3strategies

Teaching Comprehension through Literary Works:

The 3H Strategies to EFL Students’ Reading Success and Motivation

By

Yu-ying Chris, Chang

張玉英

January, 2009

Introduction

Language study is no longer considered to be merely an exercise of language itself;

it should be communicative acts to negotiate with people, literary works, or even the

alternative world. Unfortunately, most of the language teachers in middle schools in

Taiwan still reinforce the importance of studying language itself and fail to notice literary

study. The teachers are accustomed to providing language-based materials and following

the test-driven trend, whereas the students are busy decoding the literal meaning of the

texts and picking up the trivial and jumbled language. In such a situation, the students

neither have a chance to admire the beauty of language nor practice conferring the

meaning of the literary discourses and the outside world. Consequently, students do not

introspect the true meaning of the works when they are involved in reading; instead, they

are searching for the only correct answer to the comprehension question. Reading, to

middle school students in Taiwan, becomes the way of accumulating vocabulary and

grammar knowledge and hence has been regarded as a burdensome, agonized task.

Providentially, a group of teachers bring a series of genres of literary works into

language classrooms and feel complacent toward tagging along the tendency of literary

study. They believe that literary works must be able to transmit the joy to students and

lessen students’ suffering from reading as well. It seems a good tiding for students to

have a chance to contact the world of literature. However, literature usually contains

subtle vocabulary usage, complex and exact syntax and cultural diversity so that the

teachers cannot but put much more emphasis on comprehension and view comprehending

the text as a fatal, final mission (Lin, 2002; Hu, 2003). Hence, almost their teaching

method spotlights on the explanation of the literary meanings and their typical tests focus

mostly a literal understanding of the text, less on inferential part, and even least on the

aspect of readers’ response. Though comprehension can enhance readers’ confidence in

readability and bring a positive effect on learning reading (Alderson, 2000), it is the least,

but not the last. Reading literary works, in fact, should include three directions, namely

reading a line, between the lines, and beyond the lines; meanwhile, reading class should

mix up three angles, that is, “the cultural model, the language model, and personal growth

model” (Carter & Long, 1991, p. 2).

The present study, employing the 3H reading strategies (i.e. Here, Hidden, and

Head), attempts to increase students’ ecstasy in reading literary works. Aside from the

development of language knowledge, it is hoped that reading literary works can bring

students more personal growth and cross-cultural awareness. The 3H reading strategies,

introduced by Torgesen (1977) and advocated by Graham & Wong (2001), are originated

from Reader Response Theories. They are particularly important and effective for

students with reading problems because the three strategies incorporate text-explicit and

text-implicit question-answer relationships, which direct students to use past experiences

to select images, feelings, and references and create new experiences and orientations.

Three research questions will be scrutinized and discussed in this study.

1. Do the 3H reading strategies minimize students’ difficulty and succeed in reading

literary works?

2. Do the 3H reading strategies build up students’ language knowledge and also

cultivate their ability of negotiating the text and their world?

3. Do the 3H reading strategies foster students more willingness to read literary works?

Background and Rationale

Why Literary Works?

Literary works, as valuable authentic materials, are primarily an art form which

conveys enriched language, cross-cultural thoughts and morality growth; however, the

instruction of literary works has been ignored and regarded as unnecessary in the EFL

field. The foremost opposition in literary works in language teaching results from the

traditionally prejudicial perspectives: (1) the complex and the unique use of literary

language cannot achieve the goal of grammar teaching, measured as the first and

foremost; (2) it cannot meet the students’ academic goals and occupational needs like

passing the entrance exam; (3) some aspects of culture are difficult to deal with; (4) the

linguistic knowledge may not be difficult, but the conceptual knowledge, e.g. connotation

of linguistic symbol, is (Brumfit & Carter, 1997; Hu, 2003; Yang, 1991).

Nevertheless, in order to help students fulfill their lives, we have to admit the focus

should be on communicative language teaching and learning, not grammar teaching or

not passing the entrance exam. Furthermore, not a few educators hold positive and

valuable attitude of literary works for EFL students. They believe that literary works

provide a basis for extending language usage, e.g. subtle vocabulary usage, complex and

exact syntax, so it covers not only vocabulary knowledge but also grammar aspects. Next,

literary works present language in discourse embedded within a social context, so

students can have a good chance to learn appropriate language use. After all, language

should be used in the right person (i.e. tenor), right register (i.e. mode), and right situation

(i.e. field) (Huson, 1987, p. 49). Besides, literary works present cultural background of a

text, so that they can promote students a greater tolerance for cultural differences and

respect their own. Literary works indeed offer the affective, attitudinal, and experiential

polyhedron, which may motivate students to read, and hence develop students’ reading

proficiency. According to Smith (1975), students will lose their interest and motivation in

reading if the new information they read has practically nothing to do with their previous

experience.

Traditional Approaches to Literary Works

Applebee (1974) gives a framework of three traditional focuses to literary works

teaching: (1) the impartation of morality and on-going development of culture; (2) the

importance of attentive reading of the text and sharpening of the sense; and (3) the

enjoyment and appreciation of the work. However, according Hu (2003), the mainstream

of teaching literary works in fact follows the first two perspectives, ignoring the third

concern because of its non-academic appreciation. That is, when teachers introduce the

literary works to students, very often they either pour students information of the author

such as cultural background and intentions or turn the teaching of literary works into

sentence-by-sentence translation (e.g. Collie & Stephen, 1987; Hu, 2003; Maxwell,

1993). All of the time in class becomes distributed to the explanation of convention, not

the communicative processing. No wonder Maxwell mentions that in a traditional

classroom, studying literary works often means finding the hidden meaning in the works,

especially the ones the teacher imparts. Indeed, this phenomenon can be easily found in

Taiwan—the high-achievement students without doubts come to an agreement on a

particular interpretation regardless of their differences in personality and past experience,

whereas the low-achievement students, who are told they are wrong, tend to lose their

interest in reading, even avoid reading. In the long run, the occurrence will deprive

students of the opportunity to share their own points of view with one another and finally

lead to the vanishing of communicative function which is regarded as the most important

aim of language classroom nowadays. In fact, literary works, an active activity, are

supposed to be interpreted in different ways because of different readers with different

personalities and past experience, for it encourages the readers to see connections

between themselves and literary works. After all, little thought can change the world.

Reader Response Approach: the 3H Strategies

According to many researchers (e.g. McGee, 1992; Tompkins, 1980; Shafer, 1997),

Reader Response approach concerns readers’ experience to the texts. That is, during the

reading process, readers with individual variables will sympathize or oppose what they

read and form their own values. Citing Hu (2003), Short claims that the reader’s

understanding of a text will be conditioned by what he already knows. That implies that

the meaning of the text definitely is not decoded as an absolute one; it changes from

reader to reader. Therefore, reading does not only become the discovering of denotation

and connotation of the literary works but the creation, the one which is not fully created

without readers’ assimilation by way of their knowledge and experience. This kind of the

transaction between active minds and the words posed by the author becomes a triangle

relationship, namely “author-text-reader” (see Figure 2). That is, the author provides

words and ideas to the literary work, which gives readers to reflect themselves; readers

offer their personal responses to this work and appraise what the author says; readers

continuously redefine the meaning of the work and creates interesting.

However, Brumfit declares that “the young reader’s experience, both of literature

and life, is limited” (Brumfit & Carter, 1997, p. 257), so the best way to help readers have

wider reading and further pleasure reading is to create changes for readers to share their

feelings and responses to both inside and outside literature. In order to bring students the

pleasure of reading, based on the theories, the reading process should concern four facets,

namely author, text, reader, and other readers (see Figure 3). By interacting in the new

relationship of author-text-reader-other readers, students can have chance to express

themselves, examine their responses and come to a deeper, but distinctive understanding

of the text.

Accordingly, teachers, in class, have to provide literary works and to create

opportunities for students to share their responses and feelings with one another by

designing different kinds of activities such as asking questions, role-play, think-aloud,

etc. Among the Reader Response activities, question and answer is considered as the

easy, common one. Almost all teachers, according to the text, propose comprehensible

questions in the process of teaching such as “What does the speaker say?” or “Why does

he say so?” or “Is it this and that?” Citing McGee (1992), Kelly and Farnan declare

Reader Response questions should go beyond the comprehensible questions, such as “If

you could be any character in the story, who would you be?” or “Do you like this story?

Why or why not?” or “How does the story make you feel? Explain.” The 3H reading

strategies, including Here, Hidden, and Head questions, provide an explicit way for

students to decode the literary works (Torgesen, 1977; Graham & Wong, 2001). It covers

three layers of questions which incorporate text-explicit and text-implicit question-

answer relationships and guide readers to use their linguistic knowledge and schemata to

deal with the literary works they encounter. By experiencing the process, readers become

more sensitive to the works and are willing to verbalize their thoughts without

interference. These verbalizations can be recorded, elucidated and diagnosed for later

reading.

Method

Subjects

Fifty commercial high school students, who studied in the night department,

participated in this study (age: 17, 1–18, 5; mean=17.7) and 92% of them had a part-time

job in the daytime. For studying and working at the same time, these subjects had less

time in reading. The subjects came from two classes who had the similar English grades

on High School Entrance Exam and had willingness to participate in the study. Both of

the classes have been taught by the same English teacher under the same textbooks and

instruction for one year. In this study, 25 subjects in Class A, the comparative group

(hereby CG), were instructed by the traditional Basal Readers approach, i.e. pre-reading

questions, vocabulary and text instruction, and drills and exercise, whereas the other 25 in

Class B, the experimental group (hereby EG), were undertaken the Reader Response

approach: 3H reading strategies (i.e. Here, Hidden, and Head), namely pre-reading

questions, silent reading, discussion, response to the work, and role-play. In order to

avoid the interference of English proficiency in the study, the English proficiency of the

two groups was examined and confirmed no significant (p > .01).

Materials

The last leaf by O. Henry edited by Far East English Reader

Called Away edited by Sun-Min English Reader

Procedure

All the subjects had 3 hours of the English class per week. Because of the limited

time, the study could cover only two literary works: a story and a poem. The detail of the

two lessons was described as follows.

Table 1 the instruction scheme of the two lessons

GroupHour Traditional Basal Reader approach

(CG: comparative group)

Reader Response approach: the 3H strategies (EG: experimental group)

1–2h * Warm up: pre-reading

* Vocabulary instruction

* Grammar Focus

* Listen to CD

* Warm up: pre-reading* Vocabulary instruction * Grammar Focus* Listen to CD

2–3h

* The teacher lectures while

students sit passively taking

notes.

* The teacher first introduces the concept of the 3H strategies.

* Students read silently.* Students, given a handout including

the 3H questions, discuss them in groups, the teacher being a facilitator during the process.

3h

* Exercise practice * Students’ responses to the text* Students’ role-play

4h* Achievement test * Achievement test

In both groups, the teacher gave the warm-up activities in the first few minutes. Take

The Last Leaf for example, the teacher started with the questions, “Do you know any

Chinese literary works?” and “How about English literary works?” After guiding students

to the field of literature world, the teacher centered on the theme of the work and posed

questions, such as “Look at the tile. Can you guess what the story is about?” “What about

the illustration?” and “What did you see in it…?” Next, the teacher gave vocabulary

instruction (i.e. definition plus example sentences) and the major grammar focuses to the

CG and EG groups. After that, both groups listened to CD, practicing word-

pronunciation.

In the second hour, the teacher started teaching the CG subjects the text, including

meanings and structures and the subjects were passively taking notes. As for the EG

group, first of all, the teacher introduced the Reader Response approach: the 3H reading

strategies (i.e. Here, Hidden, Head questions) and teach them how to use it in reading.

Then, the teacher asked the subjects to read silently. After 10 minutes, the subjects were

grouped to figure out the layers of the questions written on a handout. The role of the

teacher played as a facilitator and walked around the classroom. In the third hour, the CG

subjects did drills and exercise and the teacher gave them feedback, whereas the EG

subjects shared their feelings with one another and performed the work, i.e. did the role-

playing and reciting.

After finishing the target lesson, the two groups, as usual, took the achievement test.

The result of the achievement test would be examined by the statistic analysis to see if

there was any significant difference between the two groups. After the study, each of the

subjects in CG and EG was asked to fill out a questionnaire whose content covered three

parts, namely language background (questions 1–3), reading habits and attitude

(questions 4–6), and desirability for reading literary works (questions 7–10) (see

Appendix 3).

Coding System

In the General Linear Model (GLM), the ANOVA analysis was utilized to examine if

there was any significant difference between the two groups (i.e. traditional Basal Reader

approach and Reader Response approach: the 3H reading strategies) in the pretest (i.e.

beginning proficiency) and posttests (i.e. immediately after teaching the target lessons).

Besides, the result of the questionnaire including students’ language background, reading

habits and attitude and their desirability for reading literary works was calculated by

percentage and discussed.

Results

The means and standard deviations of the frequency of the pretest and posttests

representing traditional Basal Reader approach and Reader Response approach: the 3H

reading strategies were presented in Table 2. The subjects in both groups did not have

significant difference in the pretest (F = 0.37, p = 0.5444) although the mean of EG is a

little higher than that of CG. But, on the contrary, the results of the two posttests between

the groups were significantly different (F = 11.46, p = 0.00014; F = 13.36, p = 0.0007).

For more detail, as shown in Table 2, the mean of the first posttest in the comparative

group was 51.720 whereas that in the experimental group was 67.640. The means of the

second posttest were 74.090 and 80.571. Thus, in these two target lessons, the range of

the means between the two groups was 15.92 and 6.481 respectively. Obviously, the

value of the first target lesson was doubled that of the second target lesson.

Table 2 The comparison of reader response and traditional approach on comprehension

CG (n=25) EG (n=25)

M SD M SD

Proficiency (pretest) 74.000 11.717 76.040 11.909 0.37 0.5444

Target lesson 1 (posttest) 51.720 18.667 67.640 14.297 11.46 0.00014***

Target lesson 2 (posttest) 74.090 10.064 80.571 12.339 13.36 0.0007***

Note: CG: comparative group by traditional basal reader; EG: experimental group by the 3H strategies

In order to have a clear vision, the following Figures 3 and 4 provided the

differences of the pretest-posttest 1 and pretest-posttest 2 between the two groups. In

Figure 1, it showed that the 2 curve lines slipped down. Especially, the line of CG went

down more sharply than that of EG.

Figure 3 The difference of the pretest-posttest1 between the two groups

Note: test 1: pretest; test 2: posttest

By contrast, Figure 2 revealed that different from the first target lesson, the two

curve lines did not go down. Surprisingly, the EG curve line went up although the EG

line was unbiased.

Figure 3 The difference of the pretest-posttest1 between the two groups

The result of the questionnaire

The questionnaire contained three major parts: language background (questions 1–3),

reading habits and attitude (questions 4–6), and desirability for reading literary works

(questions 7–10). From the calculation, it was found that the subjects either used

Mandarin (44%) and Taiwanese (2%) or both (54%) to communicate with others outside

the classroom. Most of them had less than 4 years of English learning (98%), including

the years of the compulsory education. Besides, they seldom spent time reading English

(84% less than 1 hour in a week and 16% within 1–2 hours) although they assumed

learning English was important (95%). Concerning the subjects’ learning habits, 58% of

them followed the teacher’s instruction, 34% learned by his own experience, 7% from the

peer and 1% in others. Half of them assumed it was okay to read English texts and 36%

disliked it and 14% liked it. As for the desirability for reading literary works, it was found

that in the experimental group 67% enjoyed reading the literary works, less than 1%

assumed so-so, and 2% disliked it, while in the comparative group, 17% enjoyed reading

the literary works, 34% assumed it was okay, but 49% disliked it. Interestingly, the major

reason for EG subjects disliked the literary works was because of the sad ending;

however, the reason for the CG subjects was almost because of the long passage.

Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of the present study attempted to examine the effect of the Reader

Response approach: the 3H reading strategies on comprehending literary works.

Meanwhile, it also tried to investigate the students’ desirability and motivation of reading

literary works with and without employing the strategies. The result in each of the two

target lessons showed that the high school students under the instruction of the Reader

Response approach: the 3H reading strategies outperformed those under the traditional

Basal Reader approach on comprehending literary works. Compared with Graham &

Wong’s study (2001), the didactic training of the 3H strategies has its pedagogic effect

not merely for poor English native readers or native English students with learning

ability, but also for EFL learners on the processing literary works. Besides, the result of

questionnaire showed that the students with the 3H strategies have higher desirability and

more willingness to read literary works than those without the strategies. In other words,

in addition to comprehension, the 3H strategies were effective in increasing students’

motivation and desirability for reading literary works. There may be some explanations

addressed as follows.

First, the 3H reading strategies (i.e. Here, Hidden, Head) possibly set a gradual

process for students to plunge into the world of literary works which contain complicated,

subtle language use and usage. The students monitored their understanding of the literary

works on the first stage. Whenever they had hesitation and difficulty, the students turned

to classmates and the teacher. Generally speaking, Chinese students seldom ask their

teacher questions individually in public, but they easily do in-group. Indeed, with

continuously discussing, it was observed and found that the students became satisfied

with comprehending not only the literal meaning but also the underlying meaning. The

students hence started paying attention to what the character uttered and when and how.

For example, when the students read “Your friend has made up her mind that she’s not

going to get well,” some of them felt confused why the doctor did not express the fact

directly like “Your friend wants to die.” For a period of discussion, the students

concluded that the utterance was an indirect expression that seemed appropriate for a

doctor in such a situation. Therefore, the students might unconsciously learn the sense to

the language and achieve the goal Huson mentions (1987): language should be used in

the right person, the right register and the right situation. According to Ryder & Graves

(2003), learning requires a series of communication.

Citing Berger (1997), Aristotle mentions that literary works are imitations of reality

and notes conveyed by different media which people can easily get hold of. Even so,

without reflection to literary works, students will never have a chance to value literary

works, needless to say appreciate them. In fact, the students taught by the traditional

Basal Reader approach either seriously said nothing or provided a formula-like answer

when they were asked to write their response to the literary works. By contrast, the

students taught by the 3H strategies based on the Reader Response approach were

pouring out words incessantly. That may be because the 3H strategies on the last stage

provide a chance for students to have retrospection in literary works. The students were

encouraged to think aloud and talk aloud and became accustomed to it. According to Hu

(2003), Chinese students tend to hide their feelings and choose to be silent; however, the

situation is tremendously changed, indicated in the present study, once students are

trained in expressing themselves and speak out their ideas one after one. During the stage,

the students taught by the 3H strategies seemly enjoyed sharing their reaction to the

works, expressing their feelings and even arguing with classmates and the teacher was

also elated with the amusing and relaxing atmosphere. It was probably because the

students were not restricted to provide the ONLY correct answer to the question. Reading,

in this study, hence was neither longer a lonely task nor a task for searching for the

correct answer to the question.

According to many studies (e.g. Brumfit and Carter, 1986, 1997; Hu, 2003, Yang,

1991), literary works reflect and represent human beings either better or worse or the

same as real life. However, the definition of literary works is disputed because no one has

yet come up with a satisfactory answer. So, literary works are the performance in words,

which are importantly inducing some sort of aesthetic response. Thus, language teachers

need to provide strategies and guide students to reap the joys of reading, not just let

students move through the text from word to word as Anderson (1999) mentions. The

Reader Response approach is definitely good for students to be aware of the difference

among the world of the literary works, their own experience and others’ minds that

committed the functions of literary works because the students are immersed in different

thoughts. The 3H strategies based on the Reader Response approach further provide a

exact, gradual procedure which leads students to read the lines (i.e. literal meaning of

text), read between the lines (i.e. inferred meanings), and read beyond the lines (i.e.

readers’ critical evaluations of text). The teacher, by reading or hearing readers’

responses, can know what their students really have in mind and understand them better.

The more teachers understand their students, the better learning environment the teachers

will provide; the better learning environment students have, the better they can learn.

Although different readers may engage in very different reading processes, the

understandings they end up with would be similar: greater understanding of what they

read would lead to greater enjoyment of lifelong.

References

Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing Reading. UK: Cambridge university press.

Anderson, N. (1999). Exploring second language: Issues and strategies. Boston: Heinle

& Heinle Publishers.

Applebee, A. N. (1974). The tradition and reform in the teaching of English. Urbana. Ill:

NCTC.

Brumfit, C. J. & Carter, R. A. (1997). Literature and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Carter, R., & Long, M. N. (1991). Teaching literature. New York: Longman.

Collie, J. & Stephen, S. (1987). Literature in the language classroom: A resource book of

ideas and activities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Graham, L. & Wong, B. Y. L. (2001). Comparing two modes of teaching a question-

answering strategy for enhancing reading comprehension: Didactic and self-

instructional training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 270–279.

Hu, B. H. (2003). Teaching English through literature: A study in the application of

Reader Response theory in the teaching of literary works to senior high school

students in Taiwan. (Master thesis). Taipei: Chengchi University.

Huson, R. A. (1987). Sociolinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lin, M. S. (2002). An investigation of high school’s interest on reading. Retrieved from

http://www.hsenenglish.com.tw

Maxwell, R. J. (1993). Teaching English in middle and secondary schools. New York:

Macmillan.

McGee, L. M. (1992). Focus on research: exploring the literature-based reading

revolution. Language Arts, 69, 529–537.

Shafer, G. (1997). Reader response makes history. English Journal, 86, 65–68.

Smith, F. (1975). Comprehension and learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Tompkins, J. P. (1980). (Ed.). Reader-response: from formalism to post-structuralism.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Torgesen, J. K. (1977). Memorization processes in reading-disabled children. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 72, 141–160.

Yang, L. C. (1991). Literature in the language classroom. Selected papers from the

proceedings of the eighth international symposium on English teaching in the

Republic of China. Taipei: the Crane.

Appendix 1 -1

The Last Leaf

At the top of a three-story brick building in Greenwich Village, where many artists

lived, Sue and Joanna had their studio. They had met at a restaurant on English Street,

and found their tastes in art, food, and fashion so similar that they decided to become

roommates.

That was in May. In November the cold, wet weather brought sickness to the

neighborhood where the two women lived; and Joanna became ill from pneumonia. She

lay, scarcely moving, on her bed, looking through the window at the side of the next brick

house.

One morning the doctor came and spoke to Sue. “She has one chance in ten,” he

said. “And that chance will come only if she wants to live. Your friend has made up her

mind that she’s not going to get well. When a patient has that kind of thinking, there is

little that medicine can do.”

After the doctor had gone Sue cried and cried. Finally she walked into Joanna’s

room and found her lying on the bed with her eyes wide open. She was looking out the

window and counting backward. “Twelve,” she said, “eleven, ten, nine, eight, seven. The

leaves on the ivy vine are falling faster now. There are only five left. When the last one

falls I must go, too. I’m tired of waiting. I want to let go of everything, and go sailing

down, down, just like one of those poor, tired leaves.”

“Oh, I never heard of such nonsense,” complained Sue. “Try to sleep. I must go talk

to Mr. Behrman. Don’t try to move ‘til I come back.”

Old Mr. Behrman was a painter who lived beneath them. He was past sixty and had

a long beard. Behrman was a failure in art. He had always said he was going to paint a

masterpiece, but had never begun one. For several years he had painted almost nothing,

but spent much of his time drinking. He was a fierce old man, yet he liked Sue and

Joanna and thought it was his job to protect them.

Sue told Behrman what Joanna had said about the leaves. “Ah, that poor little Miss

Joanna,” said Behrman. “Some day I will paint a masterpiece. Yes!”

When Sue awoke the next morning she found Joanna again staring out the window.

But, what had happened? Though it had rained heavily the night before, and the wind had

blown, there yet stood out against the brick wall one ivy leaf. It was the last on the vine.

“I thought it would surely fall during the night,” said Joanna. “It will fall today, and

I shall die at the same time.”

Yet, as the day passed, and it began to grow dark, the lone ivy leaf clung to its stem

against the wall. The next day as well, the ivy leaf was still there.

“I’ve been a bad girl, Sue,” said Joanna. “Something has made that last leaf stay

there to show how wrong I was. It is a sin to want to die.”

The doctor came in the afternoon and again spoke to Sue. “Take care of her, and she

will recover. Now I must go and see the old artist downstairs. He has pneumonia, too, but

he is an old, weak man. There is no hope for him.”

By the next day, Joanna was out of danger. Sue came to her bed and put one arm

around her.

“I have something to tell you, Joanna,” she said. “Mr. Behrman died of pneumonia

today. Someone found him in his room. His shoes and clothing were wet and icy cold.

They couldn’t imagine where he had been on such a dreadful night. And then they found

a light and a ladder, and some brushes and a palette with green and yellow colors mixed

on it, and—look out the window, dear, at the last ivy leaf on the wall. Didn’t you wonder

why it never moved when the wind blew? Ah, darling, it’s Behrman’s masterpiece—he

painted it there the night that the last leaf fell.”

Adapted from “The Last Leaf” by O. Henry

Appendix 1 -2

Called Away

I meant to do my work today—

But a brown bird sang in the apple tree,

And a butterfly flitted across the field,

And all the leaves were calling me.

And the wind went sighing over the land

Tossing the grasses to and fro,

And a rainbow held out its shining hand—

So what could I do but laugh and go?

Appendix 2-1

Reader Response Approach: the 3H Reading Strategies

The Last Leaf

1. Here Questions

(1) Is Sue and Joanna’s studio in Edinburgh Village?

(2) Why do Sue and Joanna become good friends?

(3) How is the weather in November?

(4) Does Sue get pneumonia and lie in bed?

(5) Does Joanna believe “to want to die is a sin”?

(6) How old is Mr. Behrman?

(7) Does Mr. Behrman spend a lot of time drinking?

(8) What does Joanna count?

(9) What do people find in Mr. Behrman’s room?

(10) What illness does Mr. Behrman die of?

2. Hidden Questions

(11) What is the title and who are the characters?　

(12) What is the relationship among the three characters?

(13) Why does the doctor say, “She has one chance in ten”?

(14) What does “go sailing down, down” imply?

(16) Why is Mr. Behrman’s painting a masterpiece?

3. Head Questions

(17) Do you like the story? Why or why not?

(18) What does the story remind you of?

(19) Do you agree Joanna’s attitude?

(20) What do you think of Mr. Behrman in the story?

(21) What does “the last leaf” imply?

(22) Does anyone in your life do help you when you are in need?

Appendix 2-2

Reader Response Approach: the 3H Reading Strategies

1. Here Questions

1. What did the speaker mean to do today?

2. Who was singing in the apple tree?

3. Who was flitting across the field?

4. Who was sighing over the land and tossing the grasses?

5. Who has shining hands?

2. Hidden Questions

6. What drew the speaker’s attention away from his work?

7. Which color can be found in a rainbow?

8. What do you think called away the speaker?

3. Head Questions

9. Why is the title called “Called Away”?

10. What did the speaker decided to do at the end?

11. If you were the speaker, would you go away in such a situation?

12. Have you ever had such an experience like the speaker?

13. What does the poem remind you of?

Appendix 3

Questionnaire

Age: ____years ___months

_____ 1. What language do you usually speak outside of the classroom? (1) Mandarin.

(2) Taiwanese. (3) English. (4) Others _____________.

_____ 2. How long have you been studying English? (1) less than 4 years. (2) 5 years. (3)

6 years. (4) upper 7 years (about ____ yr.)

_____ 3. How much time do you usually study English in a week (not including the class

hours)? (1) Less than 1 hour. (2) 1-2 hours. (3) 2-3 hours. (4) More than 3 hours

(about ____ hr.)

_____ 4. How important is it for you to learn English? (1) Very important. (2) Important.

(3) Not so important. (4) I don’t care.

_____ 5. How do you process English readings? (1) By following the teacher’s strategies.

(2) By personal experience. (3) By learning from the peers. (4) Others

_________.

_____ 6. Do you like reading English texts? (1) Very much. (2) Most of time. (3)

Sometimes. (4) Seldom, even hate it.

_____ 7. Have you ever read literary works in English class? (1) Yes ____ (2) No ____

_____ 8. If you have to reading English, are you willing to read literary works like The

Last Leaf and Called Away in the future? (1) Very much. (2) Most of time. (3)

Sometimes. (4) Little.

_____ 9. Compared with the other non-literary works, is the literary work hard for you to

understand? (1) Very much. (2) Most of time. (3) Sometimes. (4) Little.

_____ 10. Do you have more motivation to think aloud to the text when you read literary

works like The Last Leaf and Called Away? (1) Very much. (2) Most of time.

(3) Sometimes. (4) Little.