered from this activity contained teachers notes and the
Data were analyzed qualitatively, based on the answers and appreciations of the students.
In this action research report, the words read per minute will not be analyzed from a quantitative
point of view. Though there will be pointed out some facts from the data about the WPM reading
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed by gathering all the survey responses and first recording if their
reading fluency improved during the second reading (even though for the purpose of this study
this information is not relevant and will not be analyzed in detail), second identifying in their
responses comments about preferences for their reading partners, and third personal impressions
First, the reading fluency of this group improved by the end of six weeks. According to
their recorded readings, everyone read between 20 to 30 more words than in the first reading. By
the end of the oral paired reading aloud activity the first and second reading also improved
compared with the first time, they read orally with a partner. From the teacher log we found the
following observation:
Week 2, Oral paired reading 2: It seems that they are still timid or unfamiliar about this
activity. They are making clear efforts to read to the best of their abilities in front of their
partners. Even when the activity is supposed to be about fluency they are focusing more
on accuracy.
9
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING
Week 5: They seem more confident in their reading it shows in their recordings of the
time. They are indeed reading faster I can hear them when I monitor the task. I have also
noticed that in order to read faster they are allowing themselves to make more accuracy
mistakes than at the beginning. I don’t think it is a good thing. It would be ideal if there
Many students informed at the end of this experience that they felt they were reading faster but
not necessarily well. They also mentioned that they wish they could read more naturally in
English.
Most students did not openly mention having a preference in reading partners however
the question about their reading satisfaction with a partner showed an interesting correlation.
Students reading with classmates they are friends with evaluated their experience as very
positive while those who read with classmates they are not used to work selected the options
positive or regular. The exception for this tendency was working with a more proficient student.
They were more likely to rank their reading experience as positive if their partner was someone
more proficient. Additionally, males who outnumber women by the double were a lot more vocal
at expressing who they enjoy more reading with. Only one woman in the class was vocal about
her preference when working with a partner the other ones were discrete in their answers.
Overall only 4 students out of 16 confessed having a favorite reading partner. The students
considered to be the best partners were 2 women and 2 men. Considering these results is hard to
Lastly are their personal impressions of the task. This part of the data analysis is the one
that gave more feedback about the task. Students were very critical of the activity and along with
I classified their comments in 4 categories: what I learned about myself, how I felt during oral
paired reading, how my partner helped me, and what could make this activity better. The
comments that students made will be listed under each category. To capture their feelings and
opinions better their words were used exactly as they wrote them in the surveys. Their responses
I was able to know what’s hard for others and what’s hard for me.
I felt more comfortable because I was reading with a person who is learning too.
Corrected my pronunciation.
I want the teacher to read it first for all the class then we can copy her.
More time.
Discussion
According to the answers obtained by the FC listening speaking class oral paired reading
is a good activity to implement. Most of the students reported gaining an understanding of their
own level and what they need to improve. They also agree that working with a partner gives
them a sense of confidence and motivation. Their biggest critics and suggestion were about how
the activity was implemented, they think that by using different types of reading passages or
even choosing their own would make the activity more interesting, also, many of them requested
12
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING
some type of modeling from the teacher said because that would help them to
The last suggestion for this activity was to give more time for this task. Based on the
students’ feedback it seems that they can see how this type of activity can be beneficial for them
however, it seems that at this stage of their second language development they value
pronunciation over fluency. This study oral paired reading study showed that students have a
positive disposition to this type of tasks and that at least in this class, working with a more or less
proficient does not make a difference on individual overall performance. Affection or friendship,
however, does play an important role, since students feel more at ease and relaxed working with
their friends and as reported by them the task was more positive and meaningful.
As an educator, it is important to understand not only about the actual productive skill
that our students are developing but also how to provide them with tasks and an environment that
will foster second language acquisition. For this reason, a teacher should know his class and his
students in order to tailor learning communicative experiences that will be meaningful and useful
to them. One of the biggest lessons I learned from this action research was that our students are
very critical of how they are taught, they know what works and what does not work for them and
that they are a very good source of feedback for improving the teaching and their learning.
13
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING
List of reference
motivation and learning strategy among Japanese college EFL students. English
Griffin, S.M. (1992) Reading Aloud. An Educator Comments. TESOL Quarterly, 26 (4), 784-
787.
Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. (2011) Teaching and researching reading. Great Britain: Pearson
Education Limited
Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition.
Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In Georgetown Round table on Languages and
Linguistics, James E. A
Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden (Eds.). (1983). Negotiation of meaning in non-native speaker-
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair
Their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 605–635.
14
STUDENTS’ APRECIATION ON ORAL PAIRED READING
Li, D., & Ness, S. (2001). Using Paired Reading To Help ESL Students Become Fluent and
Accurate Readers. Reading Improvement, volume 38, issue 2, starting on page 50-61