نمونه پایاننامه ادبیات زبان انگلیسی
Chapter one: Introduction
1.0 Introduction 2
1.1 Preliminaries 2
1.1.1Vocabulary and summary writing 3
1.1.1.1 Breadth of vocabulary 4
1.1.1.2 Depth of vocabulary 5
1.1.2 L2 Proficiency and summary writing 6
1.1.3 Reading comprehension and summary writing 7
1.1.4 Genre of the text (text type) & summary writing 9
1.2 Statement of problem 11
1.3 Objective of the study 12
1.4 Research Questions 13
1.5 Significance of the study 13
1.6 Definition of the key terms 14
Chapter two:
2.0 Introduction 16
2.1 theoretical aspects 17
2.2 Summary writing background and related studies 19
2.3 Studies on the relationship between summary writing and
vocabulary knowledge 27
2.4 Studies on the relationship between summary writing
and reading comprehension 29
2.5 Studies on the relationship between summary writing
and L2 language proficiency 35
2.6 Studies on the relationship between summary writing
and source text’s genre or text type 38
2.7 Summary 42
Chapter three:
3.0 Introduction 48
3.1 Participants 48
3.2 Instruments and material 49
3.2.1 Proficiency test 49
3.2.2 Vocabulary breadth test 49
3.2.3 Vocabulary depth test 50
3.2.4 Reading texts 50
3.2.5 Two summaries 51
3.3 Data collection procedures 51
3.4 Data analysis procedure 52
Chapter four:
4.0 Introduction 56
4.1 Results 56
4.1.1 Multiple regressions for narrative summary writing 57
4.1.2 Multiple regressions for expository summary writing 59
4.1.3 Question one 61
4.1.2 Questions two 62
4.1.3 Question three 72
4.2 Discussion 74
Chapter five:
5.0 Introduction 82
5.1 Summary & conclusion 82
5.2 Pedagogical implications 85
5.3 suggestions for further research 86
5.4 Limitations 87
Reference 88
APPENDICES
Appendices 1 101
Appendices 2 107
Appendices 3 111
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Rubric for assessing summaries 53
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics 57
Table 4.2 Effect of all variables on NSP 58
Table 4.3 Multiple correlation results for NSP 58
Table 4.4 Coefficients for NSP 59
Table 4.5 One-way ANOVA results on NSP (for proficiency) 60
Table 4.6 The results of post hoc (scheffe) test for proficiency 60
Table 4.7 One way ANOVA for breadth of vocabulary on NSP 61
Table 4.8 Post hoc test for vocabulary breadth on NSP 62
Table 4.9 One-way ANOVA for NRC 63
Table 4.10 Post hoc (scheffe) table for NRC 63
Table 4.11 Effect of all variables on ESP 64
Table 4.12 multiple correlation results for ESP 64
Table 4.13 coefficient for ESP 65
Table 4.14 one-way ANOVA on ESP (for proficiency) 66
Table 4.15 the results of post hoc (scheffe) test 66
Table 4.16 one-way ANOVA for vocabulary breadth on ESP 68
Table 4.17 post hoc test for vocabulary breadth 68
Table 4.18 one-way ANOVA results for vocabulary depth on ESP 69
Table 4.19 post hoc test for vocabulary depth 70
Table 4.20one-way ANOVA for ERC 71
Table 4.21 post hoc results for ERC 72
Table 4.22 descriptive statistics for summaries 72
Table 4.23 paired sample t-test 73
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
In this chapter first preliminaries are introduced; then, the problem is cited and after that the theoretical frame work of the study is introduced and described. Significance and objectives of study are explained afterward; and finally, research questions are stated.
1.1 Preliminaries
As researchers have tried to find ways for facilitating and improving second language learning, latterly summary writing tasks and writing from sources have been accented in academic milieu (see, e.g., Horowitz, 1986; Carson & Leki, 1993; Leki & Carson, 1997; Carson, 2001; Belcher & Hirvela, 2001; Spack, 1997, 2004 and Cumming, Kantor, Powers, Santos, & Taylor, 2000).On the importance of summary writing, Johns (1993) claimed ‘‘it is impossible to assign academic writing tasks that don’t require preliminary reading’’ (p. 277). Summarization is valued as “clearly crucial for education”, showing “a very common exercise” in pedagogy (Seidlhofer, 1995, p. 2).
In foreign language learning, summary writing is considered as a vital skill (e.g. Johns, 1988, p. 79). It is also found beneficial for improving reading comprehension (e.g. Bensoussan & Kreindler, 1990) and content acquisition (e.g. Friend, 2002; Radmacher & Latosi-Sawin, 1995; Selinger, 1995) as well as for general academic success particularly in higher education (e.g. Maclellan, 1997).Summarization is about reducing the size of texts, but it should be abridged in a way that reflects the key propositions or the main ideas of the original text faithfully (Hidi and Anderson, 1986).
Most researches on summary writing till now, primarily have examined the discoursal features of summarized texts (e.g., Cumming, Rebuffot, & Ledwell, 1989; Johns & Mayes, 1990; Keck, 2006; Kim, 2001; Setoodeh, 2008; Ulper, et al., 2010) and writing processes and strategies used by learners during summarization (e.g., Sarig, 1993; Yang & Shi, 2003), or in a complete different vein, as a test of reading comprehension (Braxton, 2009; Ayatollahi, 2006). However, there has been little research into what linguistic knowledge and abilities are needed to write L2 summaries. In addition, few, if any, of these more recent studies have examined specifically what discoursal features of a source text may affect students’ summarization performance.
For example, it is far from clear in language testing whether the use of narrative, expository, and argumentative texts may have differential effects on summarization performance.
There may be various language abilities and knowledge that are summoned for L2 learners to write a summary, but the focus of the present study is on the effect of lexical & general proficiency and reading comprehension ability in L2 as well as the effect of source text’s genre on summary writing.
1.1.1Vocabulary and summary writing
Knowing the significance of vocabulary, language learners often think lack of knowledge of vocabulary is the main source of deficiencies in their writing skills; therefore, many students mention vocabulary knowledge as the most wanted L2 knowledge (Leki and Carson, 1994). Different studies have claimed vocabulary knowledge correlate closely with writing ability as well (Astica, 1993; Beglar, 1999; Laufer, 1998; Laufer and Nation, 1995; Linnarud, 1986; Zimmerman, 2004).
Grabe and Kaplan (1996) gave extra weight to the significance of vocabulary for basic writers, asserting that ‘‘vocabulary development not only supports reading and writing, it also promotes syntactic flexibility and creates a foundation for further learning’’ (p. 275).Research on protocols has also manifested that L2 writers often face word-related problems (e.g., Cumming, 1990; Raimes, 1985).
Although, by vocabulary knowledge most researchers generally mean the size of vocabulary but based on theories of L2 lexis, this study focuses on the two fundamental aspects of L2 lexical proficiency, which are breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge. Breadth of vocabulary knowledge (also called vocabulary size) -defined simply- refers to the number of words one knows, whereas depth of vocabulary knowledge is how much one knows about each word and also how this knowledge of words is structured in one’s mind (Meara, 1996).
1.1.1.1 Breadth of vocabulary
Vocabulary size is referred to in different ways by different researchers. This study employs Meara’s (1996) term, according to whom, breadth of vocabulary or vocabulary size denotes the number of words one knows. As a native English-speaking university freshman knows 20,000 to 25,000 words upon college entrance (Nagy & Anderson, 1984; Nation, 1990), “a serious linguistic obstacle [for] many nonnative English-speaking students” (Zimmerman, 1997; p.122) is vocabulary.
Thus, usually lexical knowledge is the most demanded L2 knowledge by learners (Leki and Carson, 1994).
Some studies have examined L2 writers’ texts and suggested that the size of vocabulary used by a writer plays a significant role in L2 writing. For example, Harley & King(1989), Laufer & Nation(1995), and Linnarud (1986) illustrated that more proficient L2 users (like native speakers) use a wider variety of words and more sophisticated (e.g., low-frequency) words in their writing than do less proficient L2 users.
Similarly, in a study analyzing ESL students’ composition, Engber (1995) found out L2 compositions with wider variety of words inclined to be rated more favorably than those with narrower amount of vocabulary.
Summarization entails understanding the main ideas of the source text and putting them in the writer’s own words; but how is it possible for a learner with low vocabulary knowledge, even if the first step would be done well, it means understanding the main ideas of the source text?
Taylor’ s (1984) research answered this question:
in the process of summary writing, he found out that amateur writers had difficulty in “trying to put author’s words into their own[s]” (p.695). Similarly, in Connor and Kramer’ s (1995) study, non-native speakers copied a lot of words and phrases from the source texts (opposed to native speakers). These results highlight the need of vocabulary knowledge for summary writing. However, they do not illustrate the extent of vocabulary knowledge effect on summary writing.
1.1.1.2 Depth of vocabulary
In contrast to rather large amount of research on breath or size of vocabulary, little research has been conducted in this area. From the studies conducted on vocabulary depth, some research has suggested that the semantic network of words in a learner’s mind (also called depth of vocabulary knowledge; Haastrup & Henriksen, 2000; Meara, 1996) also has a great influence on fluent topic development in writing (Schneider & Connor, 1990). In this regard in a study done by Reynolds (1995), it was concluded that proficient L1 writers expand and develop the key concept (special event) of an essay by employing hypernyms (e.g., parties) and a variety of related verbs (take place, played, held).
In contrast, texts written by L2 writers lean toward including redundant content by repeating the same words and concepts. Reynolds’s results were in accordance with Hoey’s (1991) claim earlier that word relations in texts has pivotal role in the development of coherence. Hoey explained how the use of word relations such as complex lexical repetition (in which two words have the same lexical morpheme or have the same form with a different part of speech) and simple paraphrase (in which two words relatively have the same meaning so they are exchangeable) may enhance coherence in writing and avoid the redundancy generated by simple repetition. Therefore, students with richer knowledge of word relations tend to create more coherent summaries.
1.1.2 L2 Proficiency and summary writing
Numerous studies have examined the effect of proficiency on different aspects of English teaching (Edelsky, 1982; Raimes, 1985; Cumming, 1989, 1990; Cumming, Rebuffot, & Ledwell, 1989; Green & Oxford, 1995; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996; Corbeil, 1997; Roca de Larios, Murphy & Manchon, 1999; Cohen & Brooks-Carson, 2001; Rashid & Rafik-Galea, 2007; Fatt 2007; Shin, 2008; Arkoudis et al., 2009) or academic success at large (Graham, 1987; Shay, 1975; Hwang and Dizney, 1970; Sugimoto, 1966).
Generally, it is expected that advanced ESL learners would perform better on a given language test – be it in any of the four language skills in terms of overall performance. This is because advanced ESL learners are expected to be competent in the language; thus, able to demonstrate better performance (Rashid & Rafik-Galea, 2007).
Broadly speaking, most studies on the effect of proficiency on different variables recognize it as a determining factor. Arkoudis et al. (2009) counted English language proficiency as a key factor which even influenced international students seeking to work in Australia.
On the effect of proficiency on writing, there is a plethora of research which mostly counted it as a determining factor. For example, it was suggested that proficient students wrote better compositions (Wang, 2003) and as a result, got better marks (Fatt, 2007).
Likewise, some researchers pointed out the possibility of the L2 proficiency impact on the quality of L2 writing (Cumming, 1989; Rashid & Rafik-Galea, 2007) or different aspects of the writers’ composing processes (Jones & Tetroe, 1987). Pennington & So (1993) even concluded that good writers can be differentiated from weak writers by L2 proficiency.
Regarding the effect of proficiency on summary writing, some researchers claimed that L2 proficiency is the most influential factor (Sasaki and Hirose, 1996; Corbeil, 1997).
However, there are some contradictions in the extent of L2 proficiency effect, especially in comparison to other factors like first-language writing ability or meta-knowledge about writing (Sasaki and Hirose, 1996); or first-language summarizing skills (Corbeil, 1997). These findings clearly demonstrate the need for further research into better understanding of the role of L2 proficiency and the extent of its impact on summary writing.
1.1.3 Reading comprehension and summary writing
Generally, it is concurred that developed reading comprehension ability is pivotal in academic success (Emam, 2011; Karbalaei & Rajyashree, 2010). As Braxton (2009) stated, reading is an essential life skill that helps promote success not only in school but also throughout one’s life. So, both children and adults will encounter some harm if they cannot read well (Salinger, 2003).
Disability in reading may result in hindrance in personal fulfillment or job success (Good, Simmons, & Smith, 1998; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). All in all, “The ability to read well can empower a person; the inability to read can be disempowering” (Braxton, 2009, p.1).
Comprehension ability is not accounted for as a passive state which one possesses, but as an active mental process which needs to be developed and ameliorated (Karbalaei & Rajyashree, 2010). Reading is an active process in which a dynamic, meaning-making interaction happens between the page and the brain. In the reading process, the brain constantly guesses or makes predictions. After seeing what comes next, it either confirms or revises its prediction and moves on.
This kind of active cognitive process of thinking and learning involves the reconstruction, interpretation, and evaluation of reading materials (Clark, 1982). Writing is very similar in nature to reading during cognitive process, that is, the writer discovers and creates meaning by organizing and linking ideas and interpreting and re-interpreting information for a reader, whereas the reader recreates and rediscovers that meaning by bringing his/her prior knowledge and experience to the text (Laosooksri, 2003).
It has been claimed that reading comprehension ability can be improved by summarization (Anderson & Armbruster, 1984; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Rinehart, Stahl, & Erickson, 1986). As “summarizing allows readers to differentiate key ideas from supporting or unimportant ideas and to construct logical connections between them” (Karbalaei & Rajyashree, 2010, p. 42), readers can comprehend the gist of a text by summarizing it. Students mark main ideas from supporting ones and organize a generalized concise summary.
On the relationship between summarization and comprehension, Rinehart, Stahl & Erickson (1986) stated that summarizing cultivates active reading and minimizes passive reading, which influences comprehension. Similarly, Nuttall (1996) counted summarization as an invaluable reading task. It has also been claimed that comprehension is one of the prerequisites of summarization and that comprehension involves summarization in nature (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). However, Laosooksri (2003) did not observed any significant improvement in the reading comprehension of the students after one semester of summarization instructions.
Most researches on summary writing and reading comprehension, have focused on the effect of summary writing instructions or strategies on improving reading comprehension (Anderson & Armbruster, 1984; Rinehart, Stahl, & Erickson, 1986; Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Braxton, 2009; Karbalaei & Rajyashree, 2010), not the other way round. To the author’s knowledge, no research has examined the effect of reading comprehension on summary writing ability of the students.
1.1.4 Genre of the text (text type) & summary writing
Genre is a French term for “kind” or “class”. In the discourse and writing realm, Grabe (2002) defined it as “a central concept determining how discourse is organized and used for various purposes” (p. 250). However, up to the late-1980s the term genre was seldom used in relation to English composition; in fact, it was largely used in English literature as a rhetorical prestige term (Coe & Freedman, 1998). After that, different researchers construe genre and text type in their own ways. Many researchers have often defined it as ‘a distinctive category of discourse of any type, spoken or written’ (Swales, 1990, p.33).
On the other hand, for some researchers “genres are defined as ‘staged, goal-oriented social processes’ (for example, Martin, 1998, p. 412), which are realized through the register variables of field, tenor and mode” (Woodward-Kron, 2003, p.23). Some researchers underscored the communicative feature of different genres. As an example, Matsuo & Bevan (2002, p.3) asserted that genres do not show different fixed language forms but rather “tendencies in communication”. “Recurring language forms” are only surface indication of communicative strategies.
Basically, there are three approaches toward genre: first that of the North American New Rhetoricians who have been teaching mostly L1 students until recently, which is perhaps why they focus more on the macro social context in which writing occurs rather than linguistic forms. Second, the Australian Sydney school (based on Hallidayan systematic functional linguistics or SFL), who focuses on linguistic forms for the influence of SFL, and finally, the English for Specific Purpose – ESP – school which focuses on linguistic forms too, but is dependent on the need of oversees graduates, already experts in their field, in producing linguistic forms and structures in their professional texts required by English universities.
Paltridge (2004) defines some common text type as follows: description, summary, compare and contrast, and explanation type texts. Expository and narrative texts were also accounted as different text genres in Grabe’s work (2002).These genres can be informative, entertaining and persuasive, depending on the intention of the author and the reader’s goal. Anyhow, genre plays an important role in the overall text comprehension and also in language learning (Alidib, 2004). It can facilitate the construction of meaning by “limiting the meaning-potential of a particular text” (O’Sullivan, et al, 1994, cited in Alidib, 2004).
The process of summary writing is very complex due to various factors affecting it; as mentioned earlier, reading comprehension plays a salient role in students’ summary writing ability. Closely related to reading comprehension, the genre of the text can be very important for the extent students’ comprehend the text and consequently their summary writing. This is in accordance with Hidi & Anderson’s (1986) claim that of the many factors influencing the cognitive demands of summarization tasks, one is ”the type of a summary to be produced” (p. 473).
1.2 Statement of problem
In academic environment, writing is one of the most important yet critical issues. It is impossible to assign an academic task which does not involve writing; however, it has been one of obstructive subjects for students in L2, and even L1. Today, you can barely find a pedagogic English book without plenty of writing tasks. Surprisingly, even advanced students have fundamental problems in writing despite their vast studies of books and passing their related exams.
One of the most crucial and emblematic academic writing task is summary writing (John, 1993). Recently there is a great demand on students’ part in academic settings to read different sources and extract needed information to complete their assignments and tasks, such as lab reports, critiques and research papers (Keck, 2006) or for writing an essay, or giving an oral presentation (Allison, Berry and Lewkowicz, 1995). In EFL&ESL teaching classrooms too, students are frequently asked to summarize reading articles and represent it in oral or/and written form. Yet, it is observed that students largely face problems in doing so and it is a real challenge for most to reproduce a genuine summary without relying heavily on the source texts.
Students are usually unaware of the concept of plagiarism so they consider the source text as a resource for “vocabulary, sentence structures, writing style, organizational patterns, ideas and information” (Leki & Carson, 1997, p. 51) and even if they know (the concept of plagiarism), they are not aware of the skills that play a major role in making them able to reproduce a genuine summary.
This is not totally irrelevant to the controversies among researchers assessing the variables affecting writing. As an example, Schoonen et al. (2002, 2003) examined the relative importance of L1 writing proficiency and other components like linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and fluency of linguistic knowledge processing to L2 writing performance by eighth grade Dutch students learning English and found metacognitive knowledge and L1 proficiency the most influential factors.
It can be reasoned that there is a high correlation between the abilities which require similar cognitive knowledge or skills. Nonetheless, Sasaki and Hirose (1996) studied the effect of L2 proficiency, L1 writing proficiency and meta-knowledge about writing on English writing proficiency of Japanese EFL students and came to a different conclusion that L2 proficiency made a unique impact on L2writing ability and the contribution of L1 writing proficiency and meta-knowledge of writing is negligible.
From the aforementioned, it can be seen that in spite of the students’ longstanding difficulty in writing, it is still a challenge for most students; even with the popularity of summary writing in EFL and ESL classroom contexts and the rapid growth in research on summarization, scholars and researchers still have not reached consensus on the parameters and more significantly on the extent of their effects on the summary writing ability of the learners. Therefore, the focus of this study was on the effect of various variables on students’ summarizations.
1.3 Objective of the study
The aim of this study is to examine the effects of general language proficiency, reading comprehension of the source texts, different aspects of English lexical proficiency, including depth and breadth of vocabulary, and the genre of the source texts on Iranian EFL students’ summary writing.
1.4 Research Questions
The researcher aims at answering the following questions:
1. Does general English proficiency influence students’ summary writing? If so, to what extent can L2 proficiency predict it?
2. Do English lexical proficiency aspects account for EFL students’ summary writing performances? If so, which one affects summary performance more and to what extent?
3. Does the reading comprehension of the source texts have an effect on students’ summary writing? To what extent does it account for summary performance?
4. Does the genre of the topic influence summary writing performances of Iranian students?
1.5 Significance of the study
As mentioned earlier, there has been little research into what linguistic knowledge and abilities are called upon to write L2 summaries. Most researches have dealt mainly with how L2 writers summarize texts by examining the discourse features of the summarized texts and writing processes and strategies used during summarization. In addition, few if any of the recent studies in language teaching and testing have examined specifically what discoursal features of a source text, like whether it is narrative, expository or argumentative, may affect students’ summarization performances. Finally, there has been no research done on Iranian English learners regarding the effect of different abilities on summary writing.
It is hoped that the result of this study sheds some light on our recognition of factors affecting the construct of summary writing. Moreover, based on the result of this study we can design different summary tasks for different general proficiency and vocabulary knowledge levels with respect to the genre of the topic. So we can help our students to become successful and confident writers by explaining the language components which have significant roles in summary writing.
1.6 Definition of the key terms
Summary writing:
Summarization involves understanding of the key meanings encoded in source texts and then reconstructing them in a more succinct, generalized form, relying minimally on the original wording (Hood, 2008).
Depth of vocabulary:
Depth of vocabulary knowledge is how much one knows about each word and also how this knowledge of words is structured in one’s mind (Meara, 1996).
Breadth of vocabulary:
Breadth of vocabulary (also called vocabulary size) refers to size of the mental lexicon or simply put the number of words one knows (Baba, 2009).
Text’s genre
It refers to distinctive type of text (chandler, 1997). Some common text types are: descriptions, summaries, compare and contrast, and explanation type texts (Paltridge, 2004).
In the next chapter the related literature which shed light upon present study will be presented.
