The approach to teaching reading, the middle-way approach, is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. The middle way approach to developing academic reading competence is so called because it involves applying aspects of the strategies approach to reading to the task-based approach and providing scaffolding by means of comprehension questions, vocabulary work, text analysis tasks, etc, if and when required. Aspects of both the strategies and task-based approaches to reading are discussed below.
Reading strategies can be viewed as techniques that are consciously applied in the reading of a text (this excludes automatic/subconscious activity such as word recognition and syntactic processing in efficient readers). It is claimed that effective readers have a range of effective strategics at their disposal. Weir & Urquhart (1998: 94-105) suggest the following reading strategies as being key for academic study:
The strategies approach assumes that, since reading can be improved via training and practice in the use of strategies, reading classes should focus on the development of competence in using a range of strategies.
There are certain positive features of the strategies approach. For example:
It can lead to the successful use of individual aspects of the approach and therefore to more efficient reading. Strategy use does improve with training. Strategies may develop into skills (eventually used unconsciously).
Both students and teachers are comfortable with strategy training because it involves something tangible and clear-cut to "learn" or "teach".
However, there are also some aspects of the strategies approach which would not appear to be appropriate to the needs of the student about to embark on a course of academic studies at university level. For example:
The mechanical application of strategies is not a guarantee of successful reading, After training, strategies may not be used mechanically, even when they are not appropriate, or strategies may not be used, although appropriate, because the reader fails to detect the environment in which to apply them.
The approach may be deemed to be artificially successful; for instance, in an EAP language-testing situation where the reader is instructed, for example, to match headings from a "headings bank" to selected paragraphs in a text (IELTS) or to globally summarise the accompanying text However, this approach does not always appear to mirror real-life situations.
Although there is plenty of empirical evidence that natural reading in many situations is strategic, it is also clear that such strategy use is highly flexible and complex (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Reading is an idiosyncratic process and the strategies approach doesn’t allow for the unpredictability" of individual acts of reading. Strategy training makes the reader better at employing the strategy when prompted to do so, but does not necessarily ensure that such strategies are used appropriately in autonomous reading situations.
Kern (1997) warns that the "implicit universality" in the propositions involved in the strategies approach may be problematic because the propositions are so generalised. He suggests that what is "useful for comprehension is far from universal or generic, and there is no absolute right time, place, or manner of using strategies for all readers for a given text and context." He concludes that though comprehension depends on an effective mix of top-down and bottom-up processing, this mix cannot be prescribed to developing readers, since natural text processing dependent on a number of reader, textual and contextual variables, and so teaching lists of strategies simply won't do.
This approach suggests that classroom reading tasks should mirror authentic reading demands and purposes outside the classroom. It also suggests that in natural reading situations, effective readers are motivated by a desire to acquire knowledge about the topic which the text they are reading is concerned with. This gives them a clear purpose for reading, which helps them to decide how to tackle the text. This purpose can be seen as a task which is an important influence on how readers approach the text.
Academic reading involve getting information in order to fullfill an academic purpose, for example:
To complete an assignment on a specific question, for which synthesising information from various sources is necessary (e.g. to submit an easy or give a spoken presentation).
To develop an introductory overview of a new topic to help follow a series of lectures on that topic.
To develop an develop knowledge of a topic. This could involve deliberate storage of information for later use (e.g. note -taking for future exam revision), or the focus could be on reading and thinking in order to achieve a more developed understanding held in the mind (i.e. in long term memory).
The task-based approach implies a rejection of strategy training. Reading competence cannot be improved simply by training in specific strategies. This is because such an approach ignores the role that real-life reading purpose have on which strategies a given reader will find appropriate when dealing with a specific text. Furthermore, different texts pose different kinds of problems for readers from different language and cultural backgrounds, while individual differences in prior knowledge, motivation and reading purpose also contribute to the way texts are tackled. Reading instruction should therefore be context-sensitive, and grounded in specific texts and reading tasks.
In the strategies model, the information required from the text is decided by the strategy selected. In the task based model, the information required is directly specifed by the reader's purpose for reading, to which any strategy is subservient. In such an approach, the readers/students are given an academic task parallel to a natural academic task involving reading. Typically, they will be given:
For example, they may be given a text or a collection of texts and asked to answer a question which requires synthesising various ideas in the text(s), which functions as a focus task" for their reading. In principle, the nature of the task directs the use the reader makes of the texts) - the reading process - and consequently shapes the final product of the reader's efforts.
In the task-based approach, the processes and strategies occurring are dependent on the task, text and reader variables mentioned by Kern (above), and the reader has to make autonomous decisions about what is needed from the text. The end product - the completed focus" task- can be compared with a model, and evaluative decisions can be made by the reader about the degree of success that has been achieved.
There are certain positive features of the task-based approach relevant to the needs of the EAP reader about to begin an academic course. For example:
The reading conditions mirror those of natural academic reading. In particular the purpose for reading is the pursuit of relevant information to complete an academic task. The students are reading to learn, not learning to read". (Shih, 1992)
The use of strategies is determined by the reader. However, there are also negative features implicit in the teaching of the task-based approach. For example:
It is a deep-end approach, which raises important questions if students struggle:
The teacher's role is also problematic. If it is restricted to setting the focus task and evaluating the product, both students and teachers may ask, "Where is the teaching in all this?"
With this approach, the reader is encouraged to bridge the gap between the two previously mentioned approaches in the following ways:
(a) Students are encouraged to explore/discuss strategies used in different situations. The key to doing this successfully is self monitoring.
(b) The task provides a purpose for reading, but the student can monitor the reading at three stages:
I. Pre-reading - How am I going to carry out this task? The reader can be encouraged to make decisions about how to carry out the task in relation to the purpose for reading, the time available for reading and the prior knowledge he/she has (both conceptual and linguistical). For example, the focus task in Unit 5 (Statistics without tears) is to summarise a section of the text. Prior to completing the focus task, students are instructed to discuss the appropriate level of detail for a summary whether it is always the same or if it depends on certain factors. If it does depend on certain factors, what are they and how do they determine the level of detail required, etc.
Unit 4 (The environment today) suggests a different approach, in which the students are encouraged to access their "prior knowledge" by making use of the title and other overt information, such as tables and figures. It also suggests that focusing on certain key words displayed in the heading, subheadings and captions in the text, helps the reader access the content "quickly and efficiently". Students are encouraged to consider ways of gaining a quick global summary of the text, and are then invited to discuss other ways of rapidly accessing information for global comprehension These can be compared with a "master checklist" (provided in the Teacher's Book for photocopying). The students are thus encouraged to devise whatever strategies occur to them and add them to the master list, if appropriate. The aim is to discourage the mechanical application of any particular strategy, and to develop a strategy that suits the needs of the individual reader and the nature of the individual text. Imposing a strict time limit for finding information and summarising introduces further authentic variables.
II. While reading - How successfully am I carrying out the reading in relation to the task I am performing? There are questions at the end of each section of Statistics without tears to help students to monitor their understanding of he text. Thus, they can check whether they have come to the right conclusions because the next section provides the answers within the body of the text. If the students do not fully understand each section their summaries will probably inaccurate.
Throughout the course, students should be encouraged to keep asking questions of the text while they are reading. This will help them make decisions about how to tackle the text. Similarly, a photocopiable official checklist is included in certain units for students to check at various stages of their reading whether their notes relate appropriately to the demands of the focus task. Thus, the student is monitoring the ongoing product of his/her reading, which should make the reading purposeful and, hopefully motivating.
III. Post-reading - How did I carry out the task? Do I need to rethink my approach to the text in order to complete the focus task more successfully?
In Unit 4. students are given a model summary to compare with their own, a "tick box" activity to indicate the level of success that they have noted, and a further exercise to encourage them to think about if and why they had problems. A second text for global comprehension, Skylarks in decline, is provided, which is significantly different in outlay and content from the first (e.g, only the heading and subheadings and one figure provide' display clues about content). There is no introduction with this text -simply a task - but the same time limits are imposed, the aim being that once the summary task has been completed, the students autonomously decide how effective their strategy for reading this text and completing the task has been in comparison with (a) a model summary, and (b) the previous summary they completed for Acid rain in Norway. Students can then decide whether both texts can be successfully tackled in the same way or whether different strategies need to be applied in this way. Students are given the opportunity to carry out an identical task with very different texts and to "sample" a range of possible strategies that they can employ independently.
What is the strategies approach?
What is the task-based approach?
What are the differences between these two strategies?
What is the middle-way approach?