Teaching EFL reading in Senegal: Current practices and recommendations

References

• Aaron PG, Joshi RM, Gooden R, Bentum KE. 2008. Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities 41(1): 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407310838
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrami PC, Lysenko L, Borokhovski E. 2020. The effects of ABRACADABRA on reading outcomes: An updated meta-analysis and landscape review of applied field research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 36(3): 260–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aghazadeh Z, Mohammadi M, Sarkhosh M. 2019. The effect of summary training on intermediate EFL learners’ reading comprehension in individual and collaborative conditions. Journal of Teaching Language Skills 37(4): 47–70.
   Google Scholar
• Aghazadeh Z, Mohammadi M, Sarkhosh M. 2022. Oral and written summarizing strategy training and reading comprehension: Peer-mediated vs. individualistic task performance. Journal of Language and Education 8(1): 11–22. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.11157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ah Y, Ma JH. 2020. The effects of schema activation and reading strategy use on L2 reading comprehension. English Teaching 75(3): 49–68. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.3.202009.49
   Google Scholar
• Ahmadian M, Pasand PG. 2017. EFL learners’ use of online metacognitive reading strategies and its relation to their self-efficacy in reading. The Reading Matrix 17(2): 117–132.
   Google Scholar
• Alderson JC, Huhta A, Nieminen L. 2016. Characteristics of weak and strong readers in a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal 100(4): 853–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alptekin C. 2006. Cultural familiarity in inferential and literal comprehension in L2 reading. System 34(4): 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.05.003
   Google Scholar
• Alptekin C, Erçetin G. 2011. Effects of working memory capacity and content familiarity on literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly 45(2): 235–266. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amplify. 2021. Students start to recover from COVID instructional loss. https://amplify.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/mCLASS_EOY-COVID-Learning-Loss-Brief_Flyer_072821.pdf
   Google Scholar
• August D, Shanahan T. 2006. Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• August D, Shanahan T. 2010. Response to a review and update on Developing Literacy in Secondlanguage Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Journal of Literacy Research 42(3): 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babayiğit S, Shapiro L. 2020. Component skills that underpin listening comprehension and reading comprehension in learners with English as first and additional language. Journal of Research in Reading 43(1): 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bae HS, Yin L, Joshi RM. 2019. Knowledge about basic language constructs among teachers of English as a foreign language in China and South Korea. Annals of Dyslexia 69(1): 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-018-00169-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bataineh RF, Alqatnani AK. 2019. How effective is Thinking Maps® instruction in improving Jordanian EFL learners’ creative reading skills? TESOL Journal 10(1): e00360. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.360
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumann JF. 1984. The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 20(1): 93–115. https://doi.org/10.2307/747654
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck IL, McKeown MG. 2006. Improving comprehension with questioning the author: A fresh and enhanced view of a proven approach. New York: Scholastic.
   Google Scholar
• Bensoussan M, Kreindler I. 1990. Improving advanced reading comprehension in a foreign language: summaries vs. short-answer questions. Journal of Research in Reading 13(1): 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1990.tb00322.x
   Google Scholar
• Binks-Cantrell E, Washburn EK, Joshi RM. 2020. Do teacher candidates in English-speaking countries understand the structure of the English language? In: Gallagher TL, Ciampa K (eds), Teaching literacy in the twenty-first century classroom: Teacher knowledge, self-efficacy, and minding the gap. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47821-6_3
   Google Scholar
• Block EL. 1992. See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly 26(2): 319–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown AL, Day JD. 1983. Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report No. 270.
   Google Scholar
• Brown AL, Palinscar AS. 1989. Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In: Resnick LB (ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 393–451.
   Google Scholar
• Brown HD. 2007. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Carr TH, Levy BA. 1990. Reading and its development: Component skills approaches. San Diego: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carrell PL. 1983. Some issues in studying the role of schemata, or background knowledge, in second language comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 1(2): 81–92.
   Google Scholar
• Carrell PL. 1984. The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly 18(3): 441–469. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrell PL, Eisterhold JC. 1983. Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 17(4): 553–573. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casanave CP. 1988. Comprehension monitoring in ESL reading: A neglected essential. TESOL Quarterly 22(2): 283–302. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chall JS. 1967. Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Chan LKS. 1996. Combined strategy and attributional training for seventh grade average and poor readers. Journal of Research in Reading 19(2): 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1996.tb00092.x
   Google Scholar
• Cook VJ. 1997. L2 users and English spelling. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18(6): 474–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639708666335
   Google Scholar
• Cordero-Ponce WL. 2000. Summarization instruction: Effects on foreign language comprehension and summarization of expository texts. Reading Research and Instruction 39(4): 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070009558329
   Google Scholar
• Day RR, Park J-S. 2005. Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading in a Foreign Language 17(1): 60–73.
   Google Scholar
• DeStefano J, Lynd MR, Thornton B. 2009. The quality of basic education in Senegal: A review. Final report. Washington DC: USAID. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADP648.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Diallo I. 2014. English in education policy shift in Senegal: From traditional pedagogies to communicative language teaching. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 9(2): 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/18334105.2014.11082027
   Google Scholar
• Dorkchandra D. 2013. The effects of question generating strategy instruction on EFL freshmen’s reading comprehension and use of English tenses. Journal of Liberal Arts Prince of Songkla University 5(2): 32–45.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy GG. 1993. Rethinking Strategy Instruction: Four Teachers’ Development and Their Low Achievers’ Understandings. The Elementary School Journal 93(3): 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1086/461724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Echevarría J, Vogt M, Short DJ. 2017. Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (5th edn). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Edmonds MS, Vaughn S, Wexler J, Reutebuch C, Cable A, Tackett KK, Schnakenberg JW. 2009. A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research 79(1): 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erten İH, Razi S. 2009. The effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 21(1): 60–77.
   Google Scholar
• Estrella G, Au J, Jaeggi SM, Collins P. 2018. Is inquiry science instruction effective for English language learners? A meta-analytic review. AERA Open 4(2): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418767402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. 2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups (00-4754). Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald J, Graves MF. 2004. Scaffolding reading experiences for English language learners. Norwood: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Friesen D, Haigh CA. 2018. How and why strategy instruction can improve second language reading comprehension: A review. Reading Matrix 18(1): 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs D, Fuchs LS. 2007. Increasing strategic reading comprehension with peer-assisted learning activities. In: McNamara DS (ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions and technologies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 75–198.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Mathes PG, Simmons DC. 1997. Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal 34(1): 174–206. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034001174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fyfe A. 2007. The use of contract teachers in developing countries: Trends and impact. Geneva: ILO.
   Google Scholar
• Gallavan NP, Kottler E. 2007. Eight types of graphic organizers for empowering social studies students and teachers. The Social Studies 98(3): 117–128. https://doi.org/10.3200/TSSS.98.3.117-128
   Google Scholar
• Ghaith G. 2003. Effects of the learning together model of cooperative learning on English as a foreign language reading achievement, academic self-esteem, and feelings of school alienation. Bilingual Research Journal 27(3): 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2003.10162603
   Google Scholar
• Goldenberg C. 2020. Reading wars, reading science, and English learners. Reading Research Quarterly 55(S1): S131–S144. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.340
   Google Scholar
• Goldfus C. 2012. Knowledge foundations for beginning reading teachers in EFL. Annals of Dyslexia 62(3): 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-012-0073-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman KS. 1967. Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist 6(4): 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388076709556976
   Google Scholar
• Gottardo A, Mirza A, Koh PW, Ferreira A, Javier C. 2018. Unpacking listening comprehension: The role of vocabulary, morphological awareness, and syntactic knowledge in reading comprehension. Reading and Writing 31(8): 1741–1764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9736-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goudvis A, Harvey S. 2000. Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. York, Maine: Stenhouse.
   Google Scholar
• Gough PB, Tunmer WE. 1986. Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education 7(1): 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
   Google Scholar
• Grabe W. 2009. Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin CC, Tulbert BL. 1995. The effect of graphic organizers on students’ comprehension and recall of expository text: A review of the research and implications for practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly 11(1): 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356950110106
   Google Scholar
• Han SY, Choi YH. 2018. Post-reading question-generation activities and cooperative learning in EFL reading. English Teaching 73(2): 37–58. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.73.2.201806.37
   Google Scholar
• Harding L, Alderson JC, Brunfaut T. 2015. Diagnostic assessment of reading and listening in a second or foreign language: Elaborating on diagnostic principles. Language Testing 32(3): 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214564505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris TL, Hodges RE. 1995. The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hawelka S, Gagl B, Wimmer H. 2010. A dual-route perspective on eye movements of dyslexic readers. Cognition 115(3): 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoover WA, Gough PB. 1990. The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing 2(2): 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang C-T, Yang SC. 2015. Effects of online reciprocal teaching on reading strategies, comprehension, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research 52(3): 381–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115571924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar R, Muffly S, Akomaning-Mensah C, Karim A, Pokharel P, Adeni S. 2016. Using real-time data and corrective teacher-feedback as a mechanism to improve children’s reading skills: An exploratory study in the Millenium Village site of Bonsaaso, Ghana. Journal of Education and Training Studies 4(9): 82–99. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i9.1593
   Google Scholar
• Izadi M, Nowrouzi H. 2016. Reciprocal teaching and emotional intelligence: A study of Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension. The Reading Matrix 16(1): 133–147.
   Google Scholar
• Jiang X, Grabe W. 2007. Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research findings and issues. Reading in a Foreign Language 19(1): 34–55.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT. 1998. Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th edn). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Jongejan W, Verhoeven L, Siegel LS. 2007. Predictors of reading and spelling abilities in first-and second-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(4): 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joyce BR, Showers B. 2002. Student achievement through staff development. In: Joyce, BR, Showers B (eds), Designing training and peer coaching: Our needs for learning. Alexandra: ASCD.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn-Horwitz J. 2015. ‘Organizing the mess in my mind’: EFL teachers’ perceptions and knowledge of English orthography. Reading and Writing 28(5): 611–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9541-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn-Horwitz J. 2016. Providing English foreign language teachers with content knowledge to facilitate decoding and spelling acquisition: A longitudinal perspective. Annals of Dyslexia 66(1): 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-015-0120-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamhi-Stein L. 1993. Summarization, notetaking, and mapping techniques: Lessons for L2 reading instruction. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED360816.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kansizoğlu HB. 2017. The effect of graphic organizers on language teaching and learning areas: A meta-analysis study. Education & Science 42(191): 139–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kartal G, Simsek H. 2017. The effects of audiobooks on EFL students’ listening comprehension. The Reading Matrix 17(1): 112–123.
   Google Scholar
• Khaki N. 2014. Improving reading comprehension in a foreign language: Strategic reader. Journal of Education 14(2): 186–200.
   Google Scholar
• Khonamri F, Karimabadi M. 2015. Collaborative strategic reading and critical reading ability of intermediate Iranian learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 5(7): 1375–1382. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0507.09
   Google Scholar
• Kim A-H, Vaughn S, Wanzek J, Wei S. 2004. Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37(2): 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370020201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch W, Greene E. 1978. The role of culture-specific schemata in the comprehension and recall of stories. Discourse Processes 1(1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638537809544425
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch W, Rawson KA. 2005. Comprehension. In: Snowling MJ, Hulme C (eds), The science of reading: A handbook. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch12
   Google Scholar
• Kirkland MR, Saunders MAP. 1991. Maximizing student performance in summary writing: Managing cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly 25(1): 105–121. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klingner JK, Vaughn S. 1996. Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal 96(3): 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1086/461828
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klingner JK, Vaughn S. 1999. Promoting reading comprehension, content learning, and English acquisition through Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR). The Reading Teacher 52(7): 738–747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klingner JK, Vaughn S. 2000. The helping behaviors of fifth graders while using collaborative strategic reading during ESL content classes. TESOL Quarterly 34(1): 69–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klingner JK, Vaughn S, Schumm JS. 1998. Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal 99(1): 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1086/461914
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koda K. 2004. Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krashen S. 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal 73(4): 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyle F, Kujala J, Richardson U, Lyytinen H, Goswami U. 2013. Assessing the effectiveness of two theoretically motivated computer-assisted reading interventions in the United Kingdom: GG Rime and GG Phoneme. Reading Research Quarterly 48(1): 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lejecos. 2015 (2 June). Faiblesse de niveau et echecs massifs dans les ecoles Senegalaises: Les raisons d’une decadence. Available at https://www.lejecos.com/FAIBLESSE-DE-NIVEAUET-ECHECS-MASSIFS-DANS-LES-ECOLES-SENEGALAISES-LES-RAISONS-D-UNEDECADENCE_a5202.html
   Google Scholar
• Li M, Koh PW, Geva E, Joshi RM, Chen X. 2020. The componential model of reading in bilingual learners. Journal of Educational Psychology 112(8): 1532–1545. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000459
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonigan CJ, Shanahan T. 2009. Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
   Google Scholar
• Luo M, Main S, Lock G, Joshi RJ, Zhong C. 2020. Exploring Chinese EFL teachers’ knowledge and beliefs relating to the teaching of English reading in public primary schools in China. Dyslexia 26(3): 266–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1630
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manset-Williamson G, Dunn M, Hinshaw R, Nelson JM. 2008. The impact of self-questioning strategy use on the text-reader assisted comprehension of students with reading disabilities. International Journal of Special Education 23(1): 123–135.
   Google Scholar
• Martin KI, Juffs A. 2021. Eye-tracking as a window into assembled phonology in native and non-native reading. Journal of Second Language Studies 4(1): 65–95. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19026.mar
   Google Scholar
• Marzec-Stawiarska M. 2016. The influence of summary writing on the development of reading skills in a foreign language. System 59(1): 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.04.006
   Google Scholar
• Mather N, Bos C, Babur N. 2001. Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and in-service teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities 34(5): 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400508
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeown MG, Beck IL, Worthy MJ. 1993. Grappling with text ideas: Questioning the author. The Reading Teacher 46(7): 560–566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara DS. 2007. Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions and technologies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810033
   Google Scholar
• Melby-Lervåg M, Lervåg A. 2014. Reading comprehension and its underlying components in secondlanguage learners: A meta-analysis of studies comparing first- and second-language learners. Psychological Bulletin 140(2): 409–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033890
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melhi AA. 2014. Effects on and predictability of computer-mediated glosses in reading comprehension of EFL college students. The Reading Matrix 14(2): 65–77.
   Google Scholar
• Mikulecky BS. 2011. A short course in teaching reading (2nd edn). White Plains: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Mistar J, Zuhairi A, Yanti N. 2016. Strategies training in the teaching of reading comprehension for EFL learners in Indonesia. English Language Teaching 9(2): 49–56. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n2p49
   Google Scholar
• Moats L. 2014. What teachers don’t know and why they aren’t learning it: Addressing the need for content and pedagogy in teacher education. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 19(2): 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2014.941093
   Google Scholar
• Morrison L. 2004. Comprehension monitoring in first and second language reading. Canadian Modern Language Review 61(1): 77–107. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.61.1.77
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nassaji J. 2002. Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning 52(2): 439–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nation ISP, Newton J. 2009. Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nation K. 2005. Children’s reading comprehension. In: Snowling MJ, Hulme C (eds), The science of reading: A handbook. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch14
   Google Scholar
• Navaie LA. 2018. The effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 9(4): 26–30. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.4p.26
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen PNT, Janssen T, Rijlaarsdam G, Admiraal W. 2016. Effects of self-questioning on EFL students’ engagement in literary reading. Culture and Education 28(4): 702–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2016.1231759
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2000. Knowledge and skills for life. First results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000. http://www.oecd.org/edu/preschoolandschool/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/33691596.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ogle DM. 1986. K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher 39(6): 564–570. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.39.6.11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padron YN, Waxman HC. 1988. The effect of ESL students’ perceptions of their cognitive strategies on reading achievement. TESOL Quarterly 22(1): 146–150. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palinscar AS, Brown AL. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehensionmonitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1(2): 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
   Google Scholar
• Pan C-Y. 2014. Effects of reciprocal peer-questioning instruction on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies 3(3): 190–209.
   Google Scholar
• Park JY. 2012. A different kind of reading instruction: Using visualizing to bridge reading comprehension and critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 55(7): 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park J, Yang J, Hsieh YC. 2014. University level second language readers’ online reading and comprehension strategies. Language Learning & Technology 18(3): 148–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfetti CA. 2007. Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading 11(4): 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfetti CA, Hart L. 2002. The lexical quality hypothesis. In: Verhoeven L, Elbro C, Reitsma P (eds), Precursors of functional literacy. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.11.14per
   Google Scholar
• Perfetti CA, Stafura J. 2014. Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading 18(1): 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfetti CA, Landi N, Oakhill JV. 2005. The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In: Snowling MJ, Hulme C (eds), The science of reading: A handbook. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch13
   Google Scholar
• Praveen SD, Rajan P. 2013. Using graphic organizers to improve reading comprehension skills for the middle school ESL students. English Language Teaching 6(2): 155–170.
   Google Scholar
• Phan MPK. 2020. The application of metacognitive note-taking skills in reading lessons to EFL college students. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education 3(1): 30–49. https://doi.org/10.36021/jethe.v3i1.64
   Google Scholar
• Programme d’Analyse des Systèmes Educatifs de la CONFEMEN (PASEC). 2010. Evaluation PASEC Sénégal 2006/2007. https://www.pasec.confemen.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/25-Sénégal-2010.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pulido D. 2007. The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics 28(1): 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raphael TE, Pearson PD. 1985. Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal 22(2): 217–235. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022002217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudszus H, Segers E, Verhoeven L. 2019. Situation model building ability uniquely predicts first and second language reading comprehension. Journal of Neurolinguistics 50: 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner K, Slattery TJ, Bélanger NN. 2010. Eye movements, the perceptual span, and reading speed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17(6): 834–839. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.6.834
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Razi S. 2014. Metacognitive reading strategy training of advanced level EFL learners in Turkey. The Reading Matrix 14(2): 337–360.
   Google Scholar
• Reshadi-Gajan E, Assadi N, Davatgari Asl H. 2020. Reading-metacognitive strategy awareness and use in Reciprocal Teaching settings: Implementing a computerized RMSA system. Journal of Educational Computing Research 58(7): 1342–1371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120937437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenshine B, Meister C. 1994. Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research 64(4): 479–530. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064004479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenshine B, Meister C, Chapman S. 1996. Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research 66(2): 181–221. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe DW, Rayford L. 1987. Activating background knowledge in reading comprehension assessment. Reading Research Quarterly 22(2): 160–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/747663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunk DH, Zimmerman B. 1997. Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role of social and self-regulatory processes. In: Guthrie JT, Wigfield A (eds), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction. Newark: International Reading Association. pp. 34–50.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz AI, Mendoza L, Meyer B. 2017. The impact of text structure reading strategy instruction in a second language: Benefits across languages. The Language Learning Journal 45(3): 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.837092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Share DL. 1995. Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition 55(2): 151–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Share DL. 2011. On the role of phonology in reading acquisition: The self-teaching hypothesis. In: Brady SA, Braze D, Fowler CA (eds), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence. New York: Psychology Press. pp. 45–68.
   Google Scholar
• Sheridan R, Tanaka KM, Hogg N. 2019. Foreign language, local culture: How familiar contexts impact learning and engagement. TESL-EJ 23(1): 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons DC, Griffin CC, Kameenui EJ. 1988. Effects of teacher-constructed pre- and post-graphic organizer instruction on sixth-grade science students’ comprehension and recall. The Journal of Educational Research 82(1): 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1988.10885859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solmaz O. 2020. Examining the collaborative reading experiences of English language learners for online second language socialization. The Reading Matrix 20(1): 20–35.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer M, Wagner RK. 2017. The comprehension problems for second-language learners with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading 40(2): 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spörer N, Brunstein JC, Kieschke U. 2009. Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction 19(3): 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens RJ, Slavin RE, Farnish AM. 1991. The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology 83(1): 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Susanti A, Retnaningdyah P, Puspita Ayu AN, Trisusana A. 2020. Improving EFL students’ higher order thinking skills through collaborative strategic reading in Indonesia. International Journal of Asian Education 1(2): 43–52. https://doi.org/10.46966/ijae.v1i2.37
   Google Scholar
• Suwantharathip O. 2015. Implementing reading strategies based on collaborative learning approach in an English class. Reading Matrix 15(1): 91–101.
   Google Scholar
• Tabata-Sandom M. 2020. Teachers’ cognition regarding reading instruction in L2 Japanese. The Reading Matrix 20(2): 41–60.
   Google Scholar
• Taglieber LK, Johnson LL, Yarbrough DB. 1988. Effects of preceding activities on EFL reading by Brazilian college students. TESOL Quarterly 22(3): 455–472. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajeddin Z, Tabatabaei S. 2016. Concept mapping as a reading strategy: Does it scaffold comprehension and recall? The Reading Matrix 16(1): 194–208.
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka M, Sanchez E. 2016. Students perceptions of reading through peer questioning in cooperative learning. TESL-EJ 19(4): 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Thorndyke PW. 1977. Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology 9(1): 77–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90005-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnbull B, Sweetnam Evans M. 2017. The effects of L1 and L2 group discussions on L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 29(1): 133–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uccelli P, Galloway EP, Barr CD, Meneses A, Dobbs CL. 2015. Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 50(3): 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2020. A review of the use of contract teachers in sub-Saharan Africa. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374581
   Google Scholar
• United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2020. Language of instruction profile: Senegal. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00X9JW.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Universalia. 2019. Summative evaluation of GPE’s country-level support to education. Batch 4, Country 11: Senegal. https://www.globalpartnership.org/sites/default/files/2019-08-summativeevaluation-gpe-country-level-support-education-for-senegal-august-2019.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Urlaub P. 2012. Reading strategies and literature instruction: Teaching learners to generate questions to foster literary reading in the second language. System 40(2): 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urlaub P. 2013a. Questioning the text: Advancing literary reading in the second language through web-based strategy training. Foreign Language Annals 46(3): 508–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urlaub P. 2013b. Critical literacy and intercultural awareness through the reading comprehension strategy of questioning in business language education. Global Business Languages 18(1): 67–80.
   Google Scholar
• Urquhart AH, Weir CJ. 1998. Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vahidi S. 2008. The impact of EFL learners’ rhetorical organization awareness on English academic/expository text comprehension. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji 41: 145–158.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky LS. 1978. Interaction between learning and development. In: Cole M, John-Steiner V, Scribner S, Souberman E (eds), The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 71–91.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Zheng Y. 2019. ‘We help each other’: Collaborative exploration of reading by college students of English as a foreign language in China. TESOL Journal 10(1): e00363. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wharton-McDonald R, Pressley M, Hampston JM. 1998. Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal 99(2): 101–128. https://doi.org/10.1086/461918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitford V, Titone D. 2015. Second-language experience modulates eye movements during first- and second-language sentence reading: Evidence from a gaze-contingent moving window paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 41(4): 1118–1129. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000093
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wichadee S. 2014. Developing reading and summary writing abilities of EFL undergraduate students through transactional strategies. Research in Education 92(1): 59–71. https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.0005
   Google Scholar
• Wilder AA, Williams JP. 2001. Students with severe learning disabilities can learn higher order comprehension skills. Journal of Educational Psychology 93(2): 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Y-F. 2002. Reassessing readers’ comprehension monitoring. Reading in a Foreign Language 14(1): 18–42.
   Google Scholar
• Yang Y-F. 2006. Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies? Reading Psychology 27(4): 313–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710600846852
   Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Tsai Y-R, Hikaru Y. 2019. Top-down and bottom-up strategy use among good and poor readers in EFL reading comprehension. European Journal of English Language Teaching 4(3): 101–114.
   Google Scholar