رابطه میان بکارگیری راهکارهای خواندن و درک متون توضیحی و استدلالی میان زبان آموزان در سطوح مختلف زبان |
 |
تحقیق حاضر جهت بررسی ارتباط میان بکارگیری راهکارهای خواندن و درک متون توضیحی و استدلالی میان زبان آموزان در سطوح مختلف زبان صورت گرفته است. هدف محقق از انجام این تحقیق یافتن هر گونه ارتباط قابل توجه بین راهکارهای خواندن و درک متون توضیحی و استدلالی است. شرکت کنندگان این تحقیق 120 نفر از زبان آموزان کانون زبان ایران بودند که بر اساس آزمون تعیین سطح به سه گروه تقسیم شدند. سطح مبتدی شامل 44 نفر و سطوح متوسط و پیشرفته هر کدام بترتیب دارای 51 و 25 نفر بودند. در اولین جلسه، نسخه فارسی پرسشنامه راهکارهای خواندن توسط زبان آموزان تکمیل شد. این پرسشنامه یکی از گسترده ترین ابزار برای سنجش استراتژی های خواندن میباشد که در سال 1990 توسط آکسفوورد اختراع شد. در جلسه دوم، شرکت کنندگان ملزم به انجام یک تست خواندن درک مطلب بودند. این تست شامل چهار درک مطلب بود ( دو متن توضیحی و دو متن استدلالی). در این راستا جهت نیل به هدف تحقیق، محقق از ضریب همبستگی پیرسون وتحلیل رگرسیون چندگانه استفاده نمود. یافته های تحقیق حاضر حاکی از آن بود که رابطه مثبتی میان بکارگیری راهکارهای خواندن و درک متون توضیحی و استدلالی میان زبان آموزان در سطوح مختلف زبان وجود داشته و بدین ترتیب فرضیه های صفر این مطالعه رد شد. همچنین استراتژی های خواندن بعنوان یک عامل مهم در درک متون توضیحی و استدلالی مشخص شد.
ABSTRACT
This study was an ex post facto descriptive attempt to investigate the relationship between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and comprehension of expository and argumentative text across different proficiency levels. In order to fulfill the purpose of this study, 120 female EFL learners aged within the range of 14 to 30 years participated in the study. The sample was selected from one of the branches of ILI language school. As proficiency levels were considered as a variable in this study, each level namely beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels included 44, 51, and 25 participants. Students were assigned to each level through the International Language Institute’s (ILI) placement test. In the first session, a Persian version of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire was administered to students. The SILL is the most widely used instrument for identifying reading strategies and in was created by Oxford (1990). In the second session, the participants took the reading tests. Each subject was assigned a test booklet which contained four reading passages (two expository and two argumentative passages). The Flesch Reading Ease formula was used in order to determine the suitable level of texts. Flesch Reading Ease Formula is considered one of the oldest and most accurate readability formulas. Finally, Pearson correlation and multiple regression analyses were used to analyze the data. The results of this research revealed that, there is a significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and their comprehension of expository and argumentative texts across different proficiency levels. Also it was shown in the data analysis that EFL learners’ use of reading strategy was a significant predictor of their comprehension of expository and argumentative texts.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment…………………………………………………………………………………iii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………iv
List of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………….…….ix
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………….…xii
CHAPTER I: Background and Purpose
1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..……………2
1.2 Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………..…………5
1.3 Statement of the Research Questions……………………………………………..…………8
1.4 Statement of the Research Hypotheses……………………………………………………10
1.5 Definition of Key Terms…………………………………………………………………..12
1.5.1 Argumentative text …………………………………………………………………..12
1.5.2 Expository text ………………………………………………………………………12
1.5.3 Proficiency level ……………………………………………………………………………………………13
1.5.4 Reading strategy………………………………………………………………….…..13
1.6 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………….14
1.7 Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumption ……………………………………………..16
CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature
2.1 What is reading?……………………………………………………………………………………………………19
2.1.1 Importance of reading …………………………………….……………………..……22
2.1.2 Approaches to reading skill ……………………………………………..……………25
2.1.3 Reading comprehension theories ……………………………………………………..26
2.1.3.1 Schema Theory …………………………………………………………………27
2.1.3.2. Sub skills View of Reading ……………………………………………………28
2.1.4 Different Kinds of Reading …………………………………………………………..31
2.1.5 Teaching and Learning Reading ……………………………………………………..34
2.1.6 Strategy ………………………………………………………………………………36
2.1.6.1 Learning Strategy ……………………………………………………………..39
2.1.6.2 Reading Strategies …………………………..…………………………………39
2.1.6.2.1 Extensive and Intensive Reading Strategies ……………..……………46
2.1.6.2.2 Cognitive Strategies ……………………………………………………47
2.1.6.2.3 Metacognitive Strategies ………………………………………………49
2.1.6.2.4 Compensation Strategies ………………………………………………50
2.1.6.2.5 Scanning and Skimming Reading Strategies ………………………….51
2.1.7 L1/L2 Reading Strategies ………………..…………………………………………..55
2.1.8. Learner Strategy Training ……………………………………………………………58
2.2 Text ……………….……………………………………………………………………….59
2.2.1 Text comprehension ……………………………………………………………………60
2.2.2 Text type ……………..………………………………………………………………..62
2.2.2.1 Expository text ……….…………………………………………………………68
2.2.2.2 Students with Learning Disabilities and Expository Text ………………………70
2.2.2.3 Argumentative text …………………….………………………………………..73
2.2.3 Connectives, text types, and reading comprehension ………..………………………..76
2.2.4 Two Approaches to Text Type Analysis ……..……………………………………….77
2.2.5 Genre and Text Type ………………………………………………………………….79
CHAPTER III: Method
3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………86
3.2 Participants …………………………………………………………..…………………….88
3.3 Instrumentation …………………………………………………………………………….88
3.3.1 Test of Reading Comprehension …….……………………………………..………….88
3.3.2 Reading strategies questionnaire ……………………………………………………….91
3.4 Procedure …………………..………………………………………………………………91
3.5 Design …………….……………………………………………………………………….93
3.6 Statistical Analysis ………………..……………………………………………………….94
CHAPTER IV: Research and Discussion
4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………..96
4.2 Restatement of the Research Hypotheses …………………….……………………………96
4.3 Reliability Analysis ………………………………………………………………………..98
4.4 Descriptive Statistics of the SILL Questionnaire ………………………………………….99
4.5 Descriptive Statistics of the Reading Comprehension Tests ……………….…………….101
4.6 Testing the Hypotheses of the Study ……………………………….…………………….107
4.7 Discussion of the Findings ………………..………………………………………………124
CHAPTER V: Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications
5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….130
5.2 Procedures and Summery of the Findings ….…………………………………………….130
5.3 Pedagogical Implications ………………………………………………………………….131
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research ……………………………….………………………..133
References………………………………………………………………………………………134
Appendices
Appendix A …………………….…………………………………………………………….153
Appendix B …………………….……………………………………………………………..158
Appendix C …………..……………………………………………………………………….160
Appendix D ………..…………………………………………………………………………162
Appendix E ………….………………………………………………………………………..164
Appendix F ……………..…………………………………………………………………….166
Appendix G ……………………………………..……………………………………………167
Appendix H …………………..………………………………………………………………169
Appendix I …………………………………………………………………………………….171
Appendix J ……………………………………………………………………………………173
Appendix K ……………………………………………..……………………………………175
Appendix L …………..……………………………………………………………………….177
Appendix M …………………………………………………………………………………..179
Lists of Tables
Table 2.1 Genres and Text Types ………………..…………………………………………….182
Table 3.1 Readability Statistics of the Texts Selected for Beginners …………………….……183
Table 3.2 Readability Statistics of the Texts Selected for Intermediates ………….…………..184
Table 3.3 Readability Statistics of the Texts Selected for Advanced …………….……………185
Table 3.4 The Variables of the Study …………………………………………………………..186
Table 4.1 Reliability statistics of the reading comprehension test for beginner learners ………187
Table 4.2 Reliability statistics of the reading comprehension test for intermediate learners ….188
Table 4.3 Reliability statistics of the reading comprehension test for advance learners ……….189
Table 4.4 Descriptive statistics of the obtained scores on reading strategy use questionnaire…190
Table 4.5 Normality checks of SILL scores distributions ……………………………………..191
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of the Obtained Scores on expository text comprehension tests …192
Table 4.7 Normality checks of Expository test scores distributions ………………..………….193
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics of the Obtained Scores on argumentative text comprehension tests ……………………………………………………………………………………….194
Table 4.9 Normality checks of Argumentative test scores distributions ………………………195
Table 4.10 Correlation between reading strategies and expository text comprehension ……….196
Table 4.11 Correlation between beginner learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension ……………………………………………………………………………..197
Table 4.12 Correlation between intermediate learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension ………………………………………………………………………..198
Table 4.13 Correlation between advanced learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension …………………………………………………………………………….199
Table 4.14 Correlation between reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension …..200
Table 4.15 Correlation between beginner learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension ………………………….…………………………………………….201
Table 4.16 Correlation between intermediate learners’ use of reading strategies an argumentative text comprehension ………………………….…………………………………………….202
Table 4.17 Correlation between advanced learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension …………………………………………………….………………….203
Table 4.18 Model Summary ……………….…………………………………………………..204
Table 4.19 ANOVA of regression model ………..…………………………………………….205
Table 4.20 Model Summary ………………………….………………………………………..206
Table 4.21 ANOVA of regression model ………………………………………………………207
Table 4.22 Model Summary …………………………………………………………..……….208
Table 4.23 ANOVA of regression model ……………………………..……………………….209
Table 4.24 Model Summary ……………………………………………………………………210
Table 4.25 ANOVA of regression model ………………………………………………………211
Table 4.26 Model Summary …………………….……………………………………………..212
Table 4.27 ANOVA of regression model ………………………………………………………213
Table 4.28 Model Summary ……………………………………………………………………214
Table 4.29 ANOVA of regression model ……………………………..……………………….215
Table 4.30 Model Summary ……………………………………………………………………216
Table 4.31 ANOVA of regression model ………………………………………………………217
Table 4.32 Model Summary ……………………………………………………………………218
Table 4.33 ANOVA of regression model ………………………………………………………219
Lists of Figures
Figure 4.1 Distribution of Beginners’ SILL Scores ………..…………………………………..221
Figure 4.2 Distribution of Intermediates’ SILL Scores …………..……………………………222
Figure 4.3 Distribution of Advances’ SILL Scores …………………..………………………..223
Figure 4.4 Distribution of Beginners’ Expository Test Scores …………….…………………..224
Figure 4.5 Distribution of Intermediates’ Expository Test Scores ………………….…………225
Figure 4.6 Distribution of Advances’ Expository Test Scores ………………….……………..226
Figure 4.7 Distribution of Beginners’ Argumentative Test Scores ……………………..……..227
Figure 4.8 Distribution of Intermediates’ Argumentative Test Scores ………….……………..228
Figure 4.9 Distribution of Advances’ Argumentative Test Scores …………………………….229
CHAPTER I
Background and Purpose
1.1 Introduction
Language-teaching methodology has seen a dramatic increase in attention to the strategies investment that learners can make in their own learning process. The learning of any skill involves a certain degree of investment of one’s time and effort. According to brown (2001) A language is probably the most complex set of skills one would ever seek to acquire; therefore, an investment of strategies is necessary in the form of developing multiple layers of strategies for getting that language in to one’s brain.
Reading is a fundamental skill for English foreign/second language (EFL/ESL) learners (Anderson, 2003). Rivers (1981) considers reading as the most significant activity in language classrooms since it acts not only as a source of information and a pleasurable activity, but also as a means of consolidating and extending one’s knowledge of the language. According to Anderson (2003), it is an essential skill for learners of English and for most of learners it is the most important skill to master in order to ensure success in learning. With strengthened reading skill, learners of English tend to make progress in other areas of language learning.
In the last two decades, attention has been paid to understanding what proficient readers typically do while reading, including identifying the strategies they use and how and under what conditions they use those strategies. This line of research has been useful in instructing non-proficient first and second-language readers to increase their awareness and use of reading strategies to improve comprehension (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). For successful reading, students are required to understand the meaning of text, critically evaluate the message, remember the content and apply the new-found knowledge flexibly (Pressley, 2000). In order to reach these objectives, proficient readers use a variety of strategies before, during and after the reading of a text in order to comprehend the text and prevent any problem which may occur during this process. In other words, strategies are considered as the most beneficial tools any reader can use for controlling progress of and for ensuring success in reading. Applying strategic behavior in reading requires that readers intentionally engage in planned actions under their control (Alexander, Graham & Harris, 1998).
Beside the importance of reading strategies, text comprehension is also crucial. Text comprehension is an interactive
process in which linguistic elements in a discourse or text interact with each other to create the “texture” of a text (Halliday & Hassan, 1976, de Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981). The second level of interactions is between bottom-up and top-down processing of texts take place in the readers’ minds, or between linguistic knowledge and world knowledge (Eskey, 1988, Grabe & Stoller, 2002). The third level of interaction is an interpretive one between the reader and a text, or between the reader and the writer through a text (Nuttal, 1996, Ozono and Ito, 2003). Lipson and Wixon (1986), among others, claim that research on reading ability as well as reading disability should adopt an interactive view. Such a view takes into account the dynamic process of reading in which the reader, text, process, and the setting conditions of the reading situation interact in an active and flexible manner. This claim should be extended to reading in a foreign language as well. In fact, to understand how foreign language learners comprehend texts, many researchers have emphasized the need to study the differential contribution of text-based characteristics such as genre, text structure parameters, and textual markers (Geva, 1992; Camiciottoli. 2003; Carrel, 1985).
In addition, the readers’ ability to comprehend a text may vary as a function of the text type (Schneuwly, 1997; Alverman, et al., 1995). According to Neubert (1985) text types motivate particular frames and act out certain scenarios. They recast the linguistic material available in the system of a language into socially efficient, effective and appropriate moulds. He believes that texts are various instances clustering around a holistic experience that has been shared over time. This ‘prolonged interactive experience’ takes the shape of prototypical encounters and this empirical prototypicality is then translated into the concept of the prototype text. Other scholars have come up with their own text typologies. More specifically, Werlich (1976) distinguishes between five text types: description, narration, argumentation, instruction, and exposition text types.
In today’s society it is essential to be able to read fluently, particularly, expository and argumentative texts (Chambliss, 1995; Gresten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Understanding the rhetorical relations of texts is to be at the heart of the comprehension process of the text and of the writers’ intention in the text (Alavi, 2001). It follows that if readers can infer textual relations in less demanding texts, they may not be as successful when they have to read and learn from texts that are more demanding, i.e. when they have to learn from expository text, or pinpoint niches from argumentative texts. This difficulty may further illustrate the challenges facing readers of English as a foreign language as the focus of literacy programs shifts from “learning to read”, a prominent target in the primary grades to “reading to learn” through English at the university (Chall, et al, 1996).
Berman and Katzenberger (2004) suggested that the well-formed expository texts are constructed beginning from high school. Expository texts are written to convey, describe, or explain non-fictional information. It is more difficult for ESL/EFL learners to understand these types of materials than narrative texts because they have specific text structures, contain technical vocabulary, and require readers to have background knowledge. Hatmin and Mason (1990) elaborated the cognitive underpinning of different text types. They argue that expository text type involves analysis and synthesis of concepts; it deals with the mental process of comprehension. Analysis (taking a concept and working out its constituent elements) or synthesis (taking the constituent elements of a complex concept and working out a shorter formulation for it) are the two basic procedures employed in expository texts.
In argumentative texts the need to persuade through evaluation is paramount with a predominance of emotive diction, metaphoric expression and subtle uses of modality (Hatim and Mason, 1990). In other words, various propositions related to the subject of enquiry are put forward and an argument for or against them is constructed (Laser and Slater, 1998). Trikonnen-Condit (1996) views the production of argumentative text as the cognitive process of problem solving. She points out that the process of written argumentation typically has the following structural units: situation, problem, solution, and evaluation. In fact, this text focuses on relations between concepts, where one opinion is upheld and its relation with opposing opinions or solution investigated. They deal with the mental process of judging.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The importance of reading strategies has been recognized by many scholars. According to Block (1986), reading strategies indicate how readers conceive a task, what textual cues they attend to, how they make sense of what they read, and what they do when they do not understand. Nunan (1999) contends that learners are not aware of strategies underlying the learning task in which they are involved. Learners employ a variety of reading strategies to help them when they have to read in that language. They apply some strategies which, it seems, they themselves have discovered, since, they are not taught these strategies explicitly in high schools. Furthermore, Carter and Nunan ( 2001) claimed that many language teachers fall ill-equipped to conduct strategy instruction because they have never had the chance to see or participate in such instructions themselves. So teachers are responsible to instruct students how to use strategies in order to comprehend a text. Oxford (1990) claims that reading strategies are teachable. Various language-learning investigations round the world indicate that strategy instruction leads to greater use, self efficacy, anxiety reduction, increased motivation, higher language proficiency, and positive attitude.
فرم در حال بارگذاری ...
|
[چهارشنبه 1399-11-22] [ 12:53:00 ق.ظ ]
|
