effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. 1982.pdf

8/13/2019 Effects on Reading Comprehension of Building Background Knowledge. 1982.pdf

1/15

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. TESOL)

Effects on Reading Comprehension of Building Background KnowledgeAuthor(s): Patricia JohnsonSource: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Dec., 1982), pp. 503-516Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586468.

Accessed: 25/01/2014 23:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:44:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3586468?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3586468?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesol


2/15

TESOL QUARTERLYVol.16. No.4December 982

Effectsn Reading ComprehensionfBuilding ac.kgroundnowledgePatriciaJohnson

Thisexperimentaltudy nvestigatedhe ffects nreadingomprehen-sion fbuilding ackgroundnowledge.hefollowingpecificoints ereaddressed.Wouldprior ulturalxperienceavedifferentffects nESLstudents'eadingomprehensionf nformationinked oa familiarspectofan Americanustomncomparisono nformationinkedoan unknownaspect fthis ustom?Would ime fpresentationf themeaningsfpre-selected nfamiliarocabulary ordsnthe amepassagehave differenteffectsnreading omprehension?eventywo dvanced SL studentsntheuniversityevelreada passage nthe opic f Halloween. hepassagecontained nfamiliarnd familiarnformationasedonthe ubjects'ecentexperiencef this ustom. ubjects tudied hemeaningsfpreselectedunfamiliarocabulary ords efore eadingnd/or ound hemnthe ext.Statisticalnalysisfthe ecall fthepassage nd of the entenceecogni-tion askndicates hat rior ulturalxperiencerepared eaders or om-prehensionf thefamiliarnformationboutHalloween nthepassage.However, xposureomeaningsf the argetocabulary ords y nyofthetreatmentseemsnotto have a significantffect nreading ompre-hension.

Characteristics f a textcan have a large impact on readers' abilitytocomprehend t.The cultural ackground fthetopicand the evel of vocab-ularydifficultyfa passage influence eadingcomprehension.Goodman (1971) has describedreadingas a cyclicalprocess by whichareaderreconstructs textby sampling,predicting, esting,nd confirming.Goodman's arguments that hegood reader takesadvantageof theredun-dancy nherentn anguagewhichenablesa reconstructionf thewhole textalthoughonlya partofthegraphicmaterialhas been extracted.Once suchan internal econstructionf thetextualmessagehas takenplace, thereadertests tsaccuracyagainstprevious nformation.revious nformationan bethe informationxtractedfrom textas well as the reader'sbackgroundknowledgeon thetopicofa text.When thereader confirms hat herecon-structions inagreementwithpreviousknowledge,then hecyclicalprocessofsamplingbeginsagain. Ifthere s someinconsistencyrinaccuracynthereconstructionf a textbecause of a conflictwiththe reader'sbackgroundknowledge,thereadermayrereadthe textormaynotbelieve the nforma-

Ms..Johnson s Assistant rofessor n Applied Linguistics t the University f Wisconsin,GreenBay.Her researchnterestsncludesecondlanguageacquisition, eading omprehension,and teacher ducation. 503

This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:44:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/15

504 TESOL Quarterlytion in the textuntil ater when a more plausible reconstruction an beconfirmed.Fluentand proficient eaders of a passage in theirnativelanguagewillrecoverquicklyfromwrong guesses fortextualmeaning.ESL readers,ontheotherhand,maynotrecover n such a successfulmanner nd inaccurateinformationxtracted rom he textmay ead to inaccurate aterpredictionsformeaning.ESL readerswould also probablyhave to samplemuchmorefrom the textin order to derive the same amount of meaning as fluentreaders.They mayalso dependmoreonbackgroundknowledgeof thetopicthanon linguistic nalysisof thetextforcomprehensionnd reconstructionof a passage because oftheirncompleteknowledgeofthe anguage. (For adiscussionof ESL readingbased on the Goodman model,see Buck,1975.)The relation fbackgroundknowledgeto text omprehensionnprocess-ing and recalling nformation as been studied by schema theorists. heearliestworkwas byBartlett1932)whoproposed that heorganization fareader'spast experiences directlynfluences hecomprehension nd reten-tionofmaterialsna passage. In otherwords,readersunderstand passageby analyzingthetext ccordingto their chema,an internal rganization fpastpersonal xperiences.Kant 1963) and Woodworth 1938)have used theterm, chema; Charniak (1975) and Minsky 1975), frame;Lehnert 1977)and Schank and Abelson (1975),script;Becker 1973),Bobrow and Norman(1975),and Rumelhart nd Ortony 1972),schemata.The view of schema theory sserts thatactivatingor buildingreaders'existingknowledge priorto readingwould improveand/oralterreadingcomprehension nd recall. Thus, theprovisionof vicariousor real experi-ences would fill n or expand the readers' existing ulturallydeterminedbackgroundknowledgeof a topicand would preparethemto comprehendand retainmaterial n that opic nthereadingpassage thatfollowed.Two studies on the effectof providingpriorcultural nformationhowcontrastingesults orESL students' eadingcomprehension.Yousef 1968)foundthateven after n intensive ultural rientation,Middle Easternstu-dents were not able to interpretexts rom he American ulturebecause ofnegativeattitudes.He concluded thatthestudents' esistance o Americanculture educed theirmotivationnd efforts o earn.Gatbonton nd Tucker(1971) suggestthat nappropriatevalues, attitudes, nd judgments ed toFilipinoESL students'misunderstandingfAmerican iterature.However,when they provided relevant cultural nformation,heir tudents'readingcomprehensionmproved.Both ofthese studieswere conducted inforeignsettingswhere there was littlecontactwith Americanculture.Could realexperienceswithinthe American cultureprovide background nformationand have a positiveeffect n thereadingcomprehension nd retention f apassage set ntheAmerican ultural ontext?The emphasison thedevelopmentofvocabularyknowledge in readingtextbooksmay encourage word-by-wordreading and consequentlymay



4/15

EffectsfBuilding ackgroundnowledge 505preventthe ESL reader from the developmentof the skill of processingsyntax nd context n samplingand confirmingormeaning.Smith 1971)arguesthat etter-by-letterrword-by-word eading s detrimental oread-ingcomprehension. he meaningofonewordmaybe forgotten eforethenext word is built or understood nd thus,no meaningful elationshipsanbe established etweenwords.In researchon perceptualprocesses nreading,Kolers (1973) foundthatreading s not at all a precise perceptualprocessof sequentialword recog-nition.More informations contributed y the readerthanby theprint nthepage. That is,readers understandwhatthey ead because they reableto take the stimulusbeyond its graphicrepresentationo an appropriategroupofconcepts alreadystored ntheirmemories.Nevertheless, ocabularydevelopment s consideredessential o readingcomprehension. trongcorrelations ave regularlybeen found for nativelanguagereadersbetweenknowledgeofword:meanings nd ability ocom-prehendpassages containing hesewords and betweenworddifficultyndreadingpassage difficulty.For a review of these tudies, ee Anderson ndFreebody1979.)Experimental tudiesoftheeffect f wordknowledgeon native anguagereading comprehensionhave shownmixed results n comparisonwith thecorrelational tudies. For example,Wittrock,Marks, nd Doctorow (1974)found thatpassages inwhich15% fthewordshad been changedto lower-frequency ynonymsed to about 25%decrease in performance n subse-quentcomprehensionuestionsfornative anguagereaders. n a later tudy(1975),they ound hatdirect nstructionn low-frequency ords mprovedperformancef readers on comprehension uestions.On the otherhand, there are studieswhichhave failedto establishthedirectrelationship etweenvocabulary difficultynd readingcomprehen-sion. Tuinman and Brady (1974) found thatan instructional rogramonvocabularyresulted nan increase nnative anguagereaders'performanceona vocabularytestbyanaverageofabout20%.However,themeansfor hereading comprehensionmeasures were almost denticalforpassages withand without reteaching ocabulary. Jenkins, any,and Schreck 1978) re-portedsimilarresults.They foundthatwhereasvocabularytraining rans-ferred osingle entences ontaining argetwords,therewas no effect ue toincreased word knowledgeon broader measuresof thecomprehension fnative anguagereaders.

In research on reading comprehension n a foreign anguage, Johnson(1981)found hat implificationfvocabulary ndsyntax eemedto havenoeffect n thecomprehensionf a passage ofthe amecultural ackground sthe ESL readers.However, theirreading comprehensionwas betterfor apassage of foreign ulturaloriginwhen thevocabularyand syntaxweresimplified. f themeaningsof words crucial to comprehensionhad beenpretaught eforereadingthepassage of foreign ultural rigin,would the



5/15

506 TESOL Quarterlysubjectshave understoodtheunadapted version as well as the simplifiedversion? f culturalbackground knowledgehad been expanded,would thesubjectshave understood hepassage offoreign ultural rigin s well as thepassage dealingwiththeir wn cultural ackground?Suchquestions ed to thestudy eported nthis rticle.The specificpointsaddressed were thefollowing:Would prior experience in the American culture affectESL students'comprehensionof a passage on the topic of an Americancustom,Hallo-ween? Would thispriorexperiencehave differentffectson the readingcomprehension f informationinked to a familiar spect of Halloween incomparison o that inkedto an unknown spectof Halloween?Would the exposure to meaningsof difficult ocabulary words in thepassage affect omprehension f ESL readers?Wouldprior tudy fvocab-ulary nd/orglossing ocabulary nthepassagehave differentffects n thecomprehension f a readingpassage?A studywas designedtoobtain more data on theextent fthese nfluenceson thereadingcomprehension f ESL students.The effects fprior xperi-ence intheAmerican ulture nd exposureto difficultocabularywordsonthereading comprehension f thepassage were measuredby an analysisofthe subjects'written ecall, theirrecognition f sentencescontaining rueinformation,nd their erformance n a vocabularydoze test.MethodologyThe study ample consistedof 72 students rom he advanced levelread-ing classes at the Center forEnglish as a Second Language at SouthernIllinois University.The studentsrepresented23 nationalities, he largestgroupswere 16 studentsfromMalaysia and 13 fromTunisia. The averagelength f thesubjects' tay nthe USA at thetimeof theresearch estwas 16Wweeks. A comparisonof the standarizedscores for these studentson theMichiganTest ofEnglishProficiencywith henormsprovidedwiththis estindicatesthattheirEnglish proficiencywas below the evel usuallyrecom-mended forfulltimecademic work.The topicofthereadingpassagewas thecelebration f Halloween. All butone subjectindicatedparticipationn thecity-wide elebrationtwo weeksprior o theresearch est.The readingpassage had two sections.One sectioncontained nformationssumed to be familiar o thesubjects:a descriptionof thecostumes,masks, nd thecustomoftrick-or-treatf Halloween today(firstparagraph), a descriptionof the witch as a centralsymbol (secondparagraph),and a concludinggeneralized comparisonof Halloween todaywith the past (fifth aragraph). The other section contained informationbelieved to be unfamiliar o even native readers:thecelebrationofHallo-ween in thehistoricalpast (thirdparagraph) and the different egrees ofwitchcraftt that ime fourth aragraph).The familiar nd unfamiliarectionsof thepassage were constructedwith



6/15


7/15

508 TESOL Quarterlyof the reading passage. Sentencesin the written ecalls which showed acorrectrecall of the passage were counted. In addition,those sentenceswhich contained relations between propositionswere given a separatecount.A propositionwas counted as recalled f t was verbatim rexpressedthegistof thepropositionnthepassage. Lexical andrelational ropositionsas well as compatibleand incompatible nferenceswere totaledseparately.Compatibleinferencesmade inrecall ncludedsummarytatements,extualimplications,nd elaborations f textual nformation ased on backgroundcultural nowledge. ncompatible nferenceswere distortions fthepassageinrecall because ofa misunderstandingftextualmplications r because ofa lack ofbackground ultural nowledgeora culturally iased misinterpre-tationof the topic of the passage. (Examples of these differentypesofpropositionsnrecall will be discussed ater.)The dependentvariable in the sentencerecognition ask was the totalnumber of confirmationsf true statements nd rejectionsof false state-ments.The dependentvariables nthecloze testwerean exact-word coringof the insertion f thetargetvocabulary n thepassage and a semanticallyacceptable scoringoftherecall of boththetargetwords and definitions rsynonymsfthesewordsgiven ntheoriginal ocabulary ist.ResultsPriorexperience n theAmerican ulture eemed to affectESL students'comprehensionof a passage on thetopic of an Americancustom,Hallo-ween. This priorexperiencehad different ffects n thereading compre-hensionof informationinkedto a familiar spect of Halloween in com-parison to that inked to an unknownaspect of Halloween. Four of theeleven dependentvariables in Table 1 indicategreaterrecall of familiarinformation romthe passage. Subjects wrote more sentenceswhich ex-pressedcorrectly herelations etweenpropositionsn thepassage and re-called more totalpropositions,ncludingboth lexical and relational ropo-sitions.There are no significant ifferences n means in the recall ofunfamiliarnformationrom hepassage.Data foreightof thedependentvariablesin Table 2 indicatea signifi-cantlybetterwritten ecallof thefamiliar nformationnthepassage thanoftheunfamiliarnformation.ubjects nall fourgroupswrotemoresentencescontaining ccurate information romthe familiar ectionof thepassage.Theiruse ofrelations etweenpropositionsnwritten ecallreflectedmoreaccuratelythe organization nd semanticcohesion of the passage. Theyrecalledmore exical and relational ropositionsnd made more nferenceswhichwere compatiblewiththetextof the familiar ection.Althoughn-spectionofmeanssuggestsmore ncompatible nferencesmade inrecall oftheunfamiliarectionofthepassage,all differences renon-significant.Whenthe means ofthedependentvariable ofrecognition finformation



8/15

EffectsfBuilding ackgroundnowledge 509TABLE 1

Analysis f VarianceResultsFor Effects f Familiar and Unfamiliar)nformationon Recall of Text withinGroupsGroup1 Group2 Group3 Group4X X X X F-value

Sentences nRecallTotal Sentences 6.22 (3.50) 6.39 (3.50) 5.61 (1.78) 4.83 (2.28) 2.07 (2.57)WithRelationalPropositions 5.50 (2.72) 6.22 (3.22) 4.94 (1.67) 4.22 (2.11) 2.75*(1.67)Propositions ecalledTotal Propositions 30.33 15.00) 36.28 (18.89) 25.33 (10.61) 22.06 (11.06) 3.71'(1.44)RelationalPropositions 13.00 6.17) 15.95 8.28) 10.78 6.33) 9.33 ( 4.67) 3.72*( .83)Lexical Propositions 17.33 8.83) 20.33 10.61) 14.56 4.28) 12.72 6.39) 3.62 (1.87)Compatible nferencesTotal Propositions 5.06 ( .22) 8.00 ( .94) 7.06 ( .61) 7.61 (1.06) .86 ( .94)RelationalPropositions 2.44 (..11) 3.89 ( .50) 3.44 ( .33) 3.67 ( .56) .85 (1.00)Lexical Propositions 2.61 ( .11) 4.11 ( .44) 3.61 ( .28) 3.94 ( .50) .86 ( .85)Incompatible nferencesTotal Propositions .72 (4.72) 1.89 2.72) 1.78 2.17) 1.00 1.67) .91 (1.11)RelationalPropositions .39 (2.11) .94 (1.39) .94 (1.11) .50 ( .83) .88 ( .96)Lexical Propositions .33 (2.61) .94 (1.33) .83 (1.06) .50 ( .83) .94 (1.21)Note: Means and F-valuesinparenthesesndicate theanalysisof varianceresults or ffects funfamiliarinformationn recall of textwithin roups.aN=18 for ach group;overall N=72.*p


9/15

510 TESOL Quarterlyfromhe assagere xaminednTable , t s earnedhatesultsre imilarto those found withthewritten ecall of thepassage. Subjects of all fourgroupsmoreaccurately ecognized nformation rom he familiar ectionofthepassage incomparison otheunfamiliarection, lthough hedifferencebetweenmeans s significantoronlyGroups1, 2, and 4.

TABLE 3DependentT-TestResultsFor Effects fFamiliarvs. Unfamiliarnformationon SentenceRecognitionwithinGroupsFamiliar Unfamiliar

Information InformationX X T-value

Group1 5.11 3.73 4.93*Group2 5.22 4.39 2.73*Group3 5.06 4.61 1.64Group4 5.33 4.28 2.89*N=18for ach group;overall N=72.*p < .01

The exposureto meaningsof difficult ocabularywords in thepassageseemed not toaffect hecomprehension fESL readers.Post-hoc ompari-sons (Scheff6 est) ndicate that ignificantffects orthedependentvari-ables in Table 2 can be explainedby a difference etween themeans ofGroup 2 subjects' recall of the passage and those of Group 4. Group 2subjects,who studiedthemeaningsof thetargetwords beforereadingthepassage, recalledmoreaccuratelypropositions rom he text hanGroup4subjects,who studied the vocabularywords beforereadingand had thedefinitions f those words glossed in the passage, F = 3.70, p < .01. Acomparisonof typesof propositions hows thatGroup2 subjectsrecalledmore exicalpropositions r idea units, = 3.61,p < .01,and more relationsorlinksbetweenpropositions, = 3.72,p < .01,thanGroup4 subjects.Thewritten ecallsofGroup2 subjectsalso containedmoresentences xpressingrelationsbetween propositions nd thusreflectedbetterthe semanticco-hesion ofthepassage than hose ofGroup4 subjects,F = 2.75,p < .05.A univariateF-test ndicatesno significantifferencesn meansbetweengroupsfor the recognition f true nformationn paraphrasesof passagesentencescontaining he targetvocabularywords. Univariate F-tests lsoindicateno significant ifferencesnmeansbetween groupsforeither heexact-word coringor thesemantically cceptable scoringof thecloze teston thetarget ocabularywords ofthepassage.



10/15

EffectsfBuilding ackground nowledge 511Discussion.

The variable oftopicfamiliarityr cultural ontext f a passage providesinformationbout the nterpretationf a passage interms fpersonalknowl-edge. Resultsof thestatisticalnalysis eem to ndicatethat ealexperienceswithin hecultural ontextprovided background nformationor moreef-fectivereadingcomprehension fa passage. Subjectswere notonlyable torecallmoreexplicit nd implicitnformationuttheir ndividual entencesnwritten ecallreflectedmoreaccurately he cohesive ties and relations e-tween dea units rpropositionsnthe familiar ectionofthepassage.In order to illustratemoreclearlythe interaction fbackgroundknowl-edge and cohesion nrecall,uncorrected xamplesfrom hereaders'writtenrecallsof thetextfollow n excerptfrom hereadingpassage.Halloweensfun or verybody.eopleputonmasks, ressncostumes,ndturn ntomonsters.hey hen oout nto he treetsohave fun ndmaybescare omeone.excerptedromaragraph)1. Theywearmasks and changecompletelyhow they eally ook.]2. [It dependson the ndividualwhichtypesof]masks theywant]towear.The portionof therecall in brackets #1) s a textual nference rom hesecond sentence n thepassage. Cultural nferences#2)fromthe textualproposition,people putonmasks),arebased on thesubject'sexperience ntheculture.Both nferences recompatiblewiththemeaningofthe text.The following xamplescontaincultural nferences:n example inferredfrom hefirstentence #3) nd an example nferred rom hethird entence(#4) n theexcerptfrom hepassage. Both nferences,ompatiblewith themeaningof thepassage, are based on thesubjects'personal experiences fHalloween and illustrateheir ttempts o reconstruct plausiblerecall ofthepassage.3. People enjoythisday [because theyprepareforthe celebration nd usethecolorsorangeand black.]4. [Everyyear]people go [downtown] ocelebrateHalloween. [Youcan seepeople who come from ther owns]toenjoythisbig day.Expressedrelationalpropositions #3) re cause (because ... black) inrelationto enjoy,additive (... and . . .) and more specific nformation(orangeandblack) inrelation ocolors.Relationalpropositionsnthefirstsentence #4) xpress ime everyyear), place (downtown), nd cause (tocelebrate Halloween) in relationto go. Relationalpropositions n the

second sentence #4) xpressmorespecific nformationwho ... towns)inrelation opeople and cause (to ... day) inrelation o come.All oftheserelationalpropositions re cultural nferencesfromthe subjects'back-groundknowledgeofHalloween and aid inreconstructionf a coherent,meaningful assage.Hallidayand Hasan (1976) detail varioustypesofcohesive ties evidentintexts: eference,ubstitution/ellipsis,onjunction,nd lexical cohesion.



11/15

512 TESOL QuarterlyThe connectionof such temsacross sentencesdefinesthe semantic on-tinuity r cohesivenessof a text.The cohesive itemsexemplified n thesubjects'written ecallsreflect herelationship etweensentences n thefamiliar ectionofthepassage.5. Halloweenis [a very pecialday]/when oldand young]putoncostumes/and [theygather ogethern a chosenplace, forexample,a street n thecity.]The firstwoportions/Halloween.. costumes/containxplicitnformationand textual nferencesinbrackets)recalled from hefirstnd second sen-tences ntheexcerpt.The third ortion,/and.. city/,s a culturalnferencefromthethird entence n theexcerpt.Cohesive tiesare identified s ref-erencebythe use ofthey nd ellipsisbyyoung nd old,both nreference opeople. Substitutions identified ywheninreference oday and bystreetin reference o place. An example of semantic connection s and, a con-junctive tem.6. People [walk ingroups]/anddress ndifferent indsofclothes likeani-mals orother ountry rwhatever]/and they alkwith ach other nddoeverything]ohave fun.The firstnd third ortions#6) ontain xplicitpropositionsnd culturalinferences rom hethird entence n theexcerpt.The second portion on-

tainsrecallofexplicitpropositions nd textual nd cultural nferences romthesecond sentence.Conjunctive ohesion s identified yand betweenthefirstnd second portions nd between the second and thirdportions.Ref-erence cohesion is identifiedby they n the thirdportion n reference opeople in the first ortion.Substitutions identifiedby whateverand doeverythingnreference o a cultural xperienceof thesubject.The precedingexamples show thattextualcohesioncan be understoodwhenthereaderappropriatelydentifieshetopicofa passage accordingtoan existingchema. n otherwords,recognizing hat text saboutthetopicof Halloween in the first entence of thereadingpassage seems to makepossible theprocessingof cohesive elementsor semanticcontinuityn thetext.However, recognition f the topicmay result n a loss of textual o-hesion nrecallwhenthere sa lack ofbackground nformationn thetopic.Subjects may recognize the topic, Halloween, but the description f thehistorical spect ofthecustom s new informationo them.Therefore, heirsentences n recall may containrelations xpressedbetween propositionsand cohesivetieswhichdo notreflect hepassage accurately.The followingexcerpt s from he sectionofthepassage containing nfamiliarnformationfor hereaders,followedbyuncorrectedxamplesfrom hereaders'writtenrecallofthetext.

Theassembledwitches owed toobeytheir od,themaster itchwho wasdisguiseds ananimal. heypledged heirhildren o thegodandthankedhim or ood ndfor ife. hereligiouseremonyas followedyfeastingnddancing. hewitchesressed plike nimals.excerptedrom aragraph)



12/15

EffectsfBuilding ackgroundnowledge 5131. The witchwears likethe animals because] thegod is like an animal.2. Theywerefeasting, ancingand singing as] theywereflying.These examplesfrom eaders'written ecall (#1, ) contain ncorrect ela-tions in brackets)betweenexplicitpropositions ecalledfrom hetext.Thesecondexamplealso contains xplicit nformationn the first lauserecalledfrom he third aragraph nincorrect elation o explicit nformationnthesecond clause recalled fromthe second paragraphof thepassage. Thesesentences llustrate ow the readers ttempted omakea plausibleand con-nected nterpretationfmaterialwhichwas notfully omprehended.In theexcerptfrom hetext, he exicalcohesive tem, eligious eremony,is a textual nferencenthefirst wo sentences nd is identified y thefirstword in the third entence.The following xamples (#3, , 5) show a mis-interpretationfthis ohesivetie whichresultsn ncorrectextualnferencesfor hereasonsforthewitches'meeting.3. They promiseGod [tomakea good job.]4. There sa story bout thewitchwheretheypromise heirmaster ndgod,[buttheyhad broken heir romises.]5. The witcheshad a meeting todiscusshow tocontrol hepeople.]The next woexamples #6, ) show distortionsftheunfamiliarection fthepassage. Subjectsmake cultural nferenceswhichrefer o thefamiliarsectionofthepassage orto their wn personalexperiences fHalloween,atimeforfun nd nota seriousreligious eremony s inthepast.6. They will pray to God and dress [in differentypesof masks so as tofrightenhepeople. They like thepeople to look at their glyfacesandfunny haracters.]7. It was important for hepeople] because [although heydidn'tbelieveinit,]theywantedtothanknsomeway for heir oodand lives.The precedingare onlya fewexamplesof the nteraction etweensub-jects' culturally xperiencedbackgroundknowledgeand their omprehen-sionof textual ohesion.However, theseexamples indicatethattheirmis-understandingf textualmeaning n the inguisticevel saccompaniedbyamisunderstandingn theconceptual evel. The problemswith anguageintheirwritten ecalls of the unfamiliar ection of the passage seem to beactuallyproblemscaused bya lack ofbackgroundknowledgeon thetopic.Building backgroundknowledge on the historical spect of Halloweenmighthave improvedtheir eadingcomprehensionnd written roductioninEnglish.

The variable of vocabularyknowledge or difficultys a variable mostlikelyto influence hereader'scomprehension n the word and sentencelevel. However,theeffects fvocabularydifficultynreadingcomprehen-sion arenotas clearas the effects fbackgroundknowledge. ftheattemptto increasecomprehension hrough heexplanationof difficult ocabularywords had had an effect n reading comprehension, henGroup1 subjectswould have performed ignificantly orse on thereadingcomprehension



13/15


14/15

Effects fBuildingBackgroundKnowledge 515REFERENCES

Anderson,RichardC. and PeterFreebody. 1979. Vocabularyknowledge. (ERICDocumentReproduction erviceNo. ED 177480).Bartlett, rederickC. 1932.Remembering. ondon:Cambridge Universityress.Becker,JosephD. 1973. A model for heencodingofexperientialnformation.n R.Schank and K. Colby (Eds.) Computermodels of thought nd language. SanFrancisco:W. H. FreemanPublishing o.Bobrow, Daniel G. and Donald A. Norman. 1975. Some principlesof memoryschemata. n D. G. Bobrow and A. M. Collins (Eds.) Representationnd under-standing:tudiesncognitivecience.New York:Academic ress.Buck,Catherine.1975.Miscues of non-native peakersof English. n K. Goodman(Ed.) Miscue analysis.Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse n Readingand Com-prehension kills.Charniak,E. 1975. Organization nd inferencen a frame-likeystem f common

knowledge.nProceedingsftheoreticalssues n naturalanguage rocessing:An interdisciplinary orkshop.Cambridge, MA: Bolt,Baranekand NewmanPublishing o.Gatbonton,Elizabeth C. and G. Richard Tucker. 1971.Culturalorientation nd thestudy fforeigniterature. ESOL Quarterly, , 2:137-143.Goodman,Kenneth . 1971.Psycholinguisticniversalsn thereadingprocess. n P.Pimsleur and T. Quinn (Eds.) The psychologyof second language learning.Cambridge,Eng.: CambridgeUniversity ress.Grimes,JosephE. 1972.The thread fdiscourse. thaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversity.Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruquaiya Hasan. Cohesion inEnglish.London: Longmans,Green and Co.Jenkins,.R.,O. Pano andJ. chreck. 978.Vocabularyndreadingomprehension:Instructionalffects.ERIC DocumentReproduction erviceNo. ED 160-999).Johnson, atricia. 1981.Effects n readingcomprehension f languagecomplexityand cultural ackground f a text.TESOL Quarterly, 5,2:169-181.Kant, mmanuel. 1963.Critiqueof pure reason. (IE, 1781; 2E, 1787,Kemp Smithtranslator). ondon:MacMillanPublishing o.Kintsch,Walter.1974. The representationf meaning n memory.Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.Kolers,PaulA. 1973.Threestagesofreading. n F. Smith Ed.) Psycholinguisticsndreading.New York:Holt,Rinehartnd Winston ublishing o.Lehnert,Wendy. 1977. Human and computational uestionanswering.CognitiveScience 1:47-73.Meyer, onnie . 1975.Theorganizationfprose ndits ffectsnmemory. m-sterdam:NorthHollandPublishing o.Minsky,Marvin. 1975. A framework orrepresenting nowledge. n P. H. Winston(Ed.) The psychology f computervision.New York:McGraw-HillPublishingCo.Rumelhart, avid E. and AndrewOrtony.1977.The representationfknowledge nmemory. n R. C. Anderson,R. J.Spiro,and W. E. Montague Eds.) Schoolingandthe cquisitionf knowledge. illsdale,N. J.:Lawrence rlbaumAssoci-ates.Schank,Roger C. and RobertP. Abelson. 1977.Scripts,plans,goals, and under-standing.Hillsdale,N. J.:LawrenceErlbaum Associates.Smith, rank. 971.Understandingeading: psycholinguisticnalysis f readingand learning oread. New York:Holt,Rinehartnd Winston ublishing o.Tuinman,J.Jaap and MaryElla Brady. 1974. How does vocabulary account forvarianceonreading omprehensionests?Apreliminarynstructionalnalysis.nP. L. Nacke Ed.) Interaction:esearchndpracticeor ollege-adulteading.Clemson,S.C.: NationalReadingConference.West,Michael. 1953.A generalservice listof Englishwords. London: Longmans,Green & Co.



15/15

516 TESOL QuarterlyWittrock,M. C., CarolynMarks, nd MarleneDoctorow. 1974. Wordfrequencynreadingcomprehension. ournal fEducationalResearch,67:259-262.Wittrock,M. C. 1975.Reading as a generative rocess.Journal fEducationalPsy-chology, 7:484-489.Woodworth,RobertS. 1938.Experimental sychology.New York:Holt,Rinehart&Winston ublishing o.Yousef,Fathi S. 1968. Cross-cultural esting:An aspect of theresistance eaction.Language earning,8,3-4:227-234.

effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. 1982.pdf

Documents