順天堂グローバル教養論集第一巻20160325
107/158

103Extensive Reading Onboardingmental task progression has been found in many set-tings to be very useful in building motivation and ensuring success with ER (King, 2011). This sug-gests that readers and reading experience should be exploited in regular classrooms using guided tasks and/or discussions that facilitate sharing in order to support ER. The close community of English classes can be used to create social support and pressure for all students to sustain their ER effort.3.4. Encouraging positive retrospective self-evaluation According to Taboada and McElvany (2009), self-efcacy develops from four sources: 1) previ-ous experience, 2) observing others, 3) verbal judg-ments/feedback from peers or teachers, and 4) so-matic/emotional states. In order to build a stronger sense of self-efcacy (and thus develop a sense of agency), it is important to create a system where students can see their own and others’ progress. Without such a system, observations, comparisons, and feedback are impossible, and important affec-tive reactions to reading (Immordino-Yang & Dam-asio, 2007) will be muted. This seems to be exactly what happened with the program in question. Most students were not reading (sufciently), and neither the teachers nor their peers knew. Many of the stu-dents who were reading did not know if they were doing so in sufcient amounts or at the appropriate levels. They were isolated, cut off from feedback or social support and stimulation, and unable to assess their own performance with condence. Part of the problem certainly derived from having two systems of readers and insufcient goals. But without a way to accurately and uniformly record progress, monitoring, sharing, and comparing are just not possible. One way to do this is the online systems mentioned earlier, the MReader system (Robb & Kano, 2013; Campbell & Weatherford, 2013), or the MOARS system (Lake & Holster, 2014). However, both of these systems are more concerned with checking that students have actually read the books, and are more suitable for adminis-trative control of programs. They do not have an im-mediate ecological connection to the learning con-text, and they are limited to ER. Although these systems can be used to hold students accountable, a better system would be for students to plan their reading, make a public commitment to doing so, and then reect and report on their progress and accom-plishments in class. For this reason, a weekly stu-dent progress sheet with a calendar section to list reading time (and any other study time), a place to list weekly goals, a place to write reections, and a place to keep track of weekly and total ER word counts may be more suitable. Such a sheet can be lled in outside of class and can form the basis for a discussion in class on progress. Simply the act of writing down (articulating) intentions has been as-sociated with increased persistence of target behav-iors (Orbell & Sheeran, 1992), and publicly explain-ing these intentions in class can also help to reinforce the likelihood of successfully carrying them through (Berger, Rugen, & Woodn, 2014). If students are required to also ll in part-time job times and club activity times, teachers and other stu-dents can see and give advice on study strategies by understanding when, how, and what students are reading and studying, allowing all participants to give ‘‘specic and contingent’’ feedback to facilitate goal-setting and attainment within a social setting (Taboada & McElvany, 2009). Used together with a reading record sheet, teachers, other students, and the student herself can clearly see progress toward goals. Moreover, teachers can easily track progress or identify possible reasons for lack of progress. 4. Conclusion This paper has shown how the program in ques-tion failed to engage the majority of students in ex-

元のページ 

10秒後に元のページに移動します

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer10.2以上が必要です