Teaching Reading Comprehension in a Creative Way

  • Katarína Chválová
  • Eva Stranovská
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)


The paper is aimed at investigation of some aspects of foreign language reading comprehension, which is perceived as the most important skill required by students in a foreign language context. Intensive reading, also known as creative reading, has recently been ignored by researchers. The skill of reading comprehension is an aspect of practical reading experiences which can be developed by teacher’s intervention. One way to help learners to improve the skill is a strategy instruction. In the paper, the effect of various strategies, namely summarizing and students-generated questions are discussed. The participants of the research were upper-intermediate English University students from the Translatology Department. Firstly, overall achievement in a reading comprehension test was analysed; secondly the achievement in the subtests was investigated. Moreover, the research interest was focused on the item difficulty and achievement in comprehension of particular items. The method of a descriptive analysis was applied; frequency tables for categorized data together with quantiles were used to describe distribution of items. The results showed that text comprehension of the subtest 2 affected the other one in the subtest 3. Students comprehension difficulties need to be followed up with separate theory-based assessment tools which can help teachers determine learners’ problems in a more differentiated approach.


Creative reading Reading comprehension Foreign language Teaching strategies Reading comprehension test 


  1. Alderson, J. C. (2005). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  3. Artelt, C., & Schlagmüller, M. (2004). Der Umgang mit literarischen Texten als Teilkompetenz im Lesen? Dimensionsanalysen und Ländervergleiche [Dealing with literary texts as a dimension of reading competence? Dimensional analyses and state comparisons]. In U. Schiefele, C. Artelt, W. Schneider, & P. Stanat (Eds.), Struktur, Entwicklung und Förderung von Lesekompetenz: Vertiefende Analysen im Rahmen von PISA 2000 (pp. 169–196). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozial-wissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, M. A. (1989). More than meets the eye. Foreign language reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  6. Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  7. Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effect of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchanan, R. (1990). Design as a New Liberal Art. In Paper: The 1990 Conference on Design Education, Education Committee of the Industrial Designers Society of America, Pasadena, California.Google Scholar
  11. Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language learning. Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 183–207.Google Scholar
  12. Chance, P. (2000). Thinking in the classroom: A survey of programs. New York: Teachers College, Colombia University.Google Scholar
  13. Chuck, W. (1995). Cooperative learning and higher level thinking: The Qmatrix with question manipulatives. United States of America: Kagan Cooperative Learning.Google Scholar
  14. Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading—Or when language competence interferes with reading. The Modern Language Journal, 64(1), 203–210.Google Scholar
  15. Dubin, F., & Bycina, D. (1991). Academic reading and the ESL/EFL teacher. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed., pp. 195–215). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  16. Eco, U. (1962). Das offene Kunstwerk [The open work of art]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  17. Embretson, S. E., & Wetzel, C. D. (1987). Component latent models for paragraph comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erten, H. E., & Razi, S. (2009). The effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 60–77.Google Scholar
  19. Fedderholdt, K. (1997). Using diaries to develop language learning strategies. On the Internet TESL Journal.Google Scholar
  20. Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education and training in the EU member states: Fostering creative learning and supporting innovative teaching. JRC Technical Notes. Publication of the European Community.Google Scholar
  21. Foy, J. G., & Mann, V. (2006). Changes in letter sound knowledge are associated with development of phonological awareness in pre-school children. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(2), 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gehrer, K., Zimmermann, S., Artelt, C., & Weinert, S. (2013). NEPS framework for assessing reading competence and results from an adult pilot study. Journal of Educational Research Online, 5, 50–79.Google Scholar
  23. Grabe, W. (1991). Current development in second language learning research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grabe, W. (2001). Reading-writing relations: Theoretical perspectives and instructional practices. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies. Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 15–47). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  25. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2001). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for the ESL/EFL teacher. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching english as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 187–203). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  26. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  27. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guilford, J. P. (1967a). Creativity: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guilford, J. P. (1967b). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity and their educational implications. New York: Robert R. Knapp.Google Scholar
  31. Hardy, J., Bates, S. P., Casey, M. M., Galloway, K. W., Galloway, K. R., Kay, A. E., et al. (2014). Student-generated content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions. International Journal of Science Education, 36(13), 2180–2194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hedge, T. (2008). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hofstadter, D. R. & McGraw, G. (1993). Letter spirit: An emergent model of the perception and creation of alphabetic style. CRCC Technical Report 68. Center for Research in Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  34. Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2006). Literary reading activities of good and weak students. A think aloud study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jarvie, I. C. (1981). The rationality of creativity. In D. Dutton & M. Krausz (Eds.). The concept of creativity in science and art. (pp. 109–128) Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  36. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Karkockiene, D. (2005). Creativity: Can it be trained. International Journal of Educology, 52–58.Google Scholar
  38. Katims, D. S. (1997). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 2, 116–125.Google Scholar
  39. Keshavarz, M. H., Atai, M. R., & Ahmadi, H. (2007). Content schemata, linguistic simplification, and EFL readers’ comprehension and recall. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 19–33.Google Scholar
  40. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking: Review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 292–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15–30.Google Scholar
  43. Lubliner, S. (2004). Help for struggling upper-grade elementary readers. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 430–438.Google Scholar
  44. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marrapodi, J. (2003). Critical thinking and creativity: An overview and comparison of the theories. MA thesis. Retrieved from
  46. Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.Google Scholar
  48. Norman, D. (1994). Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. CD-ROM: Voyager Books.Google Scholar
  49. Nuttal, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.Google Scholar
  50. Oded, B., & Walters, J. (2001). Deeper processing for better EFL reading comprehension. System, 29, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework. Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Retrieved from
  52. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. NewYork, NY: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Riley, G. L., & Lee, J. F. (1996). A comparison of recall and summary protocols as measures of second-language reading comprehension. Language Testing, 13(2), 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent thinking. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1. Ae-h, pp. 577–582). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  57. Shaughnessy, M. F., & Manz A. (1991). Personological research on creativity in the performing and fine arts. European Journal for High Ability 2, 1, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shih, M. (1992). Beyond comprehension exercises in the ESL academic reading class. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Song, M. J. (1998). Teaching reading strategies in an ongoing EFL university reading classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8, 41–54.Google Scholar
  60. Stranovská, E., Hvozdíková, S., & Munková, D. (2014). Personal need for structure in relation to language variables. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 665–670. Scholar
  61. Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms technical manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
  63. Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement. Benesville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
  64. Torrance, E. P., & Myers, R. E. (1970). Creative learning and teaching. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Company.Google Scholar
  65. Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 727–747). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English and American studiesConstantine the Philosopher University in NitraNitraSlovakia
  2. 2.Department of German studies, Faculty of ArtsConstantine the Philosopher University in NitraNitraSlovakia

Personalised recommendations