题名

The Effects of Background Knowledge and L2 Reading Proficiency on Taiwanese University Students' Summarization Performance

并列篇名

背景知識與英文閱讀能力對臺灣大學生學術英語摘要能力的影響

DOI

10.6151/CERQ.2014.2204.04

作者

林宜瑄(Yi-Hsuan Lin)；陳秋蘭(Chiou-Lan Chern)

关键词

背景知識 ； 英文閱讀 ； 摘要寫作 ； background knowledge ； L2 reading ； summary writing

期刊名称

當代教育研究季刊

卷期/出版年月

22卷4期（2014 / 12 / 01）

页次

149 - 186

内容语文

英文
中文摘要

本文從認知的角度出發，探討閱讀理解中較低層次的語言知識與較高層次的背景知識對臺灣大學生英語閱讀的影響。尤其在兩種知識的交互作用下，檢視學生閱讀與學科內容相關的英語文章後撰寫摘要之表現。七十一位大學生分別具有高低不同之英語與背景知識，經由托福閱讀測驗與專家設計之知識測驗分組後，以統計工具分析英文閱讀能力與背景知識對摘要擷取能力的影響。統計結果顯示，不論是英語閱讀能力或相關背景知識的高低，均對學生以母語撰寫之摘要表現造成影響。但背景知識程度的高低，對摘要表現的預測力勝過英語能力，背景知識在學術英語閱讀的作用不可或缺；兩種變數於統計結果上並無交互作用，顯示兩種知識彼此間無法互補。此外，本研究結果也發現大學生的閱讀能力不必然受限於所屬之科系，英文系學生在其他領域的知識程度可能超越該領域之大學生；而非英文主修之學生亦可能具有高英語閱讀能力。整體而言，大學生在學術英語文章的摘要撰寫表現上普遍不佳，缺乏建構整體主要概念的能力。依據本文的研究結果，並對大學生閱讀英文與摘要寫作訓練提出相關建議。
英文摘要

Undertaken from a cognitive perspective, this study investigates how lower level processing (L2 linguistic knowledge) and higher level processing (background knowledge) influence English reading comprehension of university EFL learners in Taiwan. In particular, the study examines the bilateral effects of these two knowledge bases on the students' performance of a summary writing after reading an article in English which contained subject matter information. A TOEFL reading proficiency test accompanied by a background knowledge test developed by field experts were used to measure the two variables. Seventy-one university students who exhibited different levels of L2 reading proficiency and background knowledge participated in the study. The effects of linguistic proficiency vs background knowledge were scrutinized through statistical measures. The analysis revealed that the level of English proficiency and background knowledge both affected the participants' performances on summary writing into L1; however, the role of background knowledge, being a more powerful predictor of performance, was an integral component of comprehension in academic reading. The concomitant effects of these two variables were not observed, suggesting one knowledge base could not compensate for deficiencies in the other. In addition, the study indicated that university students' understanding of subject matters may extend beyond their own disciplinary area, as English majors might be equipped with more background knowledge than their peers majoring in that specialized discipline; likewise, non-English majors might outperform their English major counterparts in English reading proficiency test. In general, the students performed relatively poor in summary writing since they failed to build a conceptual synthesis based on the reading article. Suggestions toward improvements on English reading and summary writing are proposed for EFL university students.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. Lin, T.-J.,Wang, S.-H.(2007).Changes and sources of political knowledge in taiwan.Soochow Journal of Social and Political Sciences,25(3),93-129.
    連結：
  2. Alderson, J. C.(ed.),Urquhart, A. H.(ed.)(1984).Reading in a foreign language.London, UK:Longman.
  3. Alderson, J. C.,Urquhart, A. H.(1985).The effect of students' academic discipline on their performance on ESP reading tests.Language Testing,2,192-204.
  4. Al-Shumaimeri, Y. A. N.(2006).The effects of content familiarity and language ability on reading comprehension performance of low-and high-ability Saudi tertiary students studying English as a foreign language.Journal of King Saud University, Educational Sciences & Islamic Studies,18(2),1-19.
  5. Anderson, R. C.,James, W. P.,Larry, L. S.(1983).Effects of the reader's schema at different points in time.Journal of Educational Psychology,75,271-279.
  6. Anderson, R. C.,Reynolds, R. E.,Schallert, D. L.,Goetz, E. T.(1977).Frameworks for comprehending discourse.American Educational Research Journal,14,367-381.
  7. Bartlett, F. C.(1995).Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
  8. Bensoussan, M.,Kreindler, I.(1990).Improving advanced reading comprehension in a foreign language: Summaries vs. short-answer questions.Journal of Research in Reading,13(1),55-68.
  9. Bernhardt, E. B.(2011).Understanding advanced second-language reading.New York:Routledge.
  10. Bernhardt, E. B.(1991).Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical and classroom perspectives.Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
  11. Bernhardt, E. B.(2005).Progress and procrastination in second language reading.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,25,133-150.
  12. Bernhardt, E. B.,Kamil, M. L.(1995).Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses.Applied Linguistics,16(1),15-34.
  13. Bialystok, E.(ed.)(1991).Language processing in bilingual children.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
  14. Brown, A. L.,Day, J. D.(1983).Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,22(1),1-14.
  15. Carrell, P. L.(1984).Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension.Language Learning,34,87-112.
  16. Carrell, P. L.(1984).The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers.TESOL Quarterly,18,441-469.
  17. Carrell, P. L.(ed.),Devine, J.(ed.),Eskey, D. E.(ed.)(1988).Interactive approaches to second language reading.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
  18. Carrell, P. L.,Eisterhold, J. C.(1983).Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy.TESOL Quarterly,17,553-573.
  19. Casazza, M.(1993).Using a model of direct instruction to teach summary writing in a college reading class.Journal of Reading,37,202-208.
  20. Chang, Y. F.(2006).On the use of the immediate recall task as a measure of second language reading comprehension.Language Testing,23,520-543.
  21. Clarke, M.(1980).The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading-Or when language competence interferes with reading performance.The Modern Language Journal,64,203-209.
  22. Cook, G.(1997).Key concepts in ELT: Schemas.ELT Journal,51(1),86.
  23. Day, J. D.(1986).Teaching summarization skills: Influences of student ability level and strategy difficulty.Cognition and Instruction,3,193-210.
  24. Delli Carpini, M. X.,Keeter, S.(1991).Stability and change in the U.S. public's knowledge of politics.Public Opinion Quarterly,55,583-612.
  25. Delli Carpini, M. X.,Keeter, S.(1997).What Americans know about politics and why it matters.New Haven, CT:Yale Univetsity Press.
  26. Delli Carpini, M. X.,Keeter, S.(1993).Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first.American Journal of Political Science,37,1179-1206.
  27. Douglas, D.(2000).Assessing languages for specific purposes.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
  28. Dudley-Evans, T.,St. John, M. J.(1998).Developments in english for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
  29. Ferejohn, J. A.(ed.),Kuklinski, J. H.(ed.)(1990).Information and democratic processes.Urbana, IL:University of Illinois Press.
  30. Flowerdew, J.(ed.),Peacock, M.(ed.)(2001).Research perspectives on English for academic purposes.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
  31. Hare, V. C.,Borchardt, K. M.(1984).Direct instruction of summarization skills.Reading Research Quarterly,20(1),62-78.
  32. Hidi, S.,Anderson, V.(1986).Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction.Review of Educational Research,56,473-493.
  33. Jennings, M. K.(1996).Political knowledge over time and across generations.Public Opinion Quarterly,60,228-252.
  34. Johns, A. M.(1988).Reading for summarizing: An approach to text orientation and processing.Reading in a Foreign Language,4(2),79-90.
  35. Johnson, R. E.(1970).Recall of prose as a function of structural importance of the linguistic units.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,9(1),12-20.
  36. Kintsch, W.(1998).Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.New York:Cambridge University Press.
  37. Kintsch, W.,Kozminsky, E.(1977).Summarizing stories after reading and listening.Journal of Educational Psychology,69,491-499.
  38. Kintsch, W.,van Dijk, T. A.(1978).Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review,85,363-394.
  39. Koh, M. Y.(1985).The role of prior knowledge in reading comprehension.Reading in a Foreign language,3,375-380.
  40. Krekeler, C.(2006).Language for special academic purposes (LSAP) testing: The effect of background knowledge revisited.Language Testing,23(1),99-130.
  41. LaBerge, D.,Samuels, S. J.(1974).Towards a theory of automatic information processing in reading.Cognitive Psychology,6,293-323.
  42. Lamberta, R. D.,Curtisa, J. E.,Kaya, B. J.,Browna, S. D.(1988).The social sources of political knowledge.Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique,21,359-374.
  43. Lee, J.-W.,Schallert, D. L.(1997).The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context.TESOL Quarterly,31,713-739.
  44. Nassaji, H.(2002).Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives.Language Learning,52,439-481.
  45. Nunan, D.(1999).Second language teaching and learning.Boston, MA:Heinle & Heinle.
  46. Perfetti, C. A.,Van Dyke, J. A.,Hart, L.(2001).The psycholinguistics of basic literacy.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,21,127-149.
  47. Phakiti, A.(2003).A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL strategy reading comprehension test performance.Language Learning,53,649-702.
  48. Phakiti, A.(2008).Construction validation of Bachman and Palmer's (1996) strategic competence model over time in EFL reading tests.Language Testing,25,237-272.
  49. Ridgway, T.(1997).Thresholds of background knowledge effect in foreign language reading.Reading in a Foreign Language,11(1),151-166.
  50. Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C.(1994).The effects of topic familiarity on second language listening comprehension.Modern Language Journal,78,179-189.
  51. Shaker, L.(2009).Citizens' local political knowledge and the role of media access.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,86,809-826.
  52. Smith, F.(1975).Comprehension and learning.New York:Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  53. Spiro, R. J.(ed.),Bruce, B. C.(ed.),Brewer, W. F.(ed.)(1980).Theoretical issues in reading comprehension.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
  54. Stanovich, K. E.(2000).Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers.New York:Guilford Press.
  55. Stanovich, K. E.(1980).Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency.Reading Research Quarterly,16(1),32-71.
  56. Van Dijk, T. A.,Kintsch, W.(1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension.New York:Academic Press.
  57. Yu, G.(2008).Reading to summarize in English and Chinese: A tale of two languages?.Language Testing,25,521-551.
  58. Zaller, J.(1990).Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response.Social Cognition,8,125-153.
print cancel