Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T20:08:01.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Prereading, Rhetorically-Oriented Frameworks on the Recall of Two Structurally Different Expository Texts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

James F. Lee  and
Gail L. Riley
James F. Lee
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Gail L. Riley
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research in both first and second language reading has undertaken the study of discourse structure and the influence of the rhetorical organization of the text on readers' passage comprehension. A considerable amount of research has also examined the effect of text adjuncts of various kinds on passage comprehension. The present study explored the effect of providing novice foreign language readers information about the rhetorical structure of an expository text as a text adjunct. Two passages were tested under each of three conditions: no framework, minimal framework, and expanded framework. Results indicate that an expanded framework is an effective text adjunct for the comprehension of expository prose.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 25 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adams, S. J. (1982). Scripts and recognition of unfamiliar vocabulary: Enhancing second language reading skills. Modern Language Journal, 66, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, B. J. (1978). Top-level structure as an organizational strategy for recall of classroom text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Bransford, J., & Johnson, M. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., & Johnson, M. (1973). Consideration of some problems of comprehension. In Chase, W. (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 383–438). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning, 33, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L. (1984a). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 441–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L. (1984b). Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language Learning, 34, 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, U. (1984). Recall of text: Differences between first and second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, D. A., & Davies, I. K. (1976). Preinstructional strategies: The role of pretests, behavioral objectives, overviews and advance organizers. Review of Educational Research, 46, 239–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the ‘short circuit’ in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning, 32, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. (1986a). On the use of the recall task to measure L2 reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. F. (1986b). The effects of three components of background knowledge on second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 70, 350–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. F. (1987). Comprehending the Spanish subjunctive: An information processing perspective. Modern Language Journal, 71, 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. F. (1988). Toward a modification of the “proficiency” construct for reading in a foreign language. Hispania, 941–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F. (1977). The structure of prose: Effects on learning and memory and implications for educational practice. In Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Montague, W. E. (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 179–208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F. (1979). Organizational patterns in prose and their use in reading. In Kamil, M. L. & Moe, A. J. (Eds.), Reading research: Studies and applications (pp. 109–117). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F, Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, Gunther A. (1980). Visual contextual cues and listening comprehension: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 64, 335–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muyskens, J., Omaggio, A., & Chalmers, C. (1986). Rendez-vous: An invitation to French. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Omaggio, A. (1979). Pictures and second language comprehension: Do they help? Foreign Language Annals, 12, 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 1, 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1987). On babies and bathwater: Input in foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal, 71, 156–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, D. (1987). Some assumptions about second language text comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar