- Email: [email protected]
Extensive and intensive reading in an EAP setting
Pergamon
English for SpecificPurposes, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 47-60, 1997 Copyright © 1997 The AmericanUniversity Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0889-4906/97 $17.00+0.00
PIh S0889-4906(96)00031-2
E x t e n s i v e a n d I n t e n s i v e R e a d i n g in a n EAP S e t t i n g Patricia L. Carrell a n d J o a n G. Carson
Abstract--This article argues for the need for both intensive and extensive reading in an EAP reading curriculum, and further argues that a principled curricular approach to combining both is through Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT). Given the need for academic preparation programs that focus on college and university requirements so that students are taught literacy skills which are transferable to academic contexts, this paper argues that both intensive and extensive reading are necessary to prepare students for the task and texts they encounter in college. Intensive reading with a focus on skills/strategies instruction has been shown to yield positive effects on second language reading. At the same time, students need the practice of extensive reading in order to orchestrate, coordinate and apply intensively acquired skills/strategies over the larger texts and multiple reading sources that are required in all academic course work. TBLT, which focuses on specific tasks, such as evaluated products in academic contexts (e.g. testtaking, report writing), allows students to acquire relevant skills and strategies in the context of tasks they will eventually encounter in academic courses. Furthermore, TBLT provides a principled approach to the determination of relevant content. © 1997 The American University
IntroductionmThe Meaning of Literacy in EAP Settings When we talk about teaching English for Academic Purposes, we recognize the fact that academic purposes are different from other, non-academic purposes, even if we are not able to specify what we mean by "academic." The crux of this problem of definition for post-secondary settings is that, as Anderson et al. (1990:11) note, "there is no single image of academic literacy within the university." In fact, reading and writing activities in college are so varied that Chiseri-Strater (1991) describes them as "academic literacies" referring to the fact that texts and reading assignments are shaped by individual disciplines, courses, professors and students.
Address correspondenceto either Patricia L. Carrell or Joan Carson, DepartmentofAppliedLinguistics/ESL, Georgia State University,UniversityPlaza, Atlanta, GA 30303-3083, USA-Their respective e-mail addresses are [email protected] [email protected]
47
/48
P.L. Carrell and J. G. Carson
Given that there is no single academic literacy, how can we maximize the instructional effectiveness of EAP reading programs? Research in L1 academic literacy suggests that underprepared students benefit most from instruction in reading and writing tasks that resemble the actual literacy demands of university course work (Feathers & Smith 1983; Nist & Kirby 91986). These findings seem to indicate that what is needed are academic preparation programs that focus on college and university requirements so that students will be taught literacy skills that are transferable to academic contexts. Favorable results have been reported from L1 college reading programs which have emphasized strategies necessary for reading specific texts from different disciplines of the lower division curriculum, (Goldsmith 1979; Santa & Truscott 1979; Soil & McCall 1981; Woodley 1986). Some developmental studies programs are also offering supplemental or adjunct reading and study instruction to students while they are enrolled in contentarea courses (Mallery & Bullock 1985; Martin 1980; Nist & Kirby 1986). Stahl, Simpson & Hayes (1992: 3) assert that: the mostlogicalgoal for collegereadingand learningprogramswouldbe to teach studentsa repertoire of strategiesand tacticsthat willprepare themfor the tasks and texts they encounterin college ... to [help students] transfer specificstrategiesto the particularacademicliteracydemandsofeach course.
Learning to Read by Receiving Strategy Instruction--The Case for Intensive Reading in an EAP Setting Acknowledgement of the importance of a strategic repertoire has led not only L1 reading pedagogy but also L2 reading pedagogy to emphasize instruction as a means of helping L2 (ESL) learners in EAP settings to learn the reading strategies they will need for successful interaction with academic texts. The research on language learning strategies (Cohen 1990; O'Malley & Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990), as well as that on reading strategies (Hosenfeld 1977; Hauptman 1979; Devine 1984; Knight, Padron & Waxman 1985; Block 1986; Zvetina 1987; Anderson 1991) has shown the important role played by various strategies in successful and unsuccessful second language learning, and specifically in second langauge reading. This research has, in turn, led to several intervention or training studies which have shown the efficacy of teaching strategies to second language learners. As far back as 1985, Carrell (1985) demonstrated the efficacy of teaching a text structure strategy for expository texts. In another study that year, Hamp-Lyons (1985) demonstrated positive effects of a "text-strategic" approach, and Sarig and Folman (1987) conducted a successful coherence training study. The results of a strategy training study by Barnett (1988), despite impressive sample gain scores by those receiving strategy instruction over those not receiving strategy instruction, failed to reach significance. (However, after looking again at Barnett's results, we believe that if she
Extensive and Intensive Reading
49
had used different, more comprehensive statistical analytic procedures, her results may have turned out differently, possibly reaching significance.) Carrell, Pharis and Liberto (1989) reported two metacognitively-based strategy training techniques, with differential effects upon students with different learning styles. Kern (1989) demonstrated the effectiveness of explicit instruction in a number of word, sentence and discourse analytic strategies. Raymond (1993) replicated Carrell (1985) with similar results, although she also encountered a text effect. Finally, Talbot (1996) has reported another successful replication of Carrell (1985) demonstrating the effectiveness of an explicit strategy training in text structure awareness of expository text. An important component of reading strategy training has been its focus on metacognition. As Anderson (1991: 19) pointed out, successful second language reading comprehension is: not simply a matter of knowing what strategy to use, but the reader m u s t also know how to u s e it successfully and orchestrate its u s e with other strategies. It is not sufficient to know about strategies, but a reader m u s t also be able to apply t h e m strategically.
In a review of strategy training studies, Carrell (1996) has identified the range of metacognitive elements (declarative, procedural and conditional) utilized in many of the studies referenced above. It is interesting to note that all of these strategy intervention studies took place with university-level students. The differences were primarily that those studies which targeted ESL and EFL students (Carrell 1985; HampLyons 1985; Sarig & Folman 1987, Carrell, Pharis & Liberto 1989; Talbot 1996) were clearly students who were in EAP settings in which their language learning was geared to prepare them for handling the rigors of university courses in English as the target language. Three of the studies targeted American university students of French as a foreign language (Barnett 1988; Kern 1989; Raymond 1993). The American students of French, although they were university level, were not studying French in order to be able to cope with university level instruction delivered in French, or to read content materials in their major disciplines in French. Except for the rare "Junior Year Abroad" foreign language student, these foreign language learners will put their foreign learning to other, presumably nonacademic, uses.
Learning to R e a d b y ReadingmThe Case for Extensive Reading in an EAP Context A concurrent strand in reading research is the recent resurgence of interest in extensive reading as part of L2 language development programs. For example, Krashen continues to call for a major role for pleasure or free voluntary reading in ESL acquisition (Krashen 1989, 1993). Extensive reading, in contrast to intensive reading, generally involves
50
P.L. Can'ell and J. G. Carson
rapid reading of large quantities of material or longer readings (e.g. whole books) for general understanding, with the focus generally on the meaning of what is being read than on the language. Extensive reading is intended to get the reader to focus on reading for the sake of reading (for information or entertainment), and less on reading for the sake of mastery of a particular linguistic structure of even a particular reading strategy or skill. Thus, it can involve a wide variety of reading skills or strategies. It is sometimes even referred to as a "style" or a "way" of reading (Williams & Moran 1989). Elley (1991) reports the results of a number of empirical studies of the positive effects of extensive reading programs ("book-based programs") on the second language acquisition of young children in a number of parts of the world, from Fiji to Pakistan to Arizona. While these are interesting, the settings and learners are quite distinct from the post-secondary EAP context of concern in this paper. More recently, at the Reading Research Colloquium of the 1995 TESOL Convention, two major figures in foreign/second language reading articulated the need for extensive reading in the L2 or foreign language curriculum, while at the same time acknowledging the difficulty of doing so. Swaffar (1995) explored the uses of pleasure reading as the basis for foreign language learning. In her own university-level foreign language teaching, she has tried narrow reading focused on a single topic as a form of extensive reading as early as the second semester and in second and third year courses with a variety of topics. Although she admits to having no definitive research to support the success of such teaching, and she indicates how problematic conducting such a study would be, she reports uniformly enthusiastic responses from students and a belief on her part that narrow pleasure reading (albeit conducted with systematic linguistic and problem-solving strategies), "can address the current gulf between learning a language and using a language to learn" (from her abstract). Swaffar's teaching context, however, differs in significant ways from EAP context. Although the students are university-level students, the majority are not studying the foreign language (in this case, German) in order to be able to cope with universitylevel instruction delivered in German, or to read materials in their major disciplines in German. As with the university students learning French in the previously mentioned strategy training studies, Swaffar's foreign language learners will put their foreign language learning to other uses. At that same 1995 Reading Research Colloquium, Grabe (1995) also called for extensive reading in L2 language programs, while also acknowledging the problematic nature of focusing instruction on extensive reading. Grabe began by reviewing what extensive reading can or may contribute to effective reading (drawing upon the work of, among others, Elley 1991; Krashen 1989, 1993; Stanovich & Cunningham 1993). The following was stated in his handout for the colloquium: (1) Extensive reading develops automatic word recognition, particularly by building up orthographic knowledge and letter-sound correspondences.
Extensive and Intensive Reading
51
(2) It may be the best way to develop a large recognition vocabulary. (3) It is a key resource for building student motivation once students are 'hooked." (4) It has demonstrated positive influence on students' general background knowledge; this is important for learning to read new material in other domains and learning new information from texts that are to be read: "the Matthew effects"--the rich get richer. (5) It has demonstrated positive influence on reading comprehension proficiency, as well as on other language skills. (6) It may be the only genuine way for students to develop and maintain reading strategies, and become more strategic readers. (7) It is essential for developing the ability to "read to learn," a major goal for academically-oriented instruction. (8) It is a key means for students to continue learning a second language on their own when they complete instruction (Grabe 1995, from the handout). Grabe (1995) also identified several considerations which mediate against extensive reading as a focus of instruction, among them teachers' assumptions that extensive reading can easily be done at home without "wasting precious class time," teachers' perceived needs to be "teaching" rather than letting students "learn" to read, resource and time limitations, student standardized examinations, and students' lack of motivation to read extensively on their own. Two other factors mediating against extensive reading, according to Grabe, are the need for a lot of interesting material and the problem of accommodating different student backgrounds and interests, as well as the vagueness of the definition of extensive reading. He asks: what does extensive reading mean? Do "extensive reading" and "free pleasure reading" mean the same thing? Interest in extensive reading has grown to the point that two well-known second language reading experts are publishing a book on Developing Lifelong Readers: Extensive Reading in the Foreign Language Classroom (Day and Bamford, forthcoming). In a preliminary copy (early draft of selected chapters) of that book, Day and Bamford struggle with the definition of extensive reading. They point out that the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards et al. 1992) definition of extensive reading combines elements of the usual meaning of extensive (i.e. quantity of reading) and the special foreign language use of the term to represent a style of reading: "Extensive reading means reading in quantity and in order to gain a general understanding of what is read" (p. 133). But more than that, Day and Bamford further argue that in foreign language pedagogical contexts, extensive reading is also a way of teaching reading and the foreign language itself. Thus, like Grabe (1995, 1991: 396), Day and Bamford make the case for the pedagogical benefits of extensive reading. However, Day and Bamford also show that despite the lip service that many leading reading specialists pay to the importance of extensive reading
52
P. l,. C a r r e l l a n d J. G. C a r s o n
in learning a foreign/second language and learning how to read in a foreign/second language, very little is actually done with extensive reading in practice. "Extensive reading has been relegated to an, at best, peripheral role" (ms, p. 4). The same reading experts who call for attention to extensive reading, devote little attention to it in their published pedagogical materials (Mahon 1986; Stoller 1986; Jensen 1986; Mikulecky 1990).
The Need for Both Intensive and Extensive Reading in an EAP Setting There has always been a tendency to view intensive/strategic reading and extensive reading as being in opposition--principally, we suppose, because there is only so much time available in any foreign or second language curriculum and the teacher must always be choosing what to focus on and what to ignore or downplay. However, as long ago as 1982, Nuttall reminded us that "intensive and extensive reading are complementary and both are necessary" (p. 23; see also variations of these ideas in Nuttall 1996: 38-39). Most of the skills and strategies we want our students to develop are trained by studying shortish texts in detail. But others m u s t be developed by the use of longer texts, including complete books. T h e s e two approaches are described traditionally as intensive and extensive reading ... Brumfit (1977) points out that better labels m i g h t be reading for accuracy and reading for fluency; t h e s e are certainly more informative but still do not reflect all the purposes served by each type of reading.
Nuttall continues that there are not just these two contrasting ways of reading, but an infinitive variety of interrelated and overlapping strategies. She allows for other approaches to reading which may not fit into either the intensive or extensive category. These contrasting labels, Nuttall observes, indicate a difference in classroom procedures as well as a difference in purpose: Intensive reading involves approaching the text under the close guidance of the teacher, or u n d e r the guidance of a task which forces the student to pay great attention to the text. T h e aim of intensive reading is to arrive at a profound and detailed understanding of the text: not only of what it means, but also of how the m e a n i n g is produced. T h e "how" is as important as the "what", for the intensive reading lesson is intended primarily to train students in reading strategies. It is of course easier to handle work on short texts, which can be studied in a lesson or two, than long ones. It is also generally supposed that in order to understand the whole (e.g. a book), we m u s t be able to understand the parts ... of which it is m a d e up. However, it is also true that we are often able to understand a book without fully grasping every part of it; we ought to make the m o s t of this ability and encourage our students to build on it. This s u g g e s t s that we o u g h t to pay attention to extensive as well as intensive reading. Moreover, we m u s t not ignore the d e m a n d s by longer texts, which are liable to g e t forgotten in the classroom. T h e whole is not just the s u m of its
Extensive and Intensive Reading
53
parts, and there are reading strategies which can onlybe trained by practice on longer texts ... We need an extensivereading program that will activelypromote reading out of class (p. 23). NuttaU, then, in a separate entire chapter (chapter 12 in the 1982 edition; chapter 8 in the 1996 edition, extensively revised and expanded), goes on to suggest how an extensive reading program might be organized to turn the vicious cycle of the weak reader (a reader who reads so slowly that s/he doesn't understand much and therefore doesn't enjoy reading and therefore doesn't read much and therefore reads slowly), into the virtuous cycle of the good reader (a reader who reads fast enough that s/he reads more and understands better and therefore enjoys reading, and therefore reads more).
Combining Intensive and Extensive Reading: A Curricular Approach L2 readers in EAP courses need to develop language and academic reading abilities and so require a curriculum based on these broad needs, a curriculum which includes aspects of both intensive and extensive reading. Although intensive/strategic reading instruction can proceed with a variety of short, unrelated texts, extensive reading instruction clearly requires text that is of sufficient length to sustain extensive reader engagement. One response to the needs of EAP readers for intensive and extensive reading has been the development of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) [see, for example, Benesch 1988; Brinton, Snow & Wesche 1989; Kruger & Ryan 1993] which is based on the idea that "real language learning is most likely to occur when the context of that learning is not only typical, but real, when the learners are not merely acting out roles, but trying their new language to fulfil genuine communicative purposes" (Eskey 1992: 15). For CBI, the curriculum is organized around content, the dual purpose of CBI models being "the learning of a second language and the mastery of content knowledge" (Brinton, Snow & Wesche 1989: 182). Typically implied by this model is the use of a single subject-specific text that by its nature is appropriate for both intensive and extensive reading. However, as Johns (1992) points out, CBI has been utilized more with the K-12 population than it has with adult/post-secondary second language learners. It is particulary notable that--except for theme-based instruct i o n - CBI has been little used in EAP programs in which adult learners are being prepared specifically for the demands of post-secondary academic course work. Given that CBI seems to be a particularly appropriate (and in the K-12 environment, successful) approach to dealing with both intensive and extensive reading, why has it not been adopted in post-secondary settings? Carson, Taylor and Fredella (forthcoming) argue that using content as the basis for curriculum design in EAP instruction is problematic for several reasons. First, evaluation criteria for content selection are a problem
54
P.L. Carrell and J. G. Carson
for EAP courses. Although K-12 CBI courses will utilize content that is being taught in the mainstream curriculum or in adjunct courses, EAP program content is not so easy to specify. Snow, Met and Genesee (1989) claim that "... content must be chosen that is important and interesting to the learner" (p. 202, but the constructs of "importance" and "interest" are difficult to operationalize). Not only will post-secondary language learners be faced with a wide range of content subjects, but only a few of these subjects will be shared in an EAP classroom. Thus, what content is important will vary from learner to learner. Furthermore, although it is unarguable that "interesting" content is likely to motivate students, it is not altogether clear how teachers will be able to determine what content will likely be of interest to students. The argument here is not that interest is an unimportant criterion; rather, it is that interest is difficult to gauge and, thus, is an unreliable guide to content selection. A second problem is that content mastery as a primary course objective in CB! courses poses a face validity problem for EAP classes. It can be difficult to convince students that a particular subject area will be essential to their success in post-secondary academic settings, given that future content needs of EAP learners are so variable. As Brindley (cited in Nunan 1993) argues, goals that reflect the communicative needs of learners have greater face validity. If the goal of content mastery does not relate to the future academic needs of the language learners, the knowledge that is gained in a CBI course is not likely to be seen as beneficial to the students if it is not perceived as transferable to the post-secondary academic context. Finally, CBI, without the need for content mastery inherent in K-12 and adjunct classes, lacks a focus for EAP programs. What underlies CBI is the notion that language learning will emerge from a focus on learning content. However, if content mastery is not one of the primary goals of the course, then the language teacher will need to create a focus for the content and this focus will vary with the instructor and/or the instructor's sense of students needs. In other words, CBI does not provide a principled basis for deciding on course focus in cases where content mastery is either unnecessary or inappropriate. Although the argument for content mastery is not sustainable in a postsecondary EAP context, the need to manage large amounts of content-typically content from reading--is a primary requirement in academic classrooms. In addition, EAP readers must develop the strategies and tactics necessary for coping with the demands of academic reading, as the L1 literature so clearly shows. One way to focus an EAP reading course to include both these needs is to develop a task-based curriculum. Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), like CBI, is based on the idea that communicative purposes are essential in real language learning. However, unlike CBI, the curriculum organizing principle for TBLT is task, not content, the rationale being that language acquisition occurs when the learner is focused on the completion of a task rather than on the language used in the process (Prabhu 1987).
Extensive and Intensive Reading
55
In terms of face validity and transferability, academic tasks are best operationalized as those tasks that constitute evaluated products in academic courses. Common academic tasks include evaluated products such as exams (e.g. essay, multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, matching), reports, papers and quizzes. (See Hale et al. 1996, for a study that reports academic tasks requiring writing.) There are, of course, multiple subtasks involved in each of these evaluated products. For example, taking an essay exam is likely to require that the student read course text(s), understand lectures and write lecture notes, integrate information from both course text(s) and lecture(s) in relevant ways, learn the material and eventually, write an exam that addresses the questions posed by the instructor. Each of these subtasks again requires its own set of subtasks. For example, reading a course text requires, among other things, that the student recognize main ideas, understand relationships among ideas within and across text chapters, and integrate prose and non-prose information such as tables and graphs. The argument, then for TBLT is that focusing instruction on evaluated products such as test-taking or report writing, allows the student to acquire relevant subtasks, study skills and strategies in the context of tasks that they will eventually encounter in academic courses. EAP students recognize the evaluated products as real academic demands, and thus a task focus has not only face validity, but also promotes transferability of skills and strategies to actual academic contexts. While CBI may include tasks, the focus on content mastery may or may not have face validity, depending on whether or not the student feels that the particular content will be useful in future academic work. Furthermore, content mastery, whether or not relevant to academic courses, fails to provide a focus on tasks that will be ultimately transferable. In TBLT, the student is mastering content as well, but only for the purpose of developing the range of skills and strategies necessary to produce a variety of recognizable evaluated products. Thus, content itself is secondary, becoming the context in which the student acquires the ability to manage tasks and relevant subtasks. While content is not the organizing principle in TBLT, it nevertheless plays a significant role in TBLT in general, and in task-based EAP programs, in particular. Rather than tasks emerging from content to be learned as happens in the CBI approach, the tasks to be learned determine the content in a task-based approach. In fact, as Long and Crookes (1993) point out, one of the main strengths of TBLT is "its principled approach to content selection" (p. 41) - - content is selected to support the acquisition of specific tasks. In other words, task-based EAP instruction also requires mastery of content, but it is the task that focuses the way that language learners will read about content. Content is selected to maximize the opportunities to master specific academic tasks. For example, an essay exam frequently requires synthesis of material from several chapters of a course text. In order to teach the task of essay exam writing, the content would need to include multiple chapters of a single text and/or multiple texts in which content is related--i.e. extensive reading would be required. In addition, reading strategies must
56
P.L. Carrell and J. G. Carson
be taught that will enable learners to comprehend the text in a way that will allow them to produce an appropriate essay. In other words, the task would constrain the content to be read and learned in ways that are specific to academic settings. Because task-based reading is grounded in learners' needs, EAP instruction that focuses on task mastery does maintain a clear connection with genuine language in genuine communicative interactions. What is called for in this approach, then, is extensive reading of academic text in a/any content area combined with strategy instruction for dealing with specific academic tasks. (See Kasper, 1994, for an example of a reading course that does both.)
Conclusion In sum, Task-Based Language Teaching is a principled way of integrating intensive reading and strategy instruction with appropriate extensive reading in post-secondary EAP settings. Intensive reading and strategy instruction are necessary for students to acquire the subtasks relevant to specific evaluated products. For example, particular reading strategies/skills such as close reading for important details, identifying main ideas and supporting evidence, summarizing and identifying the top level rhetorical organization of a text (or a key part of a text) may all be necessary for the readers to accomplish the larger task of producing a successful evaluated product like an essay exam. At the same time, though, intensive reading is insufficient in and of itself. Students need experience with the extensive reading that is required in all academic coursework. Without the experience of dealing with large amounts of text, and without having developed the ability to apply intensively acquired reading skills and strategies in appropriate ways during extensive reading, EAP students will not be fully prepared to manage the reading demands of actual academic classes.
(Revised version received August 1996)
REFERENCES Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472. Anderson, W., Best, C., Black, A., Hurst, J., Miller, B., & Miller, S. (1990). Cross-curricular underlife: A collaborative report on ways with academic words. College Composition and Communication, 41, 11-36. Barnett, M.A. (1988). Teaching reading strategies: How methodology affects language course articulation. Foreign Language Annals, 21(2), 109-119. Benesch, S. (Ed.). (1988). Ending remediation: Linking ESL and content in higher education. Washington, DC: TESOL. Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-494.
Extensive and Intensive Reading
57
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House. Brumfit, C. J. (1977). The teaching of advanced reading skills in foreign languages with particular reference to English as a foreign language. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, pp. 10, 73-84. Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727-752. Carrell, P. L. (1996, March). L2 reading strategy training: What is the role of metacognition? Paper presented at the Reading Research Colloquium, Annual TESOL Convention, Chicago, IL. Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647-678. Carson, J. G., Taylor., J. A., & Fredella, L. (forthcoming). The role of content in task-based EAP instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The language within: Readings on content-based instruction. Chiseri-Strater, E. (1991). Academic literacies: The public and private discourse of university students. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook. Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning." Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. New York: Newbury House. Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (forthcoming). Developing lifelong readers: Extensive reading in the foreign language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. Devine, J. (1984). ESL readers' internalized models of the reading process. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem, & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83 (pp. 95-108). Washington, DC" TESOL. Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41,375-411. Eskey, D. (1992). Syllabus design in content-based instruction. The CATESOL Journal, 5, 11-23. Feathers, K. M., & Smith, F. R. (1983). The evolution of a research design: A case study in content reading. Reading Psychology, 4, 179-187. Goldsmith, J. S. (1979). A reading approach to college history: A pilot plan. History Teacher, 13(1), 49-60. Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375-406. Grabe. W. (1995, March). Why is it so difficult to make extensive reading the key component of L2 reading instruction? Presentation (and handout) at the Reading Research Colloquium, Annual TESOL Convention, Long Beach, CA. Hale, G., Taylor, C., Bridgeman, B., Carson, J., Kroll, B., & Kantor, R. (1996). A study of writing tasks assigned in academic degree programs: Research Report 54. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Hamp-Lyons, L. (1985). Two approaches to teaching reading: A classroombased study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 3, 363-373. Hauptman, P. C. (1979). A comparison of first and second language reading strategies among English-speaking university students. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4, 173-201.
58
P.L. Carrell and J. G. Carson
Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and nonsuccessful second language learners. System, 5, 110123. Jensen, L. (1986). Advanced reading skills in a comprehensive course. In F. Dubin, D. E. Eskey, & W. Grabe (Eds.), Teaching second language reading for academic purposes (pp. 103-124). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Johns, A. (1992). What is the relationship between content-based instruction and English for Specific Purposes? The CATESOLJournal, 5, 71-75. Kasper, L. F. (1994). Improved reading performance for ESL students through academic course pairing. Journal of Reading, 37, 376-384. Kern, R. G. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal 73, 135-149. Knight, S. L., Padron, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1985). The cognitive reading strategies of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 789-792. Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464. Krashen, S. (1993). The case for free voluntary reading. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 72-82. Krueger, M., & Ryan, F. (Eds.). (1993). Language and content: Discipline and content-based approaches to language study. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co. Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus designThe case for task. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-54). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mahon, D. (1986). Intermediate skills: Focusing on reading rate development. In F. Dubin, D. E. Eskey & W. Grabe (Eds.), Teaching second language reading for academic purposes (pp. 77-102). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Mallery, A. L., & Bullock, T. L. (1985). Two models of development reading instruction: Fused or paired. In G. H. McNinch (Ed.), Reading research in 1984: Comprehension, computers, communication--Fi)2h yearbook of the American Reading Forum (pp. 87-91). Athens, GA." American Reading Forum. Martin, D. C. (1980). Learning centers in professional schools. In K. V. Lauridsen (Ed.), New directions for college learning assistance: Examining the scope of learning centers (pp. 69-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mikulecky, B. S. (1990). A short course in teaching reading skills. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Nist, S. L., & Kirby, K. (1986). Teaching comprehension and study strategies through modeling and thinking aloud. Reading Research and Instruction, 25, 254-264. Nunan, D. (1993). Task-based syllabus design: Selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a peda-
Extensive and Intensive Reading
59
gogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 55-68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nuttall, C. (1982; new edition 1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Books. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House. Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy: A perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raymond, P. M. (1993). The effects of structure strategy training on the recall of expository prose for university students reading French as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 77, 445-458. Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. London: Longman. Santa, C. M., & Truscott, R. B. (1979). A college reading program: The integration of reading, writing, speaking and thinking within the content areas. College Student Journal, 13, 391-3971 Sarig, G., & Folman, S. (1987, December). Metacognitive awareness and theoretical knowledge in coherence production. Unpublished paper presented at the Communication and Cognition International Congress, Ghent, Belgium. Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201-217. Soll, L., & McCall, C. (1981). Basic skills programs at the City University of New York (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 207-029). Stahl, N. A., Simpson, M. L., & Hayes, C. G. (1992). Ten recommendations from research for teaching high-risk college students. Journal of Developmental Education, 16(1), 2-11. Stanovich, K., & Cunningham, A. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211-229. Stoller, F. (1986). Reading lab: Developing low-level reading skills. In F. Dubin, D. E. Eskey, & W. Grabe (Eds.), Teaching second language reading for academic purposes (pp. 51-76). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Swaffar, J. (1995, March). Will extensive practice in fairly narrow but extensive reading in popular texts yield L2 students able to handle languages in ways comparable to language-based programs? Presentation at the Reading Research Colloquium, Annual TESOL Convention, Long Beach, CA. Talbot, D. (1996). Metacognitive strategy training for reading: Developing second language learners' awareness of expository text patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hong Kong. Williams, E., & Moran, C. (1989). Reading in a foreign language at intermediate and advanced levels with particular reference to English. Language Teaching, 22, 217-228.
60
P.L. Carrell and J. G. Carson
Woodley, J. W. (1986). The reading and study skills of college students: A descriptive study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 284185). Zvetina, M. (1987). From research to pedagogy: What do L2 reading studies suggest? Foreign Langauge Annals, 20, 233-238.
Patricia L. Carrell teaches graduate courses in the Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL at Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. Her primary research interest is second language reading, and she has published articles on this topic in TESOL Quarterly, Language Learning, Modern Language Journal and Reading in a Foreign Language. She co-edited with Joanne Devine and David Eskey Interactive approaches to second language reading (Cambridge University Press, 1988). Joan G. Carson teaches graduate courses in the Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL at Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. Her primary research interest is academic biliteracy and she has published articles in this topic in TESOL Quarterly, Language Learning, Journal of Second Language Writing and Journal of Developmental Education. She has co-edited with Ilona Leki Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (Heinle and Heinle, 1993).
English for SpecificPurposes, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 47-60, 1997 Copyright © 1997 The AmericanUniversity Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0889-4906/97 $17.00+0.00
PIh S0889-4906(96)00031-2
E x t e n s i v e a n d I n t e n s i v e R e a d i n g in a n EAP S e t t i n g Patricia L. Carrell a n d J o a n G. Carson
Abstract--This article argues for the need for both intensive and extensive reading in an EAP reading curriculum, and further argues that a principled curricular approach to combining both is through Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT). Given the need for academic preparation programs that focus on college and university requirements so that students are taught literacy skills which are transferable to academic contexts, this paper argues that both intensive and extensive reading are necessary to prepare students for the task and texts they encounter in college. Intensive reading with a focus on skills/strategies instruction has been shown to yield positive effects on second language reading. At the same time, students need the practice of extensive reading in order to orchestrate, coordinate and apply intensively acquired skills/strategies over the larger texts and multiple reading sources that are required in all academic course work. TBLT, which focuses on specific tasks, such as evaluated products in academic contexts (e.g. testtaking, report writing), allows students to acquire relevant skills and strategies in the context of tasks they will eventually encounter in academic courses. Furthermore, TBLT provides a principled approach to the determination of relevant content. © 1997 The American University
IntroductionmThe Meaning of Literacy in EAP Settings When we talk about teaching English for Academic Purposes, we recognize the fact that academic purposes are different from other, non-academic purposes, even if we are not able to specify what we mean by "academic." The crux of this problem of definition for post-secondary settings is that, as Anderson et al. (1990:11) note, "there is no single image of academic literacy within the university." In fact, reading and writing activities in college are so varied that Chiseri-Strater (1991) describes them as "academic literacies" referring to the fact that texts and reading assignments are shaped by individual disciplines, courses, professors and students.
Address correspondenceto either Patricia L. Carrell or Joan Carson, DepartmentofAppliedLinguistics/ESL, Georgia State University,UniversityPlaza, Atlanta, GA 30303-3083, USA-Their respective e-mail addresses are [email protected] [email protected]
47
/48
P.L. Carrell and J. G. Carson
Given that there is no single academic literacy, how can we maximize the instructional effectiveness of EAP reading programs? Research in L1 academic literacy suggests that underprepared students benefit most from instruction in reading and writing tasks that resemble the actual literacy demands of university course work (Feathers & Smith 1983; Nist & Kirby 91986). These findings seem to indicate that what is needed are academic preparation programs that focus on college and university requirements so that students will be taught literacy skills that are transferable to academic contexts. Favorable results have been reported from L1 college reading programs which have emphasized strategies necessary for reading specific texts from different disciplines of the lower division curriculum, (Goldsmith 1979; Santa & Truscott 1979; Soil & McCall 1981; Woodley 1986). Some developmental studies programs are also offering supplemental or adjunct reading and study instruction to students while they are enrolled in contentarea courses (Mallery & Bullock 1985; Martin 1980; Nist & Kirby 1986). Stahl, Simpson & Hayes (1992: 3) assert that: the mostlogicalgoal for collegereadingand learningprogramswouldbe to teach studentsa repertoire of strategiesand tacticsthat willprepare themfor the tasks and texts they encounterin college ... to [help students] transfer specificstrategiesto the particularacademicliteracydemandsofeach course.
Learning to Read by Receiving Strategy Instruction--The Case for Intensive Reading in an EAP Setting Acknowledgement of the importance of a strategic repertoire has led not only L1 reading pedagogy but also L2 reading pedagogy to emphasize instruction as a means of helping L2 (ESL) learners in EAP settings to learn the reading strategies they will need for successful interaction with academic texts. The research on language learning strategies (Cohen 1990; O'Malley & Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990), as well as that on reading strategies (Hosenfeld 1977; Hauptman 1979; Devine 1984; Knight, Padron & Waxman 1985; Block 1986; Zvetina 1987; Anderson 1991) has shown the important role played by various strategies in successful and unsuccessful second language learning, and specifically in second langauge reading. This research has, in turn, led to several intervention or training studies which have shown the efficacy of teaching strategies to second language learners. As far back as 1985, Carrell (1985) demonstrated the efficacy of teaching a text structure strategy for expository texts. In another study that year, Hamp-Lyons (1985) demonstrated positive effects of a "text-strategic" approach, and Sarig and Folman (1987) conducted a successful coherence training study. The results of a strategy training study by Barnett (1988), despite impressive sample gain scores by those receiving strategy instruction over those not receiving strategy instruction, failed to reach significance. (However, after looking again at Barnett's results, we believe that if she
Extensive and Intensive Reading
49
had used different, more comprehensive statistical analytic procedures, her results may have turned out differently, possibly reaching significance.) Carrell, Pharis and Liberto (1989) reported two metacognitively-based strategy training techniques, with differential effects upon students with different learning styles. Kern (1989) demonstrated the effectiveness of explicit instruction in a number of word, sentence and discourse analytic strategies. Raymond (1993) replicated Carrell (1985) with similar results, although she also encountered a text effect. Finally, Talbot (1996) has reported another successful replication of Carrell (1985) demonstrating the effectiveness of an explicit strategy training in text structure awareness of expository text. An important component of reading strategy training has been its focus on metacognition. As Anderson (1991: 19) pointed out, successful second language reading comprehension is: not simply a matter of knowing what strategy to use, but the reader m u s t also know how to u s e it successfully and orchestrate its u s e with other strategies. It is not sufficient to know about strategies, but a reader m u s t also be able to apply t h e m strategically.
In a review of strategy training studies, Carrell (1996) has identified the range of metacognitive elements (declarative, procedural and conditional) utilized in many of the studies referenced above. It is interesting to note that all of these strategy intervention studies took place with university-level students. The differences were primarily that those studies which targeted ESL and EFL students (Carrell 1985; HampLyons 1985; Sarig & Folman 1987, Carrell, Pharis & Liberto 1989; Talbot 1996) were clearly students who were in EAP settings in which their language learning was geared to prepare them for handling the rigors of university courses in English as the target language. Three of the studies targeted American university students of French as a foreign language (Barnett 1988; Kern 1989; Raymond 1993). The American students of French, although they were university level, were not studying French in order to be able to cope with university level instruction delivered in French, or to read content materials in their major disciplines in French. Except for the rare "Junior Year Abroad" foreign language student, these foreign language learners will put their foreign learning to other, presumably nonacademic, uses.
Learning to R e a d b y ReadingmThe Case for Extensive Reading in an EAP Context A concurrent strand in reading research is the recent resurgence of interest in extensive reading as part of L2 language development programs. For example, Krashen continues to call for a major role for pleasure or free voluntary reading in ESL acquisition (Krashen 1989, 1993). Extensive reading, in contrast to intensive reading, generally involves
50
P.L. Can'ell and J. G. Carson
rapid reading of large quantities of material or longer readings (e.g. whole books) for general understanding, with the focus generally on the meaning of what is being read than on the language. Extensive reading is intended to get the reader to focus on reading for the sake of reading (for information or entertainment), and less on reading for the sake of mastery of a particular linguistic structure of even a particular reading strategy or skill. Thus, it can involve a wide variety of reading skills or strategies. It is sometimes even referred to as a "style" or a "way" of reading (Williams & Moran 1989). Elley (1991) reports the results of a number of empirical studies of the positive effects of extensive reading programs ("book-based programs") on the second language acquisition of young children in a number of parts of the world, from Fiji to Pakistan to Arizona. While these are interesting, the settings and learners are quite distinct from the post-secondary EAP context of concern in this paper. More recently, at the Reading Research Colloquium of the 1995 TESOL Convention, two major figures in foreign/second language reading articulated the need for extensive reading in the L2 or foreign language curriculum, while at the same time acknowledging the difficulty of doing so. Swaffar (1995) explored the uses of pleasure reading as the basis for foreign language learning. In her own university-level foreign language teaching, she has tried narrow reading focused on a single topic as a form of extensive reading as early as the second semester and in second and third year courses with a variety of topics. Although she admits to having no definitive research to support the success of such teaching, and she indicates how problematic conducting such a study would be, she reports uniformly enthusiastic responses from students and a belief on her part that narrow pleasure reading (albeit conducted with systematic linguistic and problem-solving strategies), "can address the current gulf between learning a language and using a language to learn" (from her abstract). Swaffar's teaching context, however, differs in significant ways from EAP context. Although the students are university-level students, the majority are not studying the foreign language (in this case, German) in order to be able to cope with universitylevel instruction delivered in German, or to read materials in their major disciplines in German. As with the university students learning French in the previously mentioned strategy training studies, Swaffar's foreign language learners will put their foreign language learning to other uses. At that same 1995 Reading Research Colloquium, Grabe (1995) also called for extensive reading in L2 language programs, while also acknowledging the problematic nature of focusing instruction on extensive reading. Grabe began by reviewing what extensive reading can or may contribute to effective reading (drawing upon the work of, among others, Elley 1991; Krashen 1989, 1993; Stanovich & Cunningham 1993). The following was stated in his handout for the colloquium: (1) Extensive reading develops automatic word recognition, particularly by building up orthographic knowledge and letter-sound correspondences.
Extensive and Intensive Reading
51
(2) It may be the best way to develop a large recognition vocabulary. (3) It is a key resource for building student motivation once students are 'hooked." (4) It has demonstrated positive influence on students' general background knowledge; this is important for learning to read new material in other domains and learning new information from texts that are to be read: "the Matthew effects"--the rich get richer. (5) It has demonstrated positive influence on reading comprehension proficiency, as well as on other language skills. (6) It may be the only genuine way for students to develop and maintain reading strategies, and become more strategic readers. (7) It is essential for developing the ability to "read to learn," a major goal for academically-oriented instruction. (8) It is a key means for students to continue learning a second language on their own when they complete instruction (Grabe 1995, from the handout). Grabe (1995) also identified several considerations which mediate against extensive reading as a focus of instruction, among them teachers' assumptions that extensive reading can easily be done at home without "wasting precious class time," teachers' perceived needs to be "teaching" rather than letting students "learn" to read, resource and time limitations, student standardized examinations, and students' lack of motivation to read extensively on their own. Two other factors mediating against extensive reading, according to Grabe, are the need for a lot of interesting material and the problem of accommodating different student backgrounds and interests, as well as the vagueness of the definition of extensive reading. He asks: what does extensive reading mean? Do "extensive reading" and "free pleasure reading" mean the same thing? Interest in extensive reading has grown to the point that two well-known second language reading experts are publishing a book on Developing Lifelong Readers: Extensive Reading in the Foreign Language Classroom (Day and Bamford, forthcoming). In a preliminary copy (early draft of selected chapters) of that book, Day and Bamford struggle with the definition of extensive reading. They point out that the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards et al. 1992) definition of extensive reading combines elements of the usual meaning of extensive (i.e. quantity of reading) and the special foreign language use of the term to represent a style of reading: "Extensive reading means reading in quantity and in order to gain a general understanding of what is read" (p. 133). But more than that, Day and Bamford further argue that in foreign language pedagogical contexts, extensive reading is also a way of teaching reading and the foreign language itself. Thus, like Grabe (1995, 1991: 396), Day and Bamford make the case for the pedagogical benefits of extensive reading. However, Day and Bamford also show that despite the lip service that many leading reading specialists pay to the importance of extensive reading
52
P. l,. C a r r e l l a n d J. G. C a r s o n
in learning a foreign/second language and learning how to read in a foreign/second language, very little is actually done with extensive reading in practice. "Extensive reading has been relegated to an, at best, peripheral role" (ms, p. 4). The same reading experts who call for attention to extensive reading, devote little attention to it in their published pedagogical materials (Mahon 1986; Stoller 1986; Jensen 1986; Mikulecky 1990).
The Need for Both Intensive and Extensive Reading in an EAP Setting There has always been a tendency to view intensive/strategic reading and extensive reading as being in opposition--principally, we suppose, because there is only so much time available in any foreign or second language curriculum and the teacher must always be choosing what to focus on and what to ignore or downplay. However, as long ago as 1982, Nuttall reminded us that "intensive and extensive reading are complementary and both are necessary" (p. 23; see also variations of these ideas in Nuttall 1996: 38-39). Most of the skills and strategies we want our students to develop are trained by studying shortish texts in detail. But others m u s t be developed by the use of longer texts, including complete books. T h e s e two approaches are described traditionally as intensive and extensive reading ... Brumfit (1977) points out that better labels m i g h t be reading for accuracy and reading for fluency; t h e s e are certainly more informative but still do not reflect all the purposes served by each type of reading.
Nuttall continues that there are not just these two contrasting ways of reading, but an infinitive variety of interrelated and overlapping strategies. She allows for other approaches to reading which may not fit into either the intensive or extensive category. These contrasting labels, Nuttall observes, indicate a difference in classroom procedures as well as a difference in purpose: Intensive reading involves approaching the text under the close guidance of the teacher, or u n d e r the guidance of a task which forces the student to pay great attention to the text. T h e aim of intensive reading is to arrive at a profound and detailed understanding of the text: not only of what it means, but also of how the m e a n i n g is produced. T h e "how" is as important as the "what", for the intensive reading lesson is intended primarily to train students in reading strategies. It is of course easier to handle work on short texts, which can be studied in a lesson or two, than long ones. It is also generally supposed that in order to understand the whole (e.g. a book), we m u s t be able to understand the parts ... of which it is m a d e up. However, it is also true that we are often able to understand a book without fully grasping every part of it; we ought to make the m o s t of this ability and encourage our students to build on it. This s u g g e s t s that we o u g h t to pay attention to extensive as well as intensive reading. Moreover, we m u s t not ignore the d e m a n d s by longer texts, which are liable to g e t forgotten in the classroom. T h e whole is not just the s u m of its
Extensive and Intensive Reading
53
parts, and there are reading strategies which can onlybe trained by practice on longer texts ... We need an extensivereading program that will activelypromote reading out of class (p. 23). NuttaU, then, in a separate entire chapter (chapter 12 in the 1982 edition; chapter 8 in the 1996 edition, extensively revised and expanded), goes on to suggest how an extensive reading program might be organized to turn the vicious cycle of the weak reader (a reader who reads so slowly that s/he doesn't understand much and therefore doesn't enjoy reading and therefore doesn't read much and therefore reads slowly), into the virtuous cycle of the good reader (a reader who reads fast enough that s/he reads more and understands better and therefore enjoys reading, and therefore reads more).
Combining Intensive and Extensive Reading: A Curricular Approach L2 readers in EAP courses need to develop language and academic reading abilities and so require a curriculum based on these broad needs, a curriculum which includes aspects of both intensive and extensive reading. Although intensive/strategic reading instruction can proceed with a variety of short, unrelated texts, extensive reading instruction clearly requires text that is of sufficient length to sustain extensive reader engagement. One response to the needs of EAP readers for intensive and extensive reading has been the development of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) [see, for example, Benesch 1988; Brinton, Snow & Wesche 1989; Kruger & Ryan 1993] which is based on the idea that "real language learning is most likely to occur when the context of that learning is not only typical, but real, when the learners are not merely acting out roles, but trying their new language to fulfil genuine communicative purposes" (Eskey 1992: 15). For CBI, the curriculum is organized around content, the dual purpose of CBI models being "the learning of a second language and the mastery of content knowledge" (Brinton, Snow & Wesche 1989: 182). Typically implied by this model is the use of a single subject-specific text that by its nature is appropriate for both intensive and extensive reading. However, as Johns (1992) points out, CBI has been utilized more with the K-12 population than it has with adult/post-secondary second language learners. It is particulary notable that--except for theme-based instruct i o n - CBI has been little used in EAP programs in which adult learners are being prepared specifically for the demands of post-secondary academic course work. Given that CBI seems to be a particularly appropriate (and in the K-12 environment, successful) approach to dealing with both intensive and extensive reading, why has it not been adopted in post-secondary settings? Carson, Taylor and Fredella (forthcoming) argue that using content as the basis for curriculum design in EAP instruction is problematic for several reasons. First, evaluation criteria for content selection are a problem
54
P.L. Carrell and J. G. Carson
for EAP courses. Although K-12 CBI courses will utilize content that is being taught in the mainstream curriculum or in adjunct courses, EAP program content is not so easy to specify. Snow, Met and Genesee (1989) claim that "... content must be chosen that is important and interesting to the learner" (p. 202, but the constructs of "importance" and "interest" are difficult to operationalize). Not only will post-secondary language learners be faced with a wide range of content subjects, but only a few of these subjects will be shared in an EAP classroom. Thus, what content is important will vary from learner to learner. Furthermore, although it is unarguable that "interesting" content is likely to motivate students, it is not altogether clear how teachers will be able to determine what content will likely be of interest to students. The argument here is not that interest is an unimportant criterion; rather, it is that interest is difficult to gauge and, thus, is an unreliable guide to content selection. A second problem is that content mastery as a primary course objective in CB! courses poses a face validity problem for EAP classes. It can be difficult to convince students that a particular subject area will be essential to their success in post-secondary academic settings, given that future content needs of EAP learners are so variable. As Brindley (cited in Nunan 1993) argues, goals that reflect the communicative needs of learners have greater face validity. If the goal of content mastery does not relate to the future academic needs of the language learners, the knowledge that is gained in a CBI course is not likely to be seen as beneficial to the students if it is not perceived as transferable to the post-secondary academic context. Finally, CBI, without the need for content mastery inherent in K-12 and adjunct classes, lacks a focus for EAP programs. What underlies CBI is the notion that language learning will emerge from a focus on learning content. However, if content mastery is not one of the primary goals of the course, then the language teacher will need to create a focus for the content and this focus will vary with the instructor and/or the instructor's sense of students needs. In other words, CBI does not provide a principled basis for deciding on course focus in cases where content mastery is either unnecessary or inappropriate. Although the argument for content mastery is not sustainable in a postsecondary EAP context, the need to manage large amounts of content-typically content from reading--is a primary requirement in academic classrooms. In addition, EAP readers must develop the strategies and tactics necessary for coping with the demands of academic reading, as the L1 literature so clearly shows. One way to focus an EAP reading course to include both these needs is to develop a task-based curriculum. Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), like CBI, is based on the idea that communicative purposes are essential in real language learning. However, unlike CBI, the curriculum organizing principle for TBLT is task, not content, the rationale being that language acquisition occurs when the learner is focused on the completion of a task rather than on the language used in the process (Prabhu 1987).
Extensive and Intensive Reading
55
In terms of face validity and transferability, academic tasks are best operationalized as those tasks that constitute evaluated products in academic courses. Common academic tasks include evaluated products such as exams (e.g. essay, multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, matching), reports, papers and quizzes. (See Hale et al. 1996, for a study that reports academic tasks requiring writing.) There are, of course, multiple subtasks involved in each of these evaluated products. For example, taking an essay exam is likely to require that the student read course text(s), understand lectures and write lecture notes, integrate information from both course text(s) and lecture(s) in relevant ways, learn the material and eventually, write an exam that addresses the questions posed by the instructor. Each of these subtasks again requires its own set of subtasks. For example, reading a course text requires, among other things, that the student recognize main ideas, understand relationships among ideas within and across text chapters, and integrate prose and non-prose information such as tables and graphs. The argument, then for TBLT is that focusing instruction on evaluated products such as test-taking or report writing, allows the student to acquire relevant subtasks, study skills and strategies in the context of tasks that they will eventually encounter in academic courses. EAP students recognize the evaluated products as real academic demands, and thus a task focus has not only face validity, but also promotes transferability of skills and strategies to actual academic contexts. While CBI may include tasks, the focus on content mastery may or may not have face validity, depending on whether or not the student feels that the particular content will be useful in future academic work. Furthermore, content mastery, whether or not relevant to academic courses, fails to provide a focus on tasks that will be ultimately transferable. In TBLT, the student is mastering content as well, but only for the purpose of developing the range of skills and strategies necessary to produce a variety of recognizable evaluated products. Thus, content itself is secondary, becoming the context in which the student acquires the ability to manage tasks and relevant subtasks. While content is not the organizing principle in TBLT, it nevertheless plays a significant role in TBLT in general, and in task-based EAP programs, in particular. Rather than tasks emerging from content to be learned as happens in the CBI approach, the tasks to be learned determine the content in a task-based approach. In fact, as Long and Crookes (1993) point out, one of the main strengths of TBLT is "its principled approach to content selection" (p. 41) - - content is selected to support the acquisition of specific tasks. In other words, task-based EAP instruction also requires mastery of content, but it is the task that focuses the way that language learners will read about content. Content is selected to maximize the opportunities to master specific academic tasks. For example, an essay exam frequently requires synthesis of material from several chapters of a course text. In order to teach the task of essay exam writing, the content would need to include multiple chapters of a single text and/or multiple texts in which content is related--i.e. extensive reading would be required. In addition, reading strategies must
56
P.L. Carrell and J. G. Carson
be taught that will enable learners to comprehend the text in a way that will allow them to produce an appropriate essay. In other words, the task would constrain the content to be read and learned in ways that are specific to academic settings. Because task-based reading is grounded in learners' needs, EAP instruction that focuses on task mastery does maintain a clear connection with genuine language in genuine communicative interactions. What is called for in this approach, then, is extensive reading of academic text in a/any content area combined with strategy instruction for dealing with specific academic tasks. (See Kasper, 1994, for an example of a reading course that does both.)
Conclusion In sum, Task-Based Language Teaching is a principled way of integrating intensive reading and strategy instruction with appropriate extensive reading in post-secondary EAP settings. Intensive reading and strategy instruction are necessary for students to acquire the subtasks relevant to specific evaluated products. For example, particular reading strategies/skills such as close reading for important details, identifying main ideas and supporting evidence, summarizing and identifying the top level rhetorical organization of a text (or a key part of a text) may all be necessary for the readers to accomplish the larger task of producing a successful evaluated product like an essay exam. At the same time, though, intensive reading is insufficient in and of itself. Students need experience with the extensive reading that is required in all academic coursework. Without the experience of dealing with large amounts of text, and without having developed the ability to apply intensively acquired reading skills and strategies in appropriate ways during extensive reading, EAP students will not be fully prepared to manage the reading demands of actual academic classes.
(Revised version received August 1996)
REFERENCES Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472. Anderson, W., Best, C., Black, A., Hurst, J., Miller, B., & Miller, S. (1990). Cross-curricular underlife: A collaborative report on ways with academic words. College Composition and Communication, 41, 11-36. Barnett, M.A. (1988). Teaching reading strategies: How methodology affects language course articulation. Foreign Language Annals, 21(2), 109-119. Benesch, S. (Ed.). (1988). Ending remediation: Linking ESL and content in higher education. Washington, DC: TESOL. Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-494.
Extensive and Intensive Reading
57
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House. Brumfit, C. J. (1977). The teaching of advanced reading skills in foreign languages with particular reference to English as a foreign language. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, pp. 10, 73-84. Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727-752. Carrell, P. L. (1996, March). L2 reading strategy training: What is the role of metacognition? Paper presented at the Reading Research Colloquium, Annual TESOL Convention, Chicago, IL. Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647-678. Carson, J. G., Taylor., J. A., & Fredella, L. (forthcoming). The role of content in task-based EAP instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The language within: Readings on content-based instruction. Chiseri-Strater, E. (1991). Academic literacies: The public and private discourse of university students. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook. Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning." Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. New York: Newbury House. Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (forthcoming). Developing lifelong readers: Extensive reading in the foreign language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. Devine, J. (1984). ESL readers' internalized models of the reading process. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem, & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83 (pp. 95-108). Washington, DC" TESOL. Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41,375-411. Eskey, D. (1992). Syllabus design in content-based instruction. The CATESOL Journal, 5, 11-23. Feathers, K. M., & Smith, F. R. (1983). The evolution of a research design: A case study in content reading. Reading Psychology, 4, 179-187. Goldsmith, J. S. (1979). A reading approach to college history: A pilot plan. History Teacher, 13(1), 49-60. Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375-406. Grabe. W. (1995, March). Why is it so difficult to make extensive reading the key component of L2 reading instruction? Presentation (and handout) at the Reading Research Colloquium, Annual TESOL Convention, Long Beach, CA. Hale, G., Taylor, C., Bridgeman, B., Carson, J., Kroll, B., & Kantor, R. (1996). A study of writing tasks assigned in academic degree programs: Research Report 54. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Hamp-Lyons, L. (1985). Two approaches to teaching reading: A classroombased study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 3, 363-373. Hauptman, P. C. (1979). A comparison of first and second language reading strategies among English-speaking university students. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4, 173-201.
58
P.L. Carrell and J. G. Carson
Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and nonsuccessful second language learners. System, 5, 110123. Jensen, L. (1986). Advanced reading skills in a comprehensive course. In F. Dubin, D. E. Eskey, & W. Grabe (Eds.), Teaching second language reading for academic purposes (pp. 103-124). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Johns, A. (1992). What is the relationship between content-based instruction and English for Specific Purposes? The CATESOLJournal, 5, 71-75. Kasper, L. F. (1994). Improved reading performance for ESL students through academic course pairing. Journal of Reading, 37, 376-384. Kern, R. G. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal 73, 135-149. Knight, S. L., Padron, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1985). The cognitive reading strategies of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 789-792. Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464. Krashen, S. (1993). The case for free voluntary reading. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 72-82. Krueger, M., & Ryan, F. (Eds.). (1993). Language and content: Discipline and content-based approaches to language study. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co. Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus designThe case for task. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-54). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mahon, D. (1986). Intermediate skills: Focusing on reading rate development. In F. Dubin, D. E. Eskey & W. Grabe (Eds.), Teaching second language reading for academic purposes (pp. 77-102). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Mallery, A. L., & Bullock, T. L. (1985). Two models of development reading instruction: Fused or paired. In G. H. McNinch (Ed.), Reading research in 1984: Comprehension, computers, communication--Fi)2h yearbook of the American Reading Forum (pp. 87-91). Athens, GA." American Reading Forum. Martin, D. C. (1980). Learning centers in professional schools. In K. V. Lauridsen (Ed.), New directions for college learning assistance: Examining the scope of learning centers (pp. 69-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mikulecky, B. S. (1990). A short course in teaching reading skills. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Nist, S. L., & Kirby, K. (1986). Teaching comprehension and study strategies through modeling and thinking aloud. Reading Research and Instruction, 25, 254-264. Nunan, D. (1993). Task-based syllabus design: Selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a peda-
Extensive and Intensive Reading
59
gogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 55-68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nuttall, C. (1982; new edition 1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Books. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House. Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy: A perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raymond, P. M. (1993). The effects of structure strategy training on the recall of expository prose for university students reading French as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 77, 445-458. Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. London: Longman. Santa, C. M., & Truscott, R. B. (1979). A college reading program: The integration of reading, writing, speaking and thinking within the content areas. College Student Journal, 13, 391-3971 Sarig, G., & Folman, S. (1987, December). Metacognitive awareness and theoretical knowledge in coherence production. Unpublished paper presented at the Communication and Cognition International Congress, Ghent, Belgium. Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201-217. Soll, L., & McCall, C. (1981). Basic skills programs at the City University of New York (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 207-029). Stahl, N. A., Simpson, M. L., & Hayes, C. G. (1992). Ten recommendations from research for teaching high-risk college students. Journal of Developmental Education, 16(1), 2-11. Stanovich, K., & Cunningham, A. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211-229. Stoller, F. (1986). Reading lab: Developing low-level reading skills. In F. Dubin, D. E. Eskey, & W. Grabe (Eds.), Teaching second language reading for academic purposes (pp. 51-76). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Swaffar, J. (1995, March). Will extensive practice in fairly narrow but extensive reading in popular texts yield L2 students able to handle languages in ways comparable to language-based programs? Presentation at the Reading Research Colloquium, Annual TESOL Convention, Long Beach, CA. Talbot, D. (1996). Metacognitive strategy training for reading: Developing second language learners' awareness of expository text patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hong Kong. Williams, E., & Moran, C. (1989). Reading in a foreign language at intermediate and advanced levels with particular reference to English. Language Teaching, 22, 217-228.
60
P.L. Carrell and J. G. Carson
Woodley, J. W. (1986). The reading and study skills of college students: A descriptive study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 284185). Zvetina, M. (1987). From research to pedagogy: What do L2 reading studies suggest? Foreign Langauge Annals, 20, 233-238.
Patricia L. Carrell teaches graduate courses in the Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL at Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. Her primary research interest is second language reading, and she has published articles on this topic in TESOL Quarterly, Language Learning, Modern Language Journal and Reading in a Foreign Language. She co-edited with Joanne Devine and David Eskey Interactive approaches to second language reading (Cambridge University Press, 1988). Joan G. Carson teaches graduate courses in the Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL at Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. Her primary research interest is academic biliteracy and she has published articles in this topic in TESOL Quarterly, Language Learning, Journal of Second Language Writing and Journal of Developmental Education. She has co-edited with Ilona Leki Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (Heinle and Heinle, 1993).