Seperate and Simultaneous Cumulative Effects of Content and Formal Chemata on Turkish EFL Learners' Reading

Kapsamlı ve genel kabul görmüş bir okuma-anlama teorisi bulunmaması sebebiyle birçok araştırmacı, okuma sürecini, sürecin oluşturanlarını inceleyerek anlamaya çalışmaktadır. Süreci oluşturan unsurlardan iki tanesi içeriğe ilişkin ön bilgi (content schemata) ve metnin söylem biçimine ilişkin önbilgidir (formal schemata) Araştırma, yabancı dil öğrencisinde içerik ve söylem biçimine ilişkin önbilgi oluşturmanın hem tek başlarına hem de birlikte öğrencilerin okuma-anlamasına muhtemel etkilerini saptamayı amaçlamıştır. Bunun için toplam 115 öğrenciden oluşan dört denek grubu oluşturuldu ve gruplar farklı süreçlere tabii tutuldu: Birinci grupta hem içerik hem de söylem biçimleriyle ilgili önbilgi oluşturuldu, ikinci grupta sadece söylem biçimleriyle ilgili önbilgi oluşturuldu, üçüncü grupta sadece içerikle ilgili önbilgi oluşturuldu, son grupsa kontrol grubu olarak atandı ve hiçbir özel öğrenme sürecine tabi- i tutulmadı. Daha sonra gruplar iki ayrı testten elde ettikleri puanlar esas alınarak istatistiksel testlerle karşılaştırıldılar. Sonuçlar içerik önbilgisinin okuma-anlamada önemli bir faktör olduğunu gösterdi. Söylem önbilgisi ve aynı anda hem söylem hem de içerik ön bilgisinin oluşturulduğu gruplarınsa anlamlı bir şekilde farklılaşmadıkları gözlendi.

İçerik ve Metin Tiplerine İlişkin Ön Bilgi Oluşturmanın Türk Yabancı Dil Öğrencilerinin Okumasına Etkisi

Due to the absence of a commonly accepted comprehensive reading theory, many researchers have been trying to understand the reading process by analyzing it into a set of components. Two of those components widely researched in first and second language are content background knowledge (content schemata) and the prior knowledge of rhetorical structures (formal schemata). The study aimed at investigating the separate and simultaneous combined effects of the content and formal schemata on Turkish EFL students’ reading comprehension. In order to find out the probable effects of the two schemata, four main groups of subjects, comprising a total of 115 students, were subjected to different treatments: The first group was given treatment to build up both the content and the formal schemata simultaneously, the second group was trained to build up only the formal schemata, the third group was taught to build up only the content schemata, and the last group did not receive any special treatment and assigned as the control group. These groups of subjects were compared to one another by means of some statistical tests on the basis of their scores on reading. The results showed that the content schemata is an important factor in EFL reading, but the formal schemata and the combination of the content and formal schemata did not appear to be as important.

PDF

___

Adams, M. J. & Collins, A. A Schemata-Theoretic View of Reading. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., 1977.
Allen, A.D. , Bernhard , E.B. , Berry, T. & Demel, M. ‘‘Comprehension and Text Genre: An Analysis of Secondary School Foreign Language Readers’’. The Modern Language Journal. 72, 2 163-172. 1988.
Aron, H. “The Influence of Background Knowledge on Memory for Reading Passages by Native and Nonnative Readers”. TESOL Quarterly. …………….., 136-145. 1986.
Barnett, M. A. “ Syntactic and Lexical /semantic Skill in Foreign Language Reading: Importance and Interaction ”. The Modern Language Journal. 70, 4, 343-3 1986.
Bartu, H. “Can’t I Read Without Thinking”. Reading in A Foreign Language. 13/2, 2001.
Beck, Isabel L. “On Reading : A Survey of Recent Research ,and Proposals for The Future”. In Sweet, A. P. & Anderson J. I. (eds.) Reading Research into the Year 2000. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1993.
Bernhard, E. & Kamil, M. L. “Interpreting Relationship between L1 and L2 Reading: Consolidating Linguistic Threshold and the Linguistic Interdependence Hypotheses ”. Applied Linguistics. 16, 2, 15-34. 1995.
Blan, E. K. “The effects of Syntax on Readability for ESL Students in Puerto Rico ”TESOL Quarterly. 16, 4, 517-527. 1982
Block, E.L. “See How They Read: Comprehension Monitoring of L1 and L2 Readers”. TESOL Quarterly. 26, 2, 319-343. 1992.
Block, E. L. “The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers”. TESOL Quarterly. 20, 3, 463-494. 1986.
Brantmeier, C. “Does Gender Make A Difference? Passage Content and Comprehension in Second Language Reading”. Reading in A Foreign Language. Vol.15, No. 1,2003.
Bugel, K. & Buunk B. P. “Sex Differences in Foreign Language Text Comprehension: The Role of Interest and Prior Knowledge” The Modern Language Journal. 80, 1, 16-31. 1996.
Calfee, R. & Drum, P. “Research on Teaching Reading ”. In Wittrock, M. C. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Teaching: A Project of an American Research Association. London: Collier Macmillan Publisher. 1986.
Carrell, P. L. “Three Components of Background Knowledge in Reading Comprehension”. Language Learning. 33, 2, 183-207. 1983.
Carrell. P. L. “Schemata Theory and ESL Reading: Classroom Implication and Applications”. The Modern Language Journal. 68, 4, 332-343. 1984a
Carrell, P. L. “Effects of Rhetorical Organization on ESL Readers”. TESOL Quarterly. 18, 3, 441-469. 1984b.
Carrell, P. L. “Facilitating ESL Reading by Teaching Text Structure”. TESOL Quarterly. 19, 4, 727-752. 1985.
Carrell, P. L. “Content and Formal Schemata in ESL Reading”. TESOL Quarterly. 21, 3, 461-480. 1987.
Carrell, P. L. “Second Language Reading: Reading Ability or Language Proficiency”.Applied Linguistics. 12, 2, 159-179. 1991.
Carrell, P. L. “Interactive Text Processing: Implications for ESL/Second Language Reading Classrooms”. In Carrell, P. L. , Eskey, D. E. & Devine, J. (eds.) Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Carrell, P. L. & Einsterhold J. C. “Schemata Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy”. TESOL Quarterly. 17, 4, 553-573. 1983.
Carrell, P.L. & Wise, T. E. “The Relationship between Prior Knowledge and Topic Interest in Second Language Reading ”. ………………. 285-305. 1998.
Carver, R. R. “Reading Rate: Theory, Research, and Practical Implications”. Journal of Reading. 36, 2, 84-85. 1992.
Chiang, C. S. & Dunkel, P. “The Effects of Speech Modification, Prior Knowledge and Listening Proficiency on EFL Lecture Learning”. TESOL Quarterly. 26, 2, 245-374. 1992.
Clarke, M. A. “The Short Circuit Hypothesis of ESL Reading – or When Language Competence Interferes with Reading Performance “. In Carrell, P. L.; Devine J. & Eskey, D. E. (eds.) Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Connor, U. “Recall of Text: Differences between First and Second Language Readers”.TESOL Quarterly. 18, 2, 239-256. 1984.
Davis, J. N. & Bistodeam, L. “How do L1 and L2 Reading Differ ? Evidence from Think Aloud Protocols”. The Modern Language Journal. 77, 4, 459-471. 1993.
Davoudi, M. “Inference Generation Skill and Text Comprehension”. The Reading Matrix. Vol. 5, No.1, 2005.
Donin, J. & Silva, M. “The Relationship Between First and Second Language Reading Comprehension of Occupation-Specific Texts”. Language learning. 43, 3, 373-401. 1993.
Dowling, C. & Mitchhell, A. “Reading in a Specific Purpose Foreign Language Course: A case Study of Technical Japanese”. The Modern Language Journal. 77, 4,433-445. 1993.
Doy, R. and Bonford, J. “Top Ten Principles for Teaching Extensive Reading”. Reading in A Foreign Language. Vol. 14, No. 2, 2002.
Fayol, M. “Text Typologies: A Cognitive Approach”. In Denhire, G. & Rossi, J. P. (eds. Text and Text Processing. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publisher B. V., 1991.
Fischer, M. P. & Mandl, H. “ Learner, Text Variables, and the Control of Text Comprehension and Recall”. In Mandl, H. , Stein, N. L. & Trabasso, T. (eds.) Learning and Comprehending of Text. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1984.
Gernnsbacher, M. A. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Publishers, 1990.
Grabe, W. “ Discourse Analysis and Reading Instruction”. In Miller, T. (eds.) Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications. Washington: United States Information Agency, 1991.
Goodman, K. “The Reading Process”. In Carrell, P. I. Devine, J. & Eskey, D. E. (eds.) Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Gordon, C. M. & Hanauer, D. “ The Interaction between Task and Meaning Construction in EFL Reading Comprehension Test. TESOL Quarterly. 29, 2, 299-324. 1995.
Hammadou, J. “Interrelationships Among Prior Knowledge, Inference, and Language Proficiency in Foreign Reading”. The Modern Language Journal. 75, 1, 27-38. 1991.
Hatch, E. & Farhedy, H. Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Rowley, Massachusettss: Newbury House Publishers, INC., 1982.
Hinds, John L. “Contrastive Rhetoric: Japanese and English”. Text. 3, 2, 183-185. 1983.
Ibrahim, S. “Advanced Reading: Teaching Patterns of Writing in Social Sciences”. In Mackay, Barkman & Jordon (eds.) Reading in A Second Language: Hypotheses, Organization, and Practice. Rowley, Massachusettss: Newbury House Publishers INC., 1979.
Johns, A. & Paz, D. “Text Analysis and Pedagogical Summaries: Revisiting Johns & Dawies”. In Miller, T. (eds.) Functional Approaches to Written Text Classroom Applications. Washington: United States Information Agency, 1997.
Johnson, P. “Effects on Reading Comprehension of Language Complexity and Cultural Background of a Text”. TESOL Quarterly. 15, 2, 169-181. 1981.
Johnson, P. “Effects on Reading Comprehension of Building Background Knowledge”.TESOL Quarterly. 16, 4, 503-515. 1982.
Kaplan, R. B. “Contrastive Rhetoric“. In Miller, T. (eds.) Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications. Washington: Unites States Information Agency. 1997.
Karin, B. Sexseverschillen in Textbegrip biy Moderne Vreemde Talen. Ph. D. Dissertation, de Rijksuniversiteit. Groningen. 1993.
Kurtz, B. E. “Cognitive and Metecognitive Aspects of Text Processing”. In Denhiere, G. & Rossi, J. P. (eds.) Text and Text Processing. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., 1991.
Kuzu, T. S. “Etkileşimsel Modele Uygun Okuma Öğretiminin Türkçe Bilgilendirici Metinleri Anlama Düzeyine Etkisi”. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi. Cilt 37, Sayı 1, 55-77, 2002.
Langan, J. Ten Steps to Improving Reading Skills. Marlton, New Jersey: Townsend Press Inc., 1989.
Lee, J. F. “Background Knowledge and L2 Reading”. The Modern Language Journal. 70, 4, 350-354. 1986.
Meyer, Bonnie J. F. “What is Remembered from Prose: A Function of Passage Structure”.In Freedle, R. O. (eds. ) Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Co., 1977.
Meyer, Bonnie J. F. & Freedle, R. O. “Effects of Discourse Type on Recall”. American Educational Research Journal. 10, 1, 121-143. 1984.
Nassaji, H. “Schema Theory and Knowledge-Based Processes in Second Language Reading Comprehension: A Need for Alternative Perspectives”. Language Learning. 52(2), 439-481, 2002.
Perkins, K. & Jones, B. “Measuring Passage Contribution in ESL Reading Comprehension”. TESOL Quarterly. 19, 1, 137-153. 1985.
Salatacı, R. and Akyel, A. “Possible Effects of Strategy Instruction on L1 and L2 Reading”. Reading in A Foreign Language. Vol. 14, No. 1, 2002.
Sarıçoban, A. “Reading Strategies of Successful Readers through the Three Phase Approach”. The Reading Matrix. Vol.2, No. 3, 2002.
Sharp, A. “Reading Comprehension and Text Organization”. Reading in A Foreign Language. Vol. 15, No. 2, 2003.
Sharp, A. “Chinese L1 Schoolchildren in English: The Effects of Rhetorical Patterns”.Reading in A Foreign Language. Vol. 14, No. 2, 2002.
Tschirner, “Scope and Sequence: Rethinking Beginning Foreign Language Instruction”.The Modern Language Journal. 80 1, 2-13. 1996.
Wolf, D. F. “A Comparison of Assessment Tasks Used to Measure FL Reading Comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 4, 473-499. 1993.
Yiğiter, K., Sarıçoban, A., and Gürses, T. “Reading Strategies Employed By ELT Learners at Advanced Level”. The Reading Matrix. Vol. 5, No. 1, 2005.