Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2007 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1

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

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

Pages
447–465
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study aimed at investigating the separate and simultaneous combined effects of the content and formal schemata on Turkish EFL students’ reading comprehension.
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

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.

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇEKİÇ, H. (2022). İçerik ve Metin Tiplerine İlişkin Ön Bilgi Oluşturmanın Türk Yabancı Dil Öğrencilerinin Okumasına Etkisi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1, 447–465. https://ajindex.com/articles/439013

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Adams, M. J. & Collins, A. A Schemata-Theoretic View of Reading. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., 1977.
  2. 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.
  3. Aron, H. “The Influence of Background Knowledge on Memory for Reading Passages by Native and Nonnative Readers”. TESOL Quarterly. ……………., 136-145. 1986.
  4. Barnett, M. A. “ Syntactic and Lexical /semantic Skill in Foreign Language Reading: Importance and Interaction ”. The Modern Language Journal. 70, 4, 343-3 1986.
  5. Bartu, H. “Can’t I Read Without Thinking”. Reading in A Foreign Language. 13/2, 2001.
  6. 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.
  7. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1993.
  8. 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.
  9. Blan, E. K. “The effects of Syntax on Readability for ESL Students in Puerto Rico ”TESOL Quarterly. 16, 4, 517-527. 1982
  10. Block, E.L. “See How They Read: Comprehension Monitoring of L1 and L2 Readers”. TESOL Quarterly. 26, 2, 319-343. 1992.
  11. Block, E. L. “The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers”. TESOL Quarterly. 20, 3, 463-494. 1986.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Carrell, P. L. “Three Components of Background Knowledge in Reading Comprehension”. Language Learning. 33, 2, 183-207. 1983.
  16. Carrell. P. L. “Schemata Theory and ESL Reading: Classroom Implication and Applications”. The Modern Language Journal. 68, 4, 332-343. 1984a
  17. Carrell, P. L. “Effects of Rhetorical Organization on ESL Readers”. TESOL Quarterly. 18, 3, 441-469. 1984b.
  18. Carrell, P. L. “Facilitating ESL Reading by Teaching Text Structure”.