Effects of Reading Instruction Based on Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) on Public Administration English Reading Abilities and Strategy Use

The 1st International Conference on Research and Education, Art, Management and Science
(ICREAMS 2015) August 27-29, 2015; Rajabhat Roi Et University
Effects of Reading Instruction Based on Cognitive Academic
Language Learning Approach (CALLA) on Public Administration
English Reading Abilities and Strategy Use
Angcharin Thongpan
Faculty of Education, Roi-et Rajabhat University
Angcharin@reru.ac.th
Abstract
The purposes of this study were (1) to compare the students’ public administration
English reading ability before and after receiving the reading instruction based on cognitive
academic language learning approach, (2) to investigate reading strategies used by public
administration students, and (3) to explore the students’ opinion towards reading instruction
based on cognitive academic language learning approach.
Data were collected from 30 students RERU who enrolled in the English for public
administration course, semester 2 academic years 2014. The research instruments were reading
comprehension test, survey of reading strategies (SORS), think aloud protocols, and
questionnaire.
The finding revealed that (1) there was a significant difference between the mean scores
from the pre and post reading comprehension test at the significant level of 0.05. (2.) The reading
strategies used by students consisted of Cognitive reading strategy, Social/Affective reading
strategy, and Metacognitive reading strategy respectively. (3) The students’ opinions towards
reading instruction based on cognitive academic language learning approach were highly
positive.
Keywords: CALLA, survey of reading strategies (SORS), Public administration English

Introduction
Now a day, English is considered as a major international language, people all over the
world in non-English speaking countries take English as a foreign language to develop their
proficiency. Students in non-English speaking countries do not frequently have a chance to
listen, speak, or write in English, they have more chances to use English in their reading
(Piyanukool, 2001). Reading is one of the four necessary important language skills for learning
English as a second or foreign language. The higher the level of education is pursued, the greater
the command of English is required, especially in reading and writing in order to access
academic resources and keep up with world standards in all disciplines. However, Thai educators
investigated the reading ability of Thai EFL students and found that most Thai university EFL
students especially those who are not English majors have low to medium English reading
proficiency (Chinwonno,2001). Several causes have been identified in regard to the Thai
university EFL students’ poor English reading problem. These include a lack of reading
resources, a lack of strong reading culture, a lack of reading strategy knowledge, and teachers’
use of unsuccessful teaching methods (Sukamolson,1993; Vanichakorn, 2003). As stated by
Ekwall and Shanker (1988), more than 90 percent of learners’ reading failures could or should be
blamed on poor teaching. This is in line with the observational studies by Durkin (1978-1979)
and Pressley and Wharton-McDonald (1997) which found that teachers regularly assigned
reading tasks to their students and then tested their reading comprehension, but rarely taught the
reading strategies needed by their students.
Recent research on reading has focused on the process of comprehension and strategies
instruction. Successful language learners need reading strategies to help them cope with learning
difficulties. Chamot and O'Malley (1994), they also assert that learners who use strategy
approaches to learning will comprehend written language more effectively and be able to retain
and use their language better than learners who do not use learning strategies. According to
Chamot and O'Malley (1999), the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA)
is a learning strategy instructional approach. It is designed to meet the academic needs of English
learners and assist them to become more academically successful. The Cognitive Academic
Language Learning Approach model included three components: topics from major content
subjects, academic language skills, and instruction in learning strategies. The three broad
categories of learning strategies are; metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and
social/affective strategies. These strategies have been incorporated in CALLA through a five
phase of instructional model: preparation, presentation, practice, evaluation, and expansion.
Therefore, the researcher constructs a reading strategy instruction based on the Cognitive
Academic Language Learning Approach to examine if it has an impact upon learners’ reading
comprehension ability and their reading strategies in the specific field study.

Purposes of the study
2.1 To compare the students’ public administration English reading ability before and
after receiving the reading instruction based on cognitive academic language learning approach
2.2 To investigate reading strategies used by public administration students.
2.3 To explore the students’ opinion towards reading instruction based on cognitive
academic language learning approach.
Significance of the Study
The findings of this study are expected to play a significant role in English reading
pedagogy. The effective strategies in academic English reading gained from the study and the
strategy instruction employed are expected to result in the improvement of teaching and learning
particularly in English reading courses.
ResearchQuestions
4.1 Does the students’ reading ability after trained through the Cognitive Academic
Language Learning Approach is higher than before training?
4.2 To what extent does a reading instruction based on the Cognitive Academic Language
Learning Approach promote students’ use of reading strategies?
4.3 What is the students’ opinion toward the Cognitive Academic Language Learning
Approach on Public administration English reading?
Limitations of the Study
As this research was carried out in a specific classroom, the sample cannot be said to
represent the larger community. However, this research was designed to use different methods to
find out exactly what strategies were used and also which ones were considered effective in
reading courses in the undergraduate curriculum.
Literature Review
Reading comprehension and strategies
Comprehension cannot be understood as being only the product of reading. For any
demanding text, readers have to be skillful and strategic if they want to read it effectively (Urquhart
& Weir, 1998). The use of reading strategies is especially crucial for high educational level
students in almost every academic field of study since academic materials written in English are
widespread. Since the mid-1970s, research studies have paid particular attention to the role of

strategies in second language learning (e.g., Anderson, 1991; Cohen, 1990; O‟Malley & Chamot,
1990; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1975), and they have indicated that learners actively employ
strategies to accomplish their language learning goals. Barnett (1988) examined reading strategies
used by students learning French and concluded that there is a relationship between strategy use and
reading comprehension. Developing strategic reading is an important way to enhance comprehension
ability. The main objective of the English reading instruction is to enhance students reading
comprehension ability as well as their use of reading strategies. Reading instruction in this study
therefore referred to comprehension strategy instruction.
The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach
According to Chamot and O'Malley (1994), Cognitive Academic Language Learning
Approach is an instructional approach for second and foreign language learners. It prepares students
for academic achievement with academic work and language development. This approach enables
learners to further understand what is required by the language task and to use their knowledge of the
language. This allows the student to learn new content and apply recognized learning strategies to
learning the new target language. Learning strategies are divided into three main categories
consisting of metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective strategies.
Think-Aloud
Think-aloud protocol is a method used to investigate learners’ reading strategies, in
which learners think aloud as they are completing a task in order that the researcher can discover
what kinds of thinking processes or strategies they are making use of. The researcher observes
while the learner attempts to complete a defined task. Think aloud techniques are those in which
subjects complete a task or solve a problem and verbalize their thought processes as they do so.
The researcher collects the think aloud protocol on tape and then analyses it for the thinking
strategies involved (Nunan, 1992).Regarding the method of thinking aloud, Bell (2004) mentions
that it is used to model the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Students verbalize
their own thoughts as they read aloud, modeling the kinds of strategies a skilled reader uses
during the reading. The main purpose of a think aloud protocol is to model for students the
thought processes that take place when difficult material is read. Feldmann and Stemmer (1987)
point out that think aloud protocol has been used mainly to investigate the process of translation
and communication in a foreign language. Moreover, think aloud procedures have been

employed to investigate learners’ ongoing cognitive processes and strategies in four major
second language areas including translation, reading, writing, and testing (Matsumoto, 1993).
Methodology
This investigation on Public Administration English Reading ability focus on reading
instruction based on the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach is considered a
classroom research, which means the study was carried out in a real classroom in order to obtain
effective methods that would enhance the development of students ‘English reading
comprehension. This section presents the research procedure, which include the following
fundamental aspects.
• Subjects of the study
• Study instruments
• Data collection
• Data analysis
Subjects of the Study
The subjects or informants of this study selected using purposive sampling. Therefore, a
class of the students who took the course English for Public Administration ( ENG26) at Roi-et
Rajabhat University was a group for explicit instruction in the study, which consisted of 30
participants.
Nine participants from the group were invited to be informants for conducting Think-
aloud to reflect their effective strategies, especially those gained from the explicit instruction of
reading strategies.
Researchinstruments
The instruments employed in the present study to achieve the research purposes were 1)
Survey of Reading Strategies( SORS) , 2) lesson plans , 3) English for public administration
reading a test, 3) Think- aloud protocol , and 4) questionnaire.
1. Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS)
Survey of Reading Strategies is adapted from Learning Strategies Questionnaire
developed by Chamot A.U (1999). A total of 30 items related to three major types of reading
strategies explicitly taught in the cognitive academic language learning approach were included
on this survey. Metacognitive strategy comprises of 9 items primarily concerned with

organizational planning, selective attention and self-assessment. Cognitive strategy comprised 15
items concerning elaboration of prior knowledge, note-taking, summarizing, imagery and
making inference. In addition, Social/Affective strategy comprised 6 items concerning
questioning for clarification and cooperation. There was a four point scale for the students to rate
how often they used different reading strategies when they read on-line in English, 4-always, 3-
sometimes, 2- always 1-never. After the construction of the survey of reading strategies, the survey
had been validated by three experts for its contents and pilot tested to ensure its construct validity.
When the four items had been modified as appropriate according to the suggestions of the experts,
the survey of reading strategies was piloted in order to ensure reliability. After the pilot study, the
reliability values of the survey of reading strategies were estimated by using Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient method. Using this method of analysis reliability values of more than 0.7 are considered
acceptable. The alpha coefficient from the pilot study was equal to 0.82 which demonstrated that the
survey of reading strategies adapted by the researcher had good reliability.
2. Lesson plans
Eight lesson plans with detailed information of activities and procedures to be used in
classroom were written by the researcher. Each lesson plan included title of the lesson, content
objectives, reading strategy, activities and evaluation. The researcher developed eight lesson
plans using the following procedures:
(1) The researcher studied reading passages from various resources to select the passages
as the text.
(2) The researcher informally interviewed two English teachers who were political
science officer. The Reading Interest Inventories was therefore designed based on the
information gathered from the checklist.
(3) Topic content needs analysis was conducted to find out the needs of the students.
Reading Interest Inventories were distributed to the 80 public administrative students in
semester 1, academic year 2014, Roi- et Rajabhat University.
Based on the results of public administrative students’ needs analysis, eight reading
passages from a variety of source were selected, Local government, Contemporary Forms of
Government, Civil Service, Electrical system and Social Security. Each lesson was developed
by the researcher based on the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Activities

in all lessons were integrated three types of reading strategies: metacognitive reading strategy,
cognitive reading strategy and social/affective reading strategy.
3. English for public administration reading test
English for public administration reading test is constructed for measuring Public
administration reading comprehension. The total score of the test was multiple choices for 30
items. It was covered reading sub-skill, understanding of the general idea, the main points,
specific details, the reference, inference, word context clues and specific information.
After the construction of the test, the evaluation form of test item objective had been validated by
three experts for its contents and pilot tested to ensure its construct validity. After the revision of
the tests, a pilot study was carried out before the main study was undertaken with an additional
30 students who were studying political science in another section. all test items were analyzed
for difficulty index and discrimination index of the test. The reliability of the overall test
calculated by Kuder-Richardson-20 formula (KR-20) was 0.92, which can be interpreted that the
test had high reliability. The criteria for the difficulty index and the discrimination index were set
as follows ((Sukamolson, 1995, p. 31).
For the difficulty index (p):
p < 0.20 means the item was difficult.
p = 0.20-0.80 means the item was good in terms of its difficulty.
p = 0.81-0.94 means the item was easy.
p ≥ 0.95 means the item was very easy.
For the discrimination index (r):
r = 0 means the item had no discrimination ability.
r ≥ 0.19 means the item had a low discrimination ability.
r = 0.20-0.29 means the item had a fair discrimination ability.
r = 0.30-0.39 means the item had a high discrimination ability.
r ≥ 0.40 means the item had a very high discrimination ability.
According to the criteria, the test items of which difficulty indices ranged between 0.20 -
0.80, and discrimination indices were equal or higher than 0.20 were chosen for the main study.
It meant that all 30 items of each test were satisfactory.

4. Think-aloud protocol
Think-aloud protocol as the main instrument to investigate the students’ use of reading
strategies. Lavadenz (2003) states that with think-aloud protocols, students verbalize, in an
interview context; how they are processing the text they are reading. Regarding the method of
thinking aloud, Bell (2004) mentions that it is used to model the cognitive processes of reading
comprehension. Students verbalize their own thoughts as they read aloud, modeling the kinds of
strategies a skilled reader uses during the reading. The main purpose of a think aloud protocol is
to model for students the thought processes that take place when difficult material is read.
5. Questionnaire
The students ‘questionnaire consist of the students’ opinion questionnaires and the open-
ended questionnaires. The former was used to obtain the data on students’ opinion. the
questionnaire consisting of 12 close-ended items and 1 open-ended item was developed to
investigate the participants' opinions towards materials. This questionnaire with the reliability
index of 0.76, obtained through Alpha Cronbach.
Data Collection
The data collection was carried out before and after the experimental study. The whole
experiment lasted for 8 weeks.
Prior to a cognitive academic language learning approach reading Instruction, the pretest
were distributed to the public administrative students in order to assess their reading
comprehension ability and their use of reading strategies. The public administrative students
received the treatment for 8 weeks. At the end, all of the participants were post tested as well as
survey of reading strategies were conducted in order to examine the effects of a cognitive
academic language learning approach and their use of reading strategies. Subsequently, the in-
depth analyses of the observations through think-aloud sessions for qualitative data, then
students were asked to answer questionnaire of students’ opinion toward reading instruction
based on cognitive academic language learning approach.

Data analysis
1. The data obtained from the pre and post reading comprehension test was statistically
analyzed by means of arithmetic mean, standard deviation, and t- test (Paired samples test) in
order to compare the differences in the students’ reading comprehension ability
2. The data obtained the Survey of reading strategies ( SORS) was statistically analyzed
by mean of arithmetic mean, standard deviation. Furthermore, the verbal report from the think
aloud protocol was transcribed and analyzed qualitatively.
3. The data obtained from the students’ opinion toward the cognitive academic language
learning approach was statistically analyzed by mean of arithmetic mean, standard deviation.
Findings
This part reports and discusses results according to the research objectives.
1. To compare the students’ public administration English reading ability before and after
receiving the reading instruction based on cognitive academic language learning approach.
2. To investigate reading strategies used by public administration students.
3. To explore the students’ opinion towards reading instruction based on cognitive
Table 1 Means, t-values, and the significance ofthe pre English reading comprehension testand the
postEnglish reading comprehension test
Mode of
Assessment
Mean Mean
differences
t df p
pretest
posttest
29.10
33.53
-11.68 8.789* 29 0.000
*P < .05
The result of the t-test shows that the students earned a higher posttest mean score
(Mean=33.53) than a pretest mean score (Mean= 29.10). The mean difference was –11.68 and the t value
was 8.789* with a degree of freedom of 29(N = 30). It is apparent that there was a significant difference
between the mean scores from the pre and postreading comprehension test at a significant level (p < .05).
There would be significantly higher average scores on the post English reading comprehension test than
the pre English reading comprehension test was accepted. In other words, students' reading
comprehension ability significantly improved after receiving Reading instruction based on cognitive

Table 2 Mean Scores from the Survey ofReading Strategies (SORS).
Category of Reading Strategy Mean S.D. level
1. Metacognitive Reading Strategy 7.38 0.65 3
2. Cognitive Reading Strategy 8.48 0.77 1
3. Social/Affective Reading Strategy 8.23 0.15 2
The results from Table 2 reveals that the means scores on the Survey of Reading Strategies
(SORS) in three types ; Cognitive Reading Strategy ( Mean 8.48), Social/Affective Reading Strategy
(Mean=8.23),and Metacognitive Reading Strategy(Mean=7.38).
To gain more insights into the students‟ actual use of strategies when they were asked to
undertake reading tasks, the second research question was formulated. To address this question, I
used qualitative data from observations through think-aloud sessions
Student A “ try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read”
Student B “I usually start with context clues because they help me read faster and
easier without stopping to look up every new word in a dictionary.”
(Cognitive reading strategies/ Think-aloud)
Table 3 presents the students’ opinion toward the Reading Instruction Based on Cognitive Academic Language
Learning Approach on public administration English reading.
Statement Mean S.D. Ranking
Instructor Mean = 3.65 S.D.= 0.59
1. Theinstructorwell-preparedteaching 3.23 0.99 3
2. Theinstructor explainandmodelreadingstrategyclearly 3.67 0.87 2
3. Theinstructor havethe students’opportunityto practicein
readingskills
4.06 0.45 1
Reading activities Mean= 3.53 S.D.= 0.94
4. Thereadingactivitieschallengestudents’thinking 3.50 0.99 2
5. All readingtexts areinteresting 4.02 0.83 1
6. Thereadingactivitiesareenhancestudents’thinking 3.09 0.44 3
Learning environment Mean = 3.77 S.D.= 0.76
7. students areactive learning 3.54 0.98 2
8. Students have an opportunityto discussaboutissuethey don’t
understand
4.34 0.02 1
9. Students have an opportunityto share their ideafreely 3.43 0.23 3

Usefulness Mean= 3.07 S.D.= 0.76
10. Students gainmorereading strategies 3.88 0.98 1
11. Students enableto applyreadingto anotherskill 3.57 0.76 3
12. Students awareof using reading strategy intheir reallife 3.65 0.62 2
Overall Mean= 3.74 S.D.= 0.43
From Table 2 ; data from the open-ended questions revealed that most of the students
clearly stated that they liked the enjoyable and useful activities which could enhance their
reading skills and doing these activities were the most valuable benefit they gained from learning
reading through cognitive academic language learning approach overall (Mean = 3.74 S.D.=
0.43.) For the section that the students have the highest opinion level are; Learning environment
(Mean=3.77 S.D.= 0.76), Instructor (Mean = 3.65 S.D.= 0.59), Reading activities ( Mean=3.53
S.D.= 0.94), and Usefulness (Mean = 3.67S.D.= 0.76).
Conclusions
In summary, there were significantly higher average scores on the post reading
comprehension test than the pre reading comprehension test and students used of reading
strategies consisted of Cognitive Reading Strategy, Social/Affective Reading Strategy and
Metacognitive Reading Strategy. Moreover, the students’ opinion on Reading Instruction based
on cognitive academic language learning approach as a high level.
The results of this study supported both content-based reading instruction and a cognitive
academic language learning approach. According to the results, university students’ reading
comprehension mean scores from the post reading comprehension test were significantly higher
after receiving Reading instruction based on cognitive academic language learning approach. It
may therefore be concluded that a cognitive academic language learning approach help learners
improve their reading comprehension ability. In addition to the strategies employed above, the
university students’ were encouraged to write down important information’ and guess the
meaning of unfamiliar words based on what they already knew about the topic and from other
contextual clues while they were reading. Moreover, students were provided with a chance to
cooperate with each other to help complete the tasks. This is seen to be an excellent way to
increase student responsibility for learning (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994).

References
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and
testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Barnett, M.A. (1988). Teaching reading strategies; how methodology affects language course
articulation. Foreign Language Annuals, 21(2):109-119.
Bell, B. (2004). Think aloud (On-line). Available: http://www.bcsd.com/cipd/
discuss/msgReader$19?print-friendly=true.
Chamot, A. U. (1995). Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach:
CALLA in Arlington, Virginia. Bilingual Research Journal, 19 (3), 379-394.
Chamot, A. U. and O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the
Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Menlo Park, CA: Addison -
Wesley Publishing Company.
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching. Electronic
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.
Chinwonno, A. (2001). A comparison of Thai and English reading comprehension
strategies of pre-service teachers in Thailand. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio University,
The United States of America.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York: Longman.
Feldmann, U., & Stemmer, B. (1987). Thin- aloud a- retrospective da- in C-Tetaking: Diffe-
languages diff- learners - sa- approaches? In Faerch, C. and G. Kasper (Eds.). (1987).
Introspection in second language research (pp.251-267). USA: Clevedon.
George. Statistical analysis in psychology and education. (1976). Tokyo: McGraw Hill.
Matsumoto, K. (1993). Verbal-report data and introspective methods in second language
research: State of the art. RELC Journal. 24(1): 32-60.
Nunan, D. (1992). Researchmethods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
O'Malley, J. M., and Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Pressley, M. (2006, April). What the future of reading research could be? Paper presented at
the International Reading Association’s Reading Research, Chicago, Illinois.
Sukamolson, S. (1995). Modern Analysis of Test Items by Computer. [in Thai].Bangkok:
Vitthayapat.
Urquhart, S. and Weir, C. Reading in a second language: process, product, and practice.
New York, USA: Longman, 1998.
Mokhtari,K.,& Sheorey,R.(2002). MeasuringESL studentsreadingstrategies.Journal of Developmental
Education, 25 (3), pp. 2-10

Effects of Reading Instruction Based on Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) on Public Administration English Reading Abilities and Strategy Use

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Effects of Reading Instruction Based on Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) on Public Administration English Reading Abilities and Strategy Use

Similar to Effects of Reading Instruction Based on Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) on Public Administration English Reading Abilities and Strategy Use (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Effects of Reading Instruction Based on Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) on Public Administration English Reading Abilities and Strategy Use