The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
3. RESEARCH ON TEACHING READING
Abstract
This chapter builds on prior reviews of reading theory, research, and assessment published in the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics and uses them and additional current research to develop a set of 10 instructional implications for second language reading. The review draws upon both L1 and L2 research to demonstrate support for instructional approaches that (1) ensure fluency in word recognition; (2) emphasize the learning of vocabulary; (3) activate background knowledge; (4) ensure acquisition of linguistic knowledge and general comprehension; (5) teach recognition of text structures and discourse organization; (6) promote development of strategic readers rather than mechanical application of strategy checklists; (7) build reading fluency and rate; (8) promote extensive reading; (9) develop intrinsic motivation for reading; and (10) contribute to a coherent curriculum for student learning. There is empirical support for each of these implications, although at the same time, additional research related to many is needed to further identify aspects of effective L2 reading instruction in particular settings. While further research alone does not guarantee improved reading pedagogy, it provides one means of identifying specific aspects of reading abilities and testing alternative instructional practices and is thus a crucial component in the search for more effective outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Learning Vocabulary in Another Language
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524759 · Cited by 6,608
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-0663.88.1.18 · Cited by 348
Cited by
Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition
Share, D. L. (1995) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 · Cited by 2,352
The Percentage of Words Known in a Text and Reading Comprehension
SCHMITT, N., JIANG, X., & GRABE, W. (2011) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.x · Cited by 709
Self-citationTeaching L2 Learners How to Listen Does Make a Difference: An Empirical Study
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x · Cited by 477
PROGRESS AND PROCRASTINATION IN SECOND LANGUAGE READING
Bernhardt, E. (2005) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190505000073 · Cited by 293
Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom
BLACHOWICZ, C. L. Z., FISHER, P. J. L., OGLE, D., & WATTS‐TAFFE, S. (2006) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1598/rrq.41.4.5 · Cited by 261
Metadata
- Authors
- Grabe, W.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 24
- Pages
- 44-69
- ISSN
- 0267-1905 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6356
- OpenAlex
- W2139142772
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 3. RESEARCH ON TEACHING READING. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0267190504000030
- The paper
- Grabe, W. (2004). 3. RESEARCH ON TEACHING READING. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190504000030
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.