1. Reading for Understanding: An Action Research On Teaching Reading Comprehension In Second Language Classroom Ms.L.C.D.Wickramanayake Minu/ Kalahugoda –Madawella Comined Junior School

2. Background Teaching Reading Comprehension skills is a prerequisite to teaching Critical Thinking Skills At G.C.E. O/L nearly 50% or more Fail in English each year In class rooms most students can articulate the words & teachers teach reading mostly not as a meaning –making activity. There’s a need for research on Reading in EFL settings

3. Objectives of the research Determine a teaching procedure to teach reading comprehension in accordance with the cognitive processes which involves in reading comprehension. Evaluate the proposed procedure.

4. Conceptual Framework Mayer (2008)

5. Methodology Mixed method- Qualitative dominant Sample Convenient sampling 28 students- 06 boys and 22 girls Action Research Design with four stages – One Term for each stage. Data collecting tools: Quantitative Students test marks for comprehension questions Self Reports on utilized-metacognitive strategies Qualitative Students’ work Student Reflections Focus group Interviews

6. Findings Application of Metacognitive Strategies My Reading StrategiesType A I read the instruction before begins a taskProcedural (P) BI ask myself questions about the material before I begin Comprehension Monitoring(CM) CI stop and reread when I can’t understandDebugging Strategies (DS) D I stop and go back on the information that is not clear (circle, underline) Debugging Strategies(DS) E I try to guess the meaning of the words. I focus on the overall meaning Information Management Strategies (IMS) FI ask someone when I don’t understand any thingDebugging Strategies (DS) G I stop regularly to check and ask do I understand. Comprehension Monitoring(CM) H I try to translate/paraphrase new information into my own words Information Management Strategiy I I summarize what I learn after the lessonEvaluation (E) J I use organizational structures of the text to help learning Information Management Strategies(IMS)

7. General Observations in Stage Three and four 85.17% Actively took part in the programme In Stage three in few endings in L2 were missing In Stage Four Participants completed the task. Coping chunks from the original was visible. When word count increased some did not complete the task. Following pairs of words were seemed confusing. After/later; met/found; every/all then /when Stage Three: Paraphrasing in L1 & Then Summarizing in L2 Stage Four: Directly Summarizing in L2 Using Story grammar

8. Findings Stage One Introduction of basic grammar,& Syntax Stage Two Modeling the use of Meta cognitive strategies while reading Stage Three Story reading and paraphrasing First in L1 Then in L2 Stage Four Story reading & Paraphrasing directly in L2 using story grammar Stage Five

9. Conclusion & Recommendations This is an ongoing research and the final stage - Stage Five would be done from the observations - reflections in stage four - as there is still room for improvement.

10. Reference Evaluation Report G.C.E.(O/L) Examination (2012 ),Colombo: The Department of Examinations press Evaluation Report G.C.E.(O/L) Examination (2013),Colombo: The Department of Examinations press Imel, S. (2004),Metacognition. Retreated on June 2013 from http://www.harford.edu/~/media/PDF/student- services/Tutoring/Metacognition%Awareness%20Inventory.ashx. http://www.harford.edu/~/media/PDF/student- services/Tutoring/Metacognition%Awareness%20Inventory.ashx Lalas, J.W. (1983), Story grammar application in ESL reading TESL Reporter, 67- 71.Retrieved on 2 nd November 2015 from http://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/TESL/article/viewFile/3140/2914 http://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/TESL/article/viewFile/3140/2914 Mayer, R.E.(2008) Learning and Instruction. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

11. Thank You