IMPACT OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, RHETORICALPATTERNS, AND GENDER .

3y ago
40 Views
2 Downloads
1.45 MB
225 Pages
Last View : 1d ago
Last Download : 3m ago
Upload by : Shaun Edmunds
Transcription

IMPACT OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, RHETORICALPATTERNS,AND GENDER DIFFERENCES ON READINGCOMPREHENSIONOF IRANIAN EFL STUDENTSMARYAM JALILEHVANDFACULTY OF EDUCATIONUNIVERSITY OF MALAYAKUALA LUMPUR2014

IMPACT OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, RHETORICAL PATTERNSAND GENDER DIFFERENCES ON READING COMPREHENSIONOF IRANIAN EFL STUDENTSMARYAM JALILEHVANDThesis Submitted to the Faculty of Education, University of MalayaIn Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree ofDoctor of Philosophy2014

UNIVERSITY MALAYASTATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIPName of Candidate:Maryam Jalilehvand(I.C/Passport No :)K29078025Registration/Metric No:PHA080018Name of Degree:PhDTitle of Thesis: Impact of Prior Knowledge, Rhetorical Patterns, and Gender Differences on Readingcomprehension of Iranian EFL studentsField of Study: Teaching English as a Second LanguageI do solemnly and sincerely declare that:(1)(2)(3)I am the sole author/writer of this work;This work is original;Any use of any work in which copyright exists was done by way of fair dealing and forpermitted purposes and any excerpt or extract from, or reference to or reproduction of anycopyright work has been disclosed expressly and sufficiently and the title of the work and itsauthorship have been acknowledged in this work;(4)I do not have any actual knowledge nor ought I reasonably to know that the making of thiswork constitutes an infringement of any copyright work;(5)I hereby assign all and every rights in the copyright to this work to the University of Malaya(“UM”), who henceforth shall be owner of the copyright in this work and that any reproduction oruse in any form or by any means whatsoever is prohibited without the written consent of UMhaving been first hand and obtained;(6)I am fully aware that if in the course of making this work I have infringed any copyrightwhether intentionally or otherwise, I may be subject to legal action or any other action as may bedetermined by UM.Candidate’s Signature:Date:Subscribed and solemnly declared before,Witness’s signature:Date:Name:Designation:ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI want to express my appreciation to all the people who have given me, directly andindirectly, their heart whelming full support in making this collection a magnificentexperience.First and foremost, I deeply give thanks to God, the father of all, who has been withme from the very beginning and through every step of my educational career. I thank for thestrength that keep me standing and for the hope that keep me believing that this affiliationwould be possible and more interesting.I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Dr. Samual Moses, who willinglyguided me with his marvelous knowledge and immense patience. His resourceful adviceand interminable encouragement always inspired me to think beyond the confines of myknowledge. I also wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Fatimah Hashim, Prof. Dr.Abdol Jalil Othman, Prof. Dr. Mahzan Arshad, Dr. Zawawi Ismail, Dr. Ismail Baroudy, Dr.Phuangphet Tonawanik, and Dr. Jessie Grace U. Rubrico, my committee members, fortheir invaluable and professional comments on my thesis.I want to thank Dr. Nabeel, Dr. Khosrow Kamali, and Dr Shahrir Jamaluddin fortheir insightful feedback on statistical analysis of my work. Without their guidance andpatience, I would never have been able to complete this thesis. Special thanks to Dr. HassanMokhtarpour and Dr. Khadijeh Jafari who lent me their support and friendship in my way.I owe a special thank to my family and my mother for their kindness and emotionalsupport. Without their endless love, this thesis would not have been written. Thanks also tomy father who encouraged me throughout all my life experiences and in all endeavors I everdid, but who is not here to see the end of my doctoral study.

I would also like to thank the colleagues who helped me to gather data, whoassisted with data analysis or who helped by reading and by giving advice. I am grateful tothe many students who participated in the study.Finally, mom, thank you for your endless love, care package, and support. Thisaccomplishment belongs to you.

AbstractAccording to the schema theory, reading comprehension involves interactionbetween a text and a reader. This interaction involves the reader’s prior knowledge of thesubject on the one hand, and the rhetorical structure of the text on the other hand. Therefore,the current study examines the impact of three independent variables (prior knowledge,rhetorical pattern, and gender) on students’ reading comprehension. In Iran, many highschool students have difficulty in comprehending reading texts. Their L2 readingcomprehension scores indicate that they are not performing well. Many studies have beendone to investigate the influence of some factors on reading comprehension. However, theinfluences of prior knowledge, rhetorical pattern, and gender differences on readingcomprehension simultaneously have been neglected. Guided by this view, this study is anattempt to examine the simultaneous impact of prior knowledge, rhetorical pattern, andgender on reading comprehension through detailed analysis of 232 high school majorstudents. Statistical analysis including three-way ANOVA was applied on the collected data.The sample consists of 72 male and 160 female students from high schools inSavojbolagh County in Iran. The participants are from the same level of proficiency. Usinga between-subjects design, participants were divided into eight groups. For each of fourgroups of readers (females and males), two texts had familiar content with description orcausation pattern, and two other texts had unfamiliar content with description or causationpattern. Each group was asked to recall the text and finish a cloze test after reading each ofthe four passages. Recall protocols (recall of idea units and importance level) and cloze testwere used as the measures of reading comprehension.Both recall protocol and cloze test analysis revealed that participants displayedbetter recall of the familiar text than the unfamiliar text, which suggests that priorknowledge has a facilitating effect on reading comprehension. Moreover, like manyprevious researches, this study found that the rhetorical pattern had a significant effect onrecall. The comparison of means and standard deviations between groups at each levelindicated that the students benefited more by causative text than by descriptive text. Theresults showed that prior knowledge and rhetorical pattern were two strong predictors ofperformance. Gender did not have a significant effect on subjects’ comprehension except foriv

the cloze test. In the light of two-way interaction effect between variables, there was also astatistically significant interaction effect between prior knowledge and gender. Moreinterestingly, the results of the three-way ANOVA indicated that there was not anystatistically significant interaction effect between prior knowledge, rhetorical pattern, andgender. In other words, the findings showed that a two-way interaction between priorknowledge and rhetorical pattern was not moderated by gender. Overall, this study suggeststhat prior knowledge and rhetorical pattern are two critical variables which may improvestudents’ reading comprehension. These results have practical implications in the EFL andESL fields. Moreover, this research makes recommendations for further research on EFLreading.v

AbstrakKesan Pengetahuan Sedia Ada, Corak Retorik, dan Perbezaan Jantina KeAtas Pemahaman Membaca Pelajar EFL IranMengikut teori skema, pemahaman membaca melibatkan interaksi antara teks danpembaca. Interaksi ini merangkumi pengetahuan sedia ada pembaca tentang subjek dankerangka retorik teks yang dibaca di sebaliknya. Oleh itu, kajian ini menyelidiki kesan tigapemboleh ubah bebas (pengetahuan sedia ada, corak retorik, dan jantina) ke ataspemahaman membaca pelajar. Di Iran, ramai pelajar sekolah tinggi mengalami kesukarandalam memahami teks bacaan. Skor pemahaman membaca mereka dalam bahasa kedua (L2)menunjukkan mereka tidak mempunyai pencapaian yang baik. Banyak kajian telahdijalankan untuk menyelidik pengaruh beberapa faktor ke atas pemahaman membaca.Walau bagaimanapun, kajian berkenaan pengaruh interaksi pengetahuan sedia ada, corakretorik (rhetorical pattern), dan perbezaan jantina ke atas pemahaman membaca jarangdijalankan. Memandangkan keadaan ini, kajian ini adalah usaha untuk meneliti impakinteraksi pengetahuan sedia ada, corak retorik, dan jantina ke atas pemahaman membacamelalui analisis terperinci melibatkan 232 pelajar sekolah tinggi. Analisis statistikmerangkumi ANOVA tiga hala diaplikasi ke atas data yang terkumpul.Sampel kajian adalah 72 pelajar lelaki dan 160 pelajar perempuan dari sekolahtinggi di daerah Savojbolagh di Iran. Peserta kajian mempunyai tahap pencapaian yangsama. Menggunakan reka bentuk antara-subjek, peserta kajian dibahagikan kepada lapankumpulan. Untuk setiap kumpulan pembaca (lelaki dan perempuan), dua teks yangmempunyai kandungan yang lazim yang berunsur deskripsi atau causation, dan dua teksyang mempunyai kandungan asing dengan unsur deskripsi dan causation diberi. Setiapkumpulan diminta mengingat kembali teks tersebut dan diminta melengkapkan ujian clozeselepas membaca setiap satu empat teks yang diberi. Recall protocols (pengingatan semulaunit idea dan tahap kepentingan) dan ujian cloze digunakan untuk mengukur tahappemahaman membaca peserta.Analisis recall protocol dan ujian cloze mendapati bahawa peserta kajianmenunjukkan pengingatan teks lazim yang lebih tinggi berbanding dengan pengingatan teksasing, dan ini bererti pengetahuan sedia ada mempermudahkan pemahaman membaca.vi

Dalam pada itu, seperti kajian lain, kajian ini mendapati bahawa corak retorik mempunyaihubungan signifikan ke atas pengingatan semula. Perbandingan min dan sisihan piawaiantara kumpulan di setiap tahap menunjukkan bahawa pelajar mendapat lebih manfaat dariteks causative berbanding dengan teks deskriptif. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawapengetahuan sedia ada dan corak retorik adalah peramal kuat pencapaian pelajar. Jantinatidak mempengaruhi pemahaman peserta secara signifikan melainkan bagi ujian cloze.Memandangkan kesan interaksi dua hala antara pemboleh ubah, terdapat kesan interaksisignifikan antara pengetahuan sedia ada dan jantina. Lebih menarik lagi, keputusanANOVA tiga hala menunjukkan tiada kesan interaksi yang signifikan dari segi statistikantara pengetahuan sedia ada, corak retorik dan jantina. Dalam erti kata lain, dapatan kajianmenunjukkan interaksi dua hala antara pengetahuan sedia ada dan corak retorik tidakdimoderasi oleh jantina. Secara keseluruhan, kajian ini mengandaikan bahawa pengetahuansedia ada dan corak retorik adalah dua pemboleh ubah yang kritikal yang dapatmemperbaiki pemahaman membaca pelajar. Dapatan ini mempunyai implikasi praktikaldalam bidang EFL (Bahasa Inggeris Sebagai Bahasa Asing) dan ESL (Bahasa InggerisSebagai Bahasa Kedua). Kajian ini juga memberi beberapa cadangan berkenaan dengankajian lanjutan ke atas pembacaan EFL.vii

TABLE OF CONTENTSAcknowledgements .iiiAbstract .ivAbstrak .viTable of Contents .viiiList of Tables .xiList of Figures . .xiiList of Appendixes .xivCHAPTER IINTRODUCTION . . . 11.1Background of the Study .11.2EFL Background in Iran 61.3Statement of the Problem .71.4Research Questions and Hypotheses .91.5Purpose of the Study 111.6Significance of the Study .121.7Theoretical and Conceptual Framework . 131.8Operational Definitions 18CHAPTER IIREVIEW OF The RELATED LITERATURE. .212.1Introduction .212.2Reading Comprehension . .212.3Bottom-up Process vs. Top-down Process .252.4Schema-Theoretic View of Reading Comprehension .28viii

2.5Factors Affecting Reading Comprehension 312.5.1Prior Knowledge .322.5.2Rhetorical Patterns 442.5.3Gender Differences . . . .55CHAPTER IIIMETHODOLOGY . .643.1Introduction .643.2Context of the Study 643.3Participants of the Study .653.4Design of the Study .673.5Materials and Instrumentation . 693.5.1Immediate Recall Protocol .723.5.2Cloze Test . .743.6Pilot Study . .773.7Procedures and Data Collection .783.8Data Analysis .803.9Scoring . .813.10 Statistical Analysis. . .84CHAPTER IVFINDINGS .864.1Introduction . 864.2Assumptions of Factorial ANOVA . .904.3Findings . .95Research Question 1 . 95Research Question2 . . . .105ix

Research Question 3 . 109Research Question4 . .114Research Question 5 . 119Research Question 6 . 124Research Question 7 . 1284.4Summary of Findings 133CHAPTER VDISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, ANDRECOMMENDATIONS . .1355.1Introduction . .1355.2Discussion of the Findings . .137Hypothesis I. . . . . .137Hypothesis II . .138Hypothesis III . . .142Hypothesis IV . . .145Hypothesis V . . 147Hypothesis VI . . .150Hypothesis VII . .1515.3Conclusion . . .1525.4Pedagogical Implications of the Study . .1545.5Limitations of the Study . .1585.6Suggestions for Further Research . .159REFERENCES . .162x

List of TablesTable 3.1: Demographic distribution of participants in independent variables .67Table 3.2: 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design matrixes .68Table 3.3: A summary of characteristics of the four reading texts .72Table 3.4: Inter-rater reliability for the two scorers for idea units recall .83Table 3.5: Inter-rater reliability for the two scorers for importance level recall.83Table 4.1: Tests of normality distribution for dependent variables based onKolmogorov-Smirnov .90Table 4.2: Test of normality distribution for dependent variables based on theValues of Skewness and Kurtosis . . 91Table 4.3: Leven’s test of equality of error variances . 95Table 4.4: Descriptive statistics of idea units recalled for each group 97Table 4.5: Results of three-way ANOVA test for Idea Units Recall scores .99Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics of importance level recalled for each group. 100Table4.7: Results of three-way ANOVA test for importance level recallscores. .101Table 4.8: Descriptive statistics of cloze test for each group .102Table 4.9: Results of three-way ANOVA test for cloze test scores .103Table 4.10: Overall summary of the findings . . 134xi

List of FiguresFigure 1.1: Conceptual framework of the study .18Figure 4.1: Normality distribution for idea units recall . .92Figure 4.2: Normality distribution for importance level recall . .93Figure 4.3: Normality distribution for cloze test recall . .94Figure4.4: Mean comparisons of familiar and unfamiliar texts for idea unitsrecall . . 98Figure 4.5: Mean comparisons of familiar and unfamiliar texts for importance levelrecall .101Figure 4.6: Mean comparisons of familiar and unfamiliar texts for cloze test .103Figure 4.7: Mean comparisons of descriptive and causative text types for idea unitsrecall . 106Figure 4.8: Mean comparisons of descriptive and causative text types forimportance level recall .107Figure 4.9: Mean comparisons of descriptive and causative text types for clozetest .108Figure 4.10: Mean comparisons of female and male students for idea unitsrecall .110Figure 4.11: Mean comparisons of female and male students for importancelevel . .111Figure 4.12: Mean comparisons of female and male students for cloze test .112Figure 4.13: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of prior knowledge andrhetorical pattern for idea units recall . .115Figure 4.14: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of prior knowledge andrhetorical pattern for importance level recall . . 116xii

Figure 4.15: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of prior knowledge andrhetorical pattern for cloze test . .117Figure 4.16: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of prior knowledge andgender for idea units recall . . .120Figure 4.17: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of prior knowledge andgender for importance level recall 121Figure 4.18: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of prior knowledge andgender for cloze test . 123Figure 4.19: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of rhetorical pattern andgender for idea units recall 125Figure 4.20: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of rhetorical pattern andgender for importance level recall 126Figure 4.21: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of rhetorical pattern andgender for cloze test . 127Figure 4.22: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of prior knowledge, rhetoricalpattern, and gender for idea units recall .129Figure 4.23: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of prior knowledge, rhetoricalpattern, and gender for importance level . 130Figure 4.24: Mean comparisons of interaction effect of prior knowledge, rhetoricalpattern, and gender for cloze test . 132xiii

List of AppendixesAppendix A: Texts Used in the Experiment .195Appendix B: Cloze Test Based on 5th Word Deletion . .197Appendix C: Idea Unit’s Tables . .199Appendix D: Farsi-Equivalent Tables of Idea Units .203Appendix E: Keys to Idea Units Rating . .207Appendix F: Prior Knowledge Awareness Test .208Appendix G: Farsi-Equivalent Prior Knowledge Awareness test .209xiv

CHAPTER IINTRODUCTION1.1. Background of the StudySince English is one of the world‟s languages of wider communication, and mostreading materials are published in this language, the priority for millions of learnersaround the world is how to get new information and read in this language. According toRivers (1981), “most of the students who learn the language will have very little chanceto converse with a native speaker and English program on TV or radio, but they will haveaccess to the literature and periodicals, or scientific and technical journals written inEnglish”. Eskey (2005, p. 563) also asserts that, “many EFL students seldom need tospeak foreign language in their daily lives but they need to read it so that they can accessthe wealth of information”. Thus, the ability to read plays a significant role in academiclearning, as well as for future social and economic opportunities and it is also a criticallyimportant skill. Bernhardt (1991) claims that reading ability is recognized to be the mostconstant and durable of the second language modalities. National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development (2000) reported that one of the most importantachievements for all students is certainly success in literacy, especially reading.Woolacott (2002) also states that, “reading is fundame

Each group was asked to recall the text and finish a cloze test after reading each of the four passages. Recall protocols (recall of idea units and importance level) and cloze test were used as the measures of reading comprehension. Both recall protocol and cloze test analysis revealed that participants displayed better recall of the familiar text than the unfamiliar text, which suggests that .

Related Documents:

RACI Knowledge User Knowledge Author Knowledge Reviewer (Content SME) Knowledge Manager / Coordinator(s) Knowledge Mgt Process Owner 1.0 Identify Knowledge AR 2.0 Author / Update Knowledge AR R 3.0 Review and Update Knowledge C R AR 4.0 Publish Knowledge I I I

3 The TSP Body of Knowledge 7 Competency Area 1: TSP Foundations and Fundamentals 9 Knowledge Area 1.1: Knowledge Work 9 Knowledge Area 1.2: TSP Prerequisite Knowledge 12 Knowledge Area 1.3: TSP Principles 14 Knowledge Area 1.4: TSP Process Elements and Measures 15 Knowledge Area 1.5: TSP Quality Practices 17

- North Black Company No knowledge - North Eastern Signs, Inc No knowledge - Noxell Corporation/Procter & Gamble Company No knowledge - Ohn Corporation No knowledge ' - Owens-Illinois No knowledge - Owens Yacht Company No knowledge - Palm Oil Recovery, IncTPon Oil No knowledge - Patterson Calendar Company No knowledge Peabody Press No knowledge

Obara (UCLA) Common Knowledge and Common Prior February 27, 2012 18 / 27. State Space Model, Common Knowledge and Common Prior Common Knowledge Theorem Event E is common knowledge at !2 (!2K1(E)) if and only if the

oil reservoir is well-known examples of tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge differs from "explicit knowledge" that is uttered and captured in drawings and writing. For ex-ample, knowledge of a solution to a differential equation . is explicit knowledge. The concept of "knowledge con-version" explains how tacit and explicit knowledge in-

knowledge, the capture of tacit knowledge, which is hard to identify and manage, is a major challenge. The thesis uses Becerra-Fernandez et al.'s knowledge management framework to establish the requirements for knowledge management, and specifically highlighting the important role of tacit knowledge in organisational knowledge processes.

Knowledge Creating. An organization has three kinds of knowledge: tacit knowledge in the expertise and experience of individuals; explicit or rule-based knowledge in artifacts, rules, and routines; and cultural knowledge in the assumptions and beliefs used by members to assign value and significance to new information or knowledge. Knowledge cre-

group of employees at his work. Derogatory homophobic : comments have been posted on the staff noticeboard about him by people from this group. Steve was recently physically pushed to the floor by one member of the group but is too scared to take action. Steve is not gay but heterosexual; furthermore the group know he isn’t gay. This is harassment related to sexual orientation. Harassment at .