Bensoussan, M. (1990). EFL reading as seen through translation and discourse analysis: Narrative vs. expository texts. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 49-66.
This study focuses on using translation of narrative and expository texts "to examine reading problems by means of discourse analysis of students' translations" (p.49). The participants of the study were advanced EFL students from a reading comprehension course at the University of Haifa in Israel. Information was gathered from two groups of students. The first group, consisting of 105 students, read the expository text. The second group, consisting of 30 students who spoke Hebrew and 30 students who spoke Arabic, read the narrative text. The expository text presented a logical sequence of ideas. The narrative text presented a dramatic situation. The researcher analyzed the translated versions of the original texts in English at two structural levels. At the macro-level, the researcher analyzed global understanding of the text. At the micro-level, the analysis involved detailed features of the texts. These features are utterance level structures (propositional content and communicative function) and word-level structures (vocabulary, pronoun agreement, and grammatical cohesion). The results show that overall students had difficulty with propositional content, vocabulary, and pronoun agreement when reading narrative and expository texts. Communicative function was difficult for readers of the narrative texts, whereas grammatical cohesion was difficult for readers of the expository text. The conclusion of the study is that translation can be an effective tool to evaluate reading comprehension of the organizational structure of a text.
"Though these findings do not clearly lead to a specific theoretical framework, they do indicate that differences among types of text or discourse should be accounted for in research on reading comprehension. As Grimes and his students have shown, cultures may differ greatly in their expectations about how a narrative should be organized and appreciated (Grimes, 1975, 1978). We may well conjecture that similar cultural factors apply to an expository text, and there is no reason to suppose that they need work the same way as for narratives." (p.62)
I think that this quotation summarizes the goal of the study, which was to find out if students read narrative and expository texts the same way.
Grimes, J. (1975). The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
How can teachers use contrastive analysis to address problems of EFL students who speak the same native language? Please send ideas or comments to gs04tdd@panther.gsu.edu
Return to Summary | Return to Top
Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 727-752.
This article presents information gathered from a study whose purpose was to find out whether teaching text structure to ESL students in reading courses has positive outcomes in reading comprehension. First, the author reports and discusses various studies that researchers have conducted in the past to find out the role of schemata in reading comprehension of narrative and expository texts. In particular, she discusses studies that involved teaching the students how to approach texts based on their structure. Second, the author reports the results of a study that she conducted to find out whether teachers can facilitate ESL reading comprehension by teaching text structure. The study involved 25 high-intermediate ESL students enrolled in the ESL program at Southern Illinois University. The students were divided into two groups. The experimental group went through training sessions that covered four major discourse types of expository texts (comparison, causation, problem/solution, and collection of descriptions). The control group also went through training sessions that focused on grammar and content rather than on rhetorical organization. Both groups took a pre-test and a post-test. The tests used in the study "consisted of reading each text, writing an immediate free recall, and identifying the text's overall organization by answering an open-ended question" (p.737). The tests were scored based on the quantity of ideas recalled, the quality of idea units recalled, and the organization of the text. Based on the results of the study, the author concludes that teaching text structure to ESL students can facilitate reading comprehension of different types of texts.
"The findings of this study are noteworthy, since, as was mentioned earlier, no previously published research has shown that such explicit training does indeed enhance ESL reading comprehension. Although researchers have previously called for such teaching and although many ESL classroom reading teachers may already incorporate such training into their lesson plans, for the first time we have tangible evidence that such training can yield a positive outcome." (p.742)
This quotation is significant because the author points out that the study's results serve as evidence that teaching text structure helps ESL students improve their reading comprehension skills of academic texts. Teachers can feel confident about teaching text structure because there is a study that shows that this is an effective pedagogical tool in teaching reading.
Where can ESL/EFL teachers find different types of texts to use in the classroom for analysis? What types of texts are students in EAP programs most likely to read? Please send ideas or comments to gs04tdd@panther.gsu.edu
Return to Summary | Return to Top
Flick, W.C. & Anderson, J.I. (1980). Rhetorical difficulty in scientific English: A study in reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 14 (3), 345-351.
" We feel that this study has important implications for teaching and materials development in English for Science and Technology. While ESL materials are frequently graded with respect to grammatical and lexical difficulty, they are seldom graded with respect to rhetorical difficulty. In fact, ESL materials are often simplified rhetorically and do not contain much implicit information. We feel that more difficult materials should be used in order to give students additional practice in discerning implicit relationships in English." (p.351)
I think this quotation is important because it calls our attention as teachers to a problem that students have when reading scientific texts in academic courses. We need to understand the information presented in this article to provide students with practice exercises that help them feel comfortable identifying and comprehending explicit definitions as well as implicit definitions in context.
What types of activities can help students improve their reading comprehension of scientific texts? Please send ideas or comments to gs04tdd@panther.gsu.edu
Return to Summary | Return to Top
"If , in fact, the nature of a writing task is determined by what the writer is given, it follows that tasks in which different 'things' are given are essentially different. Likewise, it follows that if the starting points of the tasks we give our university-bound students are essentially different from those they are given in the university, we are doing them a disservice and should adjust our pedagogy accordingly."(p.453)
I think that this quotation is important because the author communicates the main point of the article and brings to our attention the importance of teaching skills that students need to be successful in academic settings.
How can ESL teachers use academic texts and writing tasks to prepare students for academic courses at the undergraduate level? Please send ideas or comments to gs04tdd@panther.gsu.edu
Return to Summary | Return to Top
Tadros, A.(1992). Predictive categories in expository text. In M.Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 69-82). London: Routledge.
In this essay, the author discusses prediction as an interaction between the writer and the reader through a text. Prediction is defined as "a prospective rhetorical device which commits the writer at one point in the text to a future discourse act" (p.70). Based on the analysis of different expository texts, the author identifies six categories of prediction and provides examples to illustrate the different functions of these categories in context. The categories are enumeration, advance labelling, reporting, recapitulation, hypotheticality, and question. Enumeration involves listing. Advance labelling is used by the writer to commit himself/herself to perform a discourse act such as comparing ideas. Reporting is used to introduce the ideas of others. Recapitulation refers to recalling the readers attention to something that has already been mentioned in the text. Hypotheticality is used by the writer to present a situation in order to illustrate the message that is being conveyed in the text. Finally, question is the category used by the writer to call the reader's attention to a point that is about to be discussed. The author points out that these categories are combined in a text to communicate information to the reader. The conclusion of the essay is that by examining the functions of predictive categories, ESL students can improve their reading and writing skills in different fields of study.
" As Johns rightly observes, some texts are difficult to read not because of subject matter, but because they are 'badly written'. By 'badly written' he means that the writer fails to set up a basis for reader prediction, or fails without apparent reason to fulfil the predictions he appears to set up." (p.82)
This quotation captures an issue that ESL/EFL teachers need to address in reading and writing courses. Texts can sometimes be difficult to read because they are indeed "badly written", which in turn can encourage ESL students to become better writers and readers as they discover how messages are effectively communicated in texts.
Johns, T. (1992). The text and its message. In M.Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 102-116). London: Routledge.
What techniques can teachers use in the classroom to help students become aware of the use of predictive categories in texts? Please send ideas or comments to gs04tdd@panther.gsu.edu