تأثیر ساختار متن بر عملکرد خواندن و درک مطلب زبان آموزان ایرانی در آزمون‌های چهار جوابی و کلوز
محورهای موضوعی : روانشناسی تربیتیهدایت اسلامی 1 , مهناز سعیدی 2 , سعیده آهنگری 3
1 - گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران
2 - گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران
3 - گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران
کلید واژه: ساختار متن, روش پاسخ دهی, چهارجوابی, کلوز,
چکیده مقاله :
این تحقیق به منظور بررسی عملکرد زبان آموزان ایرانی در آزمون‌های خواندن و درک مطلب دارای ساختارهای متنی و روش‌های پاسخ‌دهی متفاوت انجام گرفته است. شرکت‌کنندگان این تحقیق ۲۲۸ نفر از دانشجویان زبان بودند که شامل ۸ گروه و بر اساس آزمون مهارت زبانی پت انتخاب شدند. چهار نوع ساختار متنی ترتیب زمانی،توصیفی، علیت و حل مسئله انتخاب و بر اساس این متون،دو نوع آزمون با شیوه پاسخ‌دهی چهارجوابی و چهارجوابی کلوز تهیه و به دانشجویان داده شد. نتایج بدست آمده نشان داد که در هر دو روش پاسخ‌دهی عملکرد دانشجویان در متون دارای انسجام متنی ساده (ترتیب زمانی و توصیفی) بهتر از عملکرد آنان در متون دارای انسجام متنی پیچیده (علیت و حل مسئله) است. علاوه بر این،عملکرد دانشجویان در روش پاسخ دهی چهارجوابی بطور معنی‌دار بهتر از عملکرد آنها در روش پاسخ‌دهی چهارجوابی کلوز در تمامی چهار نوع ساختار متنی بود. در پایان چنین نتیجه‌گیری شد که دانشجویان در ساختارهای متنی ترتیب زمانی و توصیفی عملکرد بهتری نسبت به ساختارهای متنی علیت و حل مسئله در هر دو روش پاسخ‌دهی دارند و همچنین در روش پاسخ دهی چهارجوابی بهتر از روش پاسخ‌دهی چهارجوابی کلوز در هر چهار نوع ساختار متنی هستند. معلمان می‌توانند با بهره‌گیری از نتایج این تحقیق و از طریق انتخاب بهترین روش پاسخ‌دهی برای متون دارای ساختار متنی متفاوت عملکرد دانشجویان خود را در خواندن و درک مطلب بهبود بخشند
This study was an attempt to investigate Iranian EFL students' performance on reading comprehension tests with different text structures and response formats. The participants of the study included 228 students, comprising eight groups, selected based on the Preliminary English Test (PET). Four types of text structures, time sequence (T), description (D), causation (C), problem-solution (P) were selected and two types of response formats, Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQ) and Multiple-Choice Cloze tests (MCC), based on the four text structures were developed and administered to the eight groups. The results revealed that in both response formats, the students' performance on the more loosely organized text structures (T and D) was better than their performance on the more tightly organized ones (C and P). Furthermore, the students' performance on MCQ was significantly better than on MCC response format across all four text structures. The results of the study suggested that students performed better on T and D text structures compared to C and P in both response formats and that their performance on MCQ response format was better than their performance on MCC across all four text structures. The results of the study suggest that teachers and test developers can boost their students' performance on reading comprehension tests by choosing the most appropriate response formats for different text structures
References
Ajideh, P., & Esfandiar, R. (2009). A close look at the relationship between multiple-choice vocabulary test and integrative cloze test of lexical words in Iranian context. English Language Teaching, 2 (3), 163-170.
Ajideh, P., & Mozaffarzadeh, S. (2012). A comparative study on C-test vs. cloze test as tests of reading comprehension. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2 (11), 1159-11163.
Akhondi, M. & Malayeri, F.A. (2010). Assessing reading comprehension of expository text across different response formats. Iranian Journal of Applied Studies, 3 (1), 1-26.
Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing reading, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alderson, J.C., & Banerjee, J. (2002). Language testing and assessment. Language Teaching, 35, 79-113. Doi: 10.1017/S0261444802001751.
Atai, M.R., & Soleimany, M. (2009). On the effect of text authenticity and genre on EFL learners' performance in C-tests. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 49, 109-123.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bachman, F., & Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brantmeier, C. (2005). Effects of reader’s knowledge, text type, and test type on L1 and L2 reading comprehension in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 89 (1), 37-53.
Brown, H.D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices.
U.S.A: Longman.
Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, (4), 727-752.
Cheng, K.K.Y., BiglarBaygi, A., & Solaymani, M. (2009). The effect of text authenticity on the performance of Iranian EFL students in a C-test. Research in Language, 7, 61-74.
Chehrzad, M.H., & Ajideh P. (2013). Effects of different response types on Iranian EFL test-takers' performance. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5 (2), 29-50.
Combe, C., Folse, K., & Hubley, N. (2007). A practical guide to assessing English language learners. U.S.A: The University of Michigan.
Fountas, I., & G.S. Pinell. (2001). Guiding readers and writers grades 3-6: Teaching comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Grabe, B. (2002). Using discourse patterns to improve reading comprehension. JALT, Shizouka Conference proceedings. Tokyo: Japan Association for Language Teaching.
Jiang, X. (2012). Effects of discourse structure graphic organizers on EFL reading
Comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24 (1), 84-105.
Kendeou, P., Van Den Broek, P. (2007). The effect of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35 (7), 1567-1577.
Kobayashi, M. (2002) Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: Text organization and response format. Language Testing, 19 (2), 193-220.
Kobayashi, M. (2004). Investigation of test method effects: text organization and response formats: A response to Chen. Language Testing, 21 (2), 235-244.
Liu, J. (1998). The effect of test methods on testing reading. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2, 48-52.
Liu, F. (2009). The effect of three test methods on reading comprehension. An experiment. Asian Social Sciences, 5 (6), 147-153.
Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 399-438.
Magliano, J. P., Millis, K., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In McNamara, D.S. (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, Technologies, (107-136). U.S.A. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Meyer, B. J. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In Briton, B. K., Black, J.B. (Eds.), Understanding expository text, (269-297). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyer, B., & Poon, L. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141-159.
Paltridge, B. (1996). Genre, text type, and the language learning classroom. ELT Journal, 50 (3).
Rahimi, M. (2007). L2 reading comprehension test in the Persian context: Language of presentation as a test method facet. The Reading Matrix, 7 (1), 151-165.
Rauch, D. P., & Hartig, J. (2010). Multiple-choice versus open-ended response formats of reading test items: A two-dimensional IRT analysis. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52 (4), 354-379.
Rupp, A.A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23 (4), 441-474.
Sadighi, F., Yamini, M., & Ayatollahi, M.A. (2007). Effects of text structure on reading. Modern Language Journal, 65, 43-53.
Salmani Nodoushan, M.A. (2010). The impact of formal schemata on L3 reading recall. International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 4 (4), 357-372.
Shahivand, Z., Pazhakh, A. (2012). The effects of test facets on the construct validity of the tests in Iranian EFL students. Higher Education of Social Science, 2 (1), 16-20.
Sharp, A. (2002). Chinese L1 schoolchildren reading in English: The effects of rhetorical patterns. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14 (2), 111-135.
Sharp, A. (2004). Strategies and predilections in reading expository texts: The importance of text patterns. RELC Journal, 35 (3), 329-349.
Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 1(2), 147-170.
Snyder, A.E. (2012). The effects of graphic organizers and content familiarity on second graders’ comprehension of cause and effect (Unpublished doctoral dissertation): Columbia University, U.S.A.
Sun, X. (2001). Do the different test methods have an effect on reading comprehension scores? Primary and Middle School English Teaching and Research, 3, 26-28.
Tavakoli, M., Ahmadi, A., & Bahrani, M. (2011). Cloze test and C-test revisited: The effect of genre familiarity on second language reading test performance.
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 14 (2), 173-204.
Williams, H.P., Pollini, S., Nubla-kung, A.M., Snyder, A.E., Garcia, A., Ordynans, J.G., & Atkins, J.G. (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (1), 1-17.
Wolf, D.F. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure FL reading comprehension. The Modern language Journal, 77 (4), 473-489.
Yoshida, M. (2012). The interplay of processing task, text type, and proficiency in L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24 (1), 1-29.
Zhang, X. (2008). The effect of formal schema on reading comprehension: An experiment with Chinese EFL readers. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 13 (2), 197-214.
