Research design

For the purposes of this study, I have defined a reading approach as the core materials used by teachers, their practices related to the development of reading ability, and reading-related activities. Reading approaches are categorized as those that use one of the following:

The reading approach categories were derived deductively based on theory and the literature review concerning the use of reading materials and practices used in Norway. These approaches were the categories used for the teacher questionnaire. As a mixed-methods study, the research questions are addressed using a combination of different research methods and data sources.

Sample

The target population was defined as 4^th and/or 5^th grade English teachers. Schools meeting certain criteria were excluded (special schools, medical institutes, schools without students in these grades); 583 schools were excluded, with 2,572 schools remaining. Three stratification variables were chosen to aid in selecting a nationally representative sample: geographic location, school type, and number of students. A questionnaire was sent electronically to 1000 randomly selected schools, with 370 responses from 4th and 5^th grade teachers at 310 schools.

Potential schools for the case study sample were contacted based on the following criteria:

Four schools were selected for the case study, representing various reading approaches: textbook-based approach (School 1); combination of textbook-based and graded readers (Schools 2 and 3); and EYLP approach (School 4). Two schools were located in Oslo and two in Rogaland. At each school, one teacher was recruited in the 4^th and 5^th grades respectively, totaling eight teachers. The backgrounds and experiences of these teachers varied. The teachers ranged in age (23–56), teaching experience (1–20 years), and English teaching qualifications (0–60 study points, i.e., a year of full-time study). Two teachers taught both 4^th and 5^th grade English, three only 4^th grade, and three only 5^th grade. In addition, several students were interviewed from each class (a convenience sample of students recommended by the teachers; see Table 11.2).

Questionnaire

The teacher questionnaire contained 48 questions; 46 closed and 2 open ones. It was divided into three main sections: (a) teachers’ background, educational qualifications, and school information, (b) the teachers’ practices in EFL reading instruction, and (c) teachers’ perceptions of EFL reading instruction and language learning. The questionnaire data was analyzed using PASW Statistics 18.0. Procedures were performed to compute descriptive (means, percentages) and inductive statistics (Chi-square) for data regarding teachers’ qualifications, reading approach, materials, and practices used in English instruction.

Observation

Data was collected from the following sources at the case study schools:

An observation coding system, CIERA (Taylor et al., 2002, 2005; Taylor, 2004), was used to support the collection of consistent data from the case study schools during the classroom observations. The system had the following areas of focus for data collection: (1) who led the instruction, (2) grouping, (3) general focus and (4) specific focus of literacy events or activities, (5) material, (6) teacher interaction styles, and (7) expected student responses to literacy events (Table 11.3). During the observations, two types of data were collected: qualitative note-taking (a narrative of what was said and done in five-minute increments), and quantitatively oriented coding based on the previously mentioned categories. As it was possible for more than one code to be observed in a five-minute segment, some increments were coded more than once at the same level within the same segment. After the observation, the codings were tabulated and entered into a coding tally sheet. The possibility of multiple coding within a segment level consequently meant that the coding tabulations could also equal more than 100% within each level.

In addition to notes taken during the observations, the lessons were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. The coding was also analyzed for inter-rater reliability with an external coder who was trained in the coding system (one observation from each school). Inter-rater reliability was calculated using percentage of agreement and Cohen’s kappa (Posner, Sampson, Caplan, Ward, & Cheney, 1990), with an overall initial inter-rater reliability of 88% and a kappa score of .66.

Interviews

During the case study period, semi-structured interviews were conducted with both teachers and a small selection of students (Table 11.2). During the formal interviews, which were conducted before the first observed lesson and following the final observed lesson, the teachers were asked about their reading approach, materials used, how these were used, types of reading assessment, and their opinion regarding certain language policies, such as the national test in English. Informal interviews were used to follow up after some observed lessons. Semi-structured interviews with students addressed their exposure to various texts and teaching methods, and how these affected their motivation and learning outcomes of the lessons.

The interview data was transcribed and processed using qualitative content analysis. During the transcription process, content categories were created based on the questionnaire categories (which were based on relevant topics from theory and the Norwegian EFL context) related to the topics covered in the interviews: their reading approach, teaching, materials, differentiation, reading levels, reading assessment, lesson aims, curriculum aims, and the national test. The interviews were coded and summarized within these categories.

Reading instruction results from the national questionnaire

First, 48.3% of the teachers did not have English teaching qualifications (30 ECTS is the minimum level for teaching in primary school; KD, 2009). However, higher education in English did not appear to be significantly associated with a particular reading approach, χ²(4, 357) = 8.498, p = 0.75. This means that the teachers’ English teaching qualification was not reflected in their choice of reading approach.

Regarding reading approaches, the questionnaire found that 62% of teachers used a textbook as the basis of English reading instruction, whereas a combination approach was used by 30%, and 8% used graded readers or the EYLP. Only half as many teachers used a textbook in their Norwegian reading instruction (n = 102) compared to English (n = 212); over half of the teachers reported using a combination of textbook-based and graded readers in Norwegian (n = 199) compared to a third in English (n = 103), yet most of them used the graded readers and EYLP infrequently both in Norwegian (n = 42) and English (n =28). However, there was a significant relationship between the languages; namely, when the teacher used one approach in Norwegian they were likely to use the same approach in English (χ²(4, 343) = 83.599, p < .001). This is an important finding related to the potential for transfer of reading practices and skills from one language to another.

Regarding reading materials, 47% of the teachers had no other English books than the textbook in their classrooms, and 21% had no English books in their library. There appeared to be a lack of information available to teachers as to how they could best work with different text genres, texts at different comprehension and ability levels, reading for different purposes, and incorporating reading strategies into their teaching.

Concerning teaching practices, the majority of teachers most often used a whole-class teacher-led reading session where all students read the same text. The most common reading practices were reading aloud by the teacher (64% three or more times per month), chorally by the class (53%), or students reading aloud individually to the class (56%). Students reading in groups (23%) or individually (28%) were not commonly applied.

Concerning how they differentiated and incorporated learner autonomy into text choice, 63% did not allow students to choose which text to read, 59% used differentiated texts fewer than three times per month, 52% never organized students in ability groups, 48% did not enable students to use English reading computer programs, and 86% did not enable students to use online books.

Regarding their collaboration on reading instruction with other English and Norwegian teachers, it tended to either be frequent (weekly: 44% grade 4; 24% grade 5), or almost never (35% grade 4; 51% grade 5). Similarly, a majority never (50%) or almost never (53%) collaborated with other English teachers regarding reading instruction.

Related to teachers’ perceptions of teaching EFL reading, feeling prepared to teach English reading was related to whether teachers had English teaching qualifications, χ²(10, 347) = 89.551, p < .001. In addition, the majority of teachers felt that mixed-ability classes were the greatest challenge to an English teacher (56%), but only a quarter of them felt they were able to provide differentiated instruction to all students.

Related to teachers’ perspectives on reading materials and their use, nearly all reported being strongly in favor of differentiated reading materials (96%), yet few actually had their students read level-differentiated texts on a regular basis (18%). More teachers reported a paucity of teaching hours as influencing their reading teaching (45%), compared to a paucity of materials (20%). However, satisfaction with reading materials was related to the quantity available (classrooms χ²(6, 360) = 26.426, p < .001, school libraries χ²(6, 360) = 25.172, p < .001). Thus, those with fewer materials felt this influenced their teaching more than other factors. Some teachers felt that their schools were unwilling to invest in reading materials (37%).

Reading approaches at the case study schools

Although the teachers using the combination and EYLP approaches appeared to be more satisfied with their reading approach because they were able to choose from both the textbook and other reading materials, as well as a variety of teaching practices, the teachers from all three approaches saw room for improvement. Observations found that although there was some focus on reading strategies in the EYLP approach, none of the approaches had an explicit focus on transference of strategies from L1 to L2.

Empirical contributions

The focus on comparing different approaches to EFL reading instruction has contributed to new knowledge regarding teachers’ practices and the use of various reading materials. This has helped to create a more complete understanding of current EFL reading instruction at the primary level and to highlight the use of research-supported practices (e.g., greater use of a wide range of materials and grouping differentiation) and areas where there is need for improvement (e.g., teacher modeling reading strategies for students). Furthermore, this research has included an understanding of how the EYLP approach is both similar to and different from other approaches being used by EFL teachers.

The questionnaire findings confirmed that the majority of teachers used a textbook as the primary reading material in their English lessons. Additionally, 47% of the teachers had no English books other than the textbooks in their classroom, and 20% had none in their library. These findings indicate a lack of reading materials available to support differentiated reading instruction.

Regarding class practices, the case study data shows a predominance of teacher-led, whole-class instruction, with the exception of the EYLP approach school. Most of the classroom interaction was between the teacher and the students. Teacher recitation (Hardman, 2008; Taylor et al., 2002, 2005) was used frequently at all of the case study schools, as was teacher telling. Additionally, reading interactions at these schools were predominantly teacher-initiated and teacher-dominated, with few examples of students asking questions (Van der Meij, 1993). In contrast to recitation, coaching was infrequently employed at all of the schools. However, this did not mean that the teachers did not support students and employ interaction techniques such as elicitation, but rather that these occurred infrequently.

This study has found that intensive reading is the most common practice in Norwegian schools, normally using textbook texts. Although the questionnaire data revealed that the teacher reading aloud was still a common practice, it was nevertheless an uncommon practice among the case study teachers. The frequent use of student translation of texts, repeated choral reading, and taking turns reading aloud, which were practices found in the case study schools (and to some extent among the questionnaire respondents), were somewhat disappointing findings. Although these practices had previously been common in EFL instruction, they are generally associated with more traditional methods of instruction compared to a more recent focus on communicative language learning. However, how this was conducted varied by approach. Generally, when students take turns reading aloud, most of the class is passive. In contrast, when interaction takes place in small groups, students are usually more active, such as at the EYLP approach school where students interacted with the teacher at the teacher station (guided reading) or with other students at the other stations.

Another reading practice, individual silent reading, although not a common practice in the questionnaire answers, was used at three of the four case study schools (occasionally by the two combination approach schools and regularly by the EYLP approach school). Individual extensive reading has a strong basis in reading and language learning research and was thus considered a strength of these two approaches.

Comprehension skills and strategies was an area in which there were differences among the reading approaches in the case study schools. Among the 5^th grade classes, the teachers in the EYLP school used and talked about comprehension strategies and skills more than the other approaches. The comprehension strategies included using pictures, applying background knowledge, using contextual clues to guess unknown words, and using a dictionary; some of these strategies were also used at the other case study schools. Generally, there is greater focus on comprehension strategies and applying higher-level comprehension skills²Higher-level comprehension skills are defined as comprehension that is at a high-level of text interpretation or goes beyond the text, such as with generalization, application, evaluation, and aesthetic responses (Taylor, Peterson, Rodriguez, & Pearson, 2002). in guided reading, which is used in the EYLP approach.

Although presented as a specific reading approach, the combination approach is just that, the use of a combination of different reading materials, and in this case reading practices. The teachers at the two case study schools could have chosen to add more differentiated interaction or focus on reading skills and strategies. However, the strength of their implementation was in the greater use of individual reading, even if it was more intensive in approach at School 3 and extensive at School 2. Thus, although this approach incorporated a greater use of differentiated materials, primarily through graded readers, there was still room for improvement, especially in terms of greater differentiated interaction between the teacher and students and more focus on reading skills and strategies.

The EYLP approach appears to have many advantages. For example, the extent of differentiated interaction between the teacher and students at the teacher station meant the teacher had fewer students to interact with at any one time. Other advantages were the differentiated materials for extensive reading, both graded readers and children’s literature, and the overall focus on reading skills and development of strategies through guided reading at the teacher station. However, although this may be considered an ideal program from the perspective of reading development, from an EFL perspective, one drawback is its lack of focus on oral communication skills. Oral communication could be featured at the other stations besides the teacher station, although there is no specific station intended for this purpose. This is because the EYLP program was taken from an L1 reading and writing program, which, accordingly, did not require a component focused on oral language development. This is one area in which the EYLP program in Norwegian schools may not have been adapted well enough for EFL learning, and therefore it could be further developed.

Methodological contributions

The study presented here has contributed to EFL research through a mixed-methods study of teaching and learning in 4^th and 5^th grades. The application of mixed methods was comprised of quantitative and qualitative data from two primary sources: a national questionnaire sent to teachers and a case study of four schools.

The questionnaire was designed by the researcher specifically to address teachers’ reading practices, use of materials, and their perceptions of reading instruction and best practice. In terms of a research instrument, the questionnaire could be further developed and used in other countries as a means of international comparison.

Related to the qualitative data collection at the case study schools, the mixed-methods approach allowed first for systematic observation, which could be tabulated and compared. This research has shown that the observation coding scheme developed by Taylor et al. (2000) for L1 reading instruction can also be applied to an L2 context with minor adaptations. This can be an effective tool for evaluating and tracking changes in reading instruction. Second, the mixed-methods approach has also enabled the researcher to view EFL reading instruction from multiple perspectives, (e.g., both teacher and student perspectives on reading instruction).

Implications for teaching English

Based on the results and discussions of the current research, three main implications appear to emerge from this study. First, there is a need for a greater focus on reading skills, purpose, and strategies within EFL reading instruction in 4^th and 5^th grades. This includes helping to raise students’ and teachers’ awareness of transferring reading skills from Norwegian to English. Second, there is a need for greater use of differentiation and different types of differentiation to support reading development. Finally, there is a need for more teacher professional development.

Suggestions for future research

In terms of future research, this doctoral study has indicated numerous areas for follow-up. First, a more thorough analysis of the interaction patterns used while reading texts in class could yield interesting data about how differentiation is implemented, and the extent to which students are active in English lessons. As there is evidence that much EFL instruction is still teacher-led, it would be useful to look into effective ways to increase teacher modeling and scaffolding, rather than primarily teacher recitation and telling types of interactions.

Second, collaboration between language teachers, whether L1, L2, or other languages, is important for students to apply language learning skills and other skills in multiple languages. Therefore, a study of practice among teachers who have been actively supporting students in applying cross-linguistic reading and language strategies could support language teachers.

A third potential area for research is how to train and inform teachers about how to implement research-supported practices into their teaching. Specifically, it would be interesting to compare the guided reading instruction students at EYLP schools receive in their L1 and how, if at all, this is used to support L2 reading. It would also be interesting to investigate to what extent L1 graded readers written for L2 students are more or less supportive for language learning.