TEXTUAL AND INTER-TEXTUAL ANALYSES OF IRANIAN EFL UNDERGRADUATES’ TYPES OF ENGLISH READING TOWARDS DEVELOPING A CAREFUL READING FRAMEWORK

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

Shiraz University

Abstract

This study investigated textual and inter-textual reading of a group of Iranian EFL undergraduates’ careful English reading types. In this research, Khalifa and Weir’s (2009) reading framework was used to propose a more inclusive aspect of a careful reading framework and the reading construct for instructional and assessment goals. The participants of this study were B.A. students of English Translation at Shiraz Payame Noor University. To obtain the required data, a questionnaire and a careful reading test along with reading journals, interviews, and retrospective verbal protocols were used. The findings revealed that careful reading at the sentential and textual levels were seen to be practiced frequently by the participants. However, reading purposes and cognitive processes requiring integrating information from different texts, reading critically to establish and evaluate the authors’ position on a particular topic, building links across texts, judging the relatedness of texts, evaluating the writer’s ideas and comparing viewpoints were not seen as prevalent emerged reading patterns. The participants performed differently on tasks measuring different types of careful reading at different levels in a descending order of difficulty. In doing the tasks, although no statistically significant difference was found between the performance of males and females, they performed differently regarding their age and educational level differences. Subsequently, based on the outcomes, in the proposed careful reading framework, some new variables such as educational level, age, documents knowledge, better understanding and careful reading at multiple text level structures were added to Khalifa and Weir’s (2009) reading framework.

Keywords


Abdi, R. (2013). The effect of using hypertext materials on reading comprehension ability of EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 557-562.

Anderman, E.  M., & Midgley, C.  (1997).  Changes  in  achievement goal  orientations,  perceived  academic  competence,  and  grades across  the  transition  to  middle-level  schools.  Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269-298.

Anmarkrud, O., Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64-76.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second-language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Braten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students’ topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324-336.

Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2010). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1-31.

Braten, I., Stromso, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 6-28.

Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25, 313-339.

Capellini, S. A., Pinto, C. R., & Cunha, O. (2015). Reading comprehension intervention program for teachers from 3rd grade’ students.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,1339-1345.

Carrell, P.L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-133.

Carson, J. G. (2001). A task analysis of reading and writing in academic contexts. In D. Belcher, & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 48-83). Ann Arbor: The Michigan University Press.

Carver, R. P. (1997).  Reading for one second, one minute, or one year from the perspective of rauding theory. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(1), 3-43.

Carver, R. P. (1998). Predicting reading level in grades 1 to 6 from listening level and decoding level: Testing theory relevant to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 121-154.

Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In R. Mackay, B. Barkman, & R.  R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language (pp. 5-12). MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Enright, M. K., Grabe, W., Koda, K., Mosenthal, P., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Schedl, M. (2000). TOEFL 2000 Reading Framework. TOEFL Monograph Series, MS-17. ETS.

Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. W. Shuart, & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp.317-351). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Goldman, S. R., & Bloome, D. M. (2004). Learning to construct and integrate. In A. F. Healy (Eds.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications (pp.169-182). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.

Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research Vol. III (pp.311-335). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.L. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. London: Longman.

Harackiewicz, J.  M., Pintrich, P.  R., Barron, K.  E., Elliot, A.  J., & Thrash, T.  M. (2002).  Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638-645.

Hessamy, G., & Dehghan, S. S. (2013). Construct validity of careful vs. expeditious reading. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(3), 223-243.

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122-149.

Karimi, N., M. (2015). L2 multiple-documents comprehension: Exploring the contributions of L1 reading ability and strategic processing. System, 52, 14-25.

Katalayi, G. B., & Sivasubramaniam, S. (2013). Careful reading versus expeditious reading: Investigating the construct validity of a multiple-choice reading test. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(6), 877-884. 

Khalifa, H., & Weir, C. J. (2009).  Examining reading: Research and practice in assessing second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363­394.

Kobayashi, K. (2010). Strategic use of multiple texts for the evaluation of arguments. Reading Psychology, 31, 121-149.

Krishnan, K. S. D. (2011). Careful versus expeditious reading: The case of the IELTS reading test. Academic Research International, 1(3), 26-35.

Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778-784.

Mason, L., Scirica, F., & Salvi, L. (2006). Effects of beliefs about meaning construction and task instructions on interpretation of narrative text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 411-437.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1999). Importance of text structure in everyday reading. In A. Ram, & K. Moorman (Eds.), Understanding language understanding (pp. 227-252). Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Moore, T., Morton, J., & Price, S. (2010). Construct validity in IELTS academic reading test: A comparison of reading requirements in IELTS test items and in university study. IELTS Research Reports, 11, 1-89.

Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 488-496.

Perfetti, C. A. (1991). Representations and awareness in the acquisition of reading competence. In L. Rieben, & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp.33-44). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Sentences, individual differences and multiple texts: Three issues in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 23, 337­355.

Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of document representation. In H van Oostendorp, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99-122). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 252-266.

Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Rosenfeld, M., Leung, S., & Oltman, P. K. (2001). The reading, writing, speaking, and listening tasks important for academic success at the undergraduate and graduate levels. TOEFL Monograph Series, MS -21. ETS.

Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. l. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Shim, S.  S., Ryan, A.  M., & Anderson, C.  J. (2008).  Achievement goals  and  achievement  during  early  adolescence:  Examining time-varying  predictor  and  outcome  variables  in  growth-curve analysis. Journal of' Educationa1 Psychology, 100, 655-671.

Urquhart, A. H., & Weir, C. J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. Harlow: Longman.

van  Steensel,  R.,  Oostdam,  R.,  &  van  Gelderen,  A.  (2013). Assessing reading comprehension in adolescent low achievers: Subskills identification and task specificity. Language Testing, 30(1), 3-21.

van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081-1087.

van Dijk, T. A., &  Kintsch, W. (1983). The notion of macrostructure. In T. A. van Dijk, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Strategies of discourse comprehension (pp.189-223). New York: Academic Press.

Weir, C. J. (1993). Understanding and developing language tests. Hamel Hewpstead: Prentice Hall.

Weir, C. J., Green, T., Hawkey, R., Devi, S., & Unaldi, A. (2009). The relationship between the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS and the reading experiences of students in their first year of study at a British university,. IELTS Research Report, 9, 97­156. British Council/IDP Australia.

Weir, C.J., & Khalifa, H.  (2008).  A  cognitive  processing  approach  towards  defining  reading  comprehension,  Cambridge ESOL: Research Notes, 31, 2-10.

Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73-87.

Zoghi, M., Mustapha, R., NorRizan, Tg., & Maasum, M. ( 2010). Looking into EFL reading comprehension. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 439-445.