masterThesis
How reading comprehension is affected by means of ICT in question-answer relationship strategy in EFL classroom
Fecha
2017-11-02Registro en:
Barret, T. C. (1976). Taxonomy of reading comprehension. In C. Smith & T. C. Barrett (Eds.), Teaching reading in the midde class. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Benito, Y. M., Foley, C. L., Craig, D., & Prescott, P. (1993). The effect of instruction in quest ion-answer relationships and metacognition on social studies comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 16(1), 20–29.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2010). How to research (4th ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains: Pearson Longman.
Buehl, D. (2001). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. Delaware: International Reading Asociation.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching?: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, L; Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research?: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Cortese, E. E. (2003). The application of Question-Answer Relationship strategies to pictures. Reading Teacher, 57(4), 374–380.
Craig, D. V. (2009). Action research essentials. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design?: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Cummins, S., Streiff, M., & Ceprano, M. (2012). Understanding and applying the QAR strategy to improve test scores. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 4(3), 18–26.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson/Longman.
Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective strategies for developing reading comprehension. In What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark: International Reading Asociation.
Echeverri Acosta, L. M., & McNulty Ferri, M. (2010). Reading Strategies to Develop Higher Thinking Skills for Reading Comprehension. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 12, 107–123.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Gao, Y. (2013). The effect of summary writing on reading comprehension: The role of mediation in EFL classroom. Reading Improvement, 50(2), 43–47.
Glaser, B. (2002). Conceptualization: On Theory and Theorizing Using Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1–31.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative research. New Jersey: AldineTransaction.
Gutierrez, C., & Salmerón, H. (2012). Estrategias de comprension lectora: Enseñanza y
evaluación en educacion primaria [Strategies for reading comprehension: teaching and
assessment in primary education]. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum Y Formación Del
Profesorado, 16, 183–202.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2013). Halliday’s introduction to functional
grammar (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Holec, H., & Council of Europe. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Hubbard, P. (2009). Computer assisted language learning. (P. Hubbard, Ed.). London:
Routledge.
ICFES. (2016). Sistema Nacional de Evaluación Estandarizada de la Educación: Alineación del
examen Saber 11 [National system of standardized tests of education: Saber 11 test
alingment] (3rd ed.). Bogotá: ICFES.
Izquierdo Castillo, A., & Jiménez Bonilla, S. (2014). Building up autonomy through reading
strategies. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Developmentt.
Jimenez Pulido, C. (2009). Webquests and the improvement of critical reading skills in a group
of university students. INTELLECTUM, Universidad de la Sabana.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design:
Potential and limitations. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 17–27.
Kinniburgh, L. H., & Prew, S. S. (2010). Question answer relationships (QAR) in the primary
grades: Laying the foundation for reading comprehension. International Journal of Early
Childhood Special Education, 2(1), 31–44.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis : Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Leino, K. (2014). The relationship between ICT use and reading literacy : focus on 15-year-old
Finnish students in PISA studies. Tutkimuksia / Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos 30. Jyväskylä:
University of Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for Educational Research
Lopera, S. (2012). Effects of strategy instruction in an EFL reading comprehension course: A
case study. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 14, 79–89.
López, M. E. (2006). Exploring students’ EFL writing through hypertext design. Colombian
Applied Linguistics Journal, 8, 74–122
Lysaker, J., & Thompson, B. (2013). Teacher research as a practical tool for learning to teach.
Language Arts, 90(3), 181–191.
McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies : Theories, interventions, and
technologies. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for
establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13–22
Muzammil, S. (2017). QAR (question answer relationship) as an alternative strategy to teach
reading. Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching, 2(2), 101–123.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. Hertfordshire:
Prentice Hall
Nunberg, G. (1996). Farewell to the information age. In The future of the book (pp. 103–133).
California: University of California Press.
Ouzts, D. T. (1998). Enhancing the connection between literature and the social studies using the
question-answer relationship. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 10(4), 26–28.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Pearson, P. D., & Raphael, T. E. (1990). Reading comprehension as a dimension of thinking. In
Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 209–240). Hilsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Perkins, D. N. (1992). What constructivism demands of the learners. In T. M. Duffy & D. H.
Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 161–
166). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Poole, A. (2009). The Reading Strategies Used by Male and Female Colombian University
Students. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 11, 29–40.
Raphael, T. E. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children. The Reading Teacher, 36(2),
186–190.
Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher,
39(6), 516–522.
Raphael, T. E., & Wonnacott, C. A. (1981). The effect of metacognitive awareness training on
question-answering behavior: implementation in a fourth grade developmental reading
program. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Ríos Olaya, S. R., & Valcárcel Goyeneche, A. M. (2005). Reading: A meaningful way to
promote learning English in high school. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional
Development, 6, 59–72.
Rojas, L. M. (2001). Teaching reading in large classes. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’
Professional Development, 2, 71–77.
Sarrab, M., Al-Shihi, H., & Hussain Rehman, O. M. (2013). Exploring major challenges and
benefits of M-learning adoption. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 3(34),
826–839.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading
comprehension. Santa Monica: Rand.
Squires, D. (1999). Educational software for constructivist learning environments: Subversive
use and volatile design. Educational Technology, 39(3), 48–54
Treiman, R. (2003). Linguistics and reading. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The
handbook of linguistics (p. 824). Oxford: Blackwell.
Vargas, N., & Abouchaar, A. (2001). Project work as the central part of the curriculum.
PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 2, 83–86.
Vaughn, S., & Bos, C. S. (2012). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior
problems (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society : The development of higher psychological processes.
(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Woolley, G. (2011). Reading comprehension: Assisting children with learning difficulties.
Dordrecht: Springer.
266831
TE09351
Autor
Ayala Zárate, Jair
Institución
Resumen
La comprensión de lectura juega un papel trascendental en el aprendizaje de una lengua. Investigaciones anteriores han resaltado la importancia de estrategias de lectura y cómo los estudiantes deben ser entrenados en cómo aplicarlas para así mejorar su comprensión lectora. Sin embargo, se le ha dado poca atención al uso de la estrategia de relaciones pregunta-respuesta (QAR, por sus siglas en inglés) apoyada por TIC. El presente estudio cualitativo de investigación-acción utilizó diarios de profesor, encuestas y artefactos de estudiantes para recoger la información sobre el impacto de la estrategia QAR, aplicada en textos interactivos cortos, en la comprensión lectora de los estudiantes en un colegio público colombiano. La información fue analizada a través del planteamiento de la teoría fundamentada. Los resultados indicaron que los estudiantes mejoraron sus habilidades de comprensión lectora usando estrategias de lectura y aprendizaje colaborativo durante la clase.; sin embargo, los resultados en las evaluaciones no cambiaron. Esto lleva a la conclusión de que QAR apoyadas por TIC es un método efectivo para la comprensión lectora, no obstante, los estudiantes deben ser entrenados adecuadamente en su uso.