Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Zuzana Šaffková
Moodle application, was used. Only those students who deliberately skipped some questions, or
submitted only a partially elaborated task obtained “not-accepted” evaluation, which happened only
exceptionally. The students´ reactions to the introductory text showed that the students were able to
comprehend a text if the question was explicit enough and required an answer that was easily
detectable in the text. The majority of the students were able to identify the intent of the text (Q1.2),
however, when they had to specify the aim of the article, only 66 students answered correctly. This
might have been ascribed to the fact that the answer to question Q1.2 was implied by the examples
and the tone of the article, while question Q1.1 required to explore the text at a deeper level in order
to confirm or put aside any tentative thoughts that the text prompted. The same was proved when the
students had to find specific information (Q2), most of which required in-depth analysis of the text.
Only 56 students out of 112 succeeded in this task, 45 students were able to spot some of the details
and for 11 students a close examination of the text was a problem. Q3 required conscious inference
to identify implicit ideas and also the ability to articulate them. Open questions (Q3.1 and Q3.2)
allowed the students greater latitude in formulating their answers; moreover, the students could fall
back on their own experiences with the theme while answering these questions, which certainly
contributed to the higher success rate (71% and 88% of the students replied correctly). On the other
hand, when the students were required to recognize analogies and generalize (Q3.2), the percentage
of attainment decreased (46%). In the last task (Q4) the students demonstrated their difficulties with
inferring the meaning of selected phrases from the context, which could be ascribed to their limitations
of vocabulary – especially phrasal verbs, a context analysis that was too superficial, and
exceptionally, the inability to express the meaning in L2. The analysis of the students reactions to the
text showed that the majority of the students demonstrated typical characteristics of nonproficient
readers (Block, 1986), i.e. inability to integrate information, use general as well as personal
knowledge and association and respond in reflective mode. Moreover, very often they focused
exclusively on their own feelings and thoughts rather than the information encoded in the text
“directing their attention away from the text and toward themselves” (ibid.).
Phase 2:
Based on the results obtained from the introductory task, explicit in-class skills instruction and practice
followed. The scheme of the whole process of instructional delivery aimed to help the students “by
explaining fully what to do, why, how, and when; by modeling their own thinking processes; by
encouraging students to ask questions and discuss possible answers among themselves; and by
keeping students engaged in their reading by means of providing tasks that demand active
involvement” (Farstrup and Samuels 2002, p. 256). In order to guarantee full involvement in reading,
the students worked on a variety of tasks, quizzes and assignments in on-line lessons guided by
asynchronous communication with the teacher and accessible self-tests and materials, and supported
by face-to-face contact and immediate feedback. The whole procedure of the transition from
classroom guided learning through web-based work to modified classroom instruction is as follows:
Figure 2: Scaffolding instruction in teaching reading
The skills practised in five units within the course focused on a gradual transition from cognitive skills
that, as the diagnostic task proved, were manageable for most of the students, to metacognitive skills,
for which more time and practice was provided by on-line work.
The selection from both cognitive and metacognitive skills comprised:
Capturing the writer’s point of view that can help readers understand the purpose of the text,
which enables them to direct reading “to the most relevant material, and to save time by reading
more efficiently” (Cottrell 2005, p. 37).
Being aware of what the argument is and what it is not, which is an important step towards critical
analysis by enabling students “to categorise different types of materials … and distinguish what is
really relevant from other forms of information (ibid., p. 51).
708