UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Prior Knowledge and L1 and L2 grade three readers’ interacting with texts and answering questions on… Faria-Neves, Marina de 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-953349.pdf [ 6.19MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078137.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078137-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078137-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078137-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078137-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078137-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078137-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078137-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078137.ris

Full Text

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND Li AND L2 GRADE THREE READERS’INTERACTING WITH TEXTS AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON TEXTSbyMARINA DE FARIA-NEVESB.A., The University of Hong Kong, 1957M.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1971A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF EDUCATIONinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Language Education)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAMay 1994Marina de Faria-Neves, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives, It is understood that copying or —publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of Language EducationThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate August 31 1994DE-6 (2/88)11ABSTRACTThis case study explored how ten English as a FirstLanguage (Li) and ten English as a Second Language (L2)average Grade Three readers used Prior Knowledge and NonPrior Knowledge strategies to understand two Science textsand to answer three types of questions on the texts.The questions were classified according to thePearson and Johnson taxonomy (1978). Answers to TextuallyExplicit questions could be found in the text; answers toTextually Implicit questions invited inferences from thetext and answers to Scriptally Implicit questions requiredreaders to use their own resources.Readers thought out loud or verbalized their thoughtsafter reading each sentence of the text, rated readingstrategy statements, orally answered the three types ofquestions and then rated question-answering strategystatements.Patterns of strategies emerged from the Text andQuestions protocols. Frequency counts of strategies weretallied and percentages were calculated. Analyses of the bargraphs showed that there were apparent differences betweenLi and L2 students in their use of Prior Knowledge and NonPrior Knowledge strategies when they read texts and answeredquestions on texts. It was felt that these differences111indicated that Li readers seemed to be less “text-bound” orfocussed on the text than L2 readers were.There were also apparent differences between thethree types of questions and Li and L2 readers’ use of PriorKnowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies, providingevidence that the three types of questions elicited use ofdifferent types of strategies, and lending support toWixson’s comment (1983) that the types of questions askedinfluenced the kinds of strategies used.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT...... . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . iiTABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivLIST OF TABLES...... . . . •....... . . . . . . viiLIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xivLIST OF APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiChapter PageI • THE PROBLEI4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 1StatementoftheProblem.................... 1BackgroundtotheProblem................... 1QuestionsoftheStudy..... •........... 14Limitations Of The Study .................. 15Sample...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •....... . . . . . . 15Methodology • • • . . • • • . . • • • • . . • . . . . . • . • . . . . 1 5Texts . ... . . • •... • .. • • . ••. • • • .• • • . • • 17Definition Of Terms....... • ...• . • .. • . ... . . • • 17II.REVIEWOFRELATEDLITERATURE.................... 20Prior Knowledge...... ..• ... . • • • .... ... • • .. . . 20Historical Background: Prior Knowledge asa Concept.. •....... ......• . ... . • ... . . . . 21Schema Theory and Comprehension.......... 23Prior Knowledge and The Answering ofQuestions. . . . • • . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Prior Knowledge and “Incompatible” Texts. 35Prior Knowledge and L2 Readers........... 41Summary of Studies Reporting TheInfluence of Prior Knowledge onComprehension • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . • 48Strategies Used in Reading and AnsweringQue St I on s on Text s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9Students’ Reading Strategies............. 50Question—Answering Strategies............ 67Summary of Studies about Reading andQuestion—Answering Strategies...... •... 73VChapter PageIII. MATERIALSANDMETHODOLOGY 76D e s i g n Of The S t udy . . 7 7Instruments... . . . . . 78Coloured Progressive Matrices 79Comprehension Subtest Of The GatesMacGinitie Reading Test, Level C, Form 1 80Researcher—Developed Prior Knowledge Test 81Researcher—Developed Question-MarkersMatching Test...... . . . . . . . ... 81Free—Telling of Prior Knowledge... 82Researcher-developed Reading AndQuestion-Answering Strategy RatingScales...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Reading Texts.... . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Researcher-developed Questions onReading Texts...... . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Pilot Studies . . . . . ..... . .. . . . . . . . 87F i r s t P i 1 o t S t udy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7SecondPilotStudy... 88Th i r d P i 1 o t S t udy . . . . . . 8 9Subjects...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92S e t t ± n g Of The St udy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3Collection of Data... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95First Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Second Session . . . . .. . . . . . .. 98Third Session...... . . . . . . 99Fourth Session . .. .100Fifth Session . . . . . .. . .102Sixth Session...... . ..... . . . . .. . .105Seventh Session . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ..1 11PreparationoftheDataBase .........111Quantitative Analysis of the Texts..........112Qualitative Analysis of the T-O-L (Text)and T—O—L (Questions) Protocols... . .118Quantifying T-O-L (Text) and T-O-L(Questions) by category and by strategy..121Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122Con St r uc t Va 1 i d i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2Internal Validity. . . . . . . . . 124External Validity . ... . . 124Re i i a b i 1 i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 5IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127Questionsofthestudy .........128Classification One: Questions Related toPrior Knowledge Use . . . . . . . . 128Classification Two: Questions Related toNon Prior Knowledge Strategy . . .. . . . . . . .130viChapter PageResults obtained from ClassificationOne: Prior Knowledge Strategies .132Question One: Role of Prior KnowledgeStrategies in Readers’ Interacting withTexts. . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . •. 132Summary of Findings on Question One.........141Question Two: Role of Prior KnowledgeStrategies in Readers’ Answering ofTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit Questions.........143Summary of Findings on Question Two.........177Results obtained from ClassificationTwo: Non Prior Knowledge Strategies... .180Question Three: Role of Non PriorKnowledge Strategies in Readers’Interacting with Texts...... . .. . . . . . .180Summary of Findings on Question Three.......209Question Four: Role of Non PriorKnowledge Categories of Strategies andSpecific Non Prior Knowledge Strategiesin Readers’ Answering of TextuallyExplicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit Questions...... ..... . .211Summary of Findings on Question Four........334V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION ANDRECO!fl’1ENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 342S umma ry o f F i n d i n g s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 2Classification One: Prior KnowledgeSt rateg i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 42Classification Two: Non Prior KnowledgeSt rateg i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 6Conclusions and Discussion. ......... . . . .. . . . . . .355Findings...... . •.......... . ... . . .. . .. . .. .. .355Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366Materials and Instruments...... . . . . . . . . . . . . .368Proposed Question-Answering Model......... . .370Suggestions for Further Research...............373Implications for Teaching Strategies ...374REFERENCES...... •....... . . ..... . . •......... . •..... .376APPENDICES...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .387viiLIST OF TABLESTable Page1. Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledgereading strategies while reading theWhalesandthelnsectstexts...............1342. Mean ratings of Prior Knowledge readingstrategy statements. ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 1393. Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledgestrategies while answering TextuallyExplicit questions on the Whales and theInsects texts...... .... .... . . . . . . . . . . .1454. Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledgestrategies while answering TextuallyImplicit questions on the Whales and theInsects text...... . . . . . .. .. . . . . .1495. Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledgestrategies while answering ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Whales and theInsects texts...... . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . •...... .1536. Li readers’ use of Prior Knowledge strategieswhile answering Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Whales text......i587. L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledge strategieswhile answering Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Whales text......i608. Li readers’ use of Prior Knowledge strategieswhile answering Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Insects text.....1649. L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledge strategieswhile answering Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Insects text.....16610. Mean ratings of question-answering Strategystatements relating to Prior Knowledge.....17111. L2 readers’ scores on Prior Knowledge(Whales) Test and on Textually ImplicitquestionsontheWhalestext...............i74viiiTable Page12. L2 readers’ ratings of reading strategystatement (P) about their knowledge ofWhales and their scores on TextuallyImplicit questions on the Whales text 17613. Li and L2 readers’ use of the sevencategories of Non Prior Knowledgestrategies while reading the Whalesandthelnsectstexts..... .........18214. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Explanation strategies whilereading the Whales and the Insects texts...18615. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Interpretation strategies whilereading the Whales and the Insects texts...18916. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Evaluation strategies whilereading the Whales and the Insects texts...19317. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Monitoring of Understandingstrategies while reading the Whales andthe Insects texts...... . . . . . . . . . . .... . ... . .19718. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Attempts to Understandstrategies while reading the Whales andthe Insects texts...... . . . .... . .. .. . . .. . . ..19819. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Comments on Strategieswhile reading the Whales and the Insectstexts...... . . .. . . ... .. . .... .... .. . . . . . . . ...19920. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Comments on Sources ofKnowledge strategies while readingthe Whales and the Insects texts ..........20321. Mean ratings of Non Prior Knowledge readingstrategy statements...... . . . . .... . . . . .. . . . .20622. Li and L2 readers’ use of the sevencategories of Non Prior Knowledgestrategies while answering TextuallyExplicit questions on the Whales andInsects texts . . . . ... ... . ......... . . ... . •. ..2i3ixTable Page23. Li and L2 readers’ use of the sevencategories of Non Prior Knowledgestrategies while answering TextuallyImplicit questions on the Whales andInsects texts . . . . . . . . . . 21624. Li and L2 readers’ use of the sevencategories of Non Prior Knowledgestrategies while answering ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Whales andInsects texts. . ...... • •• • • • • .1.21925. Li readers’ use of the seven categoriesof Non Prior Knowledge strategies whileanswering Textually Explicit, TextuallyImplicit and Scriptally ImplicitquestionsontheWhalestext........ 22426. L2 readers’ use of the seven categoriesof Non Prior Knowledge strategies whileanswering Textually Explicit, TextuallyImplicit and Scriptally ImplicitquestionsontheWhalestext...............22527. Li readers’ use of the seven categoriesof Non Prior Knowledge strategies whileanswering Textually Explicit, TextuallyImplicit and Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Insects text..............22828. L2 readers’ use of the seven categoriesof Non Prior Knowledge strategies whileanswering Textually Explicit, TextuallyImplicit and Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Insects text . ......23029. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Explanation strategieswhile answering Textually Explicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..23530. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Explanation strategieswhile answering Textually Implicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..23731. Li and L2 students’ use of, Non PriorKnowledge Explanation strategieswhile answering Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..239xTable Page32. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Interpretation strategieswhile answering Textually Explicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..24233. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Interpretation strategieswhile answering Textually Implicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..24634. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Interpretation strategieswhile answering Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..25035. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Comments on Strategies whileanswering Textually Explicit questionsquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..25436. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Comments on Strategies whileanswering Textually Implicit questionsquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..25837. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Comments on Strategies whileanswering Scriptally Implicit questionsquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..26238. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Comments on Source of Answersanswering Textually Explicit questionsquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..26639. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Comments on Source of Answerswhile replying to Textually Implicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..27i40. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Comments on Source of Answerswhile replying to Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..27641. Li readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeExplanation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Whales text...... .. .... . .. . . ... ... .....283xiTable Page42. L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeExplanation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Whales text.... ... .. 1 • • • • . . 28443. Li readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeExplanation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Insects text...... . 1 • • ••• • •.......... .28644. Li readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeExplanation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Insects text. . . . . . .. . . .. . .28745. Li readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Whales text...... . . . . . . . . 29146. L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Whales text...... . . . . . .. . ...... . . . . .. 1.29247. Li readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Insects text . . . . • •••••••• •. . . . . •..... .29548. L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Insects text . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.29749. Li readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Whales text...... •... •• Ill...... I ••I . .301xiiTable Page50. L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Whales text...... . . .. . . .. . . . ..... . . . . . .30351. Li readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Insects text...... . ... . . . . ... . . . .30752. L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Insects text...... . . . . ..... . .. .. .. . . . . .30953. Li readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Sources of Answers whilereplying to Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Whales text 31354. L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Sources of Answers whilereplying to Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Whales text 31555. Li readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Sources of Answers whilereplying to Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Insects text 32156. L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Sources of Answers whilereplying to Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Insects text 32357. Mean ratings of Non Prior Knowledgequestion—answering strategy statements.....32958. Li students’ scores on Textually Implicitquestions on the Insects text and theirratings of reading strategy statement (E)about re-reading sentences that were notun de r st ood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 3Table Page59. L2 students’ scores on Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Whales text and theirratings of question-answering strategystatement (C) about remembering whathad been read...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .334xiiixivLIST OF FIGURESFigure Page1. Results of Kruskal-Wallis (KW) tests comparingthe two groups selected for the Sixth andSeventh sessions...... ... . . . . . ...1062. Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledgestrategies while reading the Whalesandthelnsectstexts.......3. Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledgestrategies while answering TextuallyExplicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts .................i474. Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledgestrategies while answering TextuallyImplicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts...... ............15i5. Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledgestrategies while answering ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts.......................1556. Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledgestrategies while answering TextuallyExplicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions onthe Whales text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 627. Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledgestrategies while answering TextuallyExplicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions onthe Insects text. ........ . . •.......... ... ...i688. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior Knowledgecategories of strategies while readingreading the Whales and the Insects texts.....i849. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeExplanation strategies while readingthe Whales and the Insects texts.............i87iO. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation strategies while readingtheWhalesandthelnsectstexts.............i91xvFigure Page11. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeEvaluation strategies while readingthe Whales and the Insects texts............19512. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies while readingthe Whales and the Insects texts..............20213. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior Knowledgecategories of strategies while answeringTextually Explicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts ................21514. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior Knowledgecategories of strategies while answeringTextually Implicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts................. ..2i815. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior Knowledgecategories of strategies while answeringScriptally Implicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts........................22116. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior Knowledgecategories of strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions on the Whalestext...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . .22717. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior Knowledgecategories of strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions on the Insectstext....... ... ... ... .. . . .... . . . . . .. . . . ... .. . .23218. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeExplanation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts........................23619. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeExplanation strategies while answeringTextually Implicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts...20. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeExplanation strategies while answeringScriptally Implicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts........................240xviFigure Page21. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts...... ............24422. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation strategies while answeringTextually Implicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts..... .. ...24823. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation strategies while answeringScriptally Implicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts....... ...... 25224. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies while answeringTextually Explicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts ............ ..25625. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies while answeringTextually Implicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts........................26026. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies while answeringScriptally Implicit questions on the Whalesandthelnsectstexts.... ...............26427. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Sources of Answers whilereplying to Textually Explicit questions onthe Whales and the Insects texts.............26928. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Sources of Answers whilereplying to Textually Explicit questions onthe Whales and the Insects texts.............27429. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Sources of Answers whilereplying to Textually Explicit questions onthe Whales and the Insects texts.............27930. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeExplanation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions on the Whalestext...... .. .... . . .. . ..... . . . . . . . .. .. . 285xviiFigure Page31. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeExplanation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions on the Insectstext..... . . .. . . . . . . .28932. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions on the Whalestext...... . . . . . . 29433. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions on theInsects text...... .. . . .. . . . . .. ..29934. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions on the Whalestext. ... .. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . .... . . . . . . . . .30535. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions on theInsects text...... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 31136. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Sources of Answers whilereplying to Textually Explicit, TextuallyImplicit and Scriptally Implicit questionson the Whales text...... . . . . . .. .. .. ..3i937. Li and L2 readers’ use of Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Sources of Answers whilereplying to Textually Explicit, TextuallyImplicit and Scriptally Implicit questionson the Whales text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326xviiiLIST OF APPENDICESAppendix Page1. Researcher-Developed Prior Knowledge Test.....3872. Question—Markers Matching Test.... .......3943. Researcher-Developed Reading and Question-Answering Strategy Rating Scales.. ...3954. Passages and Questions..... .. . . . . ..... . .3995. Scoring of Answers to Questions..6. Students’ sex, age, language predominantlyspoken at home, school attended............4097. Scores on Coloured Progressive Matrices,Gates-MacGinitie Reading (ComprehensionSubtest), Question-Markers Matching Test,Prior Knowledge (Whales) Test, PriorKnowledge Free-Telling (Whales), PriorKnowledge (Insects) Test, Prior KnowledgeFree—telling (Insects)..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 18. Scores on the Textually Explicit questions(Whales), Textually Implicit questions(Whales), Scriptally Implicit questions(Whales), Textually Explicit questions(Insects), Textually Implicit questions(Insects), and Scriptally Implicitquestions (Insects)..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4139. Ratings of reading strategy statementsafter having read the Whales text..........41510. Ratings of reading strategy statementsafter having read the Insects text.........41911. Ratings of question—answering strategystatements after having answeredquestionsontheWhalestext...............42312. Ratings of question-answering strategystatements after having answeredquestions on the Insects text...... . . 42413. Categories of reading and questionanswering Strategies...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .431xixAppendix Page14. Frequency counts of reading strategies usedwhile reading the Whales text ...45915. Frequency counts of reading strategies usedwhile reading the Insects text ...... .46516. Frequency counts of question-answeringstrategies used while answering TextuallyExplicit questions on the Whales text .... 47117. Frequency counts of question-answeringstrategies used while answering TextuallyImplicit questions on the Whales text .... 47918. Frequency counts of question-answeringstrategies used while answering ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Whales text 48719. Frequency counts of question-answeringstrategies used while answering TextuallyExplicit questions on the Insects text.....49520. Frequency counts of question—answeringstrategies used while answering TextuallyImplicit questions on the Insects text.....50321. Frequency counts of question-answeringstrategies used while answering ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Insects text.....51122. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Evaluation strategieswhile answering Textually Explicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..51923. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Evaluation strategieswhile answering Textually Implicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..52024. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Evaluation strategieswhile answering Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts..52i25. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Monitoring of Understandingstrategies while answering TextuallyExplicit questions on the Whales andInsects texts...... . .. . .... . . .... . . . . .. . . ..522xxAppendix Page26. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Monitoring of Understandingstrategies while answering TextuallyImplicit questions on the Whales andInsects text...... . .. . . . . .. . . . . . 52327. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Monitoring of Understandingstrategies while answering ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Whales andInsects text .52428. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Attempts to Answer strategieswhile replying to Textually Explicitquestions on the Whales and Insects text...52529. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Attempts to Answer strategieswhile replying to Textually Implicitquestions on the Whales and Insects text...52630. Li and L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Attempts to Answer strategieswhile replying to Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Whales and Insects text...527xxiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI wish to thank my Research Supervisor, Dr. KennethSlade for his unfailing guidance, support and encouragement.To the members of my committee, Dr. Lee Gunderson andDr. Bernard Mohan, I express my thanks for their interestand their guidance.I owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Walter Boldt and Dr.Jane Catterson for their generous advice and help.My heartfelt thanks go to Marlene Asselin, LeighFaulkner and Kathleen Grimm for assisting in the inter-raterreliability.I wish also to thank the teachers and students whoparticipated in the pilot studies and the main study. Theirparticipation has made the study possible.To the members of my family and to my friends, I wishto express my thanks for their support and understandingthroughout this journey.1CHAPTER ITHE PROBLEMChapter I includes a statement of the problem, thebackground of the problem, questions of the study,limitations of the study and definition of terms.Statement of. the ProblemThe study explored the Prior Knowledge, strategies andother strategies which do not involve the use of PriorKnowledge (Non Prior Knowledge strategies) that wereemployed by English as a First Language (Li) and English asa Second Language (L2) Grade Three average readers as theyinteracted with two Science texts and answered three typesof questions on those texts.Background of the ProblemQuestions have long been used as a means of assessingreading comprehension in both formal and informal ways.Standardized reading tests typically consist of texts andquestions that children respond to by selecting amongmultiple-choice answers; and teachers use questions to guide2and assess students’ comprehension of classroom texts.Manuals of basal readers contain questions that teacherscould ask their students before, during and after reading aselection. Moore (1983) has suggested, in fact, thatquestions form part of “naturalistic assessment” sinceteachers observe students as they answer questions, andteachers ask students questions during reading conferencesin individualized reading programs.This use of questioning in comprehension instructionhas led to research in which researchers have investigatedthe types of questions asked by teachers (Bartolome, 1968;Guszak, 1967; O’Flahavan, Hartman and Pearson,1988). Guszak(1967) noted that 70.4% of the questions asked by teachersin Grades Two, Four and Six were of a literal nature.Bartolome (1968) found that 47.54% of the questions posed bySaskatchewan teachers of the First, Second and Third Gradeswere of a similar memory (literal) type. O’Flahavan, Hartmanand Pearson (1988) replicated Guszak’s earlier study (1967).While the percentage of literal level questions asked byteachers of Grades Two, Four and Six had decreased over timeto 42.8%, it was still very prevalent. They also found thatreaders had to use their Prior Knowledge to answer 25.3% ofthe questions asked.Wixson (1983) studied the effect on children’s recallof the types of questions they had been asked. She concludedthat students who answered literal questions laterremembered best the literal information that had been part3of their answers to those literal level questions. Similarlythose students who answered inferential questions latermentioned in their re-telling the specific inferentialelements in their answers to those questions.Clearly, the bulk of research on questions has beendevoted to the types of questions children were asked.However, some attention has been paid to theories thatexplain the processes of answering questions. Probably noone theory can be expected to fully explain the processreaders go through while answering questions. Goldman andDuran (1988) attempted to describe the question-answeringprocesses of readers, but omitted what some people see asthe most basic step, which is the understanding of thequestions by the responders. This basic step can, however,be found in the model of Lehnert (1978) who studiedlisteners, rather than readers, who were trying tounderstand questions. Any attempt to provide a fulldescription of the various stages in the question-answeringprocess of readers should probably combine the modelproposed by Goldman and Duran (1988) for readers with themodel for listeners described by Lehnert (1978).If the two models are combined we find that the firststage in answering questions occurs when an attempt is madeto understand a question, a step which requires bothunderstanding the meaning of the individual words and of theconcept implicit in the questions. Lehnert (1978) gave theexample of a listener not comprehending the question,4“Pardon me, but do you kvonfid grodding sub?” (p. 2),because he/she failed to understand individual words andconceptualize their meaning. Another illustration, this timefrom reading research, is provided by Langer (1987) when shedescribed four readers whose “uncertainty about the meaningof the question was an obvious impediment to their selectionof the correct response” (p.233) in a multiple—choice test.The second stage in question-answering is consideredto be the mental categorization of the questions by theresponder. A large part of Lehnert’s model was devoted tolisteners’ categorization of questions. Goldman and Duran(1988) who were concerned with readers, also categorized thequestions found in texts. They pointed out, for example,that “How” questions could be classified in two differentways:“How many?........... quantitative response“How are_______similarV’...concept comparison (p. 378),and noted that categorization influenced possible answers.The third stage in answering questions is consideredto occur when readers search in their memory for ananswer. Goldman and Duran described the ways in whichresponders examined their memory of the text for a response,and Lehnert (1978) also described how listeners used theirmemories for a reply.The fourth hypothesized stage in question-answeringtakes place when readers feel that the likelihood of findingan answer in their memory is low. In their study, Goldman5and Duran described how their readers looked for alternatesources of information, such as the text, for an answer.Readers looked back in the text trying to find the relevantinformation to answer the question. Other researchers alsobelieved that this “lookback” strategy was typically used byreaders as they answered questions (Alessi, Anderson andGoetz, 1979; Alvermann, 1988; Davey, 1987, 1988; Garner,Macready and Wagner, 1984; Garner and Reis, 1981; Hahn andSmith, 1983).Readers’ search for answers either in the text orfrom their Prior Knowledge is the focus of the taxonomy ofquestions that Pearson and Johnson (1978) developed. Theirtaxonomy is, in fact, a classification of the probablesources of information that readers use to answer questions.Pearson and Johnson labelled these sources of information asTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit and “Scriptally”Implicit. They defined Textually Explicit questions as thosethat “have obvious answers right there on the page” (p.157). They considered that Textually Implicit questionsrequired “some sort of inferences” (p. 159) and that “bothquestion and response are derived from the text” (p. 161).For the third type of questions, the “Scriptally” Implicitquestions, they stated that “a reader needs to use his orher script....in order to come up with an answer” (p. 157).They coined the word “scriptally” to refer to readers’“scripts” or “fund of previous experiences” (p. 161). This6coined word is now common in the reading comprehensionliterature.The fifth stage in the question-answering modelremains to be described. It is proposed that readersconstruct an answer that is complete and matches the type ofquestion asked. Goldman and Duran (1988) described how theirreaders tried to make their answers compatible with theircategorization of the questions they had arrived at in stagetwo (see above). Previously Lehnert (1978) had also stressedthat appropriateness was important in a good answer.Goldman and Duran commented on their model ofquestion-answering by mentioning briefly that readers mayconfirm an answer and may monitor the quality of theiranswers.To recapitulate, a possible model of question-answering describes how readers try to understand themeaning of questions and then categorize those questions.Next, readers search their memory of the text for an answer.Failing this, they look back in the text or in their storeof Prior Knowledge to help them come up with answers thatmatch the type of question. Readers might also evaluate thequality of their answers and confirm that their answers arecorrect.Of the five stages described the fourth stage is theone that has interested Pearson and Johnson (1978).Clearly, many researchers who are interested inmodels of question-answering ignore the text itself as an7integral part of question-answering and concern themselvesonly with explaining the process of question-answering(Goldman and Duran, 1988; Lehnert, 1978). It is assumed inthese models that readers have understood a text, and areready at that point to answer questions. These models do notinclude consideration of readers’ interactions with the textbefore the process of question-answering.There is, however, an increasingly large literatureon the role played by Prior Knowledge both in readers’initial interaction with texts and in their answering ofquestions afterwards. Many writers have commented on theirbelief that a reader brings meaning to the text and thatmeaning resides within the reader, and not necessarily inthe text. Anderson and his colleagues (1977) described theknowledge readers brought to the text as the “interpretiveframework for comprehending discourse” (p. 377). In theirstudy they presented two texts to Education students whomajored either in Music or in Physical Education. One of thetexts began with the sentence, “Rocky slowly got up from themat planning his escape” (p. 372). In the multiple—choicetest of this passage, 64% of the Physical Education studentschose answers that described a wrestling match, while only25% of the Music students chose these same answers. Themajority of the music students selected answers thatdescribed a prison escape.It was concluded that the interpretive frameworkcreated by these students’ Prior Knowledge was also evident8in their choice of answers to questions about the secondpassage. Most of the Physical Education students choseanswers to questions about this second passage whichdescribed people playing cards while Music students choseanswers that referred to a music-playing session. Andersonet al concluded that the knowledge readers brought to theirreading influenced both their initial interaction with thetext and answering of questions.Anderson and Pearson (1984) and Rumeihart (1980)have also tried to explain how readers’ Prior Knowledgeenabled them to make inferences. These writers refer to areader’s Prior Knowledge structure as a schema. Theydescribe a schema as containing “slots” for each element inthe knowledge structure. For example, the schema for diningin a restaurant would include “slots” for making areservation, arriving at the appointed time, being met by ahost/hostess, ordering from a menu, eating and paying thebill. Readers’ schema it was hypothesized enabled them tomake inferences about information that is in a “slot” butnot explicitly stated in the text. For instance, even thoughno mention is made in a text about a restaurant customer’spaying the bill, readers could answer the inferentialquestion, “Who paid the bill?” because they have a “slot”in their schema that the customer pays the bill.Pearson and Johnson (1978) in exploring the notionthat readers answer questions partly from the text andpartly from their Prior Knowledge proposed a taxonomy of9questions that is a taxonomy of probable sources ofinformation that readers use. Their taxonomy was used in astudy by Pearson, Hansen and Gordon (1979). In this study asignificant Prior Knowledge effect was discovered in averageGrade Two readers’ answering of “Scriptally” Implicitquestions but not in their answering of Textually Explicitquestions. Other schema researchers (Holmes, 1983; Johnston,1984) have also reported on the part that Prior Knowledgeplays in readers’ answering of “Scriptally” Implicitquestions.Most of the literature on Prior Knowledge hasemphasized the facilitative effect of Prior Knowledge oncomprehension but Prior Knowledge is apparently not alwaysfacilitative. Apparently a “failure of script” can lead toinaccurate question answering. Rumeihart (1980) ascribed onecause of comprehension failure to readers’ use of aninappropriate schema. When readers and the writer of thetext possess incompatible schemata, readers seem to resortto distortions to make the text fit their schema. Thistheory of the distortion caused by readers’ use of aninappropriate schema has a long history. In 1932 Bartlettfound that readers in his study distorted a story to fittheir schema. In 1979 Steffenson, Joag-dev and Andersonreported that Indian and American readers had distortionsin their re-telling of a culturally unfamiliar wedding.Recent work by Alvermann, Smith and Readance (1985)has reconfirmed this theory. They discovered that a10significant effect occurred in a passage about sunlight. Inthis passage the correct answers for six multiple-choicequestions conflicted with their subjects’ Prior Knowledgeabout sunlight. Some subjects were initially asked to writeabout their Prior Knowledge of sunlight while others werenot asked to write about sunlight. Those who wrote aboutsunlight chose a significantly fewer number of correctanswers to questions which conflicted with their PriorKnowledge than did students who had not written aboutsunlight. There was no significant effect in the otherquestions on which there was no disagreement between thecorrect answers and students’ Prior Knowledge.Other researchers, for example Holmes (1983) andLipson (1981), have also investigated the relationshipbetween students’ accurate and inaccurate Prior Knowledgeand their scores in answering questions. However, fewresearchers have studied the ways elementary students usedtheir Prior Knowledge while they were actually reading textsand answering questions.The bulk of the literature on Prior Knowledge hasfocussed on describing the effect of Prior Knowledge on thereading comprehension of readers who speak English as aFirst Language (Li). However, there are a few studies on therole of Prior Knowledge among readers who speak English as aSecond Language (L2). Research on L2 readers has generallyused texts that compared responses to familiar andunfamiliar cultural content. For example Vahid-Ekbatani11(1981) had her American and Iranian subjects read one textdescribing an evening with Mr. and Mrs. Nixon, and a secondtext about a rich Iranian merchant marrying a third wife.Iranian students reading in English found the unfamiliartext about Mr. and Mrs. Nixon more difficult than otherIranian students who read the same text in Farsi, theirnative language. Vahid-Ekbatani commented that there wassome evidence that “when text contains unfamiliar culturecontent, language becomes an additional barrier for thebilingual reader” (p. 62).Most of the research on L2 readers has used textswith a cultural component. Only a few researchers havecompared Li and L2 readers’ use of Prior Knowledge when theyread texts that did not specifically describe a particularculture (Carrell, 1983; Jenkins, 1987). One study by Carrell(1983) found that, unlike Li students, L2 students were notable to use context clues to help them understand a text;that is, they apparently could not use the title andpictures to help them understand a text. And Jenkins (1987)reported that L2 students performed less well than Listudents in answering Textually Explicit and “Scriptally”Implicit questions on four texts about Science andLinguistics.Overall, there is a paucity of research on how L2readers use their Prior Knowledge in their interactions withtexts that are culturally “neutral”. And there are fewstudies that investigate how or if, L2 readers use their12Prior Knowledge to answer questions on those “neutral”texts.There are other aspects of readers’ interaction withtext where there is a dearth of information available.As readers interact with a text there are occasionswhen they experience confusion or lack of understanding.Brown (1980) has theorized that readers who encounterdifficulties would use specific strategies to solve theseproblems. However, in two studies readers appeared to usefewer strategies when they read a more difficult text thanwhen they read an easier one. For example, Hare (1981) foundthat the undergraduates she studied reported that they usedfewer strategies when they read a text which she haddesignated as a low Prior Knowledge text than they did whenthey read another text designated as a high Prior Knowledgetext. Pritchard (1990a) also discovered that his EleventhGrade subjects verbalized more often their use of theirPrior Knowledge when they read a culturally familiar passagethan when they read an unfamiliar one. These studies havenot been replicated with children younger than students inGrade Eleven.Attempts to study readers’ strategies as they readrequires specific methodologies. Hare (1981) and Pritchard(1990a) were among a number of researchers who used a“Think-Out-Loud” (‘r-O-L) methodology to investigate thestrategies students use while reading texts. Some of thesestudies have shown that a good proportion of their subjects’13verbalizations indicated that these students used PriorKnowledge to help them better understand a text.A few researchers have investigated the question-answering strategies of readers (Anderson, 1989; Goldmanand Duran, 1988; Kavale, 1977; Langer, 1987; McDonnell,1989; Powell, 1988). With the exception of Langer (1987)whose subjects were Grade Three students, the majority ofthese researchers have studied children at or above theGrade Six level. Most of these investigations have been withstudents answering in the “closed system” of multiple—choicequestions. There is a scarcity of research that investigatesthe strategies students use while responding to orally posedindividually answered questions based on categories of thePearson and Johnson taxonomy (1978).In summary, studies investigating the role of PriorKnowledge in readers’ comprehension of texts have produceddifferent results depending on whether or not researchersbelieved the facilitative effects of Prior Knowledge. Aswell, most researchers have concentrated on the relationshipbetween readers’ Prior Knowledge and their scores inanswering specific types of questions. There is a paucity ofresearch in comparing Li and L2 readers’ use of PriorKnowledge as they read texts that are not specific to aparticular culture. In fact, few researchers have studiedjust how young Li and L2 readers use their Prior Knowledgeas they read texts and answer questions on those texts.14The lack of research on the use of Prior Knowledge byyoung Li and L2 readers led to the research questionsfollowing.Questions of the StudyTwo questions were concerned with readers’ PriorKnowledge strategies as (a) they interacted with two textsand (b) as they answered questions on those texts:(1) What was the role played by Prior Knowledge strategiesas average Ll and L2 Grade Three readers interacted withtexts?(2) What was the role played by Prior Knowledge strategiesas average Li and L2 Grade Three readers answered (a)Textually Explicit questions, (b) Textually Implicitquestions, and (c) “Scriptally” Implicit questions?Two questions were concerned with Non PriorKnowledge strategies used by readers (a) as they interactedwith two texts and (b) answered questions on those texts:(3) What was the role played by Non Prior Knowledgestrategies as average Li and L2 Grade Three readersinteracted with texts?(4) What was the role played by Non Prior Knowledgestrategies as average Li and L2 Grade Three readersanswered (a) Textually Explicit questions, (b) TextuallyImplicit questions, and (c) “Scriptally” Implicitquest ions?15In may be noted here that these initial broadly posedresearch questions were answered through both qualitativeand quantitative analysis of the data, and were refined asdata were analyzed.Limitations of the StudyThe limitations of the study are discussed underthree sections:(1) Sample(2) Methodology, and(3) Texts.SampleThe sample was limited to ten Li and ten L2 averageGrade Three readers. Although these numbers would beconsidered small in an experimental study, in an exploratorycase study design the numbers were considered appropriate.MethodologyTo gather data about the extent to which Grade Threestudents used Prior Knowledge as they interacted with textsand answered questions on those texts the “Think-Out-Loud”(T-O-L) methodology was used. Block (1986) described T—O-L16as a kind of “window into those processes that are usuallyhidden” (p. 464). Students reported their thoughts as theyinteracted with texts and attempted to answer questions.T-O-L or verbal report methodology has beencriticized by Nisbett and Wilson (1976) as “telling morethan we can know” (p.231). Ericsson and Simon (1980)rejected this criticism and stated that:verbal reports, elicited with care and interpretedwith full understanding of the circumstances underwhich they were obtained, are a valuable andthoroughly reliable source of information aboutcognitive processes (p. 247).That this opinion has been accepted by many researchersis evident in the fact that T-O-L’s are increasingly beingused in reading research to study the cognitive processes ofreaders as they verbalize their thoughts while reading texts(Block, 1986; Goldman and Duran, 1988; Olshavsky, 1976—1977;Pereira, 1991; Powell, 1988).To improve the validity and reliability of the datafrom T-O-L’s, Ericsson and Simon (1984) recommended thatresearchers have their subjects report their thoughtsimmediately following the task. In this study, Grade Threestudents Thought-Out-Loud immediately after reading asentence or after being asked a question. Apparently theThink-Out-Loud procedure did not seem to affect thequestion-answering performance of subjects in a study byAnderson (1989). It did not result in a significantdifference in the scores of subjects who took a standardizedreading test administered in the usual way, and their scoreswhen they later took the alternate form of the same test andThought-Out-Loud after each test passage.Rail and Bisanz (1982) and Olson, Duffy and Mack(1984) recommended that T-O-L’s be used with other methodsto provide “converging evidence’t. Thus, in this study thesubjects Thought-Out-Loud and later reacted to and ratedresearcher-designed Reading and Question-Answering strategystatements obtained from a review of the literature aboutstrategies readers used while interacting with texts andanswering questions on those texts.TextsThe texts chosen for this study were limited toselections from Natural Science. They were thus different incontent, vocabulary and text structure from typical schoolmaterials found in other content curricula. Students’strategies as they interacted with these Natural Sciencetexts might be different from those they would use readingother curriculum subjects.Definition of TermsEnglish as a First Language (Li) student is a student whosepredominant home language is English.18English as a Second Language (L2) student is a student whosepredominant home language is not English.Prior Knowledge is information that a reader possesses as aresult of experiences with the world and with texts. In thestudy, Prior Knowledge does not refer to knowledge abouttext structure. Prior Knowledge is assessed in this studywith (a) Prior Knowledge Test (see Appendix 1) and (b)readers “free—telling” of their Prior Knowledge about whalesand insects.Rating is the process used when a student listens to aReading or Question-Answering strategy statement and thenpoints on the reaction sheet to one of the five faces whichbest describes the student’s response on hearing thatstatement.Schema/Script is a theoretical construct of a reader’s PriorKnowledge about particular concepts and events. Aschema/script includes a reader’s knowledge of the differentelements which make up the structure of that concept orevent.“Scriptally” Implicit questions is a phrase used by Pearsonand Johnson to designate questions a reader answers by usingprior knowledge. This phrase is used henceforward withoutquotation marks.Strategies are cognitive actions that a reader uses tocomprehend or answer questions in a text. Strategies areclassified as:19(a) Prior Knowledge strategies because the researcher judgedthat readers used their Prior Knowledge. For example afterreading Whales Sentence 1, “The biggest animal on land orsea is the whale”, # 8 reported the fact he knew, “thebiggest whale of all is the Blue Whale”.(b) Non Prior Knowledge strategies because the researcherjudged that Prior Knowledge was not used. For example afterreading Whales Sentence 1, “The biggest animal on land orsea is the whale”, # 13 gave the reason, “because...um theykeep on growing faster”.Textually Explicit questions are questions that a readeranswers by referring to what is stated in a single sentencein a text.Textually Implicit questions are questions for which theanswer is implied in a single sentence, or for whicha reader must combine information from different sentencesin a text.Think-Out-Loud (T-O-L) is a term used when a studentverbalizes thoughts while reading a sentence or answering aquestion.20CHAPTER IIREVIEW OF RELATED LITERATUREThe purpose of the study was to investigate the roleof Prior Knowledge in average English as a First Language(Li) and English as a Second Language (L2) Grade Threereaders’ interaction with texts and then answering ofTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions. The study examined both the part playedby Prior Knowledge strategies as readers attempted tounderstand a text and answer questions on it and the partplayed by Non Prior Knowledge strategies used to comprehendand to answer questions on that text.The review of literature is divided into two mainsections. The first section summarizes research on the roleof Prior Knowledge in readers’ comprehension of texts andtheir answering of questions. The second section discussesthe strategies that readers use while reading and answeringquestions in texts.Prior KnowledgeThis section is divided into six subsections. Thesesubsections are:21(i) Historical background: Prior Knowledge as a concept(2) Schema theory and comprehension(3) Prior Knowledge and the answering of questions(4) Prior Knowledge and “incompatible” texts(5) Prior Knowledge and L2 readers(6) Summary on studies reporting the influence of PriorKnowledge on comprehensionHistorical Background: Prior Knowledge as a ConceptAlthough schema theorists have been recentlyinstrumental in directing attention to the role of PriorKnowledge in text comprehension, early writers about readingoften mentioned the effect that a reader’s experiences hason understanding what is read. A review of the literatureillustrates writers’ awareness over the years of therelationship between a reader’s Prior Knowledge andcomprehension of materials read.One of the earliest authors on reading psychology wasEdmund Huey, (1908). He described a practice that is stillused today. Teachers recorded their students’ experiencesand used these “experience charts” as their students’ earlyreading materials. He was therefore an early precursor toSylvia Ashton-Warner’s Key Vocabulary (1965), the LanguageExperience Approach to reading (Van Allen, 1978), and suchcontemporary “Whole Language” theorists as Kenneth Goodman22(1986). All have theorized that reading materials for whichchildren already had background (prior) knowledge would helpthem better understand the text.Some forty years after Huey, two eminent writers inthe field of reading comprehension tests touched upon theimportant part played by Prior Knowledge in readingcomprehension. The first writer was Arthur Gates (1947) whobelieved that “what each individual grasps depends upon hispast experiences..” (p. 358). The second writer was WilliamGray (1941), eloquent in his description about PriorKnowledge as he stated that:the chief resource (of the reader) is his backgroundof related experiences. Only in so far as the reader’sexperiences relate in some form or other to the conceptsor situation to which the author refers can the readercomprehend what is read (p. 901).Seventy years after Huey discussed the thesis thatPrior Knowledge and a reader’s comprehension wereinextricably bound, Pearson and Johnson (1978) stated that“comprehension is best understood by invoking the new toknown principle. We understand what is new in the context ofwhat is already known to us “ (p.47).Two well-known historians of reading instruction haveadded their support to those who believed in the strong andconsequential relationship between Prior Knowledge andcomprehension. Nila Banton Smith and Alan Robinson (1980)described how, “all individuals interpret, dependent uponthe tasks, their backgrounds...” (p. 220).23Later contemporary writers have voiced their opinionsabout the close connection between Prior Knowledge andreading comprehension. In fact, one such writer, Frank Smith(1982), was emphatic that “Prior Knowledge ... is the sourceof all comprehension” (p. 68) (italics added).Throughout this century, then, writers have commentedon the importance of a reader’s Prior Knowledge incomprehension processes. These have been developmentalreading generalists, educators and reading psychologists.Schema theorists, however, have gone a step farther andattempted to explain how a reader’s schema or knowledgestructure specifically helps in one’s comprehension oftexts.Schema Theory and ComprehensionAnderson is one of the best known proponents ofschema theory. He suggests that a reader’s schema representsone’s organized knowledge of the world. For example, mostreaders have in their schema for dining out such elements or“slots” as making reservations, eating different types offood and even paying the bill.Schema theory has been criticized for not giving anaccount of the large amount of detail in people’s mentalrepresentation (Alba & Masher, 1983). Anderson (1984)countered this criticism by creating what he termed “theconcept of a weak schema” (p. 8) and how “ much that passes24for general knowledge is actually produced as needed byretrieving specific cases” (p. 8).Grabe (1991) refers to the criticisms of schematheory but acknowledges that schema theory provides “auseful metaphorical explanation for many experimentalresults” (p. 384). Schema theory, in the researcher’sopinion, explains metaphorically the role played by PriorKnowledge in reading comprehension.Anderson (1985) stated that, “a reader comprehends amessage when he is able to bring to mind a schema that givesa good account of the objects and events described in themessage” (p. 372). He illustrated this statement with thesentence, “The notes were sour because the seam split” atext in Bransford and McCarrell (1974). This sentence isincomprehensible unless a reader brings to mind a knowledgeof bagpipes.In an attempt to explain how a reader’s schema aidsin reading comprehension, Anderson proposed the followingsix functions of a reader’s schema:(1) “A schema provides ideational scaffolding forassimilating text information” (p. 376).Information in the text that fits an element or slotof a reader’s schema is easily learned. For instance, areader has in the schema of dining-in-a-fine-restaurant aslot or element about main entrees, and easily learns from atext the dish that is the main entree of the meal.25(2) “A schema facilitates selective allocation of attention”(p. 376).Anderson hypothesized that proficient readers payclose attention to what is important in a text. Thestructure of a schema provides these good readers with atool for judging what is important.(3) “A schema facilitates editing and summarizing” (p. 377).The structure of a schema gives a reader the criteriafor selecting what is important from what is trivial when atext is summarized.(4) “A schema allows orderly searches of memory” (p. 376).A reader uses a schema as a guide to remember thetypes of information that have to be recalled. For example,Anderson, Spiro and Anderson (1978) discovered thatundergraduates who read a restaurant story significantlyrecalled more food and beverages than other undergraduateswho read a supermarket story describing the same kinds offood and beverages in the restaurant story. Most readershave slots in their restaurant schema for the differentkinds of food and beverages served in a meal. Most readers,however, do not have a well-defined schema with slots forthe different kinds of food in a supermarket. Hence,specific food items in a restaurant are more easilyremembered than food in a store.26(5) “A schema permits inferential reconstruction ofinformation” (p. 377).A reader uses a schema and what can be remembered tomake inference about the information which has beenforgotten. Anderson provided the example of a person whocould remember that the entree was a fish but had forgottenthe wine that was served with it. This person’s schema wouldhelp him/her to make the inference that the beverage servedmay have been white wine, since white wines are often servedwith(6)fish.“A schema enables inferential elaboration” (p. 376).A reader’s schema permits a reader to fill in gaps ina text. No text is completely explicit, and inferences aremade with the help of a reader’s schema. For example in thesentence, “Jane decided not to wear some metal jewellerybecause it could cause unnecessary delays” (Bransford, 1984,p. 385), a reader might infer that the “unnecessary delays”referred to problems caused by metal jewellery as it passedby metal detectors in airports. A reader uses a schema ofmetal detectors at airports to help infer and to elaborateinformation in texts.Anderson (1984) thus proposed that a reader’srepertoire of schema, or Prior Knowledge, helps a readerassimilate new information, pay attention to importantfacts, summarize essential points, infer, recall informationin an orderly fashion, and remember forgotten facts. Twostudies below provide illustrations of most of the six27functions of schema in comprehension listed above. However,these two studies do not necessarily demonstrate thatpersons with high knowledge of baseball make more inferencesthan those with low knowledge.According to schema theory, among other functionsPrior Knowledge enables people to assimilate newinformation, pay attention to important facts, summarizeimportant points, and remember them in an orderly fashion.These hypothesized four functions of Prior Knowledge wereillustrated in the study of Spilich, Vesonder, Chiesi andVoss (1979). Prior Knowledge of baseball was assessed bymeans of a test of forty—five items. All forty—six adultsubjects listened to an account of a half inning of abaseball game. They summarized the account of the game andwrote down as much as they could remember. Finally theyanswered forty questions about the game. The group with lowor little Prior Knowledge (LPK) recalled unimportant facts.The group of listeners with high Prior Knowledge (HPK)remembered information that was important to the goal ofwinning the baseball game. The HPK group re-told thesequence of the game in a more appropriate manner than theLPK group. As well the HPK group also remembered moreinformation and answered more questions correctly than theLPK group. The results of this study indicated that PriorKnowledge helped listeners in this study assimilate newinformation, pay attention to important facts, summarize28essential points and re-tell information in an orderlyfashion.Subjects in the Spilich et al study described abovehad listened to an account of a half-inning baseball game,but in another study Grade Seven and Eight students read atext adapted from the Spilich study (Recht and Leslie,1988). These sixty-four Grade Seven and Eight students wereof either high or low reading ability as measured by the SRAAchievement Test. Prior Knowledge of baseball was assessedwith a multiple-choice test that was read to the students.The baseball text was divided into five parts. After readinga part of the discourse (text) students re-enacted theactions of the baseball players by moving figurines on aboard. They then verbally described what had happened inthat part of the text. After reading the whole text, theywrote a summary of it, and then sorted twenty sentencesaccording to their importance in the text. There were nosignificant differences between the two reading groups butthere were significant differences between those studentswith high Prior Knowledge of baseball and those with lowPrior Knowledge. Students with high Prior Knowledge reenacted the actions, re-told the information, summarized theevents and rated the importance of the sentences more likeseven baseball experts who did the same tasks. Students withlow Prior Knowledge did not perform as well as thosestudents with high Prior Knowledge on these tasks.29In these two studies, persons who had littleknowledge were less able than those with much knowledge ofbaseball to assimilate new information about the half-inningof a baseball game (Recht and Leslie, 1988; Spilich,Vesonder, Chiesi and Voss, 1979). Again, persons who wereknowledgeable about baseball recalled information that wasimportant to the goal of winning the baseball game. Theyalso rated more accurately the importance of the sentences.They re-told the sequence of events in an orderly fashion.Apparently Anderson’s hypotheses about the role ofschemata/ Prior Knowledge/ scripts were supported by the twostudies previously described. They do not, however, supportthe idea that readers’ Prior Knowledge enable them to makeinferences from the text.Some research does provide examples of students usingtheir Prior Knowledge to answer inferential and other typesof questions.Prior Knowledge and the Answering of QuestionsFour studies were found that demonstrated the rolethat Prior Knowledge plays a part when readers answerquestions. Each study adds to our understanding of therelationship between what a reader knows (i.e. has as PriorKnowledge) and how different types of questions areanswered.30Prior Knowledge affects a reader’s answering ofTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions independent of intelligence. Johnston(1984) pre-tested the intelligence of two hundred and sevenGrade Eight students with the IPAT Culture-Fair Test. PriorKnowledge was measured with content-specific vocabularytests. Students then read three texts and answered eighteenmultiple-choice Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions either with the text availableto them or unavailable. Prior Knowledge accounted for 3.5%of the within-subject variance. Johnston concluded thatPrior Knowledge influenced a reader’s comprehension of textsindependent of the effects of intelligence and other betweensubject experimental variables to test the effect of theavailability of texts. Johnston reported on the effect ofthe availability of texts while students were answeringquestions. When the text was unavailable for a reader tolook back on, there was a pronounced drop in the performanceon Textually Explicit questions about unimportant aspects ofthe text. With no text available for “lookbacks”,performance on Scriptally Implicit Questions improved.Johnston surmised that this improvement was due to thestudents’ reluctance to use their Prior Knowledge when textwas available to be consulted while answering questions.There is further evidence that the amount of areader’s Prior Knowledge affects a reader’s answering ofquestions. Pearson, Hansen and Gordon (1979) studied twenty31Grade Two students who were pre-tested on their knowledgeof spiders before they read a story relating to spiders.There was no significant difference in either readingability or intelligence between the ten students with thehighest and the ten students with the lowest Prior Knowledgescores. All twenty students read the text on spiders andorally answered six Textually Explicit and six ScriptallyImplicit questions. The high-knowledge group out-performedthe low-knowledge group; and the effect of Prior Knowledgewas more pronounced for the Scriptally Implicit than for theTextually Explicit questions. Prior Knowledge was clearlydemonstrated as being important in the answering ofScriptally Implicit questions. Apparently having anavailable script helps readers in answering questions.The amount and the quality of a reader’s PriorKnowledge influence the answering of questions. A reader’sPrior Knowledge may be accurate, inaccurate or missing. Astudent’s performance in question—answering depends, then,on whether the information a student already knows (hisscript) is correct, incorrect or missing. This interactionbetween the quality of a reader’s Prior Knowledge andquestion-answering is well illustrated in a study by Lipson(1981). Fourteen pairs of average and poor Grade Threestudents were matched according to school, sex, age,intelligence and mathematics achievement. There was a PriorKnowledge pre-test consisting of pairs of sentences some ofwhich were used later in the post—test after the subjects32had read the passages. No significant differences were foundin the pre-test scores between the two reading groups. Therewere no significant differences in the performance of thetwo reading groups in their answering of inferentialquestions. There were, however, differences depending onwhether the Prior Knowledge pre-test revealed that readershad correct, incorrect or missing information about the pretest items. When a reader correctly answered a pre—testquestion the overall mean probability of a correct responseon that same question at post-test was .85. When a readerresponded to a pre-test question with the answer, “notknown”, the probability of a correct answer on that samequestion at post-test dropped to .75. When a readerinaccurately answered a pre-test question, the conditionalprobability of a correct answer to that same question atpost-test fell to .65. Lipson felt that readers’ inaccuratePrior Knowledge did affect their answering of questions. Ina later article (1984), she commented on this “failure toresolve conflicts between existing knowledge and newinformation” (p. 763) and of its detrimental effect on areader’s ability to answer questions correctly.Students’ reading ability does seem to interact withthe amount and quality of their Prior Knowledge. This ideawas the focus of a study by Holmes (1983) where fifty-eightproficient and less proficient Grade Five readers’ PriorKnowledge was pre-tested. Based on their scores they wereclassified as readers with more (MK) or less (LK) Prior33Knowledge. Their answers to the pre-test also were recordedas correct, inaccurate and missing. The effect of readingability was evident in the answering of Textually ImplicitQuestions when students’ prior information about thatquestion was accurate. Proficient MK readers didsignificantly better than less proficient MK readers. Aswell, even proficient LK readers scored significantly betterthan less proficient LK readers.The results were different when students in Holmes’study had inaccurate information and had to answer TextuallyImplicit questions. The effect of Prior Knowledge wasevident. Proficient MK readers out-performed proficient LKreaders. Again less proficient MK readers did better thanless proficient LK readers.When students in Holmes’ study lacked priorinformation for answering questions, the influence ofreading ability was again evident. Proficient MK readersperformed significantly better than less proficient LKreaders on Textually Explicit and Textually Implicitquestions.Holmes (1983) thus maintained that when a studentanswers Textually Explicit and Textually Implicit Questionsa complex interaction occurs between the amount and qualityof Prior Knowledge on one hand and reading ability on theother hand. For instance, when Prior Knowledge is accurate,reading ability is influential in a student’s performance inanswering Textually Implicit questions. When Prior Knowledge34is lacking, general reading ability affects a student’sperformance in answering both Textually Explicit andTextually Implicit questions. When a reader’s information isinaccurate Prior Knowledge appears to be more influentialthan reading ability in a reader’s answering of TextuallyImplicit questions.The four studies cited in the preceeding paragraphsdemonstrate that readers’ Prior Knowledge plays asignificant part in their answering of Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicit questions(Holmes, 1983; Johnston, 1984; Lipson, 1981; Pearson, Hansenand Gordon, 1979). Prior Knowledge affects a student’sanswering of questions independent of the effect ofintelligence (Johnston, 1984). The amount of a reader’sPrior Knowledge influences a reader’s performance inquestion-answering (Pearson, Hansen and Gordon (1979).Another important factor to consider is whether PriorKnowledge might be accurate, inaccurate or missing (Lipson,1981). Reading ability appears to interact with PriorKnowledge that is accurate or missing. When priorinformation to answer a question is accurate or lacking,proficient readers perform better than less proficientreaders with equivalent Prior Knowledge pre-test scores.When information to answer a question is inaccurate, orconflicts with what is in the text, readers with higher pretest knowledge scores perform better than those with lowerpre—test scores (Holmes, 1983).35Prior Knowledge and “Incompatible” TextsThere is evidence from five studies that readers!comprehension suffers when their Prior Knowledge does notmatch that of the writer of the text. Mention has previouslybeen made of inaccurate Prior Knowledge in Lipson’s study(1981) and of the decreased probability of a readeranswering a question correctly.The first study is the often cited investigation byBartlett (1932). He had his English subjects listen to andre-tell a Native Indian story called, “war of the Ghosts!!.Their re-telling included distortions of certain incidentswhich indicated that they were attempting to fit the storyevents into their own cultural schemata.Bartlett’s subjects did not include Native Indianslistening to an English story. A study by Steffensen, Joagdev and Anderson (1979) did compare two groups reading abouttheir own and another group’s culture. Nineteen Indian andtwenty American adults were matched in age, sex, educationalstandard and academic specialization. They read two lettersdescribing typical Indian and American weddings. They wrotetheir recall of the materials read and answered fivequestions on each of the letters. The Americans and Indiansrecalled more ideas from the letter describing the nativewedding from their own culture and remembered fewer ideasfrom the culturally foreign letter. They made more36elaboration of information about their own culture and moredistortions of information about the foreign culture. Forexample in re—telling the sentence in the American letter,“Pam was going to wear her grandmother’s wedding dress” (p.20), an Indian subject wrote, “She was looking alright (sic)except the dress was too old and out of fashion”. However,an American elaborated, “Pam’s mother wants Pam’s daughterto carry on the tradition of wearing the family weddinggown” (p.20). Apparently, Indians did not understand that itwas an American tradition to wear one’s grandmother’swedding gown.That a reader’s knowledge of the cultural content oftexts helps or hinders a reader’s performance in question-answering is also illustrated in a study by Johnson (1981).Forty-eight Iranian and nineteen American universitystudents read an Iranian and an American folktale in eitheran adapted simplified version, or an unadapted version. Theyanswered multiple-choice Textually Explicit and TextuallyImplicit questions. There was little variance in theAmericans’ answers to the different types of questions, butIranian students did significantly better in answering theTextually Explicit questions on the Iranian folktale than onthe American one. There was no difference between theIranian students who read the adapted Iranian tale and theother students who read the unadapted version. However, onthe Textually Implicit Questions the Iranian students didbetter on the American folktale than on the Iranian one.37Johnson explained this reversal of scores by surmising thatlack of familiarity with the American folktale led theIranian students to read the text carefully but they did notread the Iranian text as closely because they felt they werefamiliar with the cultural content. However, Johnson’sexplanation of the reversal to expectations could beexplained in a different way. Johnson remarked thatIranians’ answers to questions on the Iranian text contained“culture—based errors”, that is that their answers werebased on their culture which was different from hers.In texts that are not specific to a culture, theeffect of Prior Knowledge also seems to be evident(Alvermann, Smith and Readance, 1985). In their study,fifty-six Grade Six students of average reading ability werepre-tested on their Prior Knowledge of rattlesnakes and ofsunlight. There was no difference in the subjects’ pre—testscores. Half of the students were required to activate theirknowledge about rattlesnakes and sunlight by writing whatthey knew about these two topics, while the other halfactivated their knowledge of topics unrelated to the twopassages. After reading the texts they all answered the samemultiple—choice questions. There was no significantdifference in students’ performance in the passage aboutrattlesnakes. However, subjects who did not write abouttheir Prior Knowledge of sunlight recalled more ideas fromthe “sunlight” text than those who had activated their priorknowledge. They also chose more correct answers to questions38which tapped the information that was highly incompatiblewith most students’ Prior Knowledge. Those who had activatedtheir Prior Knowledge answered fewer of these questionscorrectly. The authors concluded that readers’ PriorKnowledge which is incompatible with what is implied in thetext may hinder readers in their answering of questions.Peeck, vanden Bosch and Kreupeling (1982) producedresults that do contradict the Alvermann study. In theirstudy sixty-eight Dutch Grade Five students read a textabout a fictional American fox. This text contained threestatements that were incongruent with the children’s PriorKnowledge about foxes. Half of the students were asked towrite about their knowledge of foxes; the other half wrotetheir knowledge about an unrelated topic. After reading thetext, they wrote their recall as accurately as possible anda week later took a multiple-choice test. The group whichactivated knowledge about foxes out-performed the groupwhich did not activate this knowledge. The “activators”answered more questions correctly and remembered moreinformation that was incongruent with their Prior Knowledge.The researchers concluded that children’s incongruent PriorKnowledge did not hinder their comprehension of the text. Apossible explanation for the differences in the resultsbetween these two studies may be found in the comments byAlvermann, Smith and Readance (1985). These researchers’instructions to the subjects in their study were “If you donot remember exactly, then write what you do remember”.39Later these researchers stated that “Evidence from the post—session questionnaire suggested that at least five studentsdid rely on previous knowledge when they had difficultyrecalling textual information” (p. 434). On the other hand,Peeck, vanden Bosch and Kreupeling (1982) had asked thechildren to “reproduce the text as accurately as possible”(p. 773).It was previously noted that in Johnson’s study thatstudents who read familiar information might have paid lessattention to the text than when they read unfamiliarcontent. They did less well in answering Textually Implicitquestions on familiar texts (Johnson, 1981). The order inwhich familiar and unfamiliar information was presented in atext also appears to affect a reader’s recall of theunfamiliar information (Davey and Kapinus, 1985). In theirstudy ninety-eight Grade Eight students of average or highreading ability were pre-tested on their knowledge ofcomputers. They read a text in one of two versions. In oneversion the familiar information was presented first (FF)followed by the unfamiliar information. In the secondversion the order of presentation was reversed with theunfamiliar information presented first (tJFF). All studentstook the immediate and the delayed multiple-choice questiontests. With reading ability as a covariate, two significantinteractions were discovered. High Prior Knowledge studentsobtained significantly better scores reading the (UFF)version of the text than other high knowledge students who40read the (FF) version. The second significant interactionwas that the (UFF) version produced greater scores than the(FF) version only in the immediate test condition and not inthe delayed test condition. Davey and Kapinus commented on:the potentially inhibitory effects of high PriorKnowledge. These high Prior Knowledge readers mayhowever over-rely on their Prior Knowledge whenconfronted with highly familiar material andtherefore not continue to integrate new ideaswith their well-developed Prior Knowledge systems.(p. 150).The above comment made by Davey and Kapinus couldhave been applied to the Iranians reading the Iranian textin the Johnson study (1981).With the exception of the Peeck study (1982) fourstudies have demonstrated that a reader uses Prior Knowledgewhich may not match the content of the text (Alvermann,Smith and Readance; Bartlett, 1932; Johnson, 1981;Steffensen, Joag—dev and Anderson, 1979); a reader appearsto distort what is in the text to fit a schema; (Bartlett,1932; Steffensen, Joag-dev and Anderson, 1979) a reader isunable to answer correctly questions which tap informationthat conflict with previously held beliefs or knowledge(Alvermann, Smith and Readance, 1985; Johnson, 1981); and areader relying on Prior Knowledge may not pay attention towhat is in the text (Davey and Kapinus, 1985).41Prior Knowledge and L2 readersSome researchers believe that titles and picturesaccompanying a text may help a reader activate PriorKnowledge of the content of the text. Two studies haveinvestigated how Li and L2 readers make use of the text andtheir Prior Knowledge when it is activated by titles andpictures, or what some authors call the practice ofproviding readers with a “context”.The first study, carried out by Carrell (1983),sampled one hundred and eight Li and L2 university students.The L2 students were from classes at the advanced andintermediate level in English as a Second Language. Allstudents read two texts, one about the familiar topic ofwashing clothes, the other text about a novel way ofserenading a loved one. There were four experimentalconditions to the study. One provided context in the form ofa picture and a title and was written in language that wasexplicit with clues as to the content of the passage. Forinstance the word “clothes” was used instead of the moreobscure word “things”. A second condition used texts thathad pictures and titles but the language provided few cluesas to content. The third condition used texts without anycontext clues from pictures or titles but the language wasexplicit. The fourth condition used texts that providedneither pictures nor titles and was written in language thatwas obscure. All students wrote their recall of the texts.42Li readers were affected by pictures and titles being morehelpful than not having them provided. Familiar content wasbetter recalled than unfamiliar content, and obviouslanguage resulted in better comprehension than obscurelanguage. However, with the L2 readers, only familiarity ofcontent was a significant factor in the re—telling of a textby the advanced level L2 students. No effect was found forthe intermediate L2 readers. Carrell commented that neithergroup of L2 readers appeared to:utilize context or textual clues. They are not efficienttop-down processors, making appropriate predictions basedon context, nor are they efficient bottom—up processors,building up a mental representation of the text based onlexical information in the text (p. 199).In the second study, Lee (1986) found slightlydifferent results to Carrell (1983). In this study thirty—two Spanish as a Foreign Language students read in Spanish.Students were divided into four groups and each group readthe same two texts as Carrell’s (1983) in just one of thefour conditions as described previously in Carrell’s study.However, they wrote their recall in their native language,English. Unlike the Li readers in the Carrell study,familiarity of content and obviousness of language did nothave separate effects, but interacted with one another. Asignificant effect was found in the recall of those studentswho read the familiar text written in obvious language withcontext provided. Lee concluded that these students did not“interact with text in the same way that native readers do”43(p. 353). It was unfortunate that there were no Spanishreaders reading the two texts in their first language,Spanish, to corroborate this statement.Other researchers have discovered the facilitativeeffect of Prior Knowledge on those readers who are more ableto process the language of the text. One such research wasthe study by Levine and Haus (1985). In this study ninetyhigh school students taking Spanish as a Foreign LanguageCourse received a pre-test in English on their PriorKnowledge of baseball. They then read in Spanish, a textabout a Major League baseball game, and answered twelvemultiple-choice questions. On the four Textually Explicitquestions there was a significant difference between thehigh-knowledge group and the low-knowledge group. On theeight Scriptally Implicit questions there was a highlysignificant interaction with Prior Knowledge helping themore advanced Year Three students than the less advancedYear Two learners. Levine and Haus (1985) did not, however,compare Li and L2 students and the effect of Prior Knowledgeon their comprehension of texts.Three studies which used Li and L2 subjects in theirinvestigations have been conducted. Vahid-Ekbatani (1981)had twenty American and forty Iranian students read threedifferent texts, one about an evening with Mr. and Mrs.Nixon (American culture), a second describing a rich Iranianmerchant marrying a third wife (Iranian culture), and athird about a person observing waves (Neutral). Twenty44Iranians read the three texts in English and twenty readthem in their native language, Farsi. They all answered fiveliteral and eight inferential multiple-choice questions oneach text. On the neutral and American texts the Americanstudents did better than the Iranians who read in Farsi. Onthe Iranian text, the Iranians out-performed the Americans.There were no differences between the two Iranian groups inthe neutral and the Iranian texts. However, in the Americantext, the Iranians who read in Farsi were superior to otherIranians who read this same text in English. Vahid-Ekbatanifelt that “when concepts presented in a text are unfamiliarto the reader, language discrepancies become more vivid” (p.57).In Vahid-Ekbatani’s study L2 students were able tocomprehend familiar texts but seemed to be doublyhandicapped when they read an unfamiliar passage. Thisresult was also found in a study conducted by McCagg (1984).In this study students from two different cultures performeddifferent reading tasks. One hundred and one Americanuniversity students and two hundred and thirty-two Japaneseuniversity students took part in this study. The languageability of the Japanese students was assessed by a grammartest. All students read each of three texts. One text wasabout fears during Hallowe’en caused by poisoned Tylenoltablets (American text). The second was about the role of awell—known Japanese kindergarten in helping Japanesechildren enter Tokyo University (Japanese text). The neutral45text was about the death of a Korean boxer. There were threeversions of the three texts. In the first version the mainidea of the text was implicit and the connections betweensentences were implicit. In the second version the main ideawas implicit but the connection between sentences wasexplicit and Prior Knowledge, which was required tounderstand the text but which the Japanese students mightnot have, was provided. In the third version the main ideawas explicit and the connections between sentences and PriorKnowledge were explicitly stated. After reading the threetexts in one of the three versions, students wrote summariesin their native languages. Japanese students could makeinferential connections in the Japanese text. In this textJapanese students with lower English proficiency matched theperformance of other Japanese students with higher Englishproficiency. Adding explicit links and background knowledgeto this familiar text did not significantly improve thecomprehension of the L2 readers. However, in the unfamiliarAmerican text, lower proficiency Japanese students were moreable to identify important text information only in theexplicit version of the text. A similar improvement inperformance for all L2 readers occurred in the explicitversion of the neutral text. On the other hand, there wereno significant differences for Li readers between theimplicit and explicit versions of this neutral text, or inthe American and Japanese texts.46The effect of L2 readers’ Prior Knowledge on theircomprehension of familiar texts is evident in the studies ofMcCagg (1984) and Vahid-Ekbatani (1981). It was also obviousin these two studies that unfamiliar texts hamper L2 readersmore than they do Li students. Both studies used culturallyfamiliar and unfamiliar texts.In a third study, Jenkins (1987) compared Li and L2readers using academic texts. Fifty-two native English (Li)readers and sixty non-native (L2) university students readtwo science texts and two linguistic texts. The studentswere majoring either in Science or in Linguistics. They allanswered Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions on each text. There was aPrior Knowledge effect with scientists scoring higher thanlinguists on the science texts, and the reverse occurringwith linguists scoring higher than scientists on thelinguistic texts. Li readers did not outscore L2 readerswhen the latter read texts in their familiar domain. Jenkinsmaintained that “Prior Knowledge is powerful enough toovercome language problems” (p. 93). Language proficiencywas, however, a factor in the answering of TextuallyExplicit and Scriptally Implicit questions. In answeringthese two types of questions, Li readers performed betterthan L2 readers. However, in the Textually Implicitquestions the L2 science majors were equal to the Li scienceand linguistic majors. Jenkins felt that with thesesubjects:47reading skills and strategies were implicated in thecomprehension process. Furthermore if Prior Knowledgeis high, the task of untangling the syntax in orderto comprehend TI (Textually Implicit) questions wouldnot be so difficult (p. 73).In this same study, Jenkins described the interactionof reading ability and strategies used in answeringquestions. She analyzed the question-answering performanceof ten proficient and ten less proficient readers. Among theten proficient readers were eight Li readers (six scientistsand two linguists) and two L2 readers (both scientists).Among the ten less-proficient readers were nine L2 readersand one Li reader. Eight of the ten less-proficient readerswere linguists. Jenkins came to the conclusion that “goodreaders had high enough verbal ability to take advantage ofthe bottom-up input (of the text) regardless of the degreeof familiarity of the material” (p.87). She also believedthat:it seems more likely that low Prior Knowledge inhibitedthe reading performance of the poor group in the firstplace, and that they did not have sufficiently highlanguage proficiency to compensate (p. 9i).The studies summarized indicate that L2 readers areable to use Prior Knowledge to overcome language problemswhen the content of the text is familiar (Carrell, 1983;Lee, 1986; Levine and Haus, 1985; McCagg, 1984; VahidEkbatani, 1981). If the text is unfamiliar L2 readers appearto be more handicapped than Li readers (McCagg, 1984; Vahid48Ekbatani, 1981). Jenkins (1987) believed that readingability and strategies interact with L2 readers’ PriorKnowledge in their comprehension of texts.Summary Of Studies Reporting The Influence Of PriorKnowledge On ComprehensionAs stated earlier, throughout history writers haveacknowledged the part played by Prior Knowledge in readingcomprehension. They stated their belief that a reader’scomprehension of texts is dependent on what one knows (Huey,1908; Gates, 1947; Gray, 1941; Pearson and Johnson, 1978;Smith, 1982).According to schema theory, Prior Knowledge enablesa reader to focus on and summarize what is important in thetext. Schema helps a reader assimilate new information,infer and recall information in an orderly fashion(Anderson, 1984). These “notions” have been illustrated inthe research conducted by Spilich et al (1979) and by Rechtand Leslie (1988).However, when a reader’s Prior Knowledge conflictswith the Prior Knowledge that the writer of the text assumesthe reader has, then comprehension suffers for that reader(Alvermann, Smith and Readance, 1985; Johnson, 1981).Furthermore, a reader may distort information in the textto fit an existing schema (Bartlett,1932; Steffensen, Joag—dev and Anderson, 1979).49Apparently, the accuracy of a reader’s PriorKnowledge affects comprehension. The probability ofcorrectly answering question decreases when a readerpossesses incorrect prior information (Lipson, 1981).First (Li) and Second Language (L2) readers do notdiffer in their performance on comprehension tasks when theyread “familiar” texts for which they have high PriorKnowledge (Carrell, 1983; Lee, 1986; McCagg, i984; VahidEkbatani, i98i). L2 readers, though, are at a greaterdisadvantage than Li readers when they read “unfamiliar”texts for which they have low Prior Knowledge (McCagg, 1984;Vahid-Ekbatani, 1 981).Proficient readers appear to make better use of theirPrior Knowledge than less proficient readers even when bothgroups possess equivalent amount of prior information(Holmes, 1981). However, there is a scarcity of researchabout average readers’ use of prior knowledge. Jenkins(1987) believed that reading ability and readers’ strategiesalso play a part in their performance in comprehension tasksand readers’ strategies in comprehending and answeringquestions on texts are the focus of the next section.Strategies Used in Reading and Answering Questions on TextsThis section about strategies, or the actions that50a reader uses in comprehending and answering questions ontexts, is divided into three subsections. They are:(1) Students’ reading strategies(2) Students’ question—answering strategies(3) A summary on studies about reading and question-answering strategiesStudents’ Reading StrategiesStrategies have been defined differently by variouswriters, van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) considered strategiesto be working hypotheses which are derived from textualinformation received in the early stages of reading. Theseworking hypotheses may be confirmed or rejected in the laterstages of reading. Paris, Lipson and Wixson (1983) statedthat strategies imply “intentionality and purpose on thepart of the learner” (p. 294). In the present studystrategies are cognitive actions used by the readers to helpthem understand or comprehend the text or to answerquestions on the text.Researchers have investigated students’ readingstrategies or actions to help them comprehend texts.Various methods have been employed in research studies toelicit the cognitive processes of students while readingtexts. Students are sometimes questioned about theirstrategies or else a hypothetical case is put to them andthey are asked what strategies they would use. Two sources51of data are used in this present study and these aredescribed in the following two sections. One is the “ThinkOut Loud” (T-O-L) methodology, and the other is the use of aRating Scale.“Think—Out-Loud” (T-O-L) MethodologyThe “Think—Out-Loud” (T-O-L) or verbal reportmethodology is a form of introspection where researchers asktheir subjects to verbalize their thoughts. Studentsexpress their thoughts while they are performing a task, forinstance, reading a sentence. Or perhaps students read asection of the text and then retrospectively report on thethoughts they had while they were reading. T-O-L is amethodology with a long history.Pritchard (1990b) traced the origin of introspection,or the mind observing its own processes, to both Aristotleand Plato. However, concurrent verbal reports or verbalizingwhile doing a task began with “systematic experimentalintrospection” of classical psychology (Titchener, 1912. p.432), and the belief that certain psychological processeswere only accessible through self-observation. At that timetrained subject—observers verbalized their thoughts inlaboratory studies.Ten years later the responsibility of commenting ontheir thoughts shifted from the subjects to the researcher,and naive untrained students were used. In Buswell’s52pioneering study (1926) elementary school students gaveverbal reports while solving arithmetic problems. Twentyyears later Duncker (1946) used T—O-L’s to investigate theproblem solving processes of college students. T-O-L’s werealso used by Bloom and Broder (1950) with high and lowachieving college students solving verbal problems.With the decline of behaviorism, verbal reports orT-O-L’s became an important part of research in cognitivepsychology. There was criticism of this method (Nisbett andWilson, 1977), but most writers (Afflerbach and Johnston,1984; Meichenbaum et al, 1985; White, 1980) agree withEricsson and Simon (1980) that:verbal reports elicited with care and interpreted withfull understanding of the circumstances under whichthey are obtained are a valuable and thoroughly reliablesource of information about cognitive processes (p. 247).Verbal reports or T-O-L’s have been widely used inreading research. A number of studies relevant to students’use of Prior Knowledge are described in the followingparagraphs.T-O-L’s have been used with children as young asthose in Grade Two (Alvermann, 1984). Thirty Grade Twochildren in her study were given practice in T—O-L. Theyread aloud and verbalized their thoughts after eachsentence. While they read the setting of the story, theyreported making more inferences and identifying with theprotagonist in the story. As they read more of the story,the frequency of these two strategies decreased. It is53interesting to note how Prior Knowledge forms part ofAlvermann’s definition of inferences as “an interpretationof story resulting from having pieced together informationstated in the text but not necessarily free of one’s priorknowledge” (p. 187).The strategies that students use while readingnarrative and expository texts may be different. Two studieshave investigated this. The first study was by Hare andSmith (1982>. The retrospective verbal reports of twenty-nine Grade Six students indicated that re-reading was themost common strategy used in both kinds of texts. The secondmost common strategy was imaging in the narrative andchanging reading speed in the expository passage. A smallpercentage of the T-O-L’s (6% in the narrative, and 17% inthe expository) referred to students’ trying to assimilatethe text to their Prior Knowledge. In the second part of thestudy twenty-seven Grade Seven students talked about theirthoughts after reading each of the five sections of thenarrative and expository texts. Re-reading was again themost common strategy mentioned in both texts. Approximatelythe same percentage of the strategies reported (9% in thenarrative, 11% in the expository) were of students’assimilating text with their personal experience.A second study that investigated students’ strategieswhile reading narrative and expository texts was carried outby Langer (1986). Her subjects were above-average readers.She used sixteen eight-year-olds, thirty-six eleven-year-54olds, and fifteen fourteen—year-olds. Half of the studentsreported retrospectively on their thoughts and the otherhalf gave concurrent verbal reports while reading twostories and two expository texts. The highest percentage oftheir T-O-L”s referred to their use of their Prior Knowledge(45.9% for the eight-year-olds, 52.8% for the eleven—yearolds, and 40% for the fourteen—year-olds). Less frequentlyused strategies were questioning, hypothesizing, assuming,giving evidence and validating their interpretations.Hypothesizing was used more often in the narrative passages,and questioning was used more in the expository texts.Langer felt that the strategies described above are “allpart of the thoughtful reasoning behaviors that take placewhen readers ... make sense” (p.75) of the text they arereading.The two studies reported above which investigatedstudents’ strategies while reading narrative and expositorypassages yield quite different results. One reason may havebeen because the foci of the studies were different. Langer(1986) was interested in the “constructive meaning—makingaspects of reading” (p. 9). Hare and Smith (1982), on theother hand, were investigating how students tried toremember the content of texts.The task readers face while reading influences thestrategies they might use. For example, in the studyconducted by Hare and Smith (1982) students used the55strategies of re—reading, imaging and changing reading speedto help them remember the content of texts.Three other studies have been found which illustratehow readers’ strategies are affected by the task they haveto perform. Garner and Alexander (1982) used thirtyundergraduate students who read an article to prepare toanswer a question. After each of the four sections of thetext, they had to stop and verbalize their thoughts. Thestudents reported using a number of strategies includingtying their personal experiences to the text. But thestrategy that was significantly related to their performanceon the question was their formulation of questions inanticipation of the one they thought would be asked.Powell (1988) investigated strategies used bystudents who faced different academic tasks. Nine proficientGrade Six students read twelve short texts. They had toperform four tasks and either report their thoughtsconcurrently or retrospectively. The four tasks were toanswer multiple—choice questions, to re-tell the texts, tofill in the blanks (doze) in the texts, or just read thetexts. These four tasks produced differences in thefrequency students reported that they used their PriorKnowledge. Use of Prior Knowledge ranged from 44% for themultiple-choice task, 30% for the reading task, 18% for thedoze task, to 17% for the re-telling task. In three of thefour tasks, use of Prior Knowledge was the most frequentlyreported strategy. Other strategies less frequently used56were re-reading, paraphrasing, making predictions,visualizing, stating a failure to understand, changingreading rate, confirming or disconfirming predictions andspeculating.Anderson (1989) conducted the third study underreview in this area. He investigated strategies whichstudents used while they read to perform academic tasks. Inhis study, twenty—eight Spanish-speaking college studentstook a standardized test under normal conditions and a monthlater took the alternate form of the test under timedcondition but stopped after each test passage to reportretrospectively on their thoughts and test—takingstrategies. They also read two textbook passages and gaveretrospective T-O-L’s on their reading strategies and thestrategies they used in answering multiple—choice questionson those texts. Prior Knowledge was not a frequently usedstrategy (2% in the standardized test and 1% in the textbookpassages). The most common strategy for the standardizedreading test passages was relating a sentence to a previousportion of the text. In reading the textbook passages themore frequently used strategies were re-reading, readingahead, and relating a sentence to personal experience (PriorKnowledge).The three studies above investigated students’strategies while reading to perform different tasks(Anderson, 1989; Garner and Alexander, 1982; Powell, 1988)and showed that different tasks produce different57frequencies in students’ reported use of the same strategy.For example, the frequency of reported use of PriorKnowledge varied according to the tasks students had to do(Powell, 1988). Students also were aware of the task theyfaced and their most significant strategy was closelyrelated to that task; for instance, self—questioning toprepare for a question (Garner and Alexander, 1982). Theemphasis on a timed test caused readers to simply matchsentences and questions, while the more leisurely textbookreading task permitted readers to re-read, read ahead andrelate to their personal experiences (Anderson, 1989).As texts become more difficult, readers have reporteddifferent frequencies of the same strategies they might usewhile reading easier texts. Two studies demonstrated thischange in frequency of strategies used. The first was byHare (1981). Twelve proficient and twelve less proficientcollege readers read an article for which they all had highknowledge, and a second article for which they had lowknowledge. In the high-knowledge article, 12.5% ofproficient readers’ T—O—L’s were references to theirpersonal experiences while less proficient readers mentionedtheir experiences in 10% of their verbal reports. In thelow-knowledge article no references were made by eitherreading group to their personal experiences. As well, thetotal number of strategies reported decreased from the highknowledge to the low-knowledge article.58The other study was conducted by Bednar (1987) whoalso investigated readers’ strategies as they read texts ofincreasing difficulty. In her study, thirty average GradeSeven students read three passages, one at their independentlevel of reading, the second at their instructional, and thethird at their frustrational level. They verbalized theirthoughts after reading each passage, and they sorted thirty-nine strategies into six categories according to how oftenthey used them. After reading at their independent level,12% of their T-O-L’s referred to their Prior Knowledge. Thepercentage dropped to 3% after they read at theirinstructional level. After reading at their frustrationallevel, the percentage of reference to Prior Knowledge was0%. When they sorted statements about their use of PriorKnowledge the frequencies of reported use were similar totheir T-O-L’s after they read at their different readinglevels.These two studies investigating students’ strategieswhile reading texts of variable difficulty are relativelysimilar in their results (Bednar, 1987; Hare, 1981). All thestudents investigated reported using the same strategy lessfrequently when a text was more difficult than when a textwas easier.Students with different reading abilities may use thesame strategies as their superior peers, but they may usethem with different frequencies or different rate ofsuccess. Two studies have compared proficient and less59proficient readers’ strategies. The first one was byOlshavsky (1976-77), who was a pioneer in the use ofconcurrent T-O-L’s in reading research. In her study, twentyfour proficient and less proficient Grade Ten students reada story and verbalized after each sentence. Proficientreaders were significantly different from less proficientreaders in their use of Prior Knowledge although thepercentage of students’ reference to Prior Knowledge was low(1%). Proficient readers also made more use of context todefine a word. Less proficient readers, on the other hand,stated more often that they failed to understand the text.In a later study by Neuman (1990) no significantdifferences were found between proficient and lessproficient Grade Five readers’ inferencing strategies asthey read two mystery stories. However, there weresignificant differences in the frequencies of errors made byless proficient readers. Analysis of errors made by lessproficient readers revealed that these readers showed an“overreliance on background information to the detriment ofconsidering all textual information” (p. 272).There are a few studies investigating the strategiesused by average readers in processing texts. A study byPereira (1991) investigated strategies used by ten GradeSeven average-to--proficient readers. They gave concurrentverbal reports while reading each sentence. The most common“moves” or actions verbalized by her subjects were makinghypotheses and inferences (35% of total “moves” reported)60and judgments on information in the passage (27% of total“moves” reported). Pereira classified inferences andhypotheses under the category of reasoning or “How can Ifigure this out?” (p.90). She classified making judgmentsunder the category of evaluating or “How good/valid/true isthis?” (p. 90). Some of her subjects used a differentapproach to the text. They defined, explained concepts orrestated and paraphrased words in order to clarify the text(22% of total “moves” reported). Pereira classifieddefining, explaining and paraphrasing under the category ofclarifying, or, “What does this mean?” (p. 90). Her subjectsthus reported using reasoning, evaluating and clarifying“moves” or actions. The researcher in this study usedPereira’s labels of “explaining” and “evaluating” as two ofthe categories of strategies employed by students in thepresent study.Block (1986) found that Prior Knowledge was not usedby less proficient readers with the same effect. Sheinvestigated the strategies used by nine non-proficient Liand L2 college readers as these students read a first textand then gave concurrent verbal reports. Reading a secondtext, they retrospectively reported their thoughts. Therewere no differences between the types of strategies used bythese Li and L2 readers. However, Block noticed that somereaders used their Prior Knowledge sparingly. These studentsdid link their Prior Knowledge associations with theinformation they read in the texts, and they focussed on the61main ideas in the texts. These readers she labelled“integrators”. The other type of readers relied more oftenon their personal knowledge to develop an interpretation ofthe text, and they focussed on details rather than on themain ideas. These readers Block labelled as “nonintegrators”.The two studies cited above indicate that readers ofdifferent reading ability may use the same or differentstrategies (Neuman, 1990; Olshavsky, 1976—1977). Readers ofthe same reading ability may use different strategies(Pereira, 1991), or the same strategy with different effect(Block, 1986).Two studies have specifically investigated thereading strategies of Li and L2 readers. Padron, Knight andWaxman (1986) had thirty-eight Grade Thre’e and Grade Fivestudents read a text at their instructional reading level.Fifteen of these students were Li readers and the rest wereL2 readers. They gave concurrent verbal reports afterstopping at regular intervals in the text. The T-O-L’s of Listudents indicated that they were concentrating, notingdetails and generating questions more often than L2 readerswere. No L2 readers described the strategies of imaging,searching for important details or predicting outcomes. L2readers often expressed their concern about the questionstheir teachers might ask them. Both Li and L2 readers didnot frequently report that they were assimilating the62passage with their personal experiences (9% for L2 readers,7% for Li readers).Pritchard (1990a) also compared the readingstrategies of Li and L2 readers. He used sixty proficientGrade Eleven readers, thirty students were from a smallmidwestern American town and thirty students were Palauansfrom a small Pacific island. All readers Thought-Out-Loudafter reading individual sentences of two letters describingtypical American and Palauan funerals. Their T-O-L’srevealed that they were frequently attempting to understandindividual sentences through re-reading, paraphrasing anduse of context clues (46% for the Americans, 59% for thePalauans). Next in frequency came the strategy of usingtheir Prior Knowledge. American students made morereferences (27%) to their Prior Knowledge than the Palauanstudents did (18%).In summary, verbal report or T-O-L’s have been usedfor a long time. They have been used with readers as youngas those in Grade Two (Alvermann, 1984). In all the fourteenstudies cited above readers have reported that they usetheir Prior Knowledge or refer to their personal experiencesor make inferences based on Prior Knowledge to comprehendwritten texts. Readers attempt to make sense of the text andshow evidence of thoughtful. reasoning behaviors (Langer,1986; Pereira, 1991).63Strategies that readers use while comprehending textsmay differ according to the nature of the texts read (Hareand Smith, 1982; Langer, 1986). Strategies are lessfrequently reported when students read a more difficult textthan an easier one (Hare, 1981; Bednar, 1987).Students with different reading abilities may use thesame or different strategies (Neuman, 1990; Olshavsky, 1976-1977). Students of the same reading ability may usedifferent strategies (Pereira, 1991), or they may use thesame strategy differently (Block, 1986).Readers with Li and L2 backgrounds do not typicallyuse the same strategies (Padron, Knight and Waxman, 1986).Or they may report different frequencies of the samestrategy (Pritchard, 1990).The tasks that students face may cause them to employdifferent strategies. (Anderson, 1989; Garner and Alexander,1982; Hare and Smith, 1982; Powell, 1988). Readers’strategies when they face questions are discussedimmediately after the section on Rating Scales and Students’Reading Strategies.Rating Scales and Students’ Reading StrategiesThe present study used a rating scale to collectsupporting data on children’s strategies as they read andanswer questions on texts. The following paragraphs describerating scales as they have been used with students.64Besides using retrospective T-O-L’s Paris and Myers(1981) also used a rating scale in their investigation ofthe reading strategies of fourteen proficient and fourteenless proficient Grade Four readers. These students ratedtwenty statements on a nine point rating scale. Ten of thesestatements could positively affect their memory of a storythey read; for example, “Ask yourself questions about theideas in the story” (p.14). Ten statements could have anegative effect, for example, “Think about something elsewhile reading” (p. 14). On the center of the rating sheetwas drawn a box with the words, “No differences” writtenunder it. To the right of this box were four boxes above theaxis line. These boxes increased in height and the firstwas labelled, “Helps a little”, and the last, “Helps a lot”.To the left of the center box were four boxes drawn belowthe axis line. They increased in height, and the first boxwas labelled, “Hurts a little”, and the last, “Hurts a lot”.Less proficient readers gave higher ratings to thestatements which described negative strategies. They alsodisplayed reversals of expected trends. For example, “Sayingevery word over and over” was rated very helpful by lessproficient readers, but proficient readers rated thisstatement as neutral. A negative correlation was discoveredbetween the items rated highly by less proficient readersand their performance in recalling the story. While a ninepoint rating scale seems very difficult for Grade Four65students to accommodate, this study is frequently quoted asauthoritative.A rating scale was also used in the study of Carrell(1989), who investigated seventy-five English-speakingcollege students studying Spanish (ES) and forty-fiveSpanish-speaking students studying English (SE) reading twotexts, the first text in their native language and thesecond text in their second language. A five point scalethat was employed ranged from strongly agree, agree,neutral, disagree to strongly disagree. The students thenanswered multiple-choice questions and rated thirty-sixstatements. These statements tapped students’ confidenceabout their reading ability, the strategies they believedwere effective, what they considered difficult, and the“repair” strategies they used when they faced problems.After reading in their first language both (ES) and (SE)students showed in their ratings that they were using whatCarrell called a “global” approach to reading. They highlyrated statements that showed that they made use of textorganization, considered their Prior Knowledge and focussedon the gist of the text. They rated low what Carrell called“local” strategies like decoding. The performance of bothgroups in the multiple-choice questions was positivelyrelated to students’ disagreeing that they gave up andstopped reading when they did not understand something thatwas written in their second language. However,there weredifferences between the two groups. The (SE) group performed66better the more they agreed with the statement that theycould recognize the difference between main points andsupporting details when they read in their second language.The (Es) group scored better the more they agreed with thestatement that they questioned the author’s truthfulnesswhen they read in their second language. The (SE) readersdid better if they disagreed with the statement thatrelating Prior Knowledge to the text caused them difficultyin their second language. There was a negative relationshipbetween the performance in the multiple-choice test of the(ES) readers and their agreeing that it was an effectivestrategy to use letter-sound correspondence when they readin their second language. Carrell commented on thedifferences between the (ES) and the (SE) groups by statingthat the latter were more advanced language learners andtended to use “global” strategies while the former who wereless advanced were inclined to use “local” strategies.The literature on the use of rating scales andreading strategies is, however, scarce. Most rating scalesare used to assess readers’ attitude towards reading.Nevertheless, these two studies by Carrell (1989) and Parisand Myers (1981) indicate that proficient and lessproficient readers, more advanced and less advanced languagelearners, rate statements about strategies in differentways. There is also evidence in these two studies ofcorrelations between students’ ratings and their performanceon post-reading comprehension tasks.67Question-Answering StrategiesIn the following section the literature on question-answering strategies in general and one strategy inparticular, the “lookback” strategy, is reviewed. A readeruses the “lookback” strategy to re-examine the whole text orportions of the text in order to find some information thathad been forgotten. Or a reader re—reads a text tocomprehend it better.Question-answering strategies are discussed in thecontext of answering open-ended questions, and not multiple-choice questions. Multiple-choice questions in standardizedtests have been widely used as a form of assessing students’comprehension of texts. Most researchers have investigatedhow students choose the correct answer and eliminate theother choices provided in the multiple-choice tests. Studiesabout students’ strategies in answering open-ended questionsare few in number.Question—Answering Strategies (Excluding “Lookback”Strategy)Most researchers who used the Pearson and Johnsontaxonomy (1978) had an instructional purpose. Their aim wasto teach students to improve their ability to search for the68answer either in the text or in their Prior Knowledge(Raphael and McKinney, 1983; Raphael and Winnacott, 1985).Only one research did not have an instructionalpurpose. The researchers investigated children’sclassification of questions according to the Pearson andJohnson taxonomy (1978). Raphael, Winograd and Pearson(1980) used two hundred and forty Grade Four, Six, and Eightstudents who read definitions and examples of TextuallyExplicit, Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicitquestions. They then read a story and classified thequestions about the story, or the order was reversed forsome children. Students’ answers were scored as to whetherit was based on the text or on their Prior Knowledge.Children gave more text-based answers than knowledge-basedanswers to Textually Explicit questions. The reverse wastrue for the Scriptally Implicit questions. Proficientreaders tended to be more consistent in their classificationof the questions and their source of answers.Two studies made use of T-O--L’s in theirinvestigation of students’ question-answering strategies.Goldman and Duran (1988) investigated the strategies thatseven university students used while answering questions ona text on oceanography. Four of these students were Lireaders, the rest were L2 readers. These students differedin their amount of Prior Knowledge about oceanography. Theyverbalized their thoughts as they answered questions on thetext. Students indicated in their verbal reports that they69were searching their memory or the text or both memory andtext for an answer. They also used reasoning and showed thatthey were monitoring their answers. Students who were moresuccessful in answering questions demonstrated that theymonitored the product of their answers. Less successfulstudents seemed to rely on their memory and did not monitortheir answers. Second Language (L2) readers, especiallythose with low knowledge, found questions which requiredparaphrases or conversions of vocabulary the hardest toanswer. Second Language (L2) readers with high knowledge,however, were less dependent on the text. Those studentswith low knowledge tried to compensate this deficiency bymeans of lengthy processing of the text, and by monitoringand evaluating the process and the product of their actions.The second study was carried out by McDonnell (1989)who investigated the test-taking strategies of thirteenproficient Grade Six students. They read texts andverbalized their strategies in answering questions,completing a doze and re-telling the information in thetexts. McDonnell noticed that these students used copingstrategies to deal with questions they could not answer. Forinstance, one student said that he skipped difficultquestions. Students reported that they used their knowledgeof the format of questions. One student believed thatquestions were simply about the main idea in a text. Theyverbalized their use of Prior Knowledge. They also reportedthat they re-read the question to try to understand it and70they re-read the text to focus on details and to findforgotten facts. As well, they also had unique personalstrategies. One student believed that he would gain extramarks if he elaborated his answer.In conclusion, the studies by Goldman and Duran(1988), McDonnell (1989) and Raphael, Winograd and Pearson(1980) have investigated students’ question-answeringstrategies. These studies do not seem to have yielded asrich findings as those numerous studies which investigatedstudents’ reading strategies.The studies about students’ question-answeringstrategies indicate that students use coping strategies whenfaced with difficult questions (McDonnell, 1989). Studentsmonitor their answers and they process texts especially whenthey have low Prior Knowledge (Goldman and Duran, 1988).They do demonstrate their ability to classify the TextuallyExplicit, Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicitquestions. They show that they use their Prior Knowledge andthe text to answer questions (Raphael, Winograd and Pearson,1980). In the next section, students’ strategies in lookingback at texts is discussed.“Lookback” StrategyWhile answering a question about a text a reader usesthe “lookback” strategy for a variety of purposes. A reader71re-examines the whole text or portions of a text in order tofind information that has been forgotten. A reader may reread a text in order to comprehend it better beforeanswering questions on that text.Most studies on the “lookback” strategy have comparedproficient and less proficient readers’ use of this strategy(Davey, 1988; Garner and Reis,1981). Other studies used the“lookback” strategy as an instructional technique(Alvermann, 1988; Garner, Hare, Alexander and Winograd,1984). One study used an experimental approach to test thehypothesis that lookbacks enhance comprehension whenstudents fail to understand or forget information requiredto answer questions (Alessi, Anderson and Goetz, 1979).Few researchers have investigated students actuallyusing the “lookback” strategy. Two studies which didinvestigate the “lookback” strategy also used the T-O-Lmethod in a tutoring context. Older students verbalizedtheir “lookback” strategy as they tutored younger children.In a study by Hahn and Smith (1983) Grade Fivestudents tutored Grade Three children who had been trainedto feign ignorance in a particular task. Each tutoring pairwas observed as they answered questions on a text.Proficient tutors encouraged more “lookbacks”, sampling ofthe text and reference to Prior Knowledge than lessproficient tutors did.Garner, Macready and Wagoner (1984) also had GradeFive students tutor Grade Three children trained to feign72strategy deficits. Each tutoring pair was also observed asthey answered questions on a text. These students exhibitedbehavior which provided a good fit to the researchers’hypothesis that the “lookback” strategy was acquired in aspecified sequence. The researchers’ hypothesis was thatless proficient readers re-read the whole text and were notable to scan it for the information required. As studentsdeveloped their ability to re-read they were able to scanthe text. More proficient readers were able to distinguishbetween text-based from knowledge-based questions. The lastskill to be acquired in the use of the “lookback” strategywas the ability to combine ideas across sentences in thetext.The “lookback” strategy, thus, appears to be a skillthat differentiates between proficient and less proficientreaders (Hahn and Smith,1983). It is acquired in a sequenceof steps from undifferentiated re-reading of the wholepassage, followed by the ability to scan the text, todistinguish between answers that are to be found in the textor in Prior Knowledge, and culminates in the skill ofcombining information from different parts of the text(Garner, Macready and Wagoner, 1984).73Summary on Studies about Reading and Question-AnsweringStrategiesFrom this review of literature it would appear thatstudents do use strategies while reading to comprehend atext. Researchers using the T-O-L methodology and ratingscales have found that readers use a variety of strategiesto help them understand texts. From the studies reviewed inthis section (Alvermann, 1984; Anderson, 1989; Bednar, 1987;Block, 1986; Garner and Alexander, 1982; Hare and Smith,1982; Langer, 1986; Neuman, 1990; Olshavsky, 1976—1977;Powell, 1988; Pereira, 1991) a picture emerges of thestrategies that readers report using. Readers verbalize thatthey use Prior Knowledge. They attempt to make sense of thetexts they are reading and show thoughtful, reasoningbehaviors. They report that they infer, predict, question,visualize, change reading speed, paraphrase, use contextclues, and relate what they are reading to previous portionsof the text. They also acknowledge their failure tocomprehend a text.The studies reviewed also indicate that not allstudents report using the same types of strategies(Olshavsky, 1976-1977; Padron, Knight and Waxman, 1986;Pereira, 1991). Sometimes when students verbalize the use ofthe same strategy, they may not be using it with the samefrequency (Bednar, 1987; Langer, 1986; Padron, Knight andWaxman, 1986; Pritchard, 1990a). Students also seem to use74strategies with different rates of success (Neuman, 1990).Most researchers would agree with Anderson (1989) that:it is not simply a matter of knowing what strategyto use but the reader must also know how to use itsuccessfully and orchestrate its use with otherstrategies (p. 135).Researchers have also used T-O-L’s to investigatestudents’ question-answering strategies (Garner, Macreadyand wagoner, 1984; Goldman and Duran, 1988; Hahn and Smith,1983; Raphael, Winograd and Pearson, 1980). The findingsfrom these studies provide a clue to the strategies readersuse to answer questions. The strategies that students reportusing are that they re-read the question and monitor theiranswers. They re—read the text, looking at specific parts ofit and they combine information from different portions ofthe text. They decide that the answer is not in the text butin their Prior Knowledge. They also indicate that they usetheir reasoning to obtain an answer.With the exception of the studies by Langer (1986)and by Padron, Knight and Waxman (1986), most researchershave used students who were at or above the Grade Six level.Most of the readers were proficient or less proficientreaders. Only a few studies specifically investigatedaverage readers (Pereira, 1991). Some of these studiesincluded L2 readers (Anderson, 1989; Padron, Knight andWaxman, 1986; Pritchard, 1990). This present study exploredhow average Li and L2 Grade Three readers used their PriorKnowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies to interactwith texts and to answer questions on those texts.7576CHAPTER IIIMATERIALS AND METHODOLOGYThe purpose of the study was to investigate the roleof Prior Knowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies inaverage Li and L2 Grade Three readers’ interactions with twotexts as they read and later as they answered TextuallyExplicit, Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicitquestions.Two research questions focussed on the readers’ PriorKnowledge strategies as (a) they interacted with the twotexts and (b) answered questions on those texts. They were:(i) What was the role played by Prior Knowledge strategiesas average Li and L2 Grade Three readers interacted withtexts?(2) What was the role played by Prior Knowledge strategiesas average Li and L2 Grade Three readers answered: (a)Textually Explicit questions, (b) Textually Implicitquestions, and (c) Scriptally Implicit questions?Two other questions focussed on Non Prior KnowledgeStrategies used by readers as (a) they interacted with twotexts and (b) answered questions on those texts? They were:(3) What was the role played by Non Prior Knowledgestrategies as average Li and L2 Grade Three readersinteracted with texts?77(4) What was the role played by Non Prior Knowledgestrategies as average Li and L2 Grade Three readersanswered: (a) Textually Explicit questions, (b)Textually Implicit questions, and (c) ScriptallyImplicit questions?This chapter describes the design of the study, thepilot studies undertaken, the selection of subjects, thesetting of the study, the instruments used, the collectionof data and preparation of the data base. Questions ofvalidity and reliability are also discussed.Design of the StudyThe study was designed as an exploratory case study.According to Yin (1986), a case study seeks to answer “how”and “why” questions about contemporary events, and providesmultiple sources of evidence. Although the four researchquestions stated above do not begin with the words “how” or“why” they could be paraphrased and summarized as:How do average Li and L2 Grade Three readers usePrior Knowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategiesto understand texts and to answer Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicit questions?The study thus sought to explore young students’comprehension of texts and their answering of questions. Toobtain in—depth information about student& use of PriorKnowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies in their78interactions with texts and their answering of questions,two sources of evidence were used.One source of evidence was the data generated by“Think-Out-Loud” (T-O-L) methodology described by Block(1986) as a “window into those processes that are usuallyhidden” (p.464).The other source for the data was the readers’ratings of researcher-developed Reading and Question-Answering Strategy Rating Scales. The strategy statements inthese rating scales were compiled from a survey of theliterature on readers’ strategies while reading andanswering questions. Students’ ratings of these statementsserved as data complementary to their Think-Out-Loudprotocols.Students were not randomly selected but were chosenaccording to certain criteria which will be described in alater section of this chapter.InstrumentsTo gather the necessary data, seven instruments wereused in this study. They are described in the subsectionsfollowing.79Coloured Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1965)Coloured Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1965) wereadministered to students to equate the two groups selectedfor the Sixth and Seventh Sessions. All students in thesample fell between the 50th and the 95th percentile.It is a test of reasoning and reasoning was seen asan essential strategy used by readers as they attempt tomake sense of the text they are reading (Langer, 1986;Pereira, 1991). Readers use their reasoning to obtainanswers to questions on texts (Goldman and Duran, 1988). Andit should be remembered, Thorndike (1917), who wasconsidered the font of knowledge concerning thoughtprocesses involved in students’ responding to textquestions, described how the “act of answering simplequestions ... includes all the features characteristic oftypical reasonings” (p.323).The Coloured Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1965)consists of three sets of twelve matrices each. Studentswere required to decide which of the six alternativesprovided was the correct one to complete a design or matrix.Testing was untimed and took about thirty minutes perstudent.According to the 1965 manual the test/ re—testreliability coefficient ranges from .65 for children underseven years of age to .80 for nine-year-old children.80Comprehension Subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test,Level C, Form 1 (1978)The intent of giving the Comprehension subtest of theGates-MacGinitie Reading Test, Level C, Form 1 (1978) was toensure that the reading comprehension scores of the subjectsselected fell between the 4th and 7th stanine to establishan objectively determined average sample of Grade Threereaders.The Reading Comprehension subtest consists of twenty-two short texts. Each text is followed by two questionswhich can be answered by choosing one of the four multiple-choice answers provided. The total time allowed a student tocomplete this test is thirty—five minutes. All studentscompleted the test within the time limits allowed.Canadian norms for the Gates—MacGinitie Reading Testswere based on approximately 4000 children. According to themanual for this test, the reliability coefficient for LevelC of the Comprehension Subtest is .94. The designers of thetest provided proof of content validity by referring to thevariety of materials found in the tests. Out of the totalnumber of twenty-two passages in Level C, 20% are fromsocial science materials, 20% from natural sciences textsand 55% from narratives. It was felt, then, that the contentof this Comprehension subtest reflected typical readingmaterial found at a Grade Three level.81Researcher-Developed Prior Knowledge TestThe intent of giving the researcher—developed PriorKnowledge Test was to assess the Prior Knowledge of thestudents about the topics of the two texts used in the datacollection. Topics other than those in the two texts wereincluded in the Prior Knowledge Test to ensure that thesubjects were not given clues as to the topics of the textsthey would later read.This test, a copy of which can be found in Appendix1, was administered orally. It consisted finally (see PilotStudy) of forty items and tested children’s Prior Knowledgeof five different topics: Dinosaurs, Insects, Whales, Inuitpeople, and the people of New Guinea. The test was in amultiple-choice format and each item offered students threeanswers to choose from. An example is provided from an itemabout Whales.2. A Whale isa. a fishb. a mammalc. a reptileResearcher-Developed Quest ion-Markers Matching TestThe intent of the Question-Markers Matching Test82was to assess students’ understanding of the questionmarkers, “why”, “when”, “which”, “how many” and “where”words that often form important indicators to a question.Langer (1987) had described how four subjects’misunderstanding of the meaning of questions impeded theirselection of the correct response in a multiple—choice test.Appendix 2 contains a copy of the Question-MarkersMatching Test.Although the test was administered (see FourthSession) the researcher concluded that the metalinguisticnature of the test inhibited the responses of the students.It was decided, therefore, that no use should be made of theresults of this test and it did not form part of the database of the study.Free-Telling of Prior KnowledgeThe intent of using a free-telling of Prior Knowledgesituation was to assess students’ Prior Knowledge in aformat that allowed them to express their knowledge in theirown words, unlike the Prior Knowledge Test in which studentswere tested on specific items designed by the researcher.Students were asked individually to provide a freetelling of their knowledge about Whales, Insects, Dinosaursand Inuit people.83Researcher DevelopedReading and Question-Answering Strategy Rating ScalesThe intent of the Reading Strategy Rating Scale andthe Question-Answering Strategy Scale was to obtainsubjects’ reactions to strategy statements, and to providesupporting data to the Think-Out-Loud protocols.Statements about reading and question-answeringstrategies were obtained from a review of the literatureand thirty-two statements were developed.The Reading Strategy Rating Scale consisted ofeighteen statements illustrating reading strategies. Thesestrategies included use of Prior Knowledge, re-reading,inference-making, prediction, making judgments, questioning,use of context, changing reading speed, and stating failureto understand. An example of a reading strategy statementwould be: “I used what I already knew to help me understandthe passage”.Fourteen statements were developed for the QuestionAnswering Strategy Scale reflecting such question-answeringstrategies as a student’s making sense of the question,searching for answers in memory, text or Prior Knowledge. Anexample of a question-answering strategy statement would be:“I got the answers by remembering what I had just read”.84Appendix 3 contains the full text of the Researcher-developed Reading and Question-Answering Strategy RatingScales.Students were asked to listen to the statements asthey were read to them. They rated the statements on a fivepoint Likert-type rating scale. These five points werelabelled as: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree,and Strongly Agree. A visual aid for these Grade Threereaders in the form of five faces was used. The face for“Strongly Disagree” had a marked downward curve to a mouth.The downward curve on the “Disagree” face was less markedthan that of the “Strongly Disagree” face. The “Neutral”face had a straight line for a mouth. The smile on the“Agree” face was less broad than that of the “StronglyAgree” face.Reading Texts (Adapted from Lipson, 1981)The three texts on Dinosaurs, Whales and Insects,which were used in this study were adapted with permissionfrom Lipson (1981). These three texts were intended toprovide reading materials that were interesting to GradeThree students. Dinosaurs, a subject, which usually attractselementary school students, was the topic of the text usedfor the practice in Thinking-Out-Loud. The other two texts,on Whales and Insects, were used as it was expected thatstudents would have different levels of interest and Prior85Knowledge for them as was indicated later in the Second andThird pilot studies.The texts consisted of four paragraphs. Each textcontained eighteen sentences and was about 170-178 words inlength. The mean number of words per T-unit or independentclause was 8.05—8.60.There has been a paucity of research on the meannumber of words per T-unit in the texts typically read bystudents at any specific grade level. However, there hasbeen research on the mean number of words per T-unit in theoral and written sample of Grade Three students. O’Donnell,Griffin and Norris (1967) had their sample of thirty GradeThree students retell orally and write about two animatedcartoons of Aesop’s fables. The mean number of words per Tunits in their oral re-telling was 8.73, with a range of 7.4to 10.8. The mean number of words per T-unit of theirwritten sample was 7.67, with a range of 5.7 tO 11.6. Hunt(1965) reported that Grade Four students’ written sampleswere 8.51 words per T-unit. The three texts chosen for thisstudy would, then, be more like Grade Four students’ writtensamples. It is likely, however, a student’s written and oralsamples would contain less words per T-unit than a textwhich a student is able to read comfortably.A mean Standard Word Frequency Index on the textsused as calculated according to Carroll, Davies and Richman(1971) was 66.08—66.87. In Freebody and Anderson’s study(1983) the mean Standard Word Frequency Index of common86words was 62.19, which is similar to the mean Standard WordFrequency Index of the two texts.The readability level of these three texts ascalculated according to the Fry formula (1977) was a highGrade Three level.Both texts were informative in nature and describedthe characteristics or attributes of the topic.Appendix 4 contains a copy of the three texts andthe questions which are described in the section following.Researcher-Developed Questions on Reading TextsEach text was followed by three Textually Explicit,three Textually Implicit and three Scriptally Implicitquestions. All questions were created by the researcher, anda copy of the nine questions for each text can be found inAppendix 4.These three types of questions were classifiedaccording to Pearson and Johnson’s taxonomy (1978).According to this taxonomy students might use the text toanswer Textually Explicit questions. They would infer theanswers to Textually Implicit questions from the text, andthey would use their Prior Knowledge to answer ScriptallyImplicit questions. Three doctoral students in ReadingEducation independently classified the questions, and interrater reliability was 90%—96%.87Pilot StudiesThree pilot studies were carried out in threedifferent elementary Catholic schools in Burnaby, aneighboring city of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.The three pilot studies are described in detail in thesections following.First Pilot StudyThe purpose of the first pilot study was to field testthe researcher-developed Prior Knowledge Test, with the aimof shortening the number of items on this multiple-choicetest, which consisted of sixty-three items around seventopics.The Prior Knowledge Test was read in two sessions totwenty Grade Three students (ten Li and ten L2 students)at one Catholic elementary school.Analyses of the scores obtained included itemdifficulty and item discrimination, resulting in theelimination of the items on two topics, the Viking, and theVenus Flytrap, and the shortening of the test to fortyitems.88Second Pilot StudyThe purpose of the second pilot study was to fieldtest the revised Prior Knowledge Test, the two texts (Whalesand Insects) adapted with permission from Lipson (1981),nine researcher-developed questions on each text (threeTextually Explicit, three Textually Implicit and threeScriptally Implicit questions) and the researcher-developedReading and Question-Answering Strategy Rating Scales.Ten Grade Three students (five Li and five L2students) from a second elementary Catholic schoolparticipated in this second pilot study.The Comprehension subtest of Gates-MacGinitie ReadingLevel C, Form 1, was administered in the first session todetermine the reading comprehension level of theparticipating students.On the next day the Prior Knowledge Test was readorally to the students and they responded by circling thebest answer on the test paper.Before the third session, students were divided intotwo groups so that the groups were roughly equal in theirscores on the Gates—MacGinitie Reading Comprehensionsubtest and on the Prior Knowledge Test.During the third session, the students had individualpractice in rating statements on a five point scale pointingto one of five faces to indicate whether they disagreedstrongly, disagreed, were neutral, agreed or agreed strongly89with the statements. Then half of the students each readorally the Whales text to the researcher, listened to andrated the Reading strategy statements, answered orally intotwo tape-recorders the nine questions read to them, andfinally listened to and rated the Question-Answeringstrategy statements. The other half of the students followedthe same procedure except that they read the Insects text.Two tape-recorders were used in case there were mechanicalproblems with either of them.In the fourth session the students read the text notread in the third session and followed the same procedure asin the third session.As a result of further item discrimination and itemdifficulty analyses on the Prior Knowledge Test, changeswere made to a few items. Also, some items on theresearcher-developed Reading and Question-Answering StrategyRating Scales were omitted or revised as a result ofdiscrimination index analyses. Two questions on the Insectstext were revised to enhance their clarity. The two textswere found to pose no decoding (word recognition) problemsto the participating students.Third Pilot StudyThe purpose of the third pilot study was to field testall materials of the seven sessions which were to be used inthe main study, and to determine the length of each session.90Six Grade Three students (four Li and two L2 students) froma third elementary Catholic school participated.In the first session the researcher and individualstudents became acquainted and languages spoken at home wereascertained. In this session the Coloured ProgressiveMatrices was administered.In the second session the Comprehension subtest ofGates-MacGinitie Reading, Level C, Form 1, was given.In the third session the revised Prior Knowledge Testwas read to the students.In the fourth session the students were givenindividual practice in rating statements on a five pointscale, pointing to one of five faces to indicate whetherthey disagreed strongly, disagreed, were neutral, agreed oragreed strongly with the statements. They were then asked tospeak into a tape-recorder and tell the researcher, whopretended to be a Martian to put the children in a frame ofmind that called for inclusive description, of what theyknew about Whales, Insects, Dinosaurs and Inuit people.Instructions for this free—telling of their Prior Knowledgeabout the four topics was adapted with permission fromLipson (1981).In the fifth session the students practised ThinkingOut-Loud into a tape recorder while reading silently, oraloud, each sentence of the Dinosaurs text. Sentences ofthis text were numbered just as sentences in the passages ofLytle’s dissertation (1982) had been numbered. They then91orally answered nine questions (three Textually Explicit,three Textually Implicit and three Scriptally Implicitquestions) on the text, and their answers were taped.Before the sixth session, students were divided intotwo groups so that the groups were roughly equal in theirscores on the Coloured Progressive Matrices, GatesMacGinitie Reading Comprehension subtest, and the PriorKnowledge Test.In the sixth session one group individually read theWhales text first, Thinking-Out-Loud after each numberedsentence. Each student then listened to and rated therevised Reading Strategy Rating Scale, answered orally ninequestions which were read by the researcher, and thenfinally listened to and rated the revised Question-AnsweringStrategy Rating Scales. The other half of the studentsfollowed the same procedure except that they individuallyread the Insects text first.In the seventh session the students read the text notread in the sixth session, rated the Reading strategystatements, answered questions on the text, and finallyrated the Question-Answering strategy statements.The third pilot study demonstrated that each sessioncould be accomplished within reasonable time limits of aboutforty minutes each session, was not tiring to the students,and that students were able to engage readily in the ThinkOut-Loud activity.92Further item discrimination and item difficultyanalyses resulted in the revision of two items in the PriorKnowledge Test.Three reading strategy statements were re—written,using actual words that the students had used in theirThink-Out-Loud. A number of question-answering strategystatements were eliminated as a result of itemdiscrimination analysis, others were revised; and it wasdecided that another test should be developed to assessstudents’ understanding of such question-markers such as“why”, “when”, “which”, “how many” and “where”. As notedthis test was unsuccessful.SubiectsTwenty average Grade Three readers from students notin the pilot studies were selected according to thefollowing criteria:(1) Ten subjects were Li. These were students whosepredominant home language was English (Information aboutpredominant home languages was ascertained from thestudents and from their teachers).(2) Ten subjects were L2. These were students whosepredominant home language was not English. (Again,information regarding predominant home languages wasascertained from the students and from their teachers.)(3) Of these subjects, approximately half were male students93and half were female students. (In the study there werenine male and eleven female students.)(4) All twenty readers had scored in the 4th, 5th, 6th and7th stanines on the Comprehension subtest of theGates—MacGinitie Reading Test, Level C, Form 1 (1978).This criterion eliminated students in the top two andbottom three stanines and ensured an average sample.(5) All twenty readers scored at or above the 50thpercentile level on the Coloured Progressive Matrices(Raven, 1965).(6) All twenty students had been judged by their teachers tobe verbal and comfortable expressing their thoughts.Appendix 6 contains a description of these subjects,including their age, first language spoken and schoolsattended.Setting of the StudyThe research sample of twenty students was chosenfrom two schools in School District 39, Vancouver, BritishColumbia, Canada. One school had a population ofapproximately 600 students from Kindergarten to Grade Seven.In this school there were five Grade Three classes. Thesecond school was smaller with 180 students fromKindergarten to Grade Four, and there were three Grade Threeclasses. The two schools were approximately 7.5 kilometers94apart, and students in one school had no contact withstudents in the other school. Both schools were in the eastside of the city where the neighbourhood would be designatedas having low to middle income families.The two schools from which the sample was takenreflected the findings of the Vancouver school districtsurvey of English as a Second Language students (Reid,1988). According to this survey, L2 students comprised 46.9%of the total school district population. At the elementarylevel L2 students constituted 51.3% of the total number ofelementary students. At the secondary level L2 students were40.4% of the total number of students. Percentages variedalso at each grade level. For example at the Grade Threelevel L2 students were 49.4% of the total Grade Threepopulation.According to Vancouver School Board data (Reid,1988), L2 students spoke forty—two different first languagesin their home culture. Of these forty-two languages, themost commonly spoken first language were Chinese dialectswhich were spoken by 47.6% of the L2 students. Other firstlanguages which were commonly spoken were East Indianlanguages which were the first languages of 15.1% of the L2students. Vietnamese was spoken by 5.7% of the L2 studentpopulation, and Spanish was the first language of 4.1% ofthe L2 students.Ten of the subjects in the study spoke English as aFirst Language (Li). Of the ten who spoke English as a95Second Language (L2), Cantonese was the first language ofthree students (33.3%), Punjabi of another three students(33.3%), Vietnamese of two students (20%), and Croatian ofone student (10%).All twenty subjects were born in Canada with theexception of one L2 student (#23) who immigrated to Canadawith his family when he was a year and a half.Collection of DataPermission to conduct this study was obtained fromboth the Vancouver School District and from the BehaviouralSciences Screening Committee for Research and other Studiesinvolving Human Subjects at the University of BritishColumbia, Canada.Once permissions were obtained, the staff of the twoschools that had expressed willingness to participate werecontacted. The researcher met with the school administratorsand the teachers who taught Grade Three in the two schoolsin order to describe the study, to answer any questions thatthey might have, and to determine convenient times for eachof the seven sessions. Teachers then assisted in selectingstudents according to the criteria in the section whichdescribed the subjects of the study.After teachers had selected potential subjects,letters were sent to their parents, describing the study andrequesting their permission to allow their children to96participate in the study. Twenty—seven letters of permissionwere obtained from parents. All twenty-seven students weregiven all tests of the battery. However, after the secondsession when the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, Level C wasadministered the researcher designated twenty children toform the sample. The twenty selected students met thecriterion of having scores within stanines 4 to 7 on theComprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test,Level C. The seven students not chosen scored either in thetop two stanines or the bottom three stanines of the GatesMacGinitie Reading Test Comprehension subtest. All twentystudents scored at or above the 50th percentile level on theColoured Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1965).There were seven data collecting sessions:(1) Individual testing on Coloured Progressive Matrices(2) Group testing on Gates-MacGinitie Comprehension subtest(3) Group testing on Prior Knowledge Test(4) Individual session in:(a) practising rating statements(b) taking the Question-Markers Matching Test(c) free-telling of Prior Knowledge(5) Individual practice in Thinking-Out-Loud (T-O-L) onDinosaurs text(6) Each student:(a) read the Whales or Insects Text, using T-O-Lprocedure after each sentence(b) rated the Reading strategy statements97(c) answered questions on the Whales or Insects text(d) rated the Question-Answering strategy statements.(7) Each student:(a) read the Insects or Whales Text, using T-O-Lprocedure after each sentence(b) rated the Reading strategy statements(c) answered questions on the Insects or Whales text(d) rated the Question-Answering strategy statements.Each session was held in a small enclosed room orclassroom assigned by the administrator of the school. Theseven sessions are described in detail in the sectionsfollowing.First SessionAdministering the Coloured Progressive Matrices(Raven, 1965)During the first session the researcher met withindividual students and became acquainted with them.Information about their age and languages spoken at home wasobtained. (Prior to this session, teachers of these studentshad been contacted to obtain information about the languageswhich these students spoke at home). Every attempt was madeto ensure that the student felt comfortable in the presenceof the researcher who had twenty-one years’ experience as aPrimary school teacher.98At this first session students were individuallygiven the Coloured Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1965),according to the directions in the manual. They were shownone matrix or design at a time and were asked to choose oneamong the six alternatives provided to complete the matrix.There was no time limit, but testing time varied fromsixteen to thirty—eight minutes. Testing with the ColouredProgressive Matrices was completed within three school days.Second SessionAdministering the Comprehension Subtest of theGates-MacGinitie Reading Test, Level C, Form 1 (1978)The Comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitieReading Test, Level C, Form 1 (1978) was administeredaccording to the directions in the manual to a group ofstudents from the same school. As students came from fivedifferent classrooms in the larger school, and there wasscheduling of periods such as those for Physical Education,it was decided to test students in two groups on the sameday. Students in the smaller school were tested as a groupfive days later.According to the directions, students were firstgiven practice with the multiple-choice format. All studentswere able to complete the test within thirty-five minuteswhich was the time limit stated in the manual.99Third SessionAdministering the Researcher—Developed Prior Knowledge TestThe researcher-developed Prior Knowledge Test wasread to students. Fourteen out of sixteen students from thelarger school were tested in two groups on the same day inclassrooms which were not in use. Two students were absentand were tested individually a day or so later. It wasbelieved that these two students had been not told by theother students about the items in the test. The fourstudents from the smaller school were tested as a groupthree days after testing was done in the larger school.All students were first introduced to the multiple-choice format. When students had demonstrated theirunderstanding of the multiple-choice format, the forty itemsof the Prior Knowledge Test were read by the researcherwith the students following on their test paper. Allstudents were given sufficient time to think and circletheir answer. Requests to re-read a certain item were seldommade, and when they were made, the items were re-read.Appendix 1 contains a copy of the researcherdeveloped Prior Knowledge Test.100Fourth Session(a) Practice with Rating Scales,(b) Administration of the Researcher-Developed Question-Markers Matching Test, and(c) Students’ Free-Telling of their Prior Knowledgeof four topics.During the fourth session a five point rating scalewas demonstrated to individual students. Each student wasgiven practice to rate statements about favorite activities,T.V. shows, arithmetic problems and short sentences bypointing on the reaction sheet to one of the facesthat best described the student’s response to eachstatement.The second part of this session was used toadminister the Question—Markers Matching Test. Each studentwas first given practice in the matching format, matchingadditions such as 2+3 on one side of the page with theanswers on the other side. Then the researcher orally askedthe student five questions about two pencils which wereplaced in front of them, using five question-markers: “why”,“when”, “which”, “where” and “how many”. All studentsunderstood the five questions and answered them correctly.Then the researcher read the Question-Markers Matching Testwith the student following it on the test paper. The studentmatched one part of the statement about a question-marker tothe remaining part of the statement which completed it. For101example, “to answer “how many” questions” would have beenmatched with, “you tell the number of things”. Appendix 2contains a copy of the Question-Markers Matching Test.At this session students were also individually askedto provide a free-telling account of their Prior Knowledgeof Dinosaurs, Insects, Whales and the Inuit people. Theresearcher read the instructions for the free—telling whichwere adapted with permission from Lipson (1981). An exampleis given of the instructions for the free—telling aboutDinosaurs.“Pretend that I am from Mars. I don’t know anythingabout Dinosaurs. I’ve never heard of Dinosaurs. I don’t knowanything about Dinosaurs. Tell me everything I would need toknow about Dinosaurs to understand Dinosaurs.”All students were allowed to prepare for the free-telling by either thinking about or writing down theirthoughts. Students chose one of the two modes of preparing.When a student stated that he/she was ready to speak, therecord button on each of the two tape-recorders was pressed.When the student finished, the researcher then said,“Is there anything else you know that you could tellme about Dinosaurs? Remember I don’t know anything aboutDinosaurs”.Sometimes the student had something to add, sometimesthere was nothing to add. Whatever the answer the researcherthen said, “Is there anything else I should know aboutDinosaurs”. Occasionally a student who had nothing to say102after the first prompt, had something to add after thissecond prompt.The same instructions and procedures were followedfor the free—telling about Insects, Whales and the Inuitpeople.All students went along with the pretence that theresearcher was from Mars and could not help them with anyinformation, and seemed interested in providing an accountof their knowledge.This session lasted from about thirty to forty-fiveminutes depending on the individual student’s rate ofresponses. This fourth session was administered to alltwenty students within a week.Fifth SessionPractice in Thinking-Out-Loud while reading a textDuring the fifth session each student was givenindividual practice with the “Think-Out-Loud” (T-O-L)methodology using the Dinosaurs text which was not used forthe formal data collection in the Sixth and SeventhSessions. The Dinosaurs text was chosen as it was decidedfrom the third pilot study that students were interested inDinosaurs and would be willing to Think-Out-Loud about it.The session began with the researcher asking thestudent to tell what came to his/her mind when theresearcher said some words, such as “recess, drawing,103Nintendo, hockey etc”. Then the researcher reminded thestudent about how one could write down the thoughts one hadwhile one was drawing, a practice which early Primaryteachers frequently do with their students. Then theresearcher said that when one read one also had thoughtswhich one could talk about.When the researcher felt that the student understoodwhat Thinking-Out-Loud meant the instructions for theDinosaur Think-Out-Loud was given. The instructions were:“Today you will be reading about Dinosaurs. The passage hasbeen typed one sentence at a time with a number at thebeginning of each sentence. All eighteen sentences are fromthe same passage. I would like you to tell me the number ofthe sentence (researcher pointed to number 1 sentencewhich was exposed), and then read the sentence to yourselfor out loud. Please tell me what you are thinking about asyou read that sentence. When you have finished talking aboutthat sentence move the paper (researcher demonstrated movingthe coloured paper which covered the rest of the passagedown so sentence number 2 was exposed). Tell me the numberof that sentence, and read it to yourself or out loud. Thentalk about your thoughts as you read that sentence and anyother thoughts you have about the passage”.The student was asked if he/she understood theinstructions. Most students replied that they didunderstand, and the researcher told each student that he/shewould be asked some questions and that he/she should Think-104Out-Loud the answer and how the answer was obtained. Astudent’s Think-Out-Loud responses were tape-recorded.Powell (1988) from her experience suggested that if astudent were silent for more than approximately 30—45seconds the researcher should remind the student to Think-Out-Loud. The researcher thus asked the student, “What areyou thinking about?” when the student was silent for about30 seconds. Powell also stated that if what a subject wasdescribing was unclear to the researcher the student wasasked to explain more clearly. The researcher did ask somestudents questions when she was not clear about what hadbeen said.It had been decided before the fifth session to havethe student read the text silently or out loud, and if astudent had problems decoding a word, the researcher wouldprovide assistance. As students gained familiarity withThinking-Out-Loud they would be asked in the sixth andseventh sessions to read the text out loud, and would begiven no assistance in the decoding of words.This fifth session lasted from about thirty-five toforty-five minutes depending on the individual student. Alltwenty students received this practice within five schooldays.Appendix 4 contains a copy of the Dinosaurs text andthe Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions which were asked after students had readthe text.105Sixth Session(a) Reading a text and Thinking-Out-Loud about it,(b) Rating Reading strategy statements,(c) Answering questions on the text, and(d) Rating Question-Answering strategy statements.Prior to the sixth session the researcher dividedinto two groups the twenty students who had been selectedbased on their scores on the Comprehension subtest of theGates-MacGinitie Reading Test, Level C, Form 1. The criteriafor allocating students to one of the two groups were thateach group should have an equal number of Li and L2students, an approximately equal number of Male and Femalereaders, and the groups should not differ significantly intheir scores on the Comprehension subtest of the GatesMacGinitie Reading Test, the Coloured Progressive Matrices,the researcher-developed Prior Knowledge Test, the free-telling Prior Knowledge scores and the researcher-developedQuestion-Markers Matching Test.Each group was comprised of ten Li and ten L2students, with four Males and five Females in one group, andfive Males and six Females in the other group. The scores ofthe groups on the above mentioned tests can be found inAppendix 7. The two groups selected were not significantlydifferent when their scores on the previously mentionedtests were compared using non—parametric Kruskal-Wallis106tests. The level of significance was set at .001 to avoid aType I error that might have occurred because of a number oftests that were performed. Figure 1 presents the results ofthese tests.Fig. 1Results of Kruskal—Wallis (Kw) testscomparing the two groupsselected for the Sixth and Seventh SessionsScores on Results of KW testsColoured Progressive MatricesGates MacGinitie(Comprehension subtest)Question-MarkersMatching TestPrior Knowledge (Whales) TestPrior Knowledge (Insects) TestFree-Telling (Whales)Free-Telling (Insects)Fig. 1 indicated that the two groups did not differsignificantly on any of the six measures to equate them. Thetwo groups differed on the Question-Markers Matching Test atthe .04 level which was above the .001 level that had beenset as the level of significance.x2=0.0514, N=20, p=.8197x2=O.0700, N=20, p=.7904x2=4.0775, N=20, p=.0435x2=0.0514, N=20, p=.8136x2=O.5714, N=20, p=.4366x2=O.0914, N=20, p=.7444x2=0.3214, N=20, p=.5376107During the sixth session a student in one group readthe Whales text, and another student from the other groupread the Insects text. During the seventh session thestudent read the text which had not been read in the sixthsession. The purpose of having two groups read two differenttexts first was to ensure that the results would not beattributed to the effect of practice.At the beginning of the sixth session the researcherreminded each student about the Think-Out-Loud practice inthe fifth session and the student practised again Thinking-Out-Loud about one sentence from the Dinosaurs text. Thenthe researcher read the following instructions for theThink-Out-Loud activity about sentences which closelyresembled the instructions given in the fifth session.“Today you will be reading about (Whales or Insects). Thepassage has been typed one sentence at a time with a numberat the beginning of each sentence. All eighteen sentencesare from the same passage. I would like you to tell me thenumber of the sentence (the researcher pointed at number 1sentence which had been exposed), and then read the sentenceout loud. I am sorry I cannot help you with the words.Please tell me what you are thinking about as you read thatsentence. When you have finished talking about thatsentence, move the paper on to the next sentence (theresearcher demonstrated by moving the coloured paper andexposing sentence number 2). Tell me the number of thatsentence, and read it out loud. Then talk about your108thoughts as you read that sentence and any other thoughtsyou have about that passage”.The student was told that he/she would be asked torate some statements about what had been read on a fivepoint scale. The researcher then showed the paper with thefive faces, and most students seemed to remember the ratingpractice they had received.The student was told that there would then be a shortrest period and then he/she would re—read the text typed inthe paragraph format but did not have to Think-Out-Loud. Thestudent was informed that nine questions would be asked onthe text and that the researcher was very interested in howthe answers were obtained and would like to hear thoughtsabout the answers and how the student got the answer.Finally the student was asked to listen to and rate theQuestion-Answering Strategy Statements.The student was asked if he/she understood theinstructions and procedures, or if there any questions. Onlya few students asked questions, and it was about theThinking-Out-Loud about the sentences. The students seemedto understand when the researcher explained what Think-Out-Loud was by showing the sentence about Dinosaurs andreferring to the thoughts which the student had verbalized.The student then read one sentence at a time, movingthe coloured paper onto the next sentence, and Thought-OutLoud after each sentence. The Think-Out-Loud responses wererecorded. There were a few occasions when the student lost109the place while reading the numbered sentences, but thisposed no major problem as the appropriate sentence was soonfound.When all eighteen sentences had been read, a warm-uppractice with rating some statements not related to readingor question-answering then took place.Later a student was asked to rate on the five pointscale the statements of the Reading Strategy Rating Scale.Each reading strategy statement was read to the student whothen pointed to one of the faces to indicate his/herreaction to that statement and the researcher recorded theresponse.The student was given a short rest. Then the passagein the paragraph format was given and the student was askedto re-read it without having to Think-Out-Loud. The purposeof the re-reading was to allow the student to see thepassage once more before answering questions on it.Following the re-reading the student was infOrmedthat he/she could look back at the text if desired whileanswering questions and the researcher showed the papers onwhich the text had been typed in the numbered sentenceformat and in the paragraph format. The researcher read theTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions, one question at a time with the studentfollowing it on the question paper. The student’s Think-Out-Loud was tape-recorded. If students did not tell how theanswer was obtained the researcher asked them how they got110the answer. If they said they did not know the answer to oneof the questions on the text, the researcher asked if theywould like to try. Sometimes they did try, sometimes theydid not. If there was no attempt to answer the question theresearcher asked them where they thought the answer could beobtained. If the reply was, “the paper”, they were asked ifthey would like to re-read the text. Students were willingto re-read the text to look for the answer, but they had nosuccess in their search for an answer to Textually Implicitquestions on Insects.After the nine questions had been completed, theresearcher read one statement at a time of the Question-Answering Strategy Rating Scale. The student was asked topoint on the rating scale to one of the faces which bestdescribed the student’s reaction to that statement.This session lasted from thirty—five to forty—fiveminutes depending on the individual student. Eighteenstudents were seen within five days. Two students wereabsent and had their sixth session four to seven days later.Appendix 4 contains a copy of the two texts andthe Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions which were asked on each text. Appendix 3provides a copy of the Reading and Question-AnsweringStrategy Rating Scales.111Seventh Session(a) Reading a text and Thinking-Out-Loud about it,(b) Rating Reading strategy statements,(c) Answering questions on the text, and(d) Rating Question-Answering strategy statements.The procedure in the seventh session was similar tothe procedure described in the sixth session. The onlydifference was that each student read the text not read inthe sixth session. In other words, the order of texts readwas reversed for the two groups of students in the sixth andseventh sessions.The interval between the sixth and the seventhsessions varied depending on the scheduling of the timetable and the attendance of the students. Generally theinterval was about a week. The seventh session usuallylasted for about forty minutes.Preparation of the Data BaseThe data base was derived from both test results andthe analysis of T-O-L protocols, (Text) and (Questions).Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were required.112Quantitative Analysis of the TestsEach test was scored and the performance of eachstudent was recorded.Coloured Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1965)Students’ responses were scored according to theanswers provided in the manual. Each correct score was givena point and the scores of the twenty students can be foundin Appendix 7.There were no significant differences between thescores of the Li and L2 students on the Coloured ProgressiveMatrices (X2=2.4014, N=20, p=.1212).Gates-MacGinitie Comprehension Subtest, Level C, Form 1,(1978)The Comprehension subtest was scored according to thekey provided by the publishers of the Gates-MacginitieReading Tests. The tables in the Teacher’s Manual were usedto convert students’ raw scores into stanine scores.Appendix 7 provides the scores of the twenty studentson the Gates-MacGinitie Comprehension subtest.Li and L2 students did not differ significantly intheir scores on the Gates-MacGinitie Comprehension subtest113when a Kruskal—Wallis test was performed (X2=.0914, N=20,p=.7624).Researcher-Developed Prior Knowledge TestThe test was scored according to a key developed bythe researcher. Each item was scored as correct orincorrect. A correct answer received one point. Scores ofthe twenty students on the Whales and Insects items of thePrior Knowledge Test can be found in Appendix 7.Kruskal-Wallis tests showed no significantdifferences at the .001 level between Li and L2 students forthe Whales items (x2=3.8629, N=20, p=.0494); and for theInsects items (X=1.4629, N20. p.2265).Researcher-Developed Question-Markers Matching TestStudents received a point for each correct match.Students’ scores on this test could be found in Appendix 7.Free-Telling of Prior Knowledge about Whales and InsectsStudents’ responses were taped, transcribed andscored using categories adapted from Langer and Nicolich(1981). Langer and Nicolich had used three categories: (i)Much Prior Knowledge Free-Telling, which received threepoints if it was an account that gave super-ordinate114concepts, definitions or linked one concept with another,(ii) Some Prior Knowledge Free-Telling, which received twopoints and was an account that provided examples, attributesor defining characteristics and (iii) Little Prior KnowledgeFree-Telling, which received one point if it was an accountthat had associations or first-hand experiences.The categories described by Langer and Nicolich(1981) were adapted so that an account which containedfactual error, for example stating that spiders wereinsects, was categorized as showing Little Prior KnowledgeFree-Telling. Examples of each category of free—telling aregiven for the topic of Insects.(i) Much Prior Knowledge Free-Telling AccountStudent #5 gave an account that was categorized asshowing much Prior Knowledge. She said, “Insects are small,small bugs. Insects have six legs and more than two eyes.Their legs and their body have special names. They havesmall antennas. And ...um...they...they can die fromcoldness. And all insects have six legs and if they don’thave six legs they are not an insect”.(ii) Some Prior Knowledge Free-Telling AccountThe free-telling account given by Student #21 wasclassified as showing some Prior Knowledge. Her account was,“Insects are small. They eat other insects. Some are verytiny. Some have antennas. Some have spots on their back. Thepraying mantis eats grasshoppers”.115(iii) Little Prior Knowledge Free-Telling AccountAn example of a free-telling account that was scoredas showing little Prior Knowledge was made by Student #15.He said, “Insects are small. Insects have no teeth. Insectshave no tails. Insects don’t have nails. Insects don’t havesix legs. Insects are brown and black”.Inter—rater reliability was established in thescoring of free—telling accounts. Twenty percent of thefree-telling protocols were randomly selected and twodoctoral students in the Reading Education area of theLanguage Education Department, Faculty of Education atUniversity of British Columbia, independently scored themusing a guide describing the scoring of the Prior Knowledgecategories. Inter-rater reliability between the researcherand Rater A was 100%, and between the researcher and rater Bwas 96.77%.Scores of the twenty students’ free—telling of theirPrior Knowledge about Whales and Insects can be found inAppendix 7.There were no significant differences between thescores of the Li and 112 students on the free-telling aboutWhales (x2=.0914, N=20, p=.7624) and about Insects(x2=i.2857, N=20, p=.2568).116Researcher-Developed Reading and Question-Answering StrategyRating ScalesA student received a score for rating each strategystatement based on the following criteria:a strongly disagree rating 1 pointa disagree rating 2 pointsa neutral rating 3 pointsan agree rating 4 pointsa strongly agree rating 5 pointsAppendix 9 provides the scores of the twenty studentsderived from their rating of the Reading strategy statementsafter reading the Whales text; and students’ rating scoresafter reading the Insects text can be found in Appendix 10.Appendix 11 provides the scores of the twenty students basedon their rating of the Question-Answering strategystatements after answering questions on the Whales text; andstudents’ rating scores after answering questions on theInsects text can be found in Appendix 12Answers to Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit, andScriptally Implicit QuestionsTextually Explicit questions were scored as corrector incorrect according to information found in the text.Each correct answer received one point.117Textually Implicit questions were scored according toa guide designed by the researcher. Each question received amaximum of two points since the answer was not directlyexpressed in the text.Scriptally Implicit questions were scored accordingto a guide designed by the researcher. Each questionreceived a maximum of three points since the answer was notstated in the text, and students had to use their PriorKnowledge.Appendix 5 provides a copy of the guide for scoringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions.Inter-rater reliability was established in thescoring of the three types of questions. Two doctoralstudents in the Reading Education area of the LanguageEducation Department, Faculty of Education at the Universityof British Columbia, independently scored a randomlyselected twenty percent of the answers. They used a keyprovided by the researcher. Inter—rater reliability betweenRater A and the researcher for the Textually Explicitquestions was 100%, and between Rater B and the researcherwas also 100%.The same two doctoral students scored twenty percentof the Textually Implicit questions. For the TextuallyImplicit questions the inter—rater reliability was 95.65%between the researcher and Rater A, and between Rater B andthe researcher it was also 95.65%.118For the Scriptally Implicit questions, twenty percentof which was scored by the same two doctoral students, theinter-rater reliability between Rater A and the researcherwas 90.90%, and between Rater B and the researcher it was88.37%, making a mean of 89.63%. Given the degree ofambiguity associated with Scriptally Implicit questions,this reliability quotient was thought to be reasonable andto a point where confidence could be put on the results.When all three types of questions were combined theinter-rater reliability between Rater A and the researcherwas 95.65%, and between Rater B and the researcher it was94.89%, with a mean inter—rater reliability of 95.27%.Appendix 8 provides a copy of the scores of thetwenty students when they answered Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicit questions in theWhales and Insects text.Qualitative Analysis of the T-O-L (Text) andT-O-L (Questions) ProtocolsStudents’ Think-Out-Loud responses were tape—recordedand transcribed by the researcher. An independent raterchecked twenty percent of randomly selected Think-Out-Loudtape-recordings and protocols and reached an agreement of99.62% with the researcher. It was considered that areasonable level of confidence had been established that the119students’ Think-Out-Loud responses were accuratelytransposed to script.The Think-Out-Loud protocols were then divided intowhat Powell (1988) called “idea units” which she based onthe work of Pritchard (1987). According to Powell an ideaunit is a “group of related words that contains both asubject (stated or understood) and a verb phrase which, withits modifiers, forms a single idea” (p. 72). For exampleStudent #2 read Whales Sentence 1 and then said, “I thinkthat/ because they eat a lot.”/ (The slashes (/) mark theboundary between the idea units.)All idea units were read and re-read until patternsof similarities emerged. Idea units which were similar weregrouped and labelled as a reading or question-answeringstrategy. To capture the nuances of readers’ interactionswith texts and questions, it was decided not to condense thelist but to retain all the strategies the readers in thisstudy exhibited in their Think-Out-Loud protocols.Strategies which were similar were classified togetherunder the same category. There were eight categories ofstrategies which readers used to understand texts and toanswer questions. These categories are:120A. Explanation of Text or QuestionB. Interpretation of Text or QuestionC. Evaluation of Text or QuestionD. Monitoring of One’s UnderstandingE. Attempts to Understand Text or to Answer QuestionsF. Comments on StrategiesG. Comments on Sources of Knowledge or of AnswersH. MiscellaneousAppendix 13 provides a list of these eight categoriesand of the seventy-seven strategies classified under theseeight categories. Each strategy is defined and provided withan example from readers’ Think-Out-Loud protocols.Inter—rater reliability was established in thelabelling of idea units. Two doctoral students in theReading Education area of the Language Education Department,Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia,independently rated twenty percent of randomly selectedThink-Out-Loud responses. This took place after having anintroductory session with the researcher who explained thedefinitions and provided a brief training session on athink-out-protocol which was not used in the independentrating.Inter—rater reliability in categorizing idea units inThink-Out-Loud (Text) protocols was 70.65% between Rater Aand the researcher, and 74.84% between Rater B and theresearcher, and between the researcher and one other rater,either Rater A or B, the reliability was 83.08%.121Inter—rater reliability in categorizing idea units inthe Think—Out-Loud (Questions) protocols was 75.83% betweenRater A and the researcher, and 75.83% between Rater B andthe researcher, and between the researcher and one otherrater, either Rater A or B, the reliability was 82.32%.Pritchard (1987) has stated that within his studyinter—rater reliability of three raters was 84%. It was 82%for three raters in Powell’s study (1988). Anderson (1989)had an inter-rater reliability of 74% for three raters and80% for any two raters. In comparison to these studies, theinter—rater reliability coefficients in the present studywere thought to be acceptable.Quantifying T-O-L (Text) and T-O-L (Questions) Responsesby Category and by StrategyWhen inter-rater reliability in the labelling of ideaunits had been established, frequency counts were calculatedfor each category of strategies and for each specificstrategy used by readers while reading and answeringquestions. These frequency counts are shown in Appendices 14to 21.Li and L2 readers formed the collective units ofanalyses. In addition to the frequency counts, percentageswere also calculated, and the tables in Chapter IV providethe frequency counts and the percentages of the categoriesof strategy and specific strategies used by Li and by L2122readers while reading the two texts and while answering thethree types of questions on those texts.Va 1 i di t yA study is valid in so far as it measures what itpurports to measure. Three types of validity are discussed.These are:(1) Construct Validity(2) Internal Validity, and(3) External Validity.Construct ValidityConstruct validity specifically considers the extentto which a study measures the hypothetical construct ofinterest in the study. Yin (1986, p. 36) suggested thefollowing three tactics to provide construct validity in acase study:(1) Using multiple sources of evidence(2) Establishing a chain of evidence, and(3) Having key informants review draft case study report.This study has attempted to use all three tacticssuggested by Yin.123Using Multiple Sources of EvidenceTwo sources of evidence were employed in the study tocollect data about the construct of interest, which were thestudents’ use of Prior Knowledge and Non Prior Knowledgestrategies in comprehension of a text and answeringquestions on that text. These two sources of evidence were:students’ Think-Out-Loud responses and students’ ratings ofthe researcher-developed Reading and Question-AnsweringStrategy Rating Scales.Establishing a Chain of EvidenceAnother method to establish construct validity iswhen the researcher seeks to establish a chain of evidencelinking the research questions and the data base. An attemptwas made to link the research questions presented at thebeginning of this chapter with the data collected from theThink-Out-Loud method and from the Reading and QuestionAnswering Strategy Rating Scales. As well, the researchquestions and the data collected were linked with thefindings and conclusions of the study.Having Key Informants Review the Draft Case Study ReportAnother process employed to establish constructvalidity used the Reading and Question-Answering Strategy124Rating Scales. This reading and question-answering ratingscale was used with key informants who were young childrenin Grade Three and who might find it difficult to reviewdraft reports about their strategies. In rating aresearcher-developed reading or question-answering strategystatement soon after reading the text or answeringquestions, these Grade Three students were expressing theirreaction to that statement. The reactions of these studentswould form an important part of the case study report.Internal ValidityIn an experiment, internal validity refers to theextent to which extraneous variables have been controlled bythe researcher. Yin (1986) felt that internal validity isessential to maintain in causal case studies where aresearcher is trying to determine whether event xled toevent y However, Yin stated that internal validity is,“inapplicable to descriptive or exploratory case studies”(p. 38). This present study isan exploratory case studydesign, and the need for internal validity is inapplicableto the study.External ValidityExternal validity refers to the extent to which astudy’s findings are generalizable beyond the immediate case125study. According to Yin (1986) there are two kinds ofgeneralizations that research relies on. One type isstatistical generalization, such as when the results ofsurveys with correctly selected samples can be generalizedto a larger population. The other type of generalization isan analytic generalization which case studies rely on. Inanalytic generalizations a researcher seeks to generalize aparticular set of results to some broader theory.The aim of this present case study was to investigatehow average Grade Three Li and L2 readers use their PriorKnowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies to comprehendand answer questions on texts. The findings of this casestudy, it is believed, would contribute to a broader theoryof the role of Prior Knowledge and Non Prior Knowledgestrategies in reading comprehension.Yin (1986) also felt that analytic generalizationrequires replication of the findings to other cases. Hestated that, “This replication logic is the same thatunderlies the use of experiments (and allows scientists togeneralize from one experiment to another)” (p. 40). Theresults of this study invites replications to other cases.ReliabilityReliability refers to the extent to which the resultsof the study could be reproduced by another researcher usingthe same procedures with the same type of subjects. To126ensure reliability, Yin (1986) suggested that the researcherprovides a protocol of the case study and keeps a case studydata base. This chapter was intended to serve as a protocolof the procedures followed in this study.A data base is the researcher’s detailed andorganized records of interviews and documents. Theresearcher itemized the audio-tapes of the Think-Out-Loudsessions and the transcripts of those tapes. The data basealso contains other documents such as students’ work on theComprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test,Level C, Form 1 (1978), students’ test sheets of ColouredProgressive Matrices (Raven, 1965), students’ work on theresearcher-developed Prior Knowledge Test, and students’ratings of the statements on the Reading and Question—Answering Strategy Rating Scales.This chapter has described the design of the casestudy, the instruments used, the pilot studies, theselection of subjects, the setting of the study, and thecollection and preparation of the data base. As well,questions of validity and reliability of this case studyhave been discussed.127CHAPTER IVANALYSIS OF DATASince the study was designed as an exploratory one,the focus of the original questions was left deliberatelybroad at first. As objective tests were corrected andprotocols analyzed, decisions were made about the specificquestions that could appropriately be asked. These arelisted below (See Questions of the Study).As an additional note, it should be stated that adecision had to be made about whether or not between-textanalyses should be added to the between-group analyses thatwere the focus of the study. It was concluded that it wasthe between—group analyses that served best the purposes ofthe study. Between-text analyses would, the researcherconsidered, shift the focus away from the students to thetexts, with the concomitant questions about whether more“equivalent” texts might have produced more similarresponses from text to text, as if that were a desirableresult; and other questions might have arisen to producemore interest in the texts than in the students’differential responses to them. The conclusion was reachedthat with the purpose of the study being to exploredifferences between student groups, using common-interestmaterial, between—text differences should not be included in128this report. Further study of between—text differences maybe useful, but, for the moment, the researcher believed thisshould not be a focus of the study.Questions of the StudyThe questions of the study fell into twoclassifications: those related to Prior Knowledge strategiesand those related to Non-Prior Knowledge strategies.Two major questions and a number of related questionsconcerned the use of Prior Knowledge strategies as studentsinteracted with text and answered three types of questionson the texts.Classification One: Questions Related to Prior KnowledgeStrategies1 (a) Are there differences between Li and L2 average GradeThree readers in their use of Prior Knowledgestrategies when they interact with two texts (Whalesand Insects) in a T-O-L (Text) procedure?(b) Do Li and L2 average Grade Three readers givesignificantly different ratings on a Likert—typescale to statements about their use of PriorKnowledge strategies while reading?1292 (a) Are there differences between Li and L2 Grade Threereaders in their use of Prior Knowledge strategieswhen they answer each of the three types of questions(Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit) on two texts (Whales and Insects) in a T-O-L(Questions) procedure?(b) Are there differences between the three types ofquestions (Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit) on two texts (Whales andInsects) and use of Prior Knowledge strategies by (i)Li average Grade Three readers and by (ii) L2 averageGrade Three readers?(c) Do Li and L2 average Grade Three readers givesignificantly different ratings to statements abouttheir use of Prior Knowledge strategies whileanswering questions?(d) Are there statistically significant correlationsbetween the scores of Li and L2 average readers on thePrior Knowledge Test and their scores on the TextuallyExplicit, Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Whales and Insects texts?(e) Are there statistically significant correlationsbetween the scores of Li and L2 average readers fromtheir rating of Prior Knowledge strategy statementsand their scores on the Textually Explicit, TextuallyImplicit and Scriptally Implicit questions on theWhales and Insects texts?130Two major questions and a number of related questionsconcerned the use of Non-Prior Knowledge strategies asstudents interacted with text and answered three types ofquestions on the texts.Classification Two: Questions Related to Non Prior KnowledgeStrategies3 (a) Are there differences between Li and L2 average GradeThree readers in their use of the categories of NonPrior Knowledge strategies when they interact with twotexts (Whales and Insects) in a T—O—L (Text)(b) Are there differences between Li and L2 averageGrade Three readers in their use of Non PriorKnowledge strategies when they interact with two texts(Whales and Insects) in a T-O-L (Text) procedure?(c) Do Li and L2 average Grade Three readers givesignificantly different ratings to statements abouttheir use of Non-Prior Knowledge strategies whilereading?4 (a) Are there differences between Li and L2 average GradeThree readers in their use of the Non Prior Knowledgecategories of strategies when they answer each of thethree types of questions (Textually Explicit,Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicit) on two131texts (Whales and Insects) in a T-O-L (Questions)procedure?(b) Are there differences between the three types ofquestions (Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit) on two texts (Whales and Insects)and the use of the categories of Non Prior Knowledgestrategies by (i) Li average Grade Three readers and(ii) L2 average Grade Three readers?(c) Are there differences between Li and L2 average GradeThree readers in their use of Non Prior Knowledgestrategies when they answer each of the three types ofquestions (Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit) on two texts (Whales and Insects)in a T-O-L (Questions) procedure?(d) Are there differences between the three types ofquestions (Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit) on two texts (Whales and Insects)and the use of Non Prior Knowledge strategies by (i)Li average Grade Three readers and by (ii) L2 averageGrade Three readers?(e) Do Li and L2 average Grade Three readers givesignificantly different ratings to statements abouttheir use of Non-Prior Knowledge strategies whileanswering questions?(f) Are there statistically significant correlationsbetween the scores of Li and L2 average readers fromtheir rating of Non-Prior Knowledge strategy132statements and their scores on the TextuallyExplicit, Textually Implicit and Scriptally ImplicitQuestions on the Whales and Insects texts?The results, which follow, are reported according tothe questions described at the beginning of this chapter.These questions have been abbreviated in the title of eachsection for the sake of conciseness and readability.Results Obtained FromClassification One: Prior Knowledge StrategiesQuestion One: Role of Prior Knowledge Strategiesin Readers’ Interacting with TextsConclusions about the role of Prior Knowledge in Liand L2 students’ interactions with texts were drawn from twosources:(1) a qualitative analysis already described, followed byquantitative and graphic analyses, and finally intuitiveanalyses of the readers’ Think—Out-Loud (Text) responsesas they read aloud the sentences of two texts andcommented on each sentence.(2) the readers’ ratings, after reading, of statements abouttheir use of Prior Knowledge while they were reading twotexts.133Question 1 (a) Differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of Prior Knowledge strategies while reading twotextsIn total, 26.7% of the responses of Li students and25.1% of the L2 students were considered to reflect use ofthe Prior Knowledge strategies as they read the Whales text(see Table 1).For the Insects text 38.9% of the responses of Listudents showed a use of the Prior Knowledge strategieswhile the results of L2 students showed that 36% of theirresponses used the Prior Knowledge strategies.All specific strategies considered to be PriorKnowledge based had been classified within theInterpretation Category although not every item on theInterpretation category was judged to be Prior Knowledgebased. Therefore those strategies were selected from thelist that were considered to reflect the use of PriorKnowledge during reading. These were listed in Table 1 asB (I) Interpretation Prior Knowledge. These strategies were:changing of mind, comparing, elaborating, expressingmisconceptions, generalizing, giving examples, providingfacts, providing measurement, stating probable ideas andvisualizing. Table 1 provide the data of Li and L2 readers’use of these specific Prior Knowledge strategies.134TABLE 1Li AND 12 READERS’ USEOF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE READING STRATEGIESWHILE READING THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)B (I) InterpretationPrior Knowledge CategoryB 3 Changing of 3 1 6 8mind ( 0.3%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.7%)B 4 Comparing 28 26 18 28( 2.7%) ( 2.6%) ( 1.7%) ( 2.5%)B 7 Elaborating 62 91 162 170(6.1%) (9.2%) (14.9%) (15.0%)B 8 Expressing 60 48 66 64misconceptions ( 5.9%) ( 4.9%) ( 6.0%) ( 5.7%)BlO Generalizing 3 0 1 3( 0.3%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.3%)Bi2 Giving 30 7 45 17examples ( 3.0%) ( 0.7%) ( 4.1%) ( 1.5%)Bi4 Providing 47 56 90 82facts ( 4.6%) ( 5.7%) ( 8.2%) ( 7.2%)Bi5 Providing 6 6 5 9measurement ( 0.6%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.5%) ( 0.8%)Bi8 Stating 13 11 20 27probable ideas ( 1.3%) ( 1.1%) ( 1.8%) ( 2.3%)B20 Visualizing 20 2 11 0( 1.9%) ( 0.2%) ( 1.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 272 248 424 408(26.7%) (25.1%) (38.9%) (36.0%)135Fig 2 is based on the data from Table 1. It showsthat in this study both Li and L2 students appeared to usethe same Prior Knowledge strategies, but that there wereapparent differences in the percentage of use of thesestrategies. Li students seemed to use the giving examples(Bi2) and the visualizing (B20) strategies more frequentlythan L2 students did in both texts.L2 students apparently used the elaborating (B7) andthe providing facts (Bi4) strategies more frequently in theWhales text than Li students did.In the Insects text, Li students of this studyappeared to use the providing facts (Bi4) strategy moreoften than L2 students did.Apparently there were differences between the twogroups in their percentage of use of some Prior Knowledgestrategies as they processed both texts. It was decided, aswas discussed in the beginning of this chapter, not toconsider the between—text differences.136FIG. 2Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES WHILEREADING6 of totalstrategiesused1614121086420Whales text10•L1DL2B3 B4 B7 B8 BiD B12 B14 B15 B18 B20Prior Knowledge strategiesInsects text96 of totalstrategiesused•L1DL2B3 B4 B7 B8 BlO B12 B14 B15 B18 B20Prior Knowledge strategies137In an intuitive analysis, the researcher interpretedthese results to mean that Li students were less “textbound” than L2 students in that they felt free to commentbeyond the text. In a sense, Li students used the words ofthe text as a springboard for a new idea.Li students seemed to give examples when they read asentence. When student #18, an Li student, read Sentence 16in the Insects text “A few kinds of insects go south for thewinter”, he provided the example, “Monarch Butterflies”.Li students also visualized using their PriorKnowledge. When Student #9, a Li student, read Sentence i4in the Whales text, “Some parts are used to make perfume”,she visualized “That makes me think of...of a bottle”.Again, this is a response that was stimulated by the textbut was not in the text.L2 students were judged to be more text-bound as theyexpressed their thoughts after reading sentences. They gaveelaboration or descriptive details, about the sentences theyread. For example, when Student #3, an L2 student, readSentence 1 of the Whales text, “The biggest animal on landor sea is the whale”, he elaborated, “It’s really fat andbig”. He seemed to be adding to the “biggest” idea but didnot add a new idea.138Question 1 (b) Li and L2 readers’ judgments about their useof Prior Knowledge strategies while reading textsA second source of data about the readers’ use ofPrior Knowledge came from the Reading Strategy Rating Scalewhich was designed to elicit response to reading strategystatements (See Reading Strategy Scale Appendix 3). Of thetotal eighteen reading strategy statements seven referred tothe readers’ use of their Prior Knowledge.A score of 1-3 would indicate that students believedthey had not used Prior Knowledge in their response. A scoreof 3.5 to 5.0 would indicate that students believedmoderately or strongly that they had used Prior Knowledge intheir responses.Mean scores and standard deviations on the sevenPrior Knowledge statements were calculated for Li and L2students. Table 2 presents the data on the Prior Knowledgeitems of the Reading Strategy Rating Scale.139TABLE 2MEAN RATINGS OFPRIOR KNOWLEDGE READING STRATEGY STATEMENTS(Standard deviations in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=i0) (n=10)D. I used what I already 4.10 4.10 4.00 4.30knew to help me (0.94) (0.94) (1.09) (1.00)understand thispassage.G. When I read I thought 2.90 3.30 3.20 3.70about something I (1.13) (1.61) (0.74) (1.00)had seen on T. V.or in movies.K. The writer made me 2.50 2.20 3.00 2.80remember some (1.20) (1.16) (0.77) (1.46)things that hadhappened to me.N. When I read some 3.50 3.60 3.40 4.00sentences I (1.11) (1.20) (1.28) (1.34)remembered somefacts my teacheror my mon or dadhad told me.N. I could “see” pictures 3.80 4.00 3.40 4.00in my head when I (1.13) (0.97) (1.01) (1.34)read some sentences.P. I knew a lot about 3.20 3.00 2.90 3.60(Whales/Insects) (1.32) (0.77) (1.22) (1.20)before I startedreading this passage.R. I read a book about 3.60 4.20 3.50 3.90(Whales/Insects). (1.01) (0.97) (0.92) (1.30)140Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests were carried outto determine if there were significant differences betweenLi and L2 students in their rating of each statement thatreferred to their use of Prior Knowledge strategies. Nosignificant differences were found between Li and L2students in their rating of these statements for eithertext.Although there were no significant differencesbetween the scores of Li and L2 students for either textwhen they rated Prior Knowledge strategy statements, therewas evidence that the mean scores of their ratings wereconsistent with the data from their Think-Out-Loud (Text)protocols.After having read the Whales and the Insects textsLi and L2 students all agreed with statement (D), “I usedwhat I already knew to help me understand this passage”.Their mean score ranged from 4.00 for Li studentsto 4.30 for L2 students. This positive rating tends tocorroborate the findings from the Think-Out-Loud (Text)Protocols, in which all readers devoted from 25-38% of theiroral comments to their use of Prior Knowledge.There was a specific mean score that, superficiallyat least, was not consistent with the general findings. L2students, who did not use the visualization strategy sooften as Li students did in their Think-Out-Loud (Text)protocols, received a mean score of 4.00 for statement (N),141“I could “see” pictures in my head when I read somesentences”, while Li students’ mean score for the samestatement was 3.80. Since Kruskal-Wallis tests did notreveal any significant differences between Li and L2students in their ratings of Prior Knowledge strategystatements, this inconsistency is not consideredsignificant. It was interesting, however, that the groupthat rated the “seeing” pictures item higher did not in factappear to use that strategy often so far as could bejudged from their oral responses.There were no reading strategy statements about thegiving examples and elaborating strategies as theresearcher’s analysis of the (Text) protocols of the readersin the Third Pilot study did not indicate a use of thesestrategies. Thus the use of the giving examples andelaborating strategies is not supported by readers’ ratings.Summary of Findings on Question OneThere was evidence in this study that both Li and L2readers used their Prior Knowledge strategies when theyinteracted with texts; and they made reference to their useof Prior Knowledge in 25-38% of their Think-Out--Loud (Text)protocols.There were apparent differences between Li and L2students’ in their use of the Prior Knowledge strategies. Inboth texts, Li students seemed to use the Prior Knowledge142strategies of giving examples and visualizing morefrequently than L2 students did. L2 students’ use of thePrior Knowledge strategies of elaborating in the Whales textappeared to exceed Li students’ use of this strategy. Thesedifferences led the researcher to conclude that Li and L2students in this study had a different approach to the text.L2 students were judged to be more text-bound than Listudents. They elaborated upon or added descriptive detailsto the text without adding new ideas to it. Li studentsseemed to be less text-bound in their Think-Out-Loud (Text)protocols. They gave examples and visualized.Readers’ highly positive rating of statement (D), “Iused what I already knew to help me understand thispassage”, corroborates the evidence obtained from the Think-Out-Loud (Text) protocols that readers used their PriorKnowledge strategies while reading the texts.However, there was no supporting evidence fromreaders’ rating of statements to validate the impressionsthat readers elaborated or gave examples because nostatements that referred to giving examples or toelaborations had been included in the Reading StrategyRating Scale.143Question Two: Role of Prior Knowledge Strategies in Readers’Answering of Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit QuestionsThe role of Prior Knowledge in answering the threetypes of questions (Textually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit) was determined by examining datafrom three sources:(1) readers’ Think-Out-Loud (Questions) responses whileanswering questions of each type,(2) readers’ rating of statements referring to their use ofPrior Knowledge, and(3) the results of non-parametric Spearman tests used tostudy the correlations between readers’ scores on thethree types of questions and their scores on both thePrior Knowledge Test and their free-telling accountof their Knowledge about Whales and Insects.Question 2 (a) Differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of Prior Knowledge strategies while answering eachof the three types of questions on each text.Readers answered three Textually Explicit questionsorally on each of the two texts. Replies were analyzed,frequency counts of the use of Prior Knowledge strategies144were tallied, and percentages calculated for Li and L2students. These results can be found in Table 3.It should be noted that answers to TextuallyExplicit questions could be found in the text and readerswere allowed to “lookback” before answering. Readers,therefore, did not have to use their Prior Knowledge whenthey answered this type of question. However, the readers inthis study did express use of their Prior Knowledge whileanswering Textually Explicit questions.When answering Textually Explicit questions on theWhales text Li students used the Prior Knowledge category ofstrategy 13% of the time and L2 students used the PriorKnowledge category 28.4% of the time.Li students used the Prior Knowledge category 25.7%of the time when they answered Textually Explicit questionson the Insects text. L2 students used the Prior Knowledgecategory of strategy 28.9% of the time when they answeredTextually Explicit questions on the Insects text.145TABLE 3Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OFPRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)B (I) InterpretationPrior Knowledge CategoryB 3 Changing of 0 1 4 0mind ( 0.0%) ( 0.7%) ( 2.5%) ( 0.0%)B 4 Comparing 1 2 0 3( 0.8%) ( 1.4%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.6%)B 7 Elaborating 6 21 6 10( 4.6%) (14.6%) ( 3.7%) ( 5.5%)B 8 Expressing 2 3 7 20misconceptions ( 1.5%) ( 2.0%) ( 4.2%) (10.9%)BlO Generalizing 3 1 0 12.3%) ( 0.7%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.5%)B12 Giving 0 0 11 6examples ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 6.8%) ( 3.3%)B14 Providing 5 12 1 5facts ( 3.8%) ( 8.3%) ( 0.6%) ( 2.7%)B15 Providing 0 1 7 4measurement ( 0.0%) ( 0.7%) ( 4.2%) ( 2.2%)B18 Stating 0 0 0 4probable ideas ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 2.2%)B20 visualizing 0 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 17 41 42 53(13.0%) (28.4%) (25.7%) (28.9%)Fig. 3 illustrates the data provided in Table 3. Itdepicts the apparent differences between Li and L2 studentsin their use of Prior Knowledge strategies while answeringTextually Explicit questions.146147FIG. 3Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES WHILEANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT QUESTIONS ON9& of totalstrategies usedWhales text% of totalstrategies usedInsects text12108•L1LI L22 IB3 B4 B7 B8 Sb B12 B14 515 B18 B20Prior Knowledge strategiesILl0L2S. iiB3 B4 B7 B8 BlO B12 B14 B15 B18 B20Prior Knowledge strategies148L2 students seemed to use the elaborating (B7) andproviding facts (B14) strategies more frequently than Listudents did in the Textually Explicit questions on bothtexts.Li students appeared to use the generalizing (BiO)strategy more often than L2 students did while answeringTextually Explicit questions on the Whales text.Li students of this study made more frequent use ofthe changing of mind (B3), giving examples (B12) and theproviding measurement (B15) strategies than L2 students didwhile answering Textually Explicit questions on the Insectstext.L2 students apparently used the expressingmisconceptions (B8) strategy more frequently than Listudents in the Textually Explicit questions on the Insectstext.Table 4 presents Li and L2 students’ use of PriorKnowledge strategies while answering Textually Implicitquestions on both texts.Li students used Prior Knowledge strategies 15.2% ofthe time and L2 students used the same strategies 19.6% ofthe time while answering Textually Implicit questions on theWhales text.While answering Textually Implicit questions on theInsects text Li students used Prior Knowledge strategies31.4% of the time while L2 students used these strategies37.5% of the time.149TABLE 4Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OFPRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)B (I) InterpretationPrior Knowledge CategoryB 3 Changing of 1 0 0 1mind ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.3%)B 4 Comparing 5 1 2 4( 2.9%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.9%) ( 1.4%)B 7 Elaborating 10 15 35 595.9%) ( 8.2%) (15.5%) (20.1%)B 8 Expressing 2 9 14 29misconceptions ( 1.2%) ( 4.9%) ( 6.2%) ( 9.9%)BlO Generalizing 0 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B12 Giving 0 0 3 3examples ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.3%) ( 1.0%)B14 Providing 7 6 8 11facts ( 4.0%) ( 3.2%) ( 3.5%) ( 3.8%)B15 Providing 1 1 0 1measurement ( 0.6%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.3%)B18 Stating 0 4 6 2probable ideas ( 0.0%) ( 2.1%) ( 2.7%) ( 0.7%)B20 visualizing 0 0 3 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.3%) ( 0.0%)Total 26 36 71 110(15.2%) (19.6%) (31.4%) (37.5%)The differences between Li and L2 students’ use ofPrior Knowledge strategies while answering TextuallyImplicit questions can be seen in Fig. 4, which is based onthe data from Table 4.150151FIG. 4Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES WHILEANSWERING TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONS ON& of totalstrategies usedThales texts of totalstrategies used1ILlDinB3 B4 B7 B8 RiO B12 B14 B15 B18 B20Prior Knowledge strategiesInsects text2!2(1.ILlDinB3 B4 B7 B8 BlO B12 B14 B15 B18 B20Prior Knowledge strategies152While answering Textually Implicit questions on bothtexts, L2 students apparently used the elaborating (B7) andthe expressing misconceptions (B8) strategies morefrequently than Li students did. It was noted that L2student seemed to use the elaborating (B7) strategy moreoften than Li students did in the Textually Explicitquestions on both texts.Li students appeared to use the comparing (B4) andproviding facts (Bi4) strategies more often than L2 studentsin the Textually Implicit questions on the Whales text.When Li students in this study answered TextuallyImplicit questions on the Insects text, they used thestating probable ideas (BiB) strategies more often than L2students. On the other hand, L2 students apparently usedthis strategy more often in the Textually Implicit questionson the Whales text.Table 5 portrays Li and L2 students’ use of PriorKnowledge strategies while answering Scriptally Implicitquestions on both texts.While answering Scriptally Implicit questions on theWhales text, Li students used Prior Knowledge strategies24.4% of the time while L2 students used these strategies29.9% of the time.Li students used Prior Knowledge strategies 30.0% ofthe time, while L2 students used the same strategies 38.8%of the time when they answered Scriptally Implicit questionson the Insects text.153TABLE 5Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OFPRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)B (I) InterpretationPrior Knowledge CategoryB 3 Changing of 0 0 0 7mind ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 2.7%)B 4 Comparing 0 5 6 7( 0.0%) ( 1.9%) ( 2.5%) ( 2.7%)B 7 Elaborating 35 45 34 41(14.5%) (1 7.8%) (14.1%) (16.1%)B 8 Expressing 2 2 10 7misconceptions ( 0.8%) ( 0.8%) ( 4.2%) ( 2.7%)BiO Generalizing 1 0 0 0( 0.4%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Bi2 Giving 0 0 6 3examples ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 2.5%) ( 1.2%)B14 Providing 5 5 10 18facts ( 2.1%) ( 1.9%) ( 4.2%) ( 7.1%)Bi5 Providing 1 2 1 6measurement ( 0.4%) ( 0.8%) ( 0.4%) ( 2.4%)Bi8 Stating 15 17 5 10probable ideas ( 6.2%) ( 6.7%) ( 2.1%) ( 3.9%)B20 visualizing 0 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 59 76 72 99(24.4%) (29.9%) (30.0%) (38.8%)154The data in Table 5 is presented graphically in Fig.5. It shows the differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of Prior Knowledge strategies while answeringScriptally Implicit questions on both texts.155FIG. 5Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF PRIORANSWERING SCRIPTALLYKNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES WHILEIMPLICIT QUESTIONS ONs of totalstrategies used9s of totalstrategies usedT*Yknlae, 4ap4-•LlDL2B3 B4 B7 B8 BlO B12 B14 B15 B18 B20Prior Knowledge strategiesInsects text•L10L2B3 B4 B7 B8 BlO B12 B14 B15 B18 B20Prior Knowledge strategies156L2 students seemed to use the elaborating (B7)strategy more frequently than Li students did whileanswering Scriptally Implicit questions on both texts, ashad been the case when they answered Textually Explicit andTextually Implicit questions on both texts.When L2 students answered Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Whales text, they appeared to use thecomparing (B4) strategy more often than Li students did.Li students apparently used the expressingmisconceptions (B8), and the giving examples (B12)strategies more frequently than L2 students in theScriptally Implicit questions on the Insects text.L2 students seemed to use the changing mind (B3), theproviding facts (Bi4), the providing measurement (B15)and the stating probable ideas (BiB) strategies more oftenthan Li students did in the Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Insects text.The differences depicted in Figures 3, 4 and 5 areevident. While answering the three types of questions onboth texts, L2 students appeared to make use of theelaborating (B7) strategy more often than Li students did.The researcher felt that L2 students in this study weretext-bound while answering the three types of questions,adding descriptive details to the text. In other words, theyseemed overly focussed on the text and were restrained bythis behaviour.o0hihiQ.CDCD10rncne‘1CDtri-c-tCD.-u.-•F-•U)000rt‘1r1 CDD)tJuoXr1c-i-wU)0•c-ioF-‘-3CD0-’CDID‘1CDc-i-jQaTCDi--c-I-10I-c-i-CDhiCDCDIDU)hiCD•cCDU)OIDU)‘1Ec-I-I—’CDCD‘1‘-<IDID‘1N0C)I—’c-i-CDCDhiCDCDCDU)01U)U)10CDhi1-1c-I-CDc-i-‘—‘i-’•CDCDU)U)0c-IU)‘-c-i-hic-I-c-i-CD0CD‘1CDhi00ID0‘-c-II.—’IDI-I—’c-I-CDCDID—c-I-c-ihiU)CDt0c-I-‘1CD‘ic:U)CDCD0ctCDCDi-ic-I--.p.)ctc-I-c-IU)U)CDCDc-I-CDU)c:o‘-U)OjCDCDU)0Zc-I-hic-I-I:-’e-U) CDU,—I158TABLE 6Li READERS’ USE OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)LiWhalesTE TI SIB (I) InterpretationPrior Knowledge CategoryB 3 Changing of mind 0 1 0( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)1 5 0B 4 Comparing( 0.8%) ( 2.9%) ( 0.0%)6 10 35B 7 Elaborating( 4.6%) ( 5.9%) (14.5%)2 2 2B 8 Expressing( 1.5%) ( 1.2%) ( 0.8%)misconceptions3 0 1BlO Generalizing( 2.3%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)B12 Giving examples 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B14 Providing facts 5 7 5( 3.8%) ( 4.0%) ( 2.1%)0 1 1B15 Providing( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.4%)measurementB18 Stating probable 0 0 15( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 6.2%)ideas0 0 0B20 Visualizing( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)17 26 59Total(13.0%) (15.2%) (24.4%)159L2 students’ use of Prior Knowledge strategies whileanswering the three types of question under investigation onthe Whales text can be seen in Table 7.160TABLE 7L2 READERS’ USE OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)L2WhalesTE TI SIB (I) InterpretationPrior Knowledge CategoryB 3 Changing of mind 1 0 0( 0.7%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)2 1 5B 4 Comparing ( 1.4%) ( 0.6%) ( 1.9%)21 15 45B 7 Elaborating(14.6%) ( 8.2%) (17.8%)3 9 2B 8 Expressing ( 2.0%) ( 4.9%) ( 0.8%)misconceptions1 0 0BlO Generalizing ( 0.7%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B12 Giving examples 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B14 Providing facts 12 6 5( 8.3%) ( 3.2%) ( 1.9%)Bl5 Providing 1 1 2measurement ( 0.7%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.8%)B18 Stating probable 0 4 17( 0.0%) ( 2.1%) ( 6.7%)ideas0 0 0B20 Visualizing ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)41 36 76Total(28.4%) (19.6%) (29.9%)161Fig. 6. shows graphically the data from Tables 6 and7. It illustrates the apparent similarities and differencesbetween Li and L2 students while answering the three typesof questions.Both Li and L2 students appeared to use theelaborating (B7) and stating probable ideas (BiB) strategiesmore frequently while answering Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Whales text than when they answered theother two types of question.Fig 6 depicts the apparent differences between Li andL2 students while answering the three types of questions.Li students, but not L2 students, seemed to use thecomparing (B4) strategy more often when they answeredTextually Implicit questions than they did for the other twotypes of questions on the Whales text. They also apparentlyused the generalizing (BiO) strategy more frequently in theTextually Explicit than in the other two types of questionson the Whales text.Unlike the Li students, the L2 students seemed tomake more frequent use of the providing facts (Bi4) strategyin the Textually Explicit questions than in the other twotypes of questions on the Whales text. L2 students alsoappeared to use the expressing misconceptions (B8) strategymore often in the Textually Implicit questions than in theother two types of questions on the Whales text.16218161412108642016141210864GTEDTI.sI2FIG. 6USE OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERINGTEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT (TI), ANDSCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONS ON THE WHALES TEXTIii96 of totalstrategiesused96 of totalstrategiesusedB3 B4 B7 B8 BlO B12 B14 B15 B18 B20Prior Knowledge strategiesL2GTEDTIIsIB3 B4 B7 B8 BlO B12 B14 B15 B18 B20Prior Knowledge strategies163Analysis were performed next for the Insects text. Listudents’ use of Prior Knowledge strategies while answeringthe three types of question on the Insects text can be seenin Table 8.164TABLE 8Li READERS’ USE OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)LiInsectsTE TI SIB (I) InterpretationPrior Knowledge CategoryB 3 Changing of mind 4 0 0( 2.5%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)0 2 6B 4 Comparing( 0.0%) ( 0.9%) ( 2.5%)6 35 34B 7 Elaborating(15.5%) (14.1%)7 14 10B 8 Expressing4.2%) ( 6.2%) ( 4.2%)misconceptions0 0 0BlO Generalizing( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B12 Giving examples 11 3 6( 6.8%) ( 1.3%) ( 2.5%)B14 Providing facts 1 8 10( 0.6%) ( 3.5%) ( 4.2%)7 0 1B15 Providing( 4.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)measurementB18 Stating probable 6 6 5ideas ( 3.7%) ( 2.7%) ( 2.1%)0 3 0B20 Visualizing( 0.0%) ( 1.3%) ( 0.0%)42 71 72Total(25.7%) (31.4%) (30.0%)Table 9 provides the data on L2 students’ use ofPrior Knowledge strategies while answering the three typesof question on the Insects text.165166TABLE 9L2 READERS’ USE OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)L2InsectsTE TI SIB (I) InterpretationPrior Knowledge CategoryB 3 Changing of mind 0 1 7( 0.0%) ( 0.3%) ( 2.7%)3 4 7B 4 Comparing ( 1.6%) ( 1.4%) ( 2.7%)10 59 41B 7 Elaborating ( 5.5%) (20.1%) (16.1%)20 29 7B 8 Expressing(10.9%) ( 9.9%) ( 2.7%)misconceptions1 0 0BiD Generalizing ( 0.5%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Bl2 Giving examples 6 3 3( 3.3%) ( 1.0%) ( 1.2%)Bi4 Providing facts 5 11 18( 2.7%) ( 3.8%) ( 7.1%)B15 Providing 4 1 6measurement ( 2.2%) ( 0.3%) ( 2.4%)B18 Stating probable 4 2 10( 2.2%) ( 0.7%) ( 3.9%)ideas0 0 0B20 Visualizing ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)53 110 99Total(28.9%) (37.5%) (38.8%)167Fig. 7 presents in graphic form the data in Tables 8and 9.Fig. 7 shows the apparent similarities between Li and12 students in their use of Prior Knowledge strategies whileanswering the three types of questions. They seemed to usethe giving examples (Bi2) strategy more frequently whileanswering Textually Explicit questions than they did whenthey answered the other two types of questions on theInsects text. They appeared to use the elaborating strategy(B7) more frequently in the Textually Implicit questionsthan in the other two types of question on the Insects text.There were also apparent differences between the twolanguage groups. Li students, but not L2 students, seemed touse the changing mind (B3), the providing measurement (Bi5)and the stating probable ideas (BiB) strategies more oftenwhile answering Textually Explicit questions on the Insectstext.L2 students, but not Li students, apparently used theproviding facts (B14) strategy more frequently in theScriptally Implicit questions on the Insects text.168FIG. 7USE OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERINGTEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT (TI), ANDSCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONS ON THE INSECTS TEXT9a of totalstrategies used% of totalstrategies usedLiL2GTEGn.sxB3 B4 B7 B8 BlO B12 214 B15 B18 B20Prior Knowledge strategiesGTEOTIIsi23 B4 B7 B8 BlO B12 214 B15 BiB B20Prior Knowledge strategies169The graphs in Figures 6 and 7 apparently indicatethat both Li and L2 students used the elaborating (B7)strategy more frequently when they answered TextuallyImplicit questions on the Insects text and ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Whales text. The researcherspeculated that the students elaborated or added descriptivedetails in their attempt to answer Textually Implicit orScriptally Implicit questions. The answers to these twotypes of questions were not explicitly stated in the text.Both language groups appeared to use the givingexamples (B12) strategy more frequently when they answeredTextually Explicit questions than they did in the other twotypes of questions on the Insects text. They might have feltthe need to add examples to the text when they answeredTextually Explicit questions on the Insects textsQuestion 2 (c) Readers’ ratings of Question—Answeringstrategy statements about use of Prior KnowledgeAnother source of data about the role of PriorKnowledge in the answering of the three types of questionsasked came from readers’ rating of statements about theiruse of Prior Knowledge in the task (See Question-AnsweringStrategy Rating Scales, Appendix 3).Their rating received a score ranging from 1 whenthey disagreed strongly to 5 when they agreed strongly withthe statement. A mean score of 3.50 to 5.0 would indicatemoderate or a good deal of agreement with the statement thatwas being rated.Mean scores were calculated for the rating done by Liand L2 students on the statements which referred to theiruse of Prior Knowledge. These mean scores and standarddeviations can be found in Table 10.170171TABLE 10MEAN RATINGS OF QUESTION-ANSWERING STRATEGY STATEMENTSRELATING TO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE(Standard deviations in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)B. I knew the answers 3.90 4.00 3.30 4.20because they were (0.53) (1.18) (0.90) (0.87)about some thingsmy teacher or my momor my dad had told me.D. I got the answers 2.70 3.10 2.80 3.30fromwatching (1.41) (1.37) (1.07) (1.73)T. V. or movies.I. My answers came from 3.60 3.40 3.60 3.50what I had seen (1.01) (1.20) (1.20) (1.43)around me.M. Before I read the 3.10 3.00 2.50 3.00sentences I already (1.04) (1.09) (1.11) (1.26)knew the facts toanswer the questions.For the Whales text both Li and L2 students had verysimilar ratings on statements. Both gave high ratings tostatement (B) about knowing the answer because they wereabout things their teacher or parents had told them. Theygave low ratings to statement (D) about getting the answersfrom watching T.V. or movies and to statement (M) aboutknowing the facts to answer the questions before reading thetext.172On the Insects text both Li and L2 students agreed withstatement (I) that their answers came from what they hadseen around them. They both disagreed with statement (M)that they already knew the facts to answer the questionsbefore they read the text and with statement (D) that theygot the answers from watching T.V. or movies.On the Insects text there was one difference betweenLi and L2 students. L2 students agreed with statement (B)that their answers came from what they had been told bytheir teachers or their parents while Li students did not.In both texts neither Li nor L2 students thoughtthat their answers came from T. V., or movies. They also didnot consider that they knew the facts before they answeredthe questions. This led the researcher to speculate that theLi and L2 readers believed their answers to some questionscame from sources other than their Prior Knowledge. Thesereaders could have believed that they had used the text orother sources to answer .some questions.Kruskal—Wallis tests were carried out to determine ifthere were significant differences between Li and L2students in their scores from rating each statement abouttheir use of Prior Knowledge. No significant differenceswere found between Li and L2 students in their rating ofthese statements.173Question 2 (d) Correlations between two types of PriorKnowledge assessments and scores on the three types ofquestions on each text.The third source of data for the role of PriorKnowledge in the answering of the three types of questionscame from the results of non-parametric Spearmancorrelational tests. These tests were carried out to studythe possibility of significant correlations between readers’scores when they answered the three types of questions,their scores on the researcher-developed Prior Knowledgetests, and their scores on free—telling accounts of theirknowledge of Whales and Insects (See Appendices 7 and 8 forscores on the two types of Prior Knowledge assessments andon the three types of questions).No significant correlations were found between thescores of Li and L2 students on the Prior Knowledge Test andtheir scores on each of the three types of questions, orbetween their scores on the Free-Telling Accounts and theirscores on each of the three types of questions.The only correlation that approached significance wasa negative one between L2’s scores when they answeredTextually Implicit questions on the Whales text and theirscores on the Whales section of the Prior Knowledge Test(r5=—.8539, N=1O, p=.002). Table 11 shows the scores of L2students on the Prior Knowledge (Whales) Test and theirscores on the Textually Implicit questions on Whales174which were analyzed in a Spearman correlational test.TABLE 11L2 READERS’ SCORES ONPRIOR KNOWLEDGE (wHALEs) TESTAND ON TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONS ON THE WHALES TEXTStudent Whales WhalesPrior Knowledge Test Textually Implicit(Score out of 8) Questions(Score out of 6)2 4 63 6 410 7 413 5 414 4 622 4 623 7 425 2 626 6 427 5 6This negative correlation, which approachedsignificance, means that L2 students who scored high (with5-7 points out of 8 items) on the Prior Knowledge Test,scored moderately low (with 4 points out of 6), on theTextually Implicit questions on the Whales text. It meansthat those L2 students who scored low (with 2-4 points) onthe Prior Knowledge Test tended to score high (with 6points) on the Textually Implicit questions on the Whales175text. This finding was reflected in the analysis done forquestion 2 (e) (see below).Question 2 (e) Correlations between ratings on PriorKnowledge strategy statements and scores on the three typesof questions on each text.To study any possible correlations between readers’ratings of statements about Prior Knowledge and their scoreson the three types of questions, non-parametric Spearmancorrelational tests were carried out.One negative correlation approached significance.This was between L2’s scores (see Table 12) while answeringTextually Implicit questions on the Whales text and theirrating of Reading Strategy Statement (P), “I knew a lotabout Whales before I started reading this passage”(r=—.7746, N=1O, p=.009).176TABLE 12L2 READERS’ RATINGS OF READING STRATEGY STATEMENT (P)ABOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF WHALESAND THEIR SCORES ON TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXTStudent Ratings of WhalesReading Strategy Textually ImplicitStatement (P) Questions(Score out of 5) (Score out of 6)2 3 63 4 410 3 413 3 414 3 622 2 623 4 425 2 626 4 427 2 6This correlation, which approached significance,indicates that L2 students who believed they knew a lotabout Whales and had a high score (4 out of 5) on the ratingscale, scored moderately low (4 points out of 6) on theTextually Implicit questions on the Whales text. L2 studentswho believed they did not know a lot about Whales and had alow score of 2 on the rating scale, scored high(with 6 points out of 6) on the Textually Implicit questionson the Whales text.Although this finding did not reach the stringentlevel of .001 significance it is of interest when oneconsiders that the data in Fig 4 indicated that the L2 group177apparently expressed more misconceptions while they answeredTI or Textually Implicit questions on the Whales text. Onemight speculate that L2 students in this study answeredquestions on the basis of low or inaccurate Prior Knowledgerather than from what they learned from the text.This correlation is of interest as a correlation hadbeen found previously (see Question 2 (d)), which approachedsignificance between the L2 group’s scores on TextuallyImplicit questions on the Whales text and their score on thePrior Knowledge (Whales) Test (r5=—.8539, N=1O, p=.002).These findings seem to indicate that those L2students who scored higher on the Prior Knowledge Test, orwho believed they knew a lot about Whales, did not do sowell on the Textually Implicit questions on the Whales textas those L2 students who scored lower on the Prior Knowledgetest, or who believed they did not know a lot about Whales.These findings were interpreted to mean that L2 students haddifficulty using their Prior Knowledge while answeringTextually Implicit questions on the Whales text.Summary of Findings on Question TwoThe data from readers’ Think-Out-Loud (Questions)protocols indicated that readers did use their PriorKnowledge while answering the Textually Explicit, TextuallyImplicit and Scriptally Implicit questions.178There were apparent differences between the twolanguage groups. While answering each of the three types ofquestions on both texts L2 students seemed to use theelaborating strategy more frequently than Li students did.There were also apparent differences between the threetypes of questions. Both Li and L2 students appeared to usethe elaborating and the stating probable ideas strategiesmore often in the Scriptally Implicit questions than in theother two types of question on the Whales text. They seemedto use the giving examples strategy more frequently in theTextually Explicit questions on the Insects text. Theyapparently made more frequent use of the elaboratingstrategy in the Textually Implicit questions on Insects.The data from readers’ rating of statements about theuse of Prior Knowledge were consistent with their Think-Out-Loud (Questions) protocols. In their T-O-L (Question)protocols Li and L2 mentioned facts they had learned. Li andL2 readers received scores of 3.90 and 4.00 respectivelywhen they agreed with statement (B), “I knew the answersbecause they were about some facts my teacher, or my mom, ormy dad had told me” after they answered questions on theWhales text.L2 students’ scored a mean of 4.20 when they ratedthe statement that they thought their answers to thequestion on the Insects text came from what they had beentold by their teachers or parents. Li students’ score of3.30 showed that they did not believe as strongly as L2179students did that their answers to questions on the Insectstext came from what they had been told by their parents orteachers.The correlational tests between readers’ scores onanswers to the three types of questions and their scores onthe Prior Knowledge assessments, or between their scoreswhen they rated statements about Prior Knowledge and theirscores on answers to the three types of questions, indicatedno significant correlations.Two correlational tests produced results thatapproached the stringent level of significance that had beenset at .001. In one case a negative correlation (r=—.8539,N+iO, p=.OO2) was found between L2 students’ scores on theTextually Implicit questions on Whales and their PriorKnowledge (Whales) Test results. In the other case, it wasagain a negative correlation (r5=—.7746, N=1O, p=.009)between L2 students’ scores on the Textually Implicitquestions on Whales and their scores when they rated theReading Strategy Statement (P), “I knew a lot about Whalesbefore I started reading the passage”. L2 students’ use ofPrior Knowledge strategies seemed inadequate when theyanswered Textually Implicit questions on Whales.Li and L2 students seemed to be different in someways but apparently they were also similar in their use ofPrior Knowledge strategies when the three types of questionswere compared.180Results Obtained fromClassification Two: Non Prior Knowledge StrategiesQuestion Three: Role of Non Prior Knowledge Strategiesin Readers? Interacting with TextsReaders? Non Prior Knowledge strategies whileinteracting with texts could be seen from two sources:(1) their Think-Out-Loud (Text) protocols while reading thetwo texts, and(2) their rating of statements after having read the texts.Question 3 (a) Differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of the categories of Non Prior Knowledgestrategies while reading two texts.Patterns of the use of categories of Non PriorKnowledge strategies emerged from the transcripts of thereaders’ Think-Out-Loud (Text) responses while reading thetwo texts. Appendix 13 provides a detailed description ofthese patterns and examples of each strategy from thereaders’ Think-Out-Loud (Text) protocols. Strategies whichwere similar in nature were classified under the samecategory.All Li and L2 students were found to be using thesame seven categories of strategies. They used the followingcategories: Explanation of text, Interpretation of Text,181Evaluation of Text, Monitoring of Understanding, Attempts toUnderstand, Comments on Strategies and Comments on Sourcesof Knowledge.Table 13 represents the data on Li and L2 students’use of the seven categories of Non Prior Knowledgestrategies.182TABLE 13Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF THE SEVEN CATEGORIESOF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES WHILEREADING THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi. L2 Li. L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=i0)A Explanation 57 116 69 130( 5.6%) (11.7%) ( 6.3%) (11.4%)B (II) Interpretation 168 144 75 132Non Prior (16.5%) (14.6%) ( 6.8%) (11.6%)KnowledgeC Evaluation 126 120 94 110(12.3%) (12.1%) ( 8.6%) ( 9.7%)D Monitoring of 9 7 6 6Understanding ( 0.9%) ( 0.7%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.5%)E Attempts to 12 4 9 7Understand ( 1.2%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.8%) ( 0.6%)F Comments on 174 163 198 160Strategies (17.1%) (16.5%) (18.1%) (14.2%)G Comments on 21 22 20 12Sources of ( 2.1%) ( 2.2%) ( 1.8%) ( 1.1%)KnowledgeTotal 567 576 471 57(55.7%) (58.2%) (43.0%) (49.1%)Fig. 8 is based on Table 13. It illustrates that inthe Whales text, Li students appeared to use the category ofNon Prior Knowledge Interpretation (B II) more frequently183than L2 students did. The reverse was true in the Insectstext with L2 students apparently using more frequently theNon Prior Knowledge Interpretation (Bil) category than Listudents did.Fig B also demonstrates that Li students seemed touse the category of Comments on Strategies (F) morefrequently than L2 students did on the Insects text.L2 students appeared to make use of the Explanation(A) category more often than Li students did while readingboth texts.Apparently in both texts L2 students used thecategory of Explanation strategies more often than Listudents did, a behaviour that might suggest a tendency inL2 students to focus on the particular text.184FIG. 8Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE CATEGORIES OFSTRATEGIES WHILE READING% of totalstrategies used9 of totalstrategies used 1,Whales text‘IiiDL2•LlDL2A Bil C D E F GCategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategiesInsects text211111A Bil C D E F GCategories of Non Prior Knowledge StrategiesoU)‘1rtMirtZCD‘10P)CDCDLxiP1Q.i-.urti—i•‘1CtCDCDLOQ.e0I-”LOU)CDCDi-’•CtCDWtTU)Ct()Ct—U)CD0‘-CDci-.i-tio‘1tft-U)‘—,e-”ci-CD0U)C)CD)CDft‘t$QC)ci-C)-“1‘Ii-CDI-i-hP)0WCDXMiMift<U)C)(1i.-.CDCD‘-CDMiU)C)LQQ.ft•CD‘CDQ.ci-ZCDU)CDCDZ0C)U)U)‘1CDCDftC)CDU)i-tiriiU)0CDI-”CD‘1W.•CDQiCDU)CD0ftftDIQ11ftDICDCDDI‘-•C)CDft0Cc-I-0CDo‘bLOI-’-CD0CDft-CD‘1‘1Q.iDICD:iDiQa0CDCDUiftI-”MiU)U)1U)t’•U)0rtj-MiWCDDIU)C)Zcic-i-U)I-”0CDCftMiUi•CD0.’0‘tJCDzCD‘1U)ftI-..U)ft0U)‘1::I-I-’.I-..tlI-.’CDU) CDco U,186TABLE 14Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATION STRATEGIESWHILE READING THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=i0) (n=10) (n=10)Al Paraphrasing 47 90 63 103( 4.6%) ( 9.1%) ( 5.7%) ( 9.1%)A2 Quoting 10 26 6 27( 1.0%) ( 2.6%) ( 0.6%) ( 2.3%)Total 57 116 69 130( 5.6%) (11.7%) ( 6.3%) (11.4%)Fig. 9 is based on Table 14. It shows the apparentdifferences between Li and L2 students in their use ofspecific Explanation strategies while reading two texts.In both texts L2 students seemed.to make morefrequent use of the strategies of paraphrasing (Al) andquoting (A2). In other words, L2 students appeared to usethe words of the text more often than Li students did. Theresearcher interpreted these findings to mean that L2students were focussed on the text.187Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATIONSTRATEGIES WHILE READING% of totalstrategies usedFIG. 9Whales text% of totalstrategies used109876543210• LiLI L2Al A2Non Prior Knowledge Explanation strategiesInsects text•LlEJL2Al A2Non Prior Knowledge Explanation strategiesSpecific Non Prior Knowledge Interpretationstrategies were analyzed next (see Table 15).188189TABLE 15Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATION STRATEGIESWHILE READING THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=1O) (n=10) (n=10)B (II) InterpretationNon Prior Knowledge categoryB 5 Confirming 5 0 0 1( 0.5%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.1%)B 6 Contradicting 2 0 1 0previous ( 0.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.0%)thoughtB 9 Expressing 31 9 8 23suppositions ( 3.1%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.7%) ( 2.0%)Bli Giving 30 26 10 31consequences ( 2.9%) ( 2.7%) ( 0.9%) ( 2.7%)B13 Making 41 49 7 15inferences ( 4.0%) ( 4.9%) ( 0.6%) ( 1.3%)B16 Reasoning 33 55 29 55( 3.3%) ( 5.6%) ( 2.7%) ( 4.9%)B17 Referring to 20 4 16 5previous ( 1.9%) ( 0.4%) ( 1.4%) ( 0.4%)sentencesB19 Summarizing 6 1 4 2( 0.6%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.2%)Total 168 144 75 132(16.5%) (14.6%) ( 6.8%) (11.6%)190Fig 10 shows graphically the data in Table 15. Itillustrates the apparent differences between Li and L2students in their use of specific Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation strategies. In the Whales text Li studentsseemed to use the expressing suppositions (B9) and referringto previous sentences (Bi7) strategies more often than L2students did. L2 students apparently made more frequent useof the making inferences (Bi3) and the reasoning (B16)strategies than Li students did.In the Insects text Li students appeared to use thereferring to previous sentences (B17) strategy morefrequently than L2 students did. L2 students seemed to usemore often the strategies of expressing suppositions (B9),giving consequences (Bil), making inferences (Bi3) andreasoning (B16) than Li students did.Apparently in both texts Li students made morefrequent use of the referring to previous sentences (B17)than L2 students did. L2 students seemed to use the makinginferences (B13) and the reasoning (B16) strategies moreoften than Li students did. The researcher believed thisfinding to mean that L2 students appeared to be attemptingto interpret the immediate text by making inferences orlinguistic connections and by giving reasons for the text.Li students seemed less focussed on the immediate text andreferred to previous sentences.191FIG. 10Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATIONSTRATEGIES WHILE READING49 of totalstrategies 3usedWhales text54.543.59 of total 3strategies 2.5used 21.510.50Insects textNon Prior Knowledge Interpretationstrategies65•IlDL2B5 B6 B9 Bil B13 B16 B17 B19Non Prior Knowledge Interpretationstrategies•L1DL2B5 B6 B9 Bli Bl3 B16 B17 B19Table 16 presents the data for Li and L2 students’use of specific Non Prior Knowledge Evaluation strategieswhile reading two texts.192193TABLE 16Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION STRATEGIESWHILE READING THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=i0) (n=10)C21 Agreeing 70 53 55 41( 6.9%) ( 5.3%) ( 5.0%) ( 3.6%)C22 Disagreeing .9 9 14 18( 0.9%) ( 0.9%) ( 1.3%) ( 1.5%)C23 Doubting 12 6 5 1( 1.2%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.5%) ( 0.1%)C24 Expressing 1 1 5 2 3personal ( 1.0%) ( 0.5%) ( 0.2%) ( 0.3%)reactionsC26 Judging 13 2 13 8truth ( 1.3%) ( 0.2%) ( 1.1%) ( 0.7%)C27 Questioning 11 45 5 39( 1.0%) ( 4.6%) ( 0.5%) ( 3.5%)Total 126 120 94 110(12.3%) (12.1%) (8.6%) (9.7%)Fig 11 is based on Table 16. It shows the apparentdifferences between Li and L2 students in their use ofspecific Non Prior Knowledge Evaluation strategies whilereading two texts.In both texts Li students seemed to make morefrequent use of the strategies of agreeing with the text(C21) and judging the truth of statements in the text (C26)than L2 students did. L2 students appeared to use thequestioning (C27) strategy more frequently than Li studentsdid. The researcher interpreted this finding to mean than Listudents seemed to be able to stand back from the text andjudge whether they agreed with the truth of the statementsin the text or not. L2 students appeared to be focussed onthe text, turning statements in the text into questions.194195FIG iiLi AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EVALUATIONSTRATEGIES WHILE READING9 of totalstrategies usedWhales text____•L1DL2C2 3Non Prior Knowledge EvaluationstrategiesNon Prior Knowledge Evaluationstrategies1C2 2 C2 4 C26 C277654321054.543.532.521.510.5nInsects text9 of totalstrategies usedDL2C21 C22 C23 C24 C2 6 C27Monitoring of Understanding strategies are presentedin Table 17. No conspicuous differences could be foundbetween Li and L2 students in their use of Monitoring ofUnderstanding strategies in either text. In fact, overall,use of the strategies in this category was low.196197TABLE 17Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGEMONITORING OF UNDERSTANDING STRATEGIES WHILEREADING THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=i0) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)D28 Decoding 1 0 0 0difficult ( 0.1%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)D3OText 2 1 0 4difficult ( 0.2%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)D3iTextnot 5 6 6 2understood C 0.5%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.1%)D32Text 1 0 0 0understood C 0.1%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 9 7 6 6( 0.9%) ( 0.7%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.5%)Strategies within the Attempts to Understand categoryare shown in Table 18. There were no major differencesbetween Li and L2 students in their use of specific Attemptsto Understand strategies while reading the two texts.198TABLE 18Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGEATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND STRATEGIES WHILEREADING THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)E33Ask 5 0 3 0someone ( 0.5%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.3%) ( 0.0%)E35 Re—read 5 2 5 6( 0.5%) ( 0.2%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.5%)E37Skip 0 2 0 0sentence ( 0.0%) ( 0.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)E38Think 2 0 1 1( 0.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.1%)Total 12 4 9 7( 1.2%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.8%) ( 0.6%)Strategies within the Comments On Strategies categoryare shown in Table 19.199TABLE 19Li AND L2 READERS’ USEOF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON STRATEGIESWHILE READING THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)F39 Getting the 8 1 10 2answer ( 0.8%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.2%)F40 Guessing 2 0 6 0( 0.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)F41 Knowing 19 6 30 7( 1.8%) ( 0.6%) ( 2.8%) ( 0.6%)P42 Not able to 1 0 0 0answer ( 0.1%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)F44 Not able 23 3 12 3to think ( 2.3%) ( 0.3%) ( 1.1%) ( 0.3%)F45 Not knowing 73 18 65 10( 7.2%) ( 1.8%) ( 5.9%) ( 0.9%)F46Not 1 0 20 3remembering ( 0.1%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.8%) ( 0.3%)F47 Not sure 5 8 14 8( 0.5%) ( 0.8%) ( 1.3%) ( 0.7%)P48 Not willing 8 0 0 0to try ( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)F49 Remembering 0 1 1 0( 0.0%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.0%)P50 Thinking 34 125 39 126( 3.3%) (12.7%) ( 3.5%) (11.1%)F51 Trying 0 1 1 1( 0.0%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.1%)Total 174 163 198 160(17.1%) (16.5%) (18.1%) (14.2%)200Fig. 12 shows the data in Table 19. It demonstratesthe apparent differences between Li and L2 students in theiruse of specific Non Prior Knowledge Comments on Strategieswhile reading both texts.In both texts Li students seemed to make morefrequent use of the comments of knowing (F41), and notknowing (F45) than L2 students did. L2 students apparentlycommented more frequently about thinking (F50) than Listudents did.In the Whales text Li students appeared to commentmore often about not being able to think (F44) than L2students did. In the Insects text Li students seemed toremark on not remembering (F46) more frequently than L2students did.Apparently in both texts Li students felt free tocomment on their knowledge or lack of knowledge about thetext. L2 students commented on their act of thinking aboutthe text, indicating that they were focussed on the text.201FIG. 12Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ONSTRATEGIES WHILE READINGof totalstrategies usedWhales textH xiDL2Insects text • LiD L29 of totalstrategies used121086420a_ IF39 F40 P41 F42 P44 P45 P46 F47 F48 F49 F50 F51Non Prior Knowledge Comments on StrategiesF39 P40 P41 F42 F44 F45 F46 P47 P48 P49 P50 P51Non Prior Knowledge Comments on Strategies202Table 20 illustrates the frequency of use ofstrategies within the category of Comment on Sources ofKnowledge. No differences were found in both texts betweenLi and L2 students in their use of strategies within theComments of Sources of Knowledge category. In fact, overall,the use of strategies in this category was low.203TABLE 20Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGECOMMENTS ON SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE READING THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)G53Books 2 0 5 3( 0.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.3%)G54 Experience 4 3 2 0( 0.4%) ( 0.3%) ( 0.2%) ( 0.0%)G55Films 0 0 3 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.2%) ( 0.0%)G56 Hearing 2 0 0 0( 0.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G57 Learned 0 6 1 4from schools ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.4%)G60 Not having 5 3 1 0experienced ( 0.5%) ( 0.3%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.0%)G61 Not having 0 2 0 0learned ( 0.0%) ( 0.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G62 Not having 0 1 0 0read ( 0.0%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G63 Not having 1 0 0 1seen ( 0.1%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.1%)G64 People 4 2 0 3( 0.4%) ( 0.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.3%)G68 Reading 3 1 4 0( 0.3%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)G70 Seeing 0 3 4 1( 0.0%) ( 0.3%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.1%)G71 Television 0 1 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.1%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 21 22 20 12( 2.1%) ( 2.2%) ( 1.8%) ( 1.2%)204To summarize the findings on Question 3 (b):L2 students apparently made more frequent use than Listudents did of the Explanation strategies of paraphrasingand quoting in both texts.In both texts Li students seemed to use the Non PriorKnowledge Interpretation strategy of referring to previoussentences more frequently than L2 students did. L2 studentsappeared to make more frequent use of the making inferencesand the reasoning strategies than Li students did.Li students seemed to use more frequently than L2students did in both texts the Evaluation strategies ofagreeing and ludging the truth of statements in the text.Apparently in both texts L2 students used the questioningstrategy more often than Li students did.Within the category of Comments on Strategies, Listudents seemed to use the knowing and not knowingstrategies more often than L2 students did in both texts. L2students appeared to make more frequent use of the thinkingstrategy than Li students did.There were no apparent differences between Li and L2students in their use of specific Monitoring ofUnderstanding strategies, Attempts to Understand strategiesor Comments on Sources of Knowledge strategies.205Question 3 (c) Readers’ rating of statements about Non PriorKnowledge reading strategies.The second source of data about Non Prior Knowledgestrategies which readers employed came from their rating ofstatements which were read to them by the researcher afterthey had finished Thinking-Out-Loud about the sentences ineach of the two texts. These statements were compiled froma search of the literature on Reading Education and includedstatements about prediction, re-reading, using context,changing reading rate and making inferences (See Appendix 3)Their rating received a score ranging from 1 whenthey disagreed strongly with the statement to 5 when theystrongly agreed with it. A mean score of 3.5 to 5.0 wouldindicate that the readers of that group moderately orstrongly agreed with the statement. Table 21 provides themean scores for the ratings made by the Li and L2 students.206TABLE 21MEAN RATINGSOF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE READING STRATEGY STATEMENTS(Standard deviations in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)A. I understood all 3.30 4.00 3.40 4.10the sentences. (1.00) (0.63) (0.80) (0.70)B. I guessed what would 2.80 2.60 2.90 2.90come in the (1.16) (1.28) (0.70) (1.22)following sentences.C. My guess about what 3.20 2.70 2.50 2.80would come in the (1.16) (1.10) (0.92) (1.32)next sentencewas right.E. I read some sentences 3.50 3.20 3.30 2.70again that I didn’t (0.92) (1.16) (0.90) (1.26)understand.F. I just went on reading 3.20 2.90 3.30 2.70when I came to some (1.16) (1.44) (0.90) (1.26)difficult words.H. When I read some 3.60 2.80 3.40 2.60sentences I said (0.91) (0.87) (0.91) (1.20)to myself, “I don’tget it.”I. I think the writer 2.40 3.10 3.00 3.00forgot to write some (1.01) (1.22) (1.18) (1.54)facts I know about(Whales/Insects).J. I stopped and thought 3.60 2.90 3.90 2.50about the meaning of (0.80) (1.04) (0.53) (1.11)some hard sentences.L. Some difficult words 3.80 3.60 3.40 2.40became more clear (0.60) (1.28) (1.11) (1.28)after I read moresentences.207TABLE 21 (Continued>Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n10) (n=10)0. I had to read some 3.50 3.70 2.90 2.90sentences more (1.11) (0.90) (1.22) (0.94)slowly than othersentences.Q. When I read some 3.20 3.00 2.60 2.00sentences, I thought (1.32) (0.77) (0.66) (1.00)some facts weremissing, and I addedor filled in those facts.To determine if there were significant differencesbetween the ratings of Li and L2 students for eachstatement, non—parametric Kruskal—Wallis test were carriedout. No significant differences were found.Although there were no significant differencesbetween the ratings of Li and L2 students, their mean scoresin Table 21 reflect some of the findings in the Li and L2students’ Think-Out-Loud (Text) ProtocolsA number of high ratings by the Li group on theWhales text (statements E, H, J, L, a) carries theimplication that they found the text somewhat difficult. L2students agreed only on statements L and 0.208Li and L2 students judged that some difficult wordsbecame more clear after they read more sentences in theWhales text (statement L).Both Li and L2 students believed that they had toread some sentences more slowly in the Whales text(Statement 0).Most statements did not receive an “agreement” ratingfor the Insects text. Li students did agree with statement(J) that they stopped and thought about the meaning of somehard sentences. L2 students agreed with statement (A) thatthey understood all the sentences.These findings are interesting when one considersthat Li and L2 students expressed greater use of their PriorKnowledge in their Insects Think-Out—Loud (Text) than intheir Whales (Text) protocols. The researcher speculatedthat Li and L2 readers, who both agreed that they read somesentences in the Whales text slowly, spent less time as aresult on Thinking-Out-Loud about their Prior Knowledge inthe Whales text.The researcher felt that Li students seemed willingto admit their lack of understanding while reading theWhales text. Li students, but not L2 students, believed thatthey said to themselves that they “didn’t get” somesentences in the Whales text (statement H). Li students, butnot L2 students, also thought they had read some sentencesagain that they didn’t understand in the Whales text(statement E).209In contrast, L2 students had a score of 4.00 for bothtexts when they rated statement (A), “I understood allsentences”. This is not inconsistent with the fact that L2students seemed to comment less often in their Think-Out-Loud (Text) protocols than Li students did that they did notknow information in the sentences. L2 students in thissample seemed less willing than Li students to acknowledgetheir lack of understanding or knowledge about the text.There may be a cultural difference in L2 students’ beingless willing than Li students to acknowledge their lack ofunderstanding or knowledge.Summary of Findings on Question ThreeStudents used all seven categories of Non PriorKnowledge strategies (Explanation of Text, Non PriorKnowledge interpretation of Text, Evaluation of Text,Monitoring of Understanding, Attempts to Understand,Comments on Strategies and Comments on Sources of Knowledge)as they did the T-O-L (Text) procedure.Overall, readers used the same categories of strategywhile they read the texts, but they appeared to differ asgroups. In both texts L2 students seemed to use theExplanation category more frequently than Li students, andwere judged to be “text-bound”, a behaviour found in earlieranalyses. Their “text-bound” behaviour may be an indicationof their “careful” reading of the text.210Li students were judged to be less text-bound than L2students who seemed to focus on the text itself and appearedto use the strategies of making inferences and of reasoningmore often than Li students did when they interpreted bothtexts. They made inferences or linguistic connectionsbetween sentences and they gave reasons about the text theywere reading. Li students by contrast seemed to use thereferring to previous sentences strategy more frequentlythan L2 students did. Li students appeared to focus less onthe immediate text they were reading and made references toprevious sentences they had read.In both texts, Li students seemed to evaluate thetext using the strategies of agreeing and judging the truthof statements in the text, while L2 students appeared tothink about the words of the text and used the questioningstrategy, turning sentences into questions.When Li students commented on their actions for bothtexts they apparently used the knowing and not knowingstrategies. L2 students appeared to comment on theirthinking about the text.The data from the readers’ rating of statements aboutNon Prior Knowledge reading strategies tended to corroboratethe findings of the Think-Out-Loud (Text) protocols. Both Liand L2 students believed that some difficult words becamemore clear as they read more sentences and that they had toread some sentences more slowly in the Whales text. They didnot believe that they did this for the Insects text. The211researcher speculated that both Li and L2 students agreedthat they read the Whales text more slowly than they did theInsects text and as a result did not respond using theirPrior Knowledge so much in the Whales text as they did inthe Insects text. Their T—O—L (Text) protocols indicatedthat they appeared to express use of their Prior Knowledgeless often in the Whales text than they did in the Insectstext.Question Four: Role of Non Prior Knowledge Categories ofStrategies and Specific Non Prior Knowledge Strategies inReaders’ Answering of Textually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit QuestionsThree sources of data provided information on the NonPrior Knowledge strategies that readers in this study usedwhile answering Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions. These were:(1) the readers Think—Out--Loud (Questions) responses whileanswering these three types of questions,(2) the ratings of statements about Non Prior Knowledgestrategies after they have answered questions on texts,and(3) the results of non-parametric Spearman correlationaltests between the readers’ scores on these three typesof questions and their scores from rating statementsabout Non Prior Knowledge strategies.212Question 4 (a) Differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of Non Prior Knowledge categories of strategieswhile answering each of the three types of questions on bothtexts.Analysis of readers’ Think-Out-Loud (Questions)protocols revealed that Li and L2 students used all sevencategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategies whileanswering Textually Explicit, Textually Implicit andScriptally Implicit questions. They used the categories ofExplanation, Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation, Evaluationof Question, Monitoring of Understanding, Attempts toAnswer, Comments on Strategies, and Comments on Source ofAnswers.Li and L2 students’ use of the seven categories ofNon Prior Knowledge strategies while answering TextuallyExplicit questions on both texts is shown in Table 22.213TABLE 22LL AND L2 READERS’ USE OFTHE SEVEN CATEGORIES OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)A Explanation 25 22 25 23(19.2%) (15.3%) (15.3%) (12.6%)B (II) Interpretation 5 11 2 2Non Prior ( 3.9%) ( 7.7%) ( 1.2%) ( 1.0%)KnowledgeC Evaluation 1 0 0 0( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)D Monitoring of 1 0 0 0Understanding ( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)E Attempts 0 1 0 2to Answer ( 0.0%) ( 0.7%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.1%)F Comments 24 34 43 41on (18.4%) (23.6%) (26.4%) (22.4%)StrategiesG Comments on 44 28 34 32Sources of (33.8%) (19.4%) (20.8%) (17.4%)AnswersTotal 100 96 104 100(76.9%) (66.7%) (63.7%) (54.5%)Apparent differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of Non Prior Knowledge categories of strategies214while answering Textually Explicit questions on both textsare shown on Fig. 13, which is based on Table 22.Li students seemed to use the categories ofExplanation (A) and Comments on Sources of Answers (G) morefrequently than L2 students did when they answered TextuallyExplicit questions on both texts.While answering Textually Explicit questions on theWhales text L2 students appeared to make more frequent useof the categories of Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation(Bli) and Comments on Strategies (F) than Li students did.Li apparently used the Comments on Strategies (F) more oftenthan L2 students did when they answered Textually Explicitquestions on the Insects text.215FIG. 13Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE CATEGORIES OFSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT QUESTIONS ON% of totalstrategies usedWhales text.IJlDL2ILlDL2% of totalstrategies usedA Bil C D E F GCategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategiesInsects textA Bli C D E F GCategories of Non Prior Knowledge Strategies216Table 23 depicts Li and L2 students’ use of the sevencategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategies while answeringTextually Implicit questions on both texts.TABLE 23Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OFTHE SEVEN CATEGORIES OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)A Explanation 3 6 3 14( 1.8%) ( 3.2%) ( 1.3%) ( 4.8%)B (II) Interpretation 45 48 38 37Non Prior (26.3%) (26.2%) (16.8%) (12.7%)KnowledgeC. Evaluation 1 1 0( 0.6%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.3%)D Monitoring of 0 4 0 0Understanding ( 0.0%) ( 2.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)E Attempts 3 3 1 5to Answer ( 1.8%) ( 1.8%) ( 0.4%) ( 1.7%)F Comments 35 41 42 37on (20.4%) (22.4%) (18.4%) (i2.7%)StrategiesG Comments on 44 27 32 36Sources of (25.6%) (14.7%) (14.1%) (12.3%)AnswersTotal 131 130 116 130(76.5%) (71.1%) (51.0%) (44.5%)217Fig. 14, which is based on Table 23, illustrates theapparent differences between Li and L2 students in their useof Non Prior Knowledge categories of strategies whileanswering Textually Implicit questions on both texts.Li students seemed to make more frequent Comments onSources of Answers (G) than L2 students did when theyanswered Textually Implicit questions on both texts, just asthey apparently did in the Textually Explicit questions.Li students appeared to use the categories of NonPrior Knowledge Interpretation (Bil) and Comments onStrategies (F) more often than L2 students did in theTextually Implicit questions on the Insects text.L2 students seemed to use the category of Explanation(A) more frequently than Li students did when they answeredTextually Implicit questions on both texts.218FIG. 14Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE CATEGORIES OFSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONS ONof totalstrategiesusedWhales text•L10L220181614121086420Categories of Non PriorstrategiesKnowledgeCategories of Non Prior Knowledge3A BIX C D E F GInsects text% of totalstrategiesused•L1DL2A Bli C D E F Gstrategies219Table 24 shows Li and L2 students’ use of the sevencategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategies while answeringScriptally Implicit questions on both texts.TABLE 24Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OFTHE SEVEN CATEGORIES OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=i0) (n=i0) (n=i0) (n=i0)A Explanation 8 18 23 13C 3.3%) ( 7.1%) ( 9.6%) ( 5.1%)B (II) Interpretation 48 44 34 28NonPrior (19.9%) (17.3%) (14.1%) (10.9%)KnowledgeC Evaluation 4 9 1 3( 1.6%) ( 3.5%) ( 0.4%) ( 1.2%)D Monitoring of 2 2 0 0Understanding ( 0.8%) ( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)E Attempts 0 1 0 3to Answer ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%) C 1.2%)F Comments 47 46 52 46on (19.3%) (17.9%) (21.6%) (18.1%)StrategiesG Comments on 29 19 19 25Sources of (11.6%) ( 7.5%) ( 7.8%) ( 9.8%)AnswersTotal 138 139 129 118(56.5%) (54.5%) (53.5%) (46.3%)220Li and L2 students apparently used Non PriorKnowledge strategies less often in the Scriptally Implicitquestions, which invited the use of Prior Knowledgestrategies, than they did in the Textually Explicitquestions (see Table 22).Fig. 15 illustrates the data in Table 24 and showsthe apparent differences between Li and L2 students in theiruse of Non Prior Knowledge categories of strategies whileanswering Scriptally Implicit questions on both texts.Li students appeared to make more frequent use of thecategory of Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation (BIl) than L2students did in the Scriptally Implicit questions on bothtexts.They seemed to use the category of Comments onSources of Answers (G) more often than L2 students did inScriptally Implicit questions on the Whales text.They apparently made more frequent use of thecategories of Explanation (A) and of Comment on Strategies(F) than L2 students did in the Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Insects text.L2 students seemed to use the categories ofExplanation (A) and of Evaluation (C) more frequently thanLi students did when they answered Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Whales text.They apparently used the Comments on Sources ofAnswers (G) more often than Li students did in theScriptally Implicit questions on the Insects text.221FIG. 15Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE CATEGORIES OFSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONS ON96 of totalstrategies usedWhales text‘IllDL2I L1’Insects text IDL2IA BII C D E F GCategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategies252096 of total 15strategies used1050 i.jA Bil C D E F CCategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategies222Figures 13, 14 and 15 indicate that the category ofExplanation (A) was apparently used more frequently by Listudents when they answered Textually Explicit questions onboth texts and Scriptally Implicit questions on the Insectstext. Answers to Textually Explicit questions could be foundin the text and it is not surprising that Li students woulduse the Explanation category of strategies, which includethe strategies of paraphrasing and quoting. What issurprising is the use of the Explanation category inanswering Scriptally Implicit questions on the Insects text.Answers to Scriptally Implicit questions could not be foundin the text. Li students may have used this category ofstrategies in their attempt to find an answer in the text.L2 students seemed to use the Explanation (A)category of strategies more often than Li students did whenthey answered Textually Implicit questions on both texts.Answers to Textually Implicit could be inferred from thetext and were not explicitly stated. L2 students may haveused the Explanation category of strategies in their attemptto answer Textually Implicit questions on both texts.Li students appeared to use the Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation (Bli) category of strategies more frequentlythan L2 students in the Textually Implicit questions on theInsects text and in the Scriptally Implicit questions onboth texts. Li students seemed to be interpreting the text223in these two types of questions when the answers were notdirectly in the text.Li students also apparently used the category ofComments on Strategies (F) more frequently than L2 studentsin all three types of questions on the Insects text.While answering all three types of questions on theWhales text, Li students seemed to make more frequent use ofthe categories of Comments on Sources of Answers (G). Theyalso appeared to use this category more often than L2students did in the Textually Explicit and TextuallyImplicit questions on the Insects text.Apparently Li students felt more confident than L2students did about commenting on the Sources of Answers toall three types of questions on the Whales text, and to makecomments on their Strategies on all three types of questionson the Insects text.Question 4 (b) Differences between the three types ofquestions on each text and the use of the Non PriorKnowledge categories of strategies by Li and by L2 students.Table 25 portrays Li students’ use of the sevencategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategies while answeringthe three types of questions on the Whales text.224TABLE 25Li READERS’ USE OFTHE SEVEN CATEGORIES OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIES WHILEANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT (TI)AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)LiWhalesTE TI SIStrategiesA Explanation 25 3 8(19.2%) ( 1.8%) ( 3.3%)B (II) Interpretation 5 45 48Non Prior ( 3.9%) (26.3%) (19.9%)KnowledgeC Evaluation 1 1 4( 0.8%) ( 0.6%) ( 1.6%)D Monitoring of 1 0 2Understanding ( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.8%)E Attempts to 0 3 0Answer ( 0.0%) ( 1.8%) ( 0.0%)F Comments on 24 35 47Strategies (18.4%) (20.4%) (19.3%)G Comments on 44 44 29Sources of (33.8%) (25.6%) (12.0%)AnswersTotal 100 131 138(76.9%) (76.5%) (56.5%)225L2 students’ use of the Non Prior KnowledgeCategories of strategies while answering the three types ofquestions on the Whales text is presented in Table 26.TABLE 26L2 READERS’ OFTHE SEVEN CATEGORIES OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)L2WhalesTE TI SIStrategiesA Explanation 22 6 18(15.3%) ( 3.2%) ( 7.1%)B (II) Interpretation 11 48 44Non Prior ( 7.7%) (26.2%) (17.3%)KnowledgeC Evaluation 0 1 9( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 3.5%)D Monitoring of 0 4 2Understanding ( 0.0%) ( 2.2%) ( 0.8%)E Attempts to 1 3 1Answer ( 0.7%) ( 1.8%) ( 0.4%)F Comments on 34 41 46Strategies (23.6%) (22.4%) (18.0%)G Comments on 28 27 19Sources of (19.4%) (14.7%) ( 7.5%)AnswersTotal 96 130 139(66.7%) (71.1%) (54.5%)226Fig. 16 is based on Tables 25 and 26. It shows theapparent differences between the three types of questions onthe Whales text and the use of Non Prior Knowledgecategories of strategies by Li and by L2 students.Both Li and L2 students appeared to use thecategories of Explanation (A) and Comments on Sources ofAnswers (G) more frequently in the Textually Explicitquestions than they did in the other two types of questionson the Whales text.They seemed to use the category of Non PriorKnowledge Interpretation (Bli) more often in the TextuallyImplicit questions than they did in the other two types ofquestions on the Whales text.227FIG. 16USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE CATEGORIES OF STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLYIMPLICIT (TI), AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI)QUESTIONS ON THE WHALES TEXT% of totalstrategies used% of totalstrategies usedDTEDTI.sILiA BIX C D E F GCategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategiesL2A Bil CNonD E GCategories of Prior Knowledge strategies228Table 27 shows Li students’ use of the Non PriorKnowledge categories of strategies while answering the threetypes of questions on the Insects textTABLE 27Li READERS’ USE OFTHE SEVEN CATEGORIES OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)104(63.7%)116 129(57.0%) (53.5%)LiInsectsTE TI SIStrategiesA Explanation 25 3 23(15.3%) ( 1.3%) ( 9.6%)B (II) Interpretation 2 38 34Non Prior ( 1.2%) (16.8%) ( 14.1%)KnowledgeC Evaluation 0 0 1( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)D Monitoring of 0 0 0Understanding ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)E Attempts to 0 1 0Answer ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)F Comments on 43 42 52Strategies (26.4%) (18.4%) (21.6%)G Comments on 34 32 19Sources of (20.8%) (14.1%) ( 7.8%)AnswersTotalL2 students’ use of the categories of Non PriorKnowledge strategies while answering the three types ofquestions on the Insects text is presented in Table 28.229230TABLE 28L2 READERS’ USE OFTHE SEVEN CATEGORIES OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (‘rE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)L2InsectsTE TI SIStrategiesA Explanation 23 14 13(12.6%) ( 4.8%) ( 5.1%)B (II) Interpretation 2 37 28Non Prior ( 1.0%) (12.7%) (10.9%)KnowledgeC Evaluation 0 1 3( 0.0%) ( 0.3%) ( 1.2%)D Monitoring of 0 0 0Understanding ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)E Attempts to 2 5 3Answer ( 1.0%) ( 1.7%) ( 1.2%)F Comments on 41 37 46Strategies (22.4%) (12.7%) (18.1%)G Comments on 32 36 25Sources of (17.5%) (12.3%) ( 9.8%)AnswersTotal 153 240 217(83.4%) (82.0%) (85.1%)231Fig. 17 illustrates graphically the data in Tables 27and 28. It shows the apparent differences between the threetypes of questions on the Insects text and the use of NonPrior Knowledge categories of strategies by Li and by L2students.Both groups seemed to use the categories ofExplanation (A), Comments on Strategies (F) and Comments onSources of Answers (G) more often in the Textually ExplicitQuestions than they did in the other two types of questionson the Insects text.They appeared to use the Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation category of strategies (BIl) more often inthe Textually Implicit questions than in the other two typesof questions on the Insects text.232FIG. 17USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE CATEGORIES OF STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLYIMPLICIT (TI), AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI)QUESTIONS ON THE INSECTS TEXT9& of totalstrategies used9 of totalstrategies usedLiL2DTEDTIIsIDTEDTI•SI322A BlI C D E F GCategories of Non Prior Inowledge strategiesA BIt C D E F GCategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategies233Figures 16 and 17 are reminiscent of the comment madeby Wixson (1983) that different types of questionsinfluenced readers’ strategies.It was noted that when the students answeredTextually Explicit questions on both texts they seemed tofrequently use the Explanation (A) category of strategies.Answers to Textually Explicit Questions could be found inthe text, and it was predictable that readers would use theExplanation category while answering this type of questionsbecause they would be using the words of the text since theExplanations category includes the strategies ofparaphrasing and quoting.Both Li and L2 students appeared to make frequent useof the Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation (Bil) category inthe Textually Implicit questions on both texts. Answers toTextually Implicit questions invited inferences, and readersdid use the Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation categorywhich included the strategy of making inferences.Li and L2 students seemed to use frequently thecategory of Comments on Sources of Answers (G) in theTextually Explicit questions on both texts. Apparently Liand L2 students were able to comment on the sources of theanswers to Textually Explicit questions. These questionswere judged to be more straightforward as answers could befound in the text, and students appeared to respond to thistype of question by commenting on the source of theiranswers.234Question 4 (e) Differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of specific Non Prior Knowledge strategies whileanswering each of the three types of questions on each text.Readers’ (Questions) protocols revealed that theyused strategies within all of the seven categories of NonPrior Knowledge strategies to answer the three types ofquestions. These strategies are described in detail inAppendix 13.It was decided to analyze the strategies within thosecategories in which differences had been found between Liand L2 students in Figures 14 and 15, and to ignore thestrategies in those categories in which no differences hadbeen found. Consequently no analysis was performed on thestrategies within the categories of Evaluation, Monitoringof Understanding and Attempts to Answer. Appendices 22 to 30provide the frequency counts of Li and L2 students’ use ofspecific strategies in the categories of Evaluation,Monitoring of Understanding and Attempts to Answer.Table 29 present the data for Li and L2 students’ useof specific Non Prior Knowledge Explanation strategies whileanswering Textually Explicit questions on both texts.235TABLE 29Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=i0) (n=10)Al Paraphrasing 13 13 10 17(10.0%) ( 9.2%) ( 6.1%) ( 9.3%)A2 Quoting 12 9 15 6( 9.2%) ( 6.1%) ( 9.2%) ( 3.3%)Total 25 22 25 23(19.2%) (15.3%) (15.3%) (12.6%)Fig. 18 is based on Table 29. It shows that Listudents apparently used the quoting (A2) strategy morefrequently than L2 students while answering TextuallyExplicit questions on both texts.L2 students seemed to use the paraphrasing (Al)strategy more often than Ll students did when they answeredTextually Explicit questions on the Insects text.FIG. 18Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWI1EDGE EXPLANATIONSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT QUESTIONS ONof totalstrategiesused10987654321010987654Whales textNon Prior Knowledge Explanation strategies236Al A2Insects text9 of totalstrategiesused321Al A2Non Prior Knowledge Explanation strategies237Table 30 presents Li and L2 students’ use of specificNon Prior Knowledge Explanation strategies while answeringTextually Implicit questions on both texts.TABLE 30Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=iO) (n=10) (n=i0)Al Paraphrasing 3 6 3 ii( 1.8%) ( 3.2%) ( 1.0%) ( 3.8%)A2 Quoting 0 0 0 3( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.0%)Total 3 6 3 14( 1.8%) ( 3.2%) ( 1.3%) ( 4.8%)Fig. 19 shows graphically the data in Table 30. Itillustrates that L2 students appeared to use theparaphrasing (Al) strategy more frequently than Li studentsdid in the Textually Implicit questions on both texts.L2 students also seemed to use the quoting (A2)strategy more often than Li students did while answering thesame type of question on the Insects text.238FIG. 19Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATIONSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONS ON9s of totalstrategies used3210.Whales textInsects text96 of totalstrategies usedA2•LiDL2• LiD L2Al A2Non Prior Knowledge Explanation strategiesAlNon Prior Knowledge Explanation strategies239Table 31 shows Li and L2 students’ use of specificNon Prior Knowledge Explanation strategies while answeringScriptally Implicit questions on both texts.TABLE 31Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=l0) (n=1O) (n=10) (n=1O)Al Paraphrasing 7 14 23 12( 2.9%) ( 5.5%) ( 9.6%) ( 4.7%)A2 Quoting 1 4 0 1( 0.4%) ( 1.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)Total 8 18 23 13( 3.3%) ( 7.1%) ( 9.6%) ( 5.1%)Fig. 20 is based on Table 31. It demonstrates that L2students seemed to use the paraphrasing (Al) and quoting(A2) strategies more often than Li students did in theScriptaily Implicit questions on the Whales text.Li students appeared to use the paraphrasing (Al)strategy more frequently than L2 students did in theScriptaily Implicit questions on the Insects text.240FIG. 20Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATIONSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONS ON46 of totalstrategies used 321Non Prior Knowledge Explanation strategiesInsects texts of totalstrategies usedA2•LlLI L2Whales text65•LlDL2ilAl A2AlNon Prior Knowledge Explanation strategies241Figures 18, 19 and 20 indicated that Li studentsseemed to use the quoting (A2) strategy more often than L2students did in the Textually Explicit questions on bothtexts. Textually Explicit questions could be answered usingthe words of the text, and so it is not surprising that Listudents used the quoting strategy when they answered thistype of question. L2 students also used this same strategybut seemed to use it less frequently than Li students did.L2 students apparently made more frequent use than Listudents did of the paraphrasing (Al) strategy in theTextually Explicit and Textually Implicit questions on theInsects text. L2 students also seemed to use this samestrategy more frequently than Li students did in theTextually Implicit and Scriptally Implicit questions on theWhales. The researcher believed these findings to mean thatL2 students appeared to frequently use the words of the textin their attempt to answer questions on the text, anindication of their text—bound approach to the text.On the other hand, Li students seemed to use theparaphrasing (Al) strategy more often than L2 students onlyin the Scriptally Implicit questions on the Insects text.Table 32 provides the data of Li and L2 students’ useof specific Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategieswhile answering Textually Explicit questions on both texts.242TABLE 32Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATIONWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICITON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS(Percentages in parenthesesSTRATEGIESQUESTIONSTEXTS)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)B (II) InterpretationNon Prior Knowledge CategoryB 5 Confirming 0 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B 6 Contradicting 0 0 0 0previous ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)thoughtB 9 Expressing 2 0 0 1suppositions ( 1.5%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.5%)Bil Giving 1 0 0 1consequences ( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.5%)Bl3 Making 0 1 0 0inferences ( 0.0%) ( 0.7%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B16 Reasoning 1 6 2 0( 0.8%) ( 4.2%) ( 1.2%) ( 0.0%)B19 Summarizing 1 4 0 0( 0.8%) ( 2.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 5 11 2 2( 3.9%) ( 7.7%) ( 1.2%) ( 1.0%)243Fig. 21 presents graphically the data in Table 32.While answering Textually Explicit questions on the Whalestext Li students apparently made more frequent use than L2students did of the expressing suppositions (B9) strategy.L2 students seemed to use the summarizing (Bi9)strategy more frequently than Li students did in theTextually Explicit questions on the Whales text.When Li students answered Textually Explicitquestions on the Insects text they appeared to make morefrequent use of the reasoning (B16) strategy than L2students did. The reverse was the case in the Whales textwith L2 students apparently using the reasoning (Bi6)strategy more often than Li students did in the TextuallyExplicit questions.244FIG. 21Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATIONSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT QUESTIONS ON2-1-0.50-1.210.80.60.40.20Whales textLi0 L24.5-4-35.3-‘6 of total 2.5-strategies usedB9 Bil B13 Bl6 B19Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategies9 of totalstrategies usedInsects textJillLi0 L2B19B5 B6 B9 Bli Bl3Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategiesTable 33 presents Li and L2 students’ use of NonPrior Knowledge Interpretation strategies while answeringTextually Implicit questions on both texts.245246TABLE 33Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)B (II) InterpretationNon Prior Knowledge CategoryB 5 Confirming 1 0 2 0( 0.5%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.0%)B 6 Contradicting 0 0 1 0previous ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)thoughtB 9 Expressing 4 6 2 1suppositions ( 2.3%) ( 3.3%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.3%)Bli Giving 8 9 1 0consequences ( 4.7%) ( 4.9%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)Bi3 Naking 16 18 22 21inferences ( 9.4%) ( 9.8%) ( 9.8%) ( 7.2%)B16 Reasoning 16 15 10 15( 9.4%) ( 8.2%) ( 4.4%) ( 5.2%)B19 Summarizing 0 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 45 48 38 37(26.3%) (26.2%) (16.8%) (12.7%)247Fig. 22 is based on the data from Table 33. When Listudents answered Textually Implicit questions on the Whalestext they apparently used the reasoning (B16) strategy morefrequently than L2 students did. The reverse was the casein the Insects text, as was noted in the comments about Fig.21.Li students seemed to use the confirming (B5)strategy more often than L2 students did in the TextuallyImplicit questions on the Insects text.Li students apparently used the making inferences(B13) strategy more frequently than L2 students did in theTextually Implicit questions on the Insects text. TextuallyImplicit questions invited use of the making inferencesstrategy, and both language groups did use this strategy,although Li students seemed to make more frequent use of itin the Textually Implicit questions on Insects.248FIG. 22Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATIONSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONS ON1098796 of total 6strategies 5used3210Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategies6 of totalstrategiesusedInsects textI.:::::::IB5 B6 B9 BilWhales text •L1DL21B5 B6 B9 B11 B13 B16 B19•L1DL2B13 B16 B19Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategiesTable 34 presents the frequency counts of Li and L2students’ use of Non Prior Knowledge Interpretationstrategies while answering Scriptally Implicit questions onboth texts.249250TABLE 34Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)B (II) InterpretationNon Prior Knowledge CategoryB 5 Confirming 1 0 0 0( 0.4%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B 6 Contradicting 0 0 1 0previous ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)thoughtB 9 Expressing 12 4 2 4suppositions ( 4.9%) ( 1.6%) ( 0.8%) ( 1.5%)Bii Giving 10 7 3 3consequences ( 4.2%) ( 2.8%) ( 1.3%) ( 1.2%)B13 Making 0 0 2 0inferences ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.8%) ( 0.0%)Bi6 Reasoning 25 33 26 21(10.4%) (12.9%) (10.8%) ( 8.2%)Bi9 Summarizing 0 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 48 44 34 28(19.9%) (17.3%) (14.1%) (10.9%)251Fig. 23 is based on Table 34. When Li studentsanswered Scriptally Implicit questions on the Whales textthey seemed to use the expressing suppositions (B9) and thegiving consequences (Bli) strategies more often than L2students did.L2 students appeared to use the reasoning (B16)strategy more frequently than Li students did in theScriptally Implicit questions on the Whales text. Thereverse was the case in the Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Insects text with Li students apparently making morefrequent use of the reasoning (Bi6) strategy. It was notedin Figures 21 and 22 that there were apparent reversals inthe frequency of Li and L2 students’ use of the reasoning(B16) strategy.252FIG. 23Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATIONSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONS ONof totalstrategiesused14121086420Whales textB5 B6 B9 Bil•L1DL2Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategiesB13 B16 B19wf totalSt zategie 5ised•L1DL2Insects text1210864.:::B5 B6 B9 Bil B13 B16 B19Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategies253Figures 21, 22 and 23 indicate that there was noconsistent pattern of differences between Li and L2 studentsin their use of specific Non Prior Knowledge Interpretationstrategies when they answered the three types of questionson both texts. In fact, there was an apparent reversal inthe frequency of use of the reasoning (B16) strategy. Onelanguage group seemed to use the reasoning (B16) strategymore frequently while answering one type of question on atext, and the other language group apparently used it moreoften while answering the same type of question on the othertext.Table 35 shows Li and L2 students’ use of specificNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Strategies while answeringTextually Explicit questions on both texts.254TABLE 35Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)F39 Getting the 8 11 11 13answer ( 6.1%) ( 7.6%) ( 6.8%) ( 7.1%)F40 Guessing 0 1 3 0( 0.0%) ( 0.7%) ( 1.8%) ( 0.0%)F41 Knowing 4 6 1 6( 3.1%) ( 4.2%) ( 0.6%) ( 3.2%)F43 Not able to 0 0 0 0find the C 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)answerF44 Not able to 0 0 0 0think ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)F45 Not knowing 1 2 4 1( 0.8%) ( 1.4%) ( 2.5%) ( 0.6%)F46 Not remembering 0 0 0 0C 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)F47Notsure 0 0 3 3( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.8%) ( 1.6%)F48 Not willing 0 0 3 2to try ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.8%) ( 1.1%)F49 Remembering 5 3 6 1( 3.8%) ( 2.1%) ( 3.7%) ( 0.6%)F50 Thinking 6 11 12 7( 4.6%) ( 7.6%) ( 7.4%) ( 3.8%)F51 Trying 0 0 0 8( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 4.4%)Total 24 34 43 41(18.4%) (23.6%) (26.4%) (22.4%)255Fig. 24 is based on the data in Table 35. Li studentsapparently made more frequent comments about remembering(F49) than L2 students did in the Textually Explicitquestions on both texts.L2 students seemed to comment more frequently aboutknowing (F41) than Li students did in the Textually Explicitquestions on both texts.When L2 students answered Textually Explicitquestions on the Whales text, they apparently made morefrequent comments than Li students did about getting theanswer (F39).While answering Textually Explicit questions on theInsects text, Li students appeared to comment morefrequently than L2 students did about guessing (F40). L2students seemed to comment more often than Li students didthat they were trying (F5i) in the Textually Explicitquestions on the Insects text.There were two examples of apparent reversals in thefrequency of use of some Comments on Strategies. L2 studentsseemed to make more comments about not knowing (F45) andthinking (F50) than Li students did in the TextuallyExplicit questions on Whales. The reverse was the case whenthey answered Textually Explicit questions on the Insectstext.256FIG. 24Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ONSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT QUESTIONS ON% of totalstrategies usedWhales text• LiDL29s of totalstrategies usedP39 P40 P4i P43 P44 P45 P46 P47 P48 P49 P50 P5iP39 P40 P41 P43 P44 P45 P46 P47 P48 P49 P50 P5iNon Prior Knowledge Comments on StrategiesInsects text_____• LiD L20Non Prior Knowledge Comments on StrategiesTable 36 presents Li and L2 students’ use of specificNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Strategies while answeringTextually Implicit questions on both texts.257258TABLE 36Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)F39 Getting the 10 17 8 14answer ( 5.9%) ( 9.2%) ( 3.5%) ( 4•7%)F40 Guessing 1 0 3 0( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.3%) ( 0.0%)F4i Knowing 3 6 1 2( 1.8%) ( 3.2%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.7%)F43 Not able to 0 1 0 2find the ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.7%)answerF44 Not able to 0 0 0 0think ( 0.0%) C 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)F45 Not knowing 3 2 12 3( 1.8%) ( 1.1%) ( 5.3%) ( 1.0%)F46 Not remembering 4 2 2 0( 2.3%) ( 1.1%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.0%)F47Notsure 2 1 0 2( 1.1%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.7%)F48 Not willing 2 1 1 2to try ( 1.1%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.7%)F49 Remembering 5 2 5 0( 2.9%) ( 1.1%) ( 2.2%) ( 0.0%)F50 Thinking 5 8 10 10( 2.9%) ( 4.3%) ( 4.4%) ( 3.4%)F51 Trying 0 1 0 2( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.7%)Total 35 41 42 37(20.4%) (22.4%) (18.4%) (12.6%)259Fig. 25 shows graphically the data in Table 36. Itillustrates the apparent differences between the twolanguage groups in their use of specific Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies when they answered Textually Implicitquestions on both texts.Li students seemed to comment more frequently than L2students did about not knowing (F45), not remembering (F46)and remembering (F49) in the Textually Implicit questions onboth texts.L2 students appeared to make more frequent commentsabout getting the answer (F39) and knowing (F41) than Listudents did in the Textually Implicit questions on bothtexts. The researcher considered these results to mean thatL2 students seemed more preoccupied than Li students wereabout answering the Textually Implicit questions on bothtexts.The only inconsistent pattern of differences was inthe use of the thinking (F50) comment. L2 students appearedto use it more frequently than Li students in the TextuallyImplicit questions on Whales, while the reverse was the casein the Textually Implicit questions on the Insects text.FIG. 25Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ONSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONS ON26096 of totalstrategiesused109876543210Whales text•LlDL2of totalstrategiesusedNon Prior Knowledge Comments on StrategiesP39 P40 F41 P43 P44 P45 P46 P47 P48 P49 P50 P516Insects text54•L1DLj3210P39 P40 P41 P43 P44 P45 P46 P47 P48 P49 P50 P51Non Prior Knowledge Comments on Strategies261Table 37 provides the data of Li and L2 students’ useof specific Non Prior Knowledge Comments on Strategies whileanswering Scriptally Implicit questions on both texts.262TABLE 37Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)F39 Getting the 7 12 10 10answer ( 2.9%) ( 4.7%) ( 4.2%) ( 3.9%)F40 Guessing 5 4 2 1( 2.1%) ( 1.6%) ( 0.8%) ( 0.4%)F41 Knowing 3 3 2 1( 1.2%) ( 1.1%) ( 0.8%) ( 0.4%)F43 Not able to 0 0 0 1find the ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)answerF44 Not able to 0 2 1 0think ( 0.0%) ( 0.8%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)F45 Not knowing 15 3 7 4( 6.2%) ( 1.1%) ( 2.9%) ( 1.6%)F46 Not remembering 2 0 3 1( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.3%) ( 0.4%)F47Notsure 2 0 1 0( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)F48 Not willing 2 1 4 4to try ( 0.8%) ( 0.4%) ( 1.7%) ( 1.6%)F49 Remembering 3 3 5 0( 1.2%) ( 1.1%) ( 2.1%) ( 0.0%)F50 Thinking 7 11 17 20( 2.9%) ( 4.3%) ( 7.0%) ( 7.8%)F51 Trying 1 7 0 4( 0.4%) ( 2.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.6%)Total 47 46 52 46(19.3%) (17.9%) (21.6%) (18.1%)263Fig. 26 illustrates the apparent differences betweenthe two language groups. It is based on the data in Table37.Li students appeared to comment more frequently thanL2 students did about not knowing (F45) and not remembering(F46) in the Scriptally Implicit questions on both texts.They also apparently made more frequent comments aboutremembering (F49) than L2 students did in the ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Insects text.L2 students seemed to comment more often aboutthinking (F50) and trying (F51) than Li students did in theScriptally Implicit questions on both texts. They alsoappeared to make more frequent comments than Li students didabout getting the answer (F39) in the Scriptally Implicitquestions on the Whales text.264Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ONSTRATEGIES WHILE ANSWERING SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONS ONWhales textInsects text‘11’IDL2II=-J,-IILiiiFIG. 26•LlDL2765% of total 4strategiesused 32108765.% of totalstrategies 4used321.0F39 F40 F41 F43 F44 P45 P46 P47 P48 P49 P50 P51Non Prior Knowledge Comments on StrategiesIP39 P40 P41 P43 P44 P45 P46 P47 P48 P49 P50 P51I’Non Prior Knowledge Comments on Strategies265Figures 25 and 26, but not Fig. 24, show a consistentpattern of differences between the two language groups. Listudents seemed to comment more often than L2 students didabout their not knowing (F45) and not remembering (F46) inthe Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicit questions onboth texts.L2 students apparently commented more frequently thanLi students did about thinking (F50) and about trying (F51)in the Scriptally Implicit questions on both texts.The researcher considered these findings to indicatethat Li students appeared to comment more frequently than L2students did about the state of their knowledge or memory inthe Textually Explicit and Scriptally Implicit questions onboth texts. L2 students seemed more concerned than Listudents about their act of trying to answer the ScriptallyImplicit questions on both texts.Table 38 presents Li and L2 students’ use of specificNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources of Answers when theywere replying to Textually Explicit questions on both texts.266TABLE 38Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON SOURCES OF ANSWERSWHILE REPLYING TO TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)G52 Answer 0 0 1 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)G53Books 4 4 4 7( 3.0%) ( 2.8%) ( 2.5%) ( 3.8%)G54 Experience 1 2 1 0( 0.8%) ( 1.4%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)G55Films 1 0 1 0( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)G56 Hearing 0 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G57 Learned 1 4 3 2from school ( 0.8%) ( 2.8%) ( 1.8%) ( 1.1%)G58Mind 1 2 0 1( 0.8%) ( 1.4%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%)G59 Myself 0 0 1 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)G63 Not having 0 0 0 1seen ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%)G64 People 3 0 1 0( 2.3%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)G65 Previous 1 0 0 0question ( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G66 Questions 5 1 1 1( 3.9%) ( 0.7%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.6%)G67 Quoting 0 0 2 0as proof ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.2%) ( 0.0%)267TABLE 38 (Continued)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)G68 Reading 2 3 1 0( 1.5%) ( 2.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)G69 Re-reading 0 2 1 4( 0.0%) ( 1.4%) ( 0.6%) ( 2.1%)G70 Seeing 2 0 6 0( 1.5%) ( 0.0%) ( 3.7%) ( 0.0%)G7i Television 1 0 0 2( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.1%)G72Text 6 0 4 4( 4.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 2.5%) ( 2.1%)G73 Text (paragraph 4 6 5 7format) ( 3.0%) ( 4.1%) ( 3.1%) ( 3.8%)G74 Text (sentence 12 4 2 3format) ( 9.2%) ( 2.8%) ( 1.2%) ( 1.6%)Total 44 28 34 32(33.8%) (19.4%) (20.8%) (17.4%)Fig. 27, based on Table 38, illustrates graphicallythe apparent differences between the two language groups intheir Comments on Sources of Answers to Textually Explicitquestions on both texts.Some cells in Table 38 were collapsed so that thedata could be presented in one graph. Comments which weresimi lar in nature were grouped together. These were:268GB Books G53 booksG68 readingGF Films G55 filmsG71 televisionGL Learn G57 learned from schoolG64 peopleGM Myself G58 mindG59 myselfGS Senses G56 hearingG70 seeingGT Text G67 quoting as proofG72 textG73 text (paragraph format)G74 text (sentence format)Li apparently made more frequent comments than L2students did about the text (GT--quoting as proof (G67),text (G72), text (paragraph format) (G73) and text (sentenceformat) (G74)), and about the senses (GS——hearing (G56) andseeing (G70)) as the sources of their answers to TextuallyExplicit questions on both texts.L2 students seemed to comment more frequently than Listudents did about re-reading (G69) in the TextuallyExplicit questions on both texts.While answering Textually Explicit questions onWhales, Li students appeared to make more frequent commentsthan L2 students did about questions (G66) as their sources269FIG. 27Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COIuvIENTS ONSOURCES OF ANSWERS WHILE REPLYING TO TEXTUALLY EXPLICITQUESTIONS ONof totalstrategiesused181614121086420Whales textAnswers•L1DL2G52 G54 G63 G65 G66 G69 GB GF GL GM GS GTNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources ofInsects text •L1DL2% of totalstrategiesused8765432I.0G52 G54 G63 G65 G66 G69 GB GF GL GM GS GTNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources ofAnswers270of answers. On the other hand, L2 students apparentlycommented more frequently than Li students did about theirexperience (G54) and about myself (GM--mind (G58) and myself(G59)).When Li students answered Textually Explicitquestions on Insects they seemed to make more frequentcomments than L2 students did about what they had learned(GL—-learned from school (G57) and people (G64)) as thesource of their answers.There was an example of an apparent reversal in thefrequency of use of Comments on Sources of Answers. Listudents seemed to comment more frequently than L2 studentsdid about films (GF--films (G55) and television (G71) in theTextually Explicit questions on Whales, and the reverse wasthe case in the Insects text with L2 students apparentlymaking more comments about films (GF).Table 39 provides the data of Li and L2 students’ useof specific Non Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources ofAnswers while replying to Textually Implicit Questions onboth texts.271TABLE 39Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON SOURCES OF ANSWERSWHILE REPLYING TO TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)G52 Answer 1 0 0 0( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G53Books 5 7 4 4( 2.9%) ( 3.7%) ( 1.8%) ( 1.4%)G54 Experience 0 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G55Films 1 0 2 0( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.0%)G56 Hearing 0 0 0 1( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.3%)G57 Learned 0 1 2 4from school ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.9%) ( 1.4%)G58Mind 0 1 1 0( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)G59 Myself 2 0 0 0( 1.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G63 Not having 0 0 0 1seen ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.3%)G64 People 0 0 3 1( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.3%) ( 0.3%)G65 Previous 0 0 1 0question ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)G66 Questions 4 0 1 1( 2.3%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.3%)G67 Quoting 4 1 3 0as proof ( 2.3%) ( 0.6%) ( 1.3%) ( 0.0%)272TABLE 39 (Continued)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)G68 Reading 4 1 0 0( 2.3%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G69 Re—reading 5 1 0 7( 2.9%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 2.4%)G70 Seeing 0 0 2 6( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.9%) ( 2.1%)G7i Television 0 1 2 0( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.0%)G72Text 5 4 6 3( 2.9%) ( 2.1%) ( 2.7%) ( 1.0%)G73 Text (paragraph 2 6 1 6format) ( 1.2%) ( 3.2%) ( 0.4%) ( 2.1%)G74 Text (sentence 11 4 4 2format) ( 6.4%) ( 2.1%) ( 1.8%) ( 0.7%)Total 44 27 32 36(25.6%) (14.7%) (14.1%) (12.3%)Fig. 28 is based on Table 39. As in Fig. 27 somecells in Table 39 were collapsed so that the data could bepresented in one graph. The abbreviations in Fig. 28 are thesame as those in Fig. 27.While answering Textually Implicit questions on bothtexts, Li students seemed to make more comments than L2students did about the text (GT--guoting as proof (G67),text (G72), text (paragraph format) (G73) and text (sentence273format) (G74)) as their source of answers. It was noted thatLi students also apparently made more comments about thetext (GT) in the Textually Explicit questions on both texts.When Li students answered Textually Implicit questionson Whales they seemed to comment more frequently than L2students did about questions (G66), and about myself (GM-mind (G58) and myself (G59)) as the source of their answers.Li students appeared to comment more frequently thanL2 students did about films (GF--films (G55) and television(G71)) and what they had learned (GL—-learned from school(G57) and people (G64)) as the sources of their answers toTextually Implicit questions on Insects. On the other hand,L2 students apparently made more comments than Li studentsdid about the senses (GS--hearing (G56) and seeing (G70)) asthe source of their answers to Textually Implicit questionson Insects.There were two examples of apparent reversals in thefrequency of use of some Comments on Sources of Answers. Listudents seemed to comment more frequently than L2 studentsin the Textually Implicit questions on Whales aboutreading (G69) and about books (GB--books (G53) and reading(G68)). The reverse was the case when they answeredTextually Implicit questions on Insects, as L2 studentsapparently made more comments about re-reading (G68), andabout books (GB).274FIG. 28Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COI”RdENTS ONSOURCES OF ANSWERS WHILE REPLYING TO TEXTUALLY IMPLICITQUESTIONS ONs of totalstrategiesused121Whales text0L2052 G54 G63 065 066 069 GB GF GL GM GS GTNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources ofAnswers7659s of total 4strategiesused 3210•L1DL214I LflrXnsects textG52 054 G63 G65 G66 069 GB OF GL GM GS GTNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources ofAnswersTable 40 provides the frequency counts of Li and L2students’ use of specific Non Prior Knowledge Comments onSources of Answers while replying to Scriptally Implicitquestions on both texts.275276TABLE 40Li AND 12 STUDENTS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON SOURCES OF ANSWERSWHILE REPLYING TO SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE WHALES AND THE INSECTS TEXTS(Percentages in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)G52 Answer 0 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) (. 0.0%)G53Books 3 8 4 5( 1.2%) ( 3.2%) ( 1.7%) ( 1.9%)G54 Experience 3 5 0 0( 1.2%) ( 1.9%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G55Films 3 0 0 1( 1.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)G56 Hearing 1 0 0 0( 0.4%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G57 Learned 1 1 2 3from school ( 0.4%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.8%) ( 1.2%)G58Mind 1 0 1 2( 0.4%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.8%)G59 Myself 3 0 0 0C 1.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G63 Not having 0 0 1 1seen ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.4%)G64 People 0 0 2 2( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.8%) ( 0.8%)G65 Previous 1 0 0 0question ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G66 Questions 2 0 0 0( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G67 Quoting 6 0 0 0as proof ( 2.4%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) C 0.0%)277TABLE 40 (Continued)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)G68 Reading 3 1 0 0( 1.2%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)G69 Re—reading 0 0 0 1( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)G70 Seeing 1 0 2 2( 0.4%) ( 0 0%) ( 0.8%) ( 0.8%)G71 Television 0 1 3 5( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 1.3%) ( 1.9%)G72Text 0 1 1 2( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.8%)G73 Text (paragraph 0 1 1 0format) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)G74 Text (sentence 1 1 2 1format) ( 0.4%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.8%) ( 0.4%)Total 29 19 19 25(11.6%) ( 7.5%) ( 7.8%) ( 9.8%)Fig. 29 is based on Table 40. Comments which weresimilar in nature were grouped, just as they had been forFigures 27 and 28.As was the case with Textually Explicit and TextuallyImplicit questions on both texts, Li student apparently mademore comments than L2 students did about the text (GT-quoting as proof (G67), text (G72), text (paragraph format)278(G73) and text (sentence format) (G74)) as their source ofanswers to Scriptally Implicit questions on both texts.L2 students seemed to comment more frequently than Listudents did about books (GB--books (G53) and reading (G68))as the source of their answers to Scriptally Implicitquestions on both texts.Li students appeared to make more comments than L2students did about questions (G66) and the senses (GS-hearing (G56) and seeing (G70)) as the source of theiranswers to Scriptally Implicit questions on Whales. However,L2 students apparently commented more frequently than Listudents did about their experience (G54) as the source oftheir answers to Scriptally Implicit questions on Whales.L2 seemed to make more frequent comments than Listudents did about what they had learned (GL--learned fromschool (G57) and people (G64)) as the source of theiranswers to Scriptally Implicit questions on InsectsThere were two examples of apparent reversals in thefrequency of use of some Comments on Sources of Answers. Listudents seemed to make more frequent comments than L2students did about films (GF--films (G55) and television(G7i)) and about myself (GM—mind (G58) and myself (G59)) asthe sources of their answers to Scriptally Implicitquestions on Whales. The reverse was the case in theScriptally Implicit questions on Insects. L2 studentsapparently commented more frequently than Li students aboutfilms (GF) and about myself (GM).279FIG. 29Li AND L2 READERS’ USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE CODIUvIENTS ONSOURCES OF ANSWERS WHILE REPLYING TO SCRIPTALLY IMPLICITQUESTIONS ON9s of totalstrategiesused3.52.51.50.5Whales textAnswers•L1DL2% of total 1.5strategiesused0.5Non Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources of4320G52 G54 G63 G65 G66 G69 GB GF GL GM GS GTNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources of2.52Insects text-11 _jl‘C1••L1DL2jill’0G52 G54 G63 G65 G66 G69 GB GF GL GM GS GAnswers280Figures 27, 28 and 29 show a consistent pattern in Listudents apparently making more frequent references to thetext (GT——guoting as proof (G67), text (G72), text(paragraph format) (G73) and text (sentence format) (G74))as the source of their answers to all three types ofquestions. It was predictable that Li students would commenton the text (GT) as their source of answers to TextuallyExplicit questions. Answers to Textually Explicit questionscould be found in the text, and answers to TextuallyImplicit questions could be inferred from the text. However,answers to Scriptally Implicit questions could not be foundin the text. The researcher interpreted this finding to meanthat some Li students seemed to believe their answers toScriptally Implicit questions came from the text.L2 students seemed to comment more frequently than Listudent did that books (GB--books (G53) and reading (G68))were the sources of their answers to Scriptally Implicitquestions on both texts. This finding is more in harmonywith the definition of Scriptally Implicit questions,because readers had to use their own resources to answerthis type of questions.To summarize the findings in 4 (c):Li students appeared to use the quoting (A2) strategymore frequently than L2 students did in Textually Explicitquestions on both texts. L2 students apparently used the281paraphrasing (Al) strategy more often than Li students didin the Textually Implicit questions on both texts.There was no consistent pattern of differencesbetween the two language groups in their use of Non PriorKnowledge Interpretation strategies. In fact there wasevidence of an apparent reversal with one language groupappearing to use reasoning (B16) strategy more frequentlywhile answering one type of question on a text, and theother language group apparently using the reasoning (B16)strategy more often while answering the same type ofquestion on the other text.Li students seemed to comment on remembering (F49)more frequently than L2 students did in Textually Explicitand Textually Implicit questions on both texts. Theyapparently made more frequent comments than L2 students didabout not knowing (F45) and not remembering (F46) inTextually Implicit and Scriptally Implicit questions on bothtexts.L2 students appeared to comment more often than Listudents did about knowing (F41) in the Textually Explicitand Textually Implicit questions on both texts. They seemedto comment more frequently than Li students did aboutgetting the answer (F39) in Textually Implicit questions onboth texts. They apparently made more frequent comments thanLi students did about thinking (F50) and about trying (F5i)in Scriptally Implicit questions on both texts.282Li students seemed to comment more often than L2students did about the text (GT--guoting as proof (G67),text (G72), text (paragraph format) (G73) and text (sentenceformat) (G74)) as the source of their answers to all threetypes of questions on both texts.L2 students apparently made more frequent commentsthan Li students did about re-reading (G69) as their sourceof answers to Textually Explicit questions on both texts.They seemed to comment more frequently than Li students didabout books (GB--books (G53) and reading (G68)) as thesource of their answers to Scriptally Implicit questions onboth texts.Question 4 (d) Differences between the three types ofquestions and the use of specific Non Prior Knowledgestrategies by Li and by L2 students.It was decided to examine specific Non PriorKnowledge strategies in only those categories of strategiesin which differences had been found in 4 (b) (see Fig. 16and Fig. i7). Thus specific strategies in the categories ofEvaluation (C), Monitoring of Understanding (D) and Attemptsto Answer (E) were not analyzedTable 41 presents Li students’ use of specific NonPrior Knowledge Explanation strategies while answering thethree types of questions on the Whales text.283TABLE 41Li READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (Si) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)LiWhalesTE TI SIStrategies13 3 7Al Paraphrasing(10.0%) ( 1.8%) ( 2.9%)12 0 1A2 Quoting( 9.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)Total 25 3 8(19.2%) ( 1.8%) ( 3.3%)Table 42 presents L2 students’ use of specific NonPrior Knowledge Explanation strategies while answering thethree types of questions on the Whales text.284TABLE 42L2 READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)L2WhalesTE TI SIStrategies13 6 14Al Paraphrasing ( 9.2%) ( 3.2%) ( 5.5%)9 0 4A2 Quoting ( 6.1%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.6%)Total 22 6 18(15.3%) ( 3.2%) ( 7.1%)Fig. 30 illustrates graphically the data in Tables 41and 42. Both Li and L2 students apparently used theparaphrasing (Al) and the quoting (A2) strategies morefrequently in the Textually Explicit questions than they didin the other two types of questions on the Whales text.285USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATION STRATEGIES WHILEANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI), AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONS ON THEWHALES TEXTFIG. 30LiDEDfl•sia of totalstrategies used% of totalstrategies used109876543210109876543210Non Prior Knowledge Explanation strategiesL2GTEDn.sINon Prior Knowledge Explanation strategies286Table 43 provides the data of Li students’ use ofspecific Non Prior Knowledge Explanation strategies whileanswering the three types of questions on the Insects textTABLE 43Li READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)LiInsectsTE TI SIStrategies10 3 23Al Paraphrasing( 6.1%) ( 1.3%) ( 9.6%)15 0 0A2 Quoting ( 9.2%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 25 3 23(15.3%) ( 1.3%) ( 9.6%)287Table 44 presents L2 students’ use of specific NonPrior Knowledge Explanation strategies while answering thethree types of questions on the Insects text.TABLE 44L2 READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)L2InsectsTE TI SIStrategies17 11 12Al Paraphrasing3.8%) ( 4.7%)6 3 1A2 Quoting1.0%) ( 0.4%)Total 23 14 13(12.6%) ( 4.8%) ( 5.1%)288Fig. 31 is based on the data in Tables 43 and 44. Itshows that as in the Whales texts (see Fig. 30) both Li andL2 students seemed to use the quoting (A2) strategy morefrequently in the Textually Explicit questions than they didin the other two types of question on the Insects text.Li appeared to be different from L2 in their use ofthe paraphrasing (Al) strategy. Li students apparently usedit more frequently in the Scriptally Implicit questions,while L2 students seemed to use it more often in theTextually Explicit questions on the Insects texts. Bothlanguage groups apparently used the paraphrasing (Al)strategy more frequently in the Textually Explicit questionson the Whales text.289USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EXPLANATION STRATEGIES WHILEANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI), AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONS ON THEINSECTS TEXTFIG. 31LiIAl A29 of totalstrategies used96 of totalstrategies used10987654321.0:1.0987654321Non Prior Knowledge Explanation strategiesL2DEDx.sIIi’Al A2strategiesNon Prior Knowledge Explanation290Figures 30 and 31 show that Li and L2 students seemedto use the quoting (A2) strategy more frequently in theTextually Explicit questions than they did in the other twotypes of questions on both texts. Answers to TextuallyExplicit questions could be found in the text, and it islogical to expect that they would use the quoting (A2)strategy when they answered Textually Explicit questions.Table 45 provides the data for Li students’ use ofspecific Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategies whileanswering the three types of questions on Whales.291TABLE 45Li READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)LiWhalesTE TI SIB (II) InterpretationNon Prior Knowledge CategoryB 5 Confirming 0 1 1( 0.0%) ( 0.5%) ( 0.4%)B 6 Contradicting 0 0 0previous thought ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B 9 Expressing 2 4 12suppositions ( 1.5%) ( 2.3%) ( 4.9%)Bli Giving 1 8 10consequences ( 0.8%) ( 4.7%) ( 4.2%)B13 Making inferences 0 16 0( 0.0%) ( 9.4%) ( 0.0%)B16 Reasoning 1 16 25( 0.8%) ( 9.4%) (10.4%)B19 Summarizing 1 0 0( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 5 45 48( 3.9%) (26.3%) (19.9%)292Table 46 presents L2 students’ use of specific NonPrior Knowledge Interpretation strategies while answeringthe three types of questions on the Whales text.TABLE 46L2 READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)11( 7.7%)44(17.3%)L2WhalesTE TI SIB (II) InterpretationNon Prior Knowledge CategoryB 5 Confirming 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B 6 Contradicting 0 0 0previous thought ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B 9 Expressing 0 6 4suppositions ( 0.0%) ( 3.3%) ( 1.6%)Bli Giving 0 9 7consequences ( 0.0%) ( 4.9%) ( 2.8%)B13 Making inferences 1 18 0( 0.7%) ( 9.8%) ( 0.0%)B16 Reasoning 6 15 33( 4.2%) ( 8.2%) (12.9%)B19 Summarizing 4 0 0( 2.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 48(26.2%)293Fig. 32 illustrates graphically the data in Tables 45and 46.L2 students appeared to use the summarizing (B19)strategy more often when they answered Textually Explicitquestions than they did in the other two types of questionon the Whales text.L2 students and Li students, to some extent, seemedto use the giving consequences (Bli) strategy morefrequently in the Textually Implicit questions than in theother two types of questions on the Whales text.Li and L2 students apparently used the makinginferences (Bi3) strategy more frequently in the TextuallyImplicit questions than they did in the other two types ofquestion on the Whales text.Both language groups seemed to use the reasoning(B16) strategy more often in the Scriptally Implicitquestions than they did in the other two types of questionson the Whales text.Li students appeared to differ from L2 students inthat Li students apparently used the expressing suppositions(B9) strategy more often in the Scriptally Implicitquestions, while L2 students used this same strategy morefrequently in the Textually Implicit questions on the Whalestext.294GTEOTI.sxFIG. 32USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLYIMPLICIT (TI), AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI)QUESTIONS ON THE WHALES TEXTLi12108% of totalstrategies 6used420% of totalstrategiesusedB5 B6 B9 Bli B13 B16 B19Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategiesL214121086420GTECT’IsiB5 B6 B9 Bil B13 B16 B19Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategies295Table 47 presents Li students’ use of specific NonPrior Knowledge Interpretation strategies while answeringthe three types of question on the Insects text.TABLE 47Li READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)LiInsectsTE TI SIB (II) InterpretationNon Prior Knowledge CategoryB 5 Confirming 0 2 0( 0.0%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.0%)B 6 Contradicting 0 1previous thought ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.4%)B 9 Expressing 0 2 2suppositions ( 0.0%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.8%)Bil Giving 0 1 3consequences ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 1.3%)B13 Making inferences 0 22 2( 0.0%) ( 9.8%) ( 0.8%)B16 Reasoning 2 10 26( 1.2%) ( 4.4%) (10.8%)B19 Summarizing 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 2 38 34(1.2%) (16.8%) (14.1%)Table 48 gives L2 students’ use of Non PriorKnowledge Interpretation strategies while answering thethree types of questions on the Insects text.296297TABLE 48L2 READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)L2InsectsTE TI SIB (II) InterpretationNon Prior Knowledge CategoryB 5 Confirming 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B 6 Contradicting 0 0 0previous thought ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)B 9 Expressing 1 1 4suppositions ( 0.5%) ( 0.3%) ( 1.5%)Bli Giving 1 0 3consequences ( 0.5%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.2%)B13 Making inferences 0 21 0( 0.0%) ( 7.2%) ( 0.0%)B16 Reasoning 0 15 21( 0.0%) ( 5.2%) ( 8.2%)B19 Summarizing 0 0 0( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)Total 2 37 28(1.0%) (12.7%) (10.9%)298Fig. 33 is based on the data in Tables 47 and 48.Both Li and L2 students seemed to use the making inferences(B13) strategy more often in the Textually Implicitquestions than in the other two types of question on theInsects text, just as they apparently did in the TextuallyExplicit questions on the Whales text (see Fig. 32).Both language groups appeared to use the reasoning(B16) strategy more frequently in the Scriptally Implicitquestions than in the other two types of questions on theInsects text. It was noted in the Whales text, that theyseemed to use the reasoning (B16) strategy more often in theScriptally Implicit questions.Li and L2 students apparently used the givingconsequences (Bli) strategy more often in the ScriptallyImplicit questions than they did in the other two types ofquestions on the Insects text. In the Whales text, theyseemed to use this same strategy more frequently in theTextually Implicit questions.L2 students, but not Li students, appeared to use theexpressing suppositions (B9) strategy more frequently in theScriptally Implicit questions than in the other two types ofquestions on the Insects text, just as Li studentsapparently did in the Scriptally Implicit questions on theWhales text.299FIG. 33USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE INTERPRETATION STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLYIMPLICIT (TI), AND SCRIPTAILY IMPLICIT (SI)QUESTIONS ON THE INSECTS TEXTEJTEDTI12 •SI1089. of totalstrategies 6used420% of totalstrategiesusedB5 B6 B9 Bli B13 B16 B19Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategiesL298EJTEDTI.sI7654321B5 B6 B9 Bli B13 B16 B19Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategies300Figures 32 and 33 illustrate that both groups ofstudents seemed to use the making inferences (B13) moreoften in the Textually Implicit questions on both texts.Textually Implicit questions invited inferences and bothgroups apparently used the making inferences (B13) strategymore frequently in the Textually Implicit questions on bothtexts.Many Scriptally Implicit questions began with the word“Why..?”, and so it is not surprising that both Li and L2students seemed to use the reasoning (Bi6) strategy moreoften when they answered Scriptally Implicit questions onboth texts.Table 49 presents Li students’ use of specific NonPrior Knowledge Comments on Strategies while answering thethree types of questions on the Whales text.301TABLE 49Li READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)LiWhalesTE TI SI8 10 7F39 Getting6.1%) ( 5.9%) ( 2.9%)the answer0 1 5F40 Guessing ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 2.1%)4 3 3F4i Knowing3.1%) ( 1.8%) ( 1.2%)0 0 0F43 Not abie to ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)find the answer0 0 0F44 Not able ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)to think1 3 15F45 Not knowing ( 0.8%) ( 1.8%) ( 6.2%)0 4 2F46 Not remembering( 0.0%) ( 2.3%) ( 0.8%)0 2 2F47 Not sure ( 0.0%) C 1.1%) ( 0.8%)0 2 2F48 Not willing ( 0.0%) ( 1.1%) C 0.8%)to try5 5 3F49 Remembering ( 3.8%) ( 2.9%) ( 1.2%)6 5 7F50 Thinking ( 4.6%) ( 2.9%) ( 2.9%)0 0 1F5i Trying ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)24 35 47Total(18.49%) (20.4%) (19.3%)L2 students’ use of specific Non Prior KnowledgeComments on Strategies while answering the three types ofquestions on the Whales text is presented in Table 50.302303TABLE 50L2 READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)L2WhalesTE TI SI11 17 12F39 Getting7.6%) ( 9.2%) ( 4.7%)the answer1 0 4P40 Guessing ( 0.7%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.6%)6 6 3P41 Knowing4.2%) ( 3.2%) ( 1.1%)0 1 0F43 Not able to ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)find the answer0 0 2F44 Not able ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.8%)to think2 2 3P45 Not knowing1.4%) ( 1.1%) ( 1.1%)0 2 0F46 Not remembering ( 0.0%) ( 1.1%) ( 0.0%)0 1 0P47 Not sure0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)0 1 1F48 Not willing( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.4%)to try3 2 3P49 Remembering ( 2.1%) ( 1.1%) ( 1.1%)11 8 11F50 Thinking7.6%) ( 4.3%) ( 4.3%)0 1 7P51 Trying( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 2.8%)34 41 46Total(23.6%) (22.4%) (17.9%)304Fig. 34 presents graphically the data in Tables 49and 50.Both Li and L2 students appeared to comment aboutknowing (F41), remembering (F49) and thinking (F50)strategies more often in the Textually Explicit questionsthan they did in the other two types of questions on theWhales text. The researcher considered these findings tomean that both groups of students seemed to feel certainabout their answers to Textually Explicit questions on theWhales text.They apparently used the not remembering (F46) morefrequently in the Textually Implicit questions than in theother two types of questions on the Whales text.Both language groups seemed to use the guessing (F40)strategy more often in the Scriptally Implicit questionsthan in the other two types of questions on the Whales text.The researcher interpreted this finding to mean that bothlanguage groups appeared uncertain about their answers tothe Scriptally Implicit questions on the Whales text.There were apparent differences between the twogroups. Li, but not L2 students, seemed to use the notknowing (F45) strategy more often in the Scriptally Implicitquestions than in the other two types of questions on theWhales text. L2, but not Li students, apparently commentedmore often about getting the answer (F39) in the TextuallyImplicit questions, and about trying (F51) in the ScriptallyImplicit questions on the Whales text.305FIG. 34USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON STRATEGIES WHILEANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI), AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONS ON THEWHALES TEXT% of totalstrategies used‘& of totalstrategies used32Li GTED TX• SIGTED TI•SI7541P39 P40 P41 P43 P44 P45 F46 P47 P48 F49 P50 F51Non Prior Knowledge Comments on StrategiesL2P39 P40 P41 P43 F44 P45 P46 P47 P48 F49 P50 P51Non Prior Knowledge Comments on StrategiesTable 51 presents Li students’ use of specific NonPrior Knowledge Comments on Strategies while answering thethree types of questions on the Insects texts.306307TABLE 51Li READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)LiinsectsTE TI SI11 8 10F39 Getting6.8%) ( 3.5%) ( 4.2%)the answer3 3 2F40 Guessing1.8%) ( 1.3%) ( 0.8%)1 1 2F4i Knowing( 0.6%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.8%)0 0 0F43 Not able to( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)find the answer0 0 1F44 Not able( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)to think4 12 7F45 Not knowing( 2.5%) ( 5.3%) ( 2.9%)0 2 3F46 Not remembering( 0.0%) ( 0.9%) ( 1.3%)3 0 1F47 Not sure( 1.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)3 1 4F48 Not willing( 1.8%) ( 0.4%) ( 1.7%)to try6 5 5F49 Remembering2.9%) ( 2.1%)12 10 17F50 Thinking4.4%) ( 7.0%)0 0 0F51 Trying( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)43 42 52Total(26.9%) (18.4%) (21.6%)Table 52 provides the data of L2 students’ use ofspecific Non Prior Knowledge Comments on Strategies whileanswering the three types of questions on the Insects text.308309TABLE 52L2 READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON STRATEGIESWHILE ANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)L2InsectsTE TI SI13 14 10F39 Getting7.1%) ( 4.7%) ( 3.9%)the answero o 1F40 Guessing ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)6 2 1F41 Knowing3.2%) ( 0.7%) ( 0.4%)0 2 1F43 Not able to0.0%) ( 0.7%) ( 0.4%)find the answer0 0 0F44 Not able ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)to think1 3 4F45 Not knowing0.6%) ( 1.0%) ( 1.6%)0 0 1F46 Not remembering ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)3 2 0F47 Not sure ( 1.6%) ( 0.7%) ( 0.0%)2 2 4F48 Not willing ( 1.1%) ( 0.7%) ( 1.6%)to try1 0 0F49 Remembering ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)7 10 20F50 Thinking3.8%) ( 3.4%) ( 7.8%)8 2 4F51 Trying ( 4.4%) ( 0.7%) ( 1.6%)41 37 46Total(22.4%) (12.6%) (18.1%)310Fig. 35 is based on the data in Tables 51 and 52.Both language groups seemed to comment more frequently aboutgetting the answer (F39) and not being sure (F47) in theTextually Explicit questions than in the other two types ofquestions on the Insects text.Li students and L2 students, to some extent,apparently commented about remembering (F49) more often inthe Textually Explicit questions than they did in the othertwo types of questions on Insects.L2 students, but not Li students, seemed to make morecomments about trying (F5i) in the Textually Explicitquestions than they did in the other two types of questionson the Insects text.Li students differed from L2 students in that theyappeared to make more comments about not knowing (F45) inthe Textually Implicit questions on Insects. On the otherhand, L2 student seemed to comment more frequently about notknowing (F45) in the Scriptally Implicit questions onInsects.Li students appeared to comment more often aboutthinking (F50) in the Textually Explicit questions onInsects. However, L2 students apparently made more frequentcomments about thinking (F50) in the Scriptally Implicitquestions on Insects.311FIG. 35USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON STRATEGIES WHILEANSWERING TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT(TI), AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONS ON THEINSECTS TEXT% of totalstrategies used% of totalstrategies usedLi GTEo TI•SIGTE0 TI. SI876543F39 F40 F4l F43 F44 P45 P46 P47 P48 P49 P50 P51Non Prior Knowledge Comments on StrategiesL2P39 P40 P41 P43 P44 P45 P46 P47 P48 P49 P50 P51Non Prior Knowledge Comments on Strategies312Figures 34 and 35 do not show consistent patterns ofdifferences between the three types of questions and the useof specific Non Prior Knowledge Comments on Strategies. Theonly consistent difference lay in Li and L2 students’appearing to comment more frequently about remembering (F49)in the Textually Explicit questions than they did in theother two types of question on both texts. The researcherinterpreted this finding to mean that both language groupsseemed to feel that they were using their memory in theiranswers to Textually Explicit questions on both texts.Table 53 provides the frequency counts of Listudents’ use of the specific Non Prior Knowledge Commentson Sources of Answers while replying to the three types ofquestions on the Whales text.313TABLE 53Li READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON SOURCES OF ANSWERSWHILE REPLYING TO TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLYIMPLICIT (TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)LiWhalesTE TI SI0 1 0G52 Answer( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)4 5 3G53 Books( 3.0%) ( 2.9%) ( 1.2%)1 0 3G54 Experience( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.2%)1 1 3G55 Films( 0.8%) ( 0.6%) ( 1.2%)0 0 1G56 Hearing( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)1 0 1G57 Learned from( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)school1 0 1G58 Mind( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)0 2 3G59 Myself( 0.0%) ( 1.2%) ( 1.2%)0 0 0G63 Not having( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)seen3 0 0G64 People( 2.3%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)1 0 1G65 Previous( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)question5 4 2G66 Questions( 3.9%) ( 2.3%) ( 0.8%)0 4 6G67 Quoting as( 0.0%) ( 2.3%) ( 2.4%)proof314TABLE 53 (Continued)LiWhalesTE TI SI2 4 3G68 Reading ( 1.5%) ( 2.3%) ( 1.2%)0 5 0G69 Re—reading ( 0.0%) ( 2.9%) ( 0.0%)2 0 1G70 Seeing( 1.5%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)1 0 0G71 Television ( 0.8%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)6 5 0G72 Text ( 4.6%) ( 2.9%) ( 0.0%)4 2 0G73 Text (paragraph ( 3.0%) ( 1.2%) ( 0.0%)format)12 11 1G74 Text (sentence ( 9.2) ( 6.4%) ( 0.4%)format)Total 44 44 29(33.9%) (25.6%) (11.6%)Tables 54 presents L2 students’ use of specific NonPrior Knowledge Comments on Sources of Answers whilereplying to the three types of questions on the Whales text.315TABLE 54L2 READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON SOURCES OF ANSWERSWHILE REPLYING TO TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLYIMPLICIT (TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE WHALES TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)L2WhalesTE TI SI0 0 0G52 Answer ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)4 7 8G53 Books2.8%) ( 3.7%) ( 3.2%)2 0 5G54 Experience ( 1.4%) ( 0.0%) ( 1.9%)0 0 0G55 Films0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)0 0 0G56 Hearing ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)4 1 1G57 Learned from( 2.8%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.4%)school2 1 0G58 Mind ( 1.4%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)0 0 0G59 Myself ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)0 0 0G63 Not having ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)seen0 0 0G64 People ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)0 0 0G65 Previous ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)question1 0 0G66 Questions ( 0.7%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)0 1 0G67 Quoting as ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)proof316TABLE 54 (Continued)L2WhalesTE TI SI3 1 1G68 Reading2.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.4%)2 1 0G69 Re—reading1.4%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%)0 0 0G70 Seeing ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)0 1 1G71 Television ( 0.0%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.4%)0 4 1G72 Text ( 0.0%) ( 2.1%) ( 0.4%)6 6 1G73 Text (paragraph ( 4.1%) ( 3.2%) ( 0.4%)format)4 4 1G74 Text (sentence( 2.8) ( 2.1%) ( 0.4%)format)Total 28 27 19(19.4%) (14.7%) (7.5%)317Fig. 36 illustrates in graph form the information inTables 53 and 54. Some cells were collapsed so that the datacould be presented in one graph. Comments which were similarin nature were grouped together. These were:GB Books G53 booksG68 readingGF Films G55 filmsG71 televisionGL Learn G57 learned from schoolG64 peopleGM Myself G58 mindG59 myselfGS Senses G56 hearingG70 seeingGT Text G67 quoting as proofG72 textG73 text (paragraph format)G74 text (sentence format)Both Li and L2 students apparently commented morefrequently that what they had learned (GL--learned fromschool (G57) and people (G64)) was the source of theiranswers to Textually Explicit questions than they did in theother two types of question on the Whales text.There were apparent differences between the twolanguage groups. Li students seemed to comment more318frequently about the text (GT--quoting as proof (G67), text(G72), text (paragraph format) (G73) and text (sentenceformat) (G74)) as their source of answers to TextuallyExplicit questions than they did in the other two types ofquestions on the Whales text. On the other hand, L2 studentsappeared to make more frequent comments about the text (GT)in the Textually Implicit questions on the Whales text.Li students apparently commented more frequentlyabout books (GB—-books (G53) and reading (G68)) as theirsource of answers to Textually Implicit questions than theydid in the other two types of questions on the Whales text.However, L2 students seemed to make more frequent commentsabout books (GB) in the Textually Explicit questions on theWhales text.Li students appeared to make more frequent commentsabout re—reading (G69) in the Textually Implicit questionson Whales. In contrast, L2 students seemed to comment morefrequently about re-reading (G69) in the Textually Explicitquestions on Whales.Li students, but not L2 students, apparentlycommented more often about questions (G66) in the TextuallyExplicit questions than in the other two types of questionsoh Whales.L2 students, but not Li students, seemed to make morecomments about myself (GM--mind (G58) and myself (G59)) inthe Textually Explicit questions than in the other two typesof questions on Whales.319FIG. 36USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON SOURCES OFANSWERS WHILE REPLYING TO TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE),TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT (TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT(SI) QUESTIONS ON THE WHALES TEXT181614126 of total 10strategies used642G52 G54 G63 G65 G66 G69 GB GF GL GM GS GTNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources of Answers96 of totalstrategies usedL2 GTEDTI•SI8Li GTED TI.SII052 G54 G63 G65 G66 G69 GB GF GL GM GS GTNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources of Answers320Table 55 gives the data of Li students’ use ofspecific Non Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources of Answerswhile replying to the three types of questions on theInsects text.321TABLE 55Li READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON SOURCES OF ANSWERSWHILE REPLYING TO TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLYIMPLICIT (TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)LiInsectsTE TI SI1 0 0G52 Answer ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)4 4 4G53 Books ( 2.5%) ( 1.8%) ( 1.7%)1 0 0G54 Experience ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)1 2 0G55 Films ( 0.6%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.0%)0 0 0G56 Hearing ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)3 2 2G57 Learned from ( 1.8%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.8%)school0 1 1G58 Mind ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.4%)1 0 0G59 Myself ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)0 0 1G63 Not having ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)seen1 3 2G64 People ( 0.6%) ( 1.3%) ( 0.8%)0 1 0G65 Previous ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)question1 1 0G66 Questions ( 0.6%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.0%)2 3 0G67 Quoting as ( 1.2%) ( 1.3%) ( 0.0%)proof322TABLE 55 (Continued)Tables 56 presents L2 students’ use of specific NonPrior Knowledge Comments on Sources of Answers whilereplying to the three types of questions on the Insectstext.LiInsectsTE TI SI1 0 0G68 Reading ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)1 0 0G69 Re—reading ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)6 2 2G70 Seeing ( 3.7%) ( 0.9%) ( 0.8%)0 2 3G71 Television ( 0.0%) ( 0.9%) ( 1.3%)4 6 1G72 Text ( 2.5%) ( 2.7%) ( 0.4%)5 1 1G73 Text (paragraph ( 3.1%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.4%)format)2 4 2G74 Text (sentence ( 1.2) ( 1.8%) ( 0.8%)format)Total 34 32 19(20.8%) (14.1%) ( 7.8%)323TABLE 56L2 READERS’ USE OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON SOURCES OF ANSWERSWHILE REPLYING TO TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE), TEXTUALLYIMPLICIT (TI) AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT (SI) QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT(Percentages in parentheses)L2InsectsTE TI SIo o 0G52 Answer ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)7 4 5G53 Books ( 3.8%) ( 1 .4%) ( 1 .9%)0 0 0G54 Experience0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)o o 1G55 Films( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.4%)0 1 0G56 Hearing ( 0.0%) ( 0.3%) ( 0.0%)2 4 3G57 Learned from ( 1.1%) ( 1.4%) ( 1.2%)school1 0 2G58 Mind ( 0.6%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.8%)0 0 0G59 Myself ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)1 1 1G63 Not having( 0.6%) ( 0.3%) ( 0.4%)seen0 1 2G64 People ( 0.0%) ( 0.3%) ( 0.8%)0 0 0G65 Previous ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)question1 1 0G66 Questions ( 0.6%) ( 0.3%) ( 0.0%)0 0 0G67 Quoting as ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)proof324TABLE 56 (Continued)L2InsectsTE TI SI0 0 0G68 Reading ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%)4 7 1G69 Re—reading2.1%) ( 2.4%) ( 0.4%)0 6 2G70 Seeing ( 0.0%) ( 2.1%) ( 0.8%)2 0 5G71 Television0.0%) ( 1.9%)4 3 2G72 Text ( 2.1%) ( 1.0%) ( 0.8%)7 6 0G73 Text (paragraph ( 3.8%) ( 2.1%) ( 0.0%)format)G74 Text (sentence 3 2 1format) ( 1.6) ( 0.7%) ( 0.4%)Total 32 36 25(17.4%) (12.3%) (9.8%)325Fig. 37 illustrates graphically the data in Tables 55and 56. As in Fig. 36, comments that were similar in naturewere grouped together so that the data could be presented inone graph.Both Li and L2 students apparently commented morefrequently about the text (GT--guoting as proof (G67), text(G72), text (paragraph format) (G73) and text (sentenceformat) (G74)) as their source of answers to the TextuallyExplicit questions than in the other two types of questionon the Insects text. This was the case with Li students inthe Textually Explicit questions on the Whales text. L2students appeared to comment more often about the text (GT)in the Textually Implicit questions on Whales.There were apparent differences between the twolanguage groups. Li, but not L2 students, seemed to commentmore often about books (GB—-books (G53) and reading (G68))and about the senses (GS--hearing (G56) and seeing (G70)) astheir source of answers to Textually Explicit questions onthe Insects text. However, L2 students appeared to commentmore frequently about the senses (GS) in the TextuallyImplicit questions on the Insects text.Id students apparently made more frequent commentsabout films (GF——films (G55) and television (G7i) as theirsource of answers to Textually Implicit questions on theInsects text. In contrast, L2 students seemed to commentmore frequently about films (GF) in the Scriptally Implicitquestions on Insects.326FIG. 37USE OF NON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS ON SOURCES OFANSWERS WHILE REPLYING TO TEXTUALLY EXPLICIT (TE),TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT (TI), AND SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT(SI) QUESTIONS ON THE INSECTS TEXT9 of totalstrategies used9 of totalstrategies usedLiL2C TEC TI. SIC TEC TI•51B7G52 G54 G63 G65 G66 G69 GB GF GL GM GS GTNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources of AnswersG52 G54 G63 G65 G66 G69 GB GF GL GM GS GTNon Prior Knowledge Comments on Sources of Answers327Figures 36 and 37 show that Li students appeared tocomment more frequently about the text (GT--quoting as proof(G7), text (G72), text (paragraph format) (G73) and text(sentence format) (G74)) as their source of answers to theTextually Explicit questions than in the other two types ofquestion on both texts. This was the case with L2 studentswhen they answered Textually Explicit questions on theInsects text, but not when they answered Textually Explicitquestions on the Whales text.Answers to Textually Explicit questions could befound in the text and so it is not surprising that Listudents, and to some extent L2 students, appeared tocomment more frequently about the text (GT) when theyanswered Textually Explicit questions.To summarize the findings of Question 4 (d):Both Li and 12 students seemed to use the quoting(A2) strategy more frequently in the Textually Explicitquestions than they did in the other two types of questionson both texts.Both language groups apparently used the makinginferences (B13) strategy more often in the TextuallyImplicit than in the other two types of questions on bothtexts.They appeared to make more frequent use of thereasoning (B16) strategy in the Scriptally Implicit328questions than they did in the other two types of questionson both texts.They seemed to comment about remembering (F49) morefrequently in the Textually Explicit questions than in theother two types of questions on both texts.Both language groups apparently commented morefrequently about the text (GT) as their source of answers tothe Textually Explicit questions than in the other two typesof question on the Insects text. Li students, but not Listudents, also apparently made more frequent comments aboutthe text (GT) in the Textually Explicit questions on theWhales text.Question 4 (e) Li and L2 readers’ ratings of Question-answering Non Prior Knowledge strategy statements.When readers had answered all questions on a text,the researcher administered the Question-Answering RatingScale which appears as Appendix 3.Readers’ ratings received a score ranging from 1 whenthey disagreed strongly to 5 when they agreed strongly.Table 56 provides the mean scores for the ratings done by Liand L2 students. A mean of 3.5 to 5.0 would indicate thatthe readers in that group agreed moderately or strongly withthe statement being rated.329TABLE 57MEAN RATINGS OFNON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE QUESTION-ANSWERING STRATEGY STATEMENTS(Standard deviations in parentheses)Whales InsectsLi L2 Li L2(n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=10)A. I understood the 3.70 4.10 3.80 4.10meaning of the (0.78) (0.70) (0.74) (0.94)questions.C. I got the answers by 4.20 4.20 4.10 4.00remembering what I (0.97) (0.60) (0.83) (0.89)had just read.E. The answers were 4.20 3.00 3.90 3.80from the sentences (0.60) (1.09) (0.83) (0.87)I just read.F. I had to think a 3.50 3.90 3.70 3.90lot to answer (0.80) (1.13) (0.78) (1.22)some questions.G. I had to use two 3.10 2.30 2.70 2.80sentences to answer (1.04) (1.10) (1.10) (1.32)some questions.H. I was sure about my 3.30 3.50 3.30 3.50answers. (1.05) (0.80) (0.90) (1.11)J. The answers just came 3.20 3.80 3.10 3.40to my mind. (1.07) (0.87) (1.30) (1.20)K. I had to read the 2.40 3.00 2.80 2.90passage again to (i.ii) (1.18) (0.97) (1.30)answer somequestions.I. I guessed some 3.70 3.30 3.30 3.30answers. (0.78) (1.26) (1.18) (1.26)N. I do not know how 3.20 2.80 2.80 2.40I got the answers. (0.97) (1.16) (0.74) (0.91)330Non—parametric Kruskal—Wallis tests were performed todetermine if there were any significant differences betweenLi and L2 students in their scores from the rating of eachNon Prior Knowledge strategy statement about question-answering strategies. No significant differences were found.Thus, data from the readers’ rating of statements aboutstrategies did not reveal the apparent differences betweenthe groups of readers that were evident from the Think-Out-Loud (Questions) protocols.There is, however, some evidence from the data basedin the Strategy Rating Scale that reflects the question-answering model of Goldman and Duran (1988), and thefindings from the Think-Out-Loud (Questions) protocols.Li and L2 students received a mean score of 4.2when they rated statement (C), “I got the answers byremembering what I had just read” after having answeredquestions on the Whales text. The mean scores for theInsects questions were similar. They were 4.1 for Li andand 4.0 for L2 students. The readers’ positive rating ofthis statement is in keeping with the model of question-answering proposed by Goldman and Duran (1988), who statethat readers search their memory for answers to questions.Both language groups seemed to comment morefrequently about remembering (F49) in the Textually Explicitquestions on both texts. According to the Goldman and Duranmodel of question-answering, it is not surprising that theywould refer to their memory when they answered Textually331Explicit questions, for the answers to Textually Explicitquestions could be found in the text.In the Think-Out-Loud (Text) protocols L2 studentsseemed to be less inclined than Li students to remark ontheir lack of knowledge. This pattern of not admitting theirlack of knowledge is seen again in the mean scores of 4.1for L2 when they agreed with statement (A), “I understoodthe meaning of the questions”. There was evidence that oneL2 student did not fully understand a question. Student #25,an L2 student, had a score of 5 when he rated statement (A),“I understood the meaning of the questions” after heanswered questions on the Insects text yet he did not seemto understand Question 4, a Textually Implicit Question,“How is the baby bee different from the adult bee?” for heanswered, “I can tell you about the ladybug”.Li students’ mean scores for Statement (A) were lowerin agreement, at 3.70 for the Whales text and 3.80 for theInsects text. While this difference is not statisticallysignificant, it does support the trend of L2’s notcommenting on their lack of knowledge and seems to suggest agreater confidence by Li students in admitting someinsecurity.L2 students seemed reluctant to acknowledge anyuncertainty. Their mean score for statement (H), “I was sureabout my answers” was 3.50 for both texts. Li students wereless certain, with a score of 3.30 for both texts.332Question 4 (f) Results of correlational tests betweenreaders’ scores on Textually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions and their scores on ratingNon Prior Knowledge strategy statementsNon-parametric Spearman correlational tests wereperformed to study the possibility of significantcorrelations between the readers’ scores on the three typesof questions and their scores while rating statements aboutNon Prior Knowledge strategies.Only two results reached the .001 level ofsignificance. One significant result was the correlation(see Table 58) between Li’s scores on the Textually Implicitquestions on the Insects text and their scores on ratingreading strategy statement (E), “I read some sentences againthat I didn’t understand” after they had read the text(r5=..8777, N=10, p=.001). This result is seen as being alogical response, as the answer to Textually ImplicitQuestions can be inferred from the text and re-reading thetext could perhaps have made it easier for Li students toobtain an answer. Li students did seem, then, conscious oftheir reading strategies when answering Textually Implicitquestions.333TABLE 58LI STUDENTS’ SCORES ON TEXTUALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONSON THE INSECTS TEXT ANDTHEIR RATINGS OF READING STRATEGY STATEMENT (E)ABOUT RE-READING SENTENCES THAT WERE NOT UNDERSTOODStudent Insects InsectsRatings of Textually ImplicitReading Strategy QuestionsStatement (E)(Score out of 5) (Score out of 6)1 3 45 5 66 2 27 2 28 3 49 3 415 3 316 4 418 4 521 4 4A second significant result to do with the threetypes of questions was the correlation (see Table 59)between 112’s scores on the Scriptally Implicit questions onthe Whales text and their rating of the Question-Answeringstrategy statement (c),”i got the answer by remembering whatI had just read” (r5=.8682, N—1O, p=.OO1). This is asurprising and quite unexpected result because the answersto Scriptally Implicit questions are not in the text andwould not have been found by remembering what had been read.Apparently the L2 students found it difficult todifferentiate between Prior Knowledge and material justread.334TABLE 59L2 STUDENTS’ SCORES ON SCRIPTALLY IMPLICIT QUESTIONS ONTHE WHALES TEXT ANDTHEIR RATINGS OF QUESTION-ANSWERING STRATEGY STATEMENT (C)ABOUT REMEMBERING WHAT HAD BEEN READStudent Whales WhalesRatings of Scriptally ImplicitQuestion—Answering QuestionsStrategy Statement (C)(Score out of 5) (Score out of 9)2 5 93 5 810 3 413 4 614 4 522 4 423 4 525 5 826 4 627 4 5Summary of Findings on Question FourThis section centred around the use of the Non PriorKnowledge Categories and strategies in Question-Answering,and described the findings from the analyses of readers’Think-Out-Loud (Questions) protocols while answering thethree types of questions, their ratings of statements aboutanswering questions, and the results of correlational testsbetween readers’ scores on the three types of questions andtheir scores on rating statements about strategies.335When readers answered the three types of questions,they used all seven categories of Non Prior Knowledgestrategies: Explanation, Interpretation, Evaluation,Monitoring of Understanding, Attempts to Answer, Comments onStrategies and Comments on Sources of Answers.There were apparent differences between the languagegroups in the frequency of use of the categories ofstrategies.Li students seemed to use the Explanation categorymore often than L2 students did when they answered TextuallyExplicit questions on both texts. L2 students appeared touse this same category more frequently than Li students didin the Textually Implicit questions on both texts.Li students apparently used the category of Commentson Sources of Answers more frequently than L2 students didin the Textually Explicit and Textually Implicit questionson both texts. They seemed to use the categories of NonPrior Knowledge Interpretation and Comments on Strategiesmore often than L2 students did in the Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions on the Insects text.There were apparent differences between the threetypes of questions and the use of Non Prior Knowledgecategories of strategies. These differences were predictableaccording to the definition of the questions.Both Li and L2 students seemed to use the categoriesof Explanation and Comments on Sources of Answers more336frequently in the Textually Explicit questions than in theother two types of questions on both texts. Answers toTextually Explicit questions could be found in the text andreaders apparently used the Explanation and Comments onSources of Answers categories more often in the TextuallyExplicit questions on both texts.They seemed to use the Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation category more frequently in the TextuallyImplicit questions than in the other two types of questionson both texts. Textually Implicit questions would invite useof the Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategies asanswers to Textually Implicit questions could be inferredfrom the text and both language groups apparently made moreuse of Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategies in theTextually Implicit questions on both texts.There were apparent differences between the twolanguage groups in their use of specific Non Prior Knowledgestrategies.Li students seemed to use the quoting strategy morefrequently than L2 did in the Textually Explicit questionson both texts.L2 students appeared to use the paraphrasing strategymore often than Li students did in the Textually Implicitquestion on both texts.There was no consistent pattern of differencesbetween Li and L2 students in their use of specific NonPrior Knowledge Interpretation strategies.337Li students seemed to comment more frequently than L2students did about remembering in Textually Explicit andTextually Implicit questions on both texts. They apparentlycommented more often about not knowing and not rememberingin Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicit questions onboth texts.L2 students seemed to make more frequent commentsthan Li students did about knowing in the Textually Explicitand Textually Implicit questions on both texts.Li students apparently made more comments than L2students did about the text as their source of answers toall three types of questions on both texts.L2 students appeared to comment more often than Listudents did that re-reading was the source of their answersto Textually Explicit questions on both texts. Theyapparently remarked that books were the sources of theiranswers to Scriptally Implicit questions on both texts.There were apparent differences between the threetypes of questions and use of specific Non Prior Knowledgestrategies.Both language groups seemed to use the quotingstrategy more often in the Textually Explicit questions thanin the other two types of questions on both texts.Li and L2 students apparently used the makinginferences strategy more frequently in the TextuallyImplicit questions than in the other two types of questionson both texts.338They seemed to use the reasoning strategy more oftenin the Scriptally Implicit questions than in the other twotypes of questions on both texts.Li and L2 students apparently commented morefrequently about remembering in the Textually Explicitquestions than in the other two types of questions on bothtexts.There was no consistent pattern of differencesbetween the three types of questions and the students’ useof specific Comments on Sources of Answers.The readers’ ratings of the statements aboutstrategies corroborate the findings from the Think-Out-Loud(Questions) protocols. They rated positively question-answering strategy statement (C), “I got the answers byremembering what I had just read” indicating that they feltthat remembering the text helped them answer the question.This is in harmony with the model of question-answeringproposed by Goldman and Duran (1988) in which memory playsan important role in readers’ search for answers.The results of the correlational tests between thereaders’ scores on the three types of questions and theirscores on rating Non Prior Knowledge strategy statements arepartly what would be expected. One result states that rereading texts aided Li students in answering TextuallyImplicit questions on the Insects text, a finding that is anot unlikely one.339The other result, which is unexpected, is thecorrelation between L2 students’ scores to answers onScriptally Implicit questions on the Whales text and theirratings of the question-answering Non Prior Knowledgestrategy statement (C), “I got the answer by rememberingwhat I had just read”. This is surprising, since the answerto this type of question would not be found in the text. Itis not, however, inconsistent with the profile of these L2students who were judged to be text-bound in their use ofPrior Knowledge and Non Prior Knowledge strategies when theyread the two texts. Their mind set may have been towardsrespect for the text and its information.If a teacher were to describe Li and L2 students’Think-Out-Loud (T-O—L) responses to text and to questions,what might that description be? The researcher attempts nowto describe Li and L2 students’ T-O-L responses to text,based on the data obtained from this exploratory case study.(a) Li students might use their Prior Knowledge to interpretthe text. They may give examples and visualize, addingnew ideas to the text. Perhaps they might judge thetruth of the statements in the text, and state that theyagree or disagree with these statements. They may makecomments on their knowledge or lack of knowledge of thetext.(b) L2 students may perhaps try to explain the text. Theymight focus on the text, and use their Prior Knowledge340to add descriptive details to the text without addinga new idea to it. They might make inferences orlinguistic connections with previous sentences. They mayturn the sentences in the text into questions. Theyprobably would not comment on their knowledge or lack ofknowledge of the text.The apparent differences between Li and L2 students’T-O-L responses to questions are consistent with their T-O-Lresponses to text.(a) Li students might use the words of the text whileanswering Textually Explicit questions. They may commenton not knowing the answers to Textually Explicit andScriptally Implicit questions. They might remark thatthe text is the source of their answers to the threetypes of questions.(b) L2 students may add descriptive details to the textwhile answering all three types of questions. They mightparaphrase the words of the text in their answers toTextually Implicit questions. They may express theirmisconceptions while answering Textually Explicit andTextually Implicit questions. They might comment aboutgetting the answer to questions, and they may remarkthat they are thinking and trying to answer ScriptallyImplicit questions. They may state that books are thesources of their answers to Scriptally Implicitquestions.341There are thus decided differences in the way thesetwo groups processed and answered the texts in this study.The three types of questions did have an apparenteffect on the students’ use of strategies.(a) While answering Textually Explicit questions Li and L2students might use the Explanation category ofstrategies, making use of the words in the text.(b) While answering Textually Implicit questions Li and L2students might interpret the text, using the makinginferences strategy.(c) While answering Scriptally Implicit questions, Li andL2 students might use the reasoning strategy.Chapter V following will present a summary ofthe findings, conclusions, discussions and recommendationsof the study.342CHAPTER VSUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION ANDRECOMMENDAT IONSChapter V includes a summary of findings,conclusions, discussion, recommendations for furtherresearch and implications for teaching strategies.Summary of FindingsClassification One: Prior Knowledge StrategiesAll Classification One questions were designed toelicit answers to the research questions about the role ofPrior Knowledge in readers’ responses to two short texts andquestions on the texts.Question One focussed on the role of Prior Knowledgein readers’ response to the two short texts.343Question 1(a) Differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of Prior Knowledge strategies while reading twotexts.Data from readers’ Think-Out-Loud (Text) protocolsindicated that both Li and L2 readers did use their PriorKnowledge while reading texts.Li students seemed to use the giving examples andvisualizing strategies more frequently than L2 students didin both texts..L2 students appeared to use the elaborating andproviding facts strategies more often than Li students whilereading the Whales text.Question 1 (b) Li and L2 readers’ ludgments about their useof Prior Knowledge strategies while reading texts.Li and L2 students did not give significantlydifferent ratings to statements about their use of PriorKnowledge strategies while reading.In fact, mean rating scores showed clear similarity.Both Li and L2 students believed they used their PriorKnowledge to help them understand both texts.Question Two focussed on the role of Prior Knowledgein readers’ answering of Textually Explicit, TextuallyImplicit and Scriptally Implicit questions.‘-IrtU)U)‘-I‘-3‘t3C)rzrtCtCCP1CDCD0CD‘1MiCU)P1‘111CDCDP3‘c‘t)X00CDCDCDZP1P1U)(1)tCL)F-CtCtCDCtCtci-.U)oci-i-I-Ctri-1-i-U)CC0‘-1-t.CtCtCDCD0•P10DlCD0CDU)00-0Mi0.’0C0CD‘-<0‘-i-ZZ‘1CtEI-’CttI—ii.QI—.’t’CtU)Ct‘-<CtCDU)U)CD‘<(Cl)‘-<CDU)-CDCDU)I..)Ct10‘10.’00Ci-tiCI-’1--IU)IIU)I-”P1CD0CI-I-”III—sTI-hj—0.’‘1CDCDCtCtCI-ZCDMi•01CDP1CDCDU)C‘t5i010.’P1CD‘10CtDlI—aP101I—’P1I-”c-I-‘ti.—I-’-I•-tiLOI:-’P1c-PI-’-i-’-CD‘-i-c-I-011‘1C-.0JU)CD0U)0Z0CDDlIiCDP1I-’-tCti-’•i.QCtCD0I-”c-I-10P1Mi0.,c-I-U)CDCt—U)ci-1-’-CD‘1U)11MiCCDCtMiI-CD0.’CDMiCDCD0.’CDCD0.’C0i-’-DlU)DlP1U)P104CD‘.0<1_I•U)ZZZc-1‘tCt0.,Mi)II0c-P‘1c-PCDCD‘.001C‘ti0.’CD0CDCtI-.’00.,P1P1‘1<CDl000‘-3Cl)CD‘1(1)i-’-c-I-U)CI—’0CDCDMiCtCD0CD0CDCDCD‘-11-’-U)1-’-)01U)Ct)‘1CDDlU)01U)CDc-I-i”U)Ct‘.I—’CtCtU)U)CtDXc-I-CI—a‘P1I—aCDCtCDCtJCDCDP1Ct01‘-<c-PI-’-0CDoCDCCDc-I-‘1<i—’P1i-a.pIiU)c-lCD01CDCtI—sI—s0.’CI—aCDqU)CtCtCDCDCCDU)U)‘<I—’U)I—’Ct)DlICtCDk<‘-301DlCDCl)--<I-’-CD‘.<Ct0100DlCD‘tiCDCtCDZ‘-.Liit5011-’-CDCCtZCDc-PU)t’‘-4I—’IIc-I-CDU)Ct0•0c-PP3c-PCt‘.0U)ICDCMi‘—i‘zjP1‘-“-oDlCCDU)•I—’CDCDI-‘-3C00CDMiI—’U)‘tiI-’-Ct0I-’-CDU)CU)DlI—’CD‘1CtU)C0‘-3CD0XCDU,10‘-‘•001CtI-”CDI--a,-‘-Ct0.,c-PU,Cc-P0Ct0CDc-PP1c-I-C—CDCDLii‘lCDDlc-PTP3c-I-tOX‘-“tU)CDCD0ci-0C010I—’CCti—iP3CtCDU)0.’CP1CtC.‘CDCD•CDI-’-I—’)CtCDI—’DlCD‘.<U)U)oi-i-’-0c-PDl1-3U)I-’CtU)‘1CtP1Ct‘-‘‘tiCDCt‘.<‘ftLiiI-ZCU)I-’-I-”I—’CD0‘CI-’-ZI-’-X0U)01c-I-ZCDU)CDc-P0Lii0‘‘1CDo01U)DlCI—’U)CD100CtP1U)‘U)U)i-”0‘—‘1CtCCDCDMiCi)CDI—’I—’ft•0Ct1-’•U)c-I-CDXCt01I—’0‘-‘-CtU)p1‘-<)0P1c-t•i—-CDc-PP1c-I-i--Ct—I-”Ct0tTCtCDCD0I—sCD0-‘.0P1:zCD‘.0Ct1-<0U)U)‘<(.4)345Li and L2 students appeared to use the elaboratingstrategy more frequently in the Textually Implicit questionson the Insects text and Scriptally Implicit questions on theWhales text.They apparently made use of the stating probableideas more often in the Scriptally Implicit questions thanthey did in the other two types of questions on the Whalestext.Question 2 (c) Readers’ ratings of Question—Answeringstatements about use of Prior Knowledge.There were no significant differences between Li and12 students’ ratings of statements about their use of PriorKnowledge while answering questions.There was a similarity in the mean scores ofLi and L2 students when they rated statement (B), “1 knewthe answers because they were about something my teacher ormy mom or my dad had told me”, after they had answeredquestions on the Whales text. They both agreed withstatement (B).There was no similarity in mean scores when Li and L2students rated the same statement (B) after they hadanswered questions on the Insects text.U)ZCDDCl)‘-‘Cl)00F-CDrt-MiCCDP3C3C0t-MiII‘tji.Q0CD>CDCl)CD0CD1_I0P3I—sU)U)Cl)-a.‘1dl-•i--CF—iClCP1Cl-I-Cl‘1ClCDCDC)MiCDCDP3‘1•CD-ClI—’i.QI-”I-s-U)Oj0‘--0010CD0P1Dl‘<ClC)Cl-F-0CDC)‘1U)P3-CD<‘1‘.0U)CDCl)I-’U)CDCl)0CD0tJP1I-(\)Cl)I--<Cl-CC)‘1U)‘-‘Cl-‘-<0DlZCD()MiP3CDCDCDU)CtSU)P10‘1.U)CtCl)‘-1CD‘T0<0U)0iCl)P1C)Cl-CDCt0P3—I—’CDCDCD—01U)P1P1-CDP1tCDDlCl)CDCtCl)rtriCD0CtU)CD(C)CDC)C)Cl)(ThCtOjC)i--e--CtZZCD0--010C)0o‘.0Mi0CDCtU)CDP3Dl‘1Cl-‘10CD‘1CDCt‘-a-01CDC)CD‘-I‘1Cl-i-i10C)0ZCl)CD10CDriCDCtCDCCl)CDP1‘1‘0:zCDrtI—’C.—l—CDXU)I_aCDCtCtCD—‘.0Cl-P3DlCDP3I—iCtP3U)‘1‘1-0P3C..)P3CDCl-rtU)ZCl-Dl•DiCtCl-P3CD0•.P..CtCt>CDi-s-Cl-P3-Ct-Cl-U)tI-tIP3U)-Ct0‘--f—i0‘-“0..0oCDCDZtIDlI—Ct•Cl)tI0CDtI0tI‘.0Dl0‘.0CtCDCCDCl)Cl)U)U)U),.at-(1)0..CtU)‘—C)CD00Cl-ClCDC)U)TCDP30boU)tItIP3tI0CD0Cl-‘Cl‘1CD10‘-1CDCDtICt‘1DlCttICD‘CSCDCtiOC‘--<03U)‘1U)CD‘1Cl)Ct:iCCD0CD0..CDCtCl-CD0CDCDU)‘1rCtI—’CDtIDlC)CDo‘iU)Cl-P3tIU)P3U)tI(1)DiC)U)CDCt-F-CDCDC)CtC)CDP3I-”0CDI-’-0‘-“0i03tJCDCl-dl0..0tI00)‘1‘10‘1P3U.CtCDtICl)DlCDtICDCtDlCtU)CD0CD‘1Cl)Ct‘1U)U)•I-tICtU)Cl)CDCDI—iDlCDCDC-CtCl-CtDlCD0..D<0Ct0tI0U)-0..iQCl)0‘1‘.0CtCl-e-.tII-”U)‘1CDtI‘I•‘10CDCD•0Cl-tI-CDCDCDCP3‘.0Cl-tICt0CDCl)CtMiCDU)Cl)Cl-U.Cl)X0Cl)CDCt00CDP3CDCt0C)Cl-0oCt0)‘1CMi•‘1DlHitI’i”P3Cl-‘-3‘C3Cr‘.tCDU)tIU)CD‘.0Ct0CD‘i-Cl)C)C)CD‘tCDCDCDX0‘-100CDU)‘1U)rCD‘.0DlCl-P3CD‘-10‘1i--00..‘-s-P30..CC)CDtICDDl00CrI—’CDI-•DlU)t,H,‘1oCDCtU)CDCDCl-0..0Cl)‘.0I-0..0Cl-0‘-<tIClMiCD0Cl)P3 CtCJ347Question Three focussed on the role of Non PriorKnowledge strategies in readers’ response to the two texts.Question 3 (a) Differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of the categories of Non Prior Knowledgestrategies while reading the two texts.Readers’ Think-Out-Loud (Text) Protocols revealedthat they used all seven categories of Non Prior KnowledgeStrategies while reading texts. They used the categories ofExplanation, Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation, Evaluation,Monitoring of Understanding, Attempts to Understand,Comments on Strategies and Comments on Sources of Knowledge.The four categories which seemed to be mostfrequently used were Comments on Strategies, Interpretationof Text, Explanation, and Evaluation of Text.Readers in this study appeared to use infrequentlythe categories of Monitoring of Understanding and Attemptsto Understand.L2 students apparently used the category ofExplanation more often than Li students did while readingthe two texts.Li students seemed to use the Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation category more frequently than L2 students didon the Whales text. They appeared to make more Comments onStrategies than L2 students did on the Insects text.348Question 3 (b) Differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of specific Non Prior Knowledge strategies whilereading the texts.There were apparent differences between the twolanguage groups in the use of specific strategies in thecategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategies which werefrequently used.L2 students apparently made more frequent use of thespecific Explanation strategies of paraphrasing and quotingthan Li students did on both texts.Li students seemed to use more frequently than L2students did the Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation strategyof referring to previous sentences.L2 students apparently employed more often than Listudents did the making inferences and reasoning strategiesin the Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation category.When both groups evaluated the texts, Li studentsseemed to make more frequent use of the strategies ofagreeing and udging the truth of statements, while L2students appeared to use more often the questioningstrategy.In both texts Li students apparently commented morefrequently than L2 students did about knowing and notknowing information, while L2 students’ comments aboutthinking seemed to exceed those made by Li students.349Question 3 (c) Readers’ rating of statements about Non PriorKnowledge reading strategiesThere were no significant differences between Li andL2 students’ rating of statements about their use of NonPrior Knowledge strategies while reading.There was, however, a marked similarity in the meanscores of Li and L2 students after they read the Whales textand rated statements (0) and (L). Both groups agreed thatwhile reading the Whales text they read some sentences moreslowly (statement 0) and that some difficult words becamemore clear as they read more sentences (statement L).Both Li and L2 students disagreed with statements (L)and (0) when they rated them for the Insects text.Question Four focussed on the role of Non PriorKnowledge strategies when readers answered TextuallyExplicit, Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicitquestions.350Question 4 (a) Differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of Non Prior Knowledge categories of strategieswhile answering each of the three types of questions on eachtext.Li and L2 students used all seven categories of NonPrior Knowledge Strategies when they answered TextuallyExplicit, Textually Implicit and Scriptally Implicitquestions. However, they seemed to use the Non PriorKnowledge strategies more often in the Textually Explicitthan in the Scriptally Implicit questions.Li students apparently made more use than L2 studentsdid of the categories of Explanation and Comments on Sourcesof Answers while answering Textually Explicit questions onboth texts.Li students seemed to comment more often than L2students did about the Sources of Answers in their answersto Textually Implicit questions on both textsLi students apparently used the Non Prior KnowledgeInterpretation category more frequently than L2 students didwhile answering Scriptally Implicit questions on both texts.L2 students appeared to use the Explanation categorymore frequently than Li students did in Textually Implicitquestions on both texts.351Question 4 (b) Differences between the three types ofquestions on each text and use of the Non Prior Knowledgecategories of strategies by Li and by L2 students.Li and L2 students appeared to use more frequentlythe categories of Explanation and Comments on Sources ofAnswers while answering Textually Explicit questions on bothtexts than they did in the other two types of questions.Both language groups seemed to make more frequentuse of the Non Prior Knowledge Interpretation category inthe Textually Implicit questions on both texts than they didin the other two types of questions.Question 4 (c) Differences between Li and L2 students intheir use of specific Non Prior Knowledge strategies whileanswering each of the three types of questions on each text.Li students apparently used the quoting strategy inthe Explanation category more often than 12 students in theTextually Explicit questions on both texts.L2 students seemed to make more frequent use of theExplanation strategy of paraphrasing than Li students didwhen they answered Textually Implicit questions on bothtexts.There was no consistent pattern of differencesbetween the two language groups in their use of specific NonPrior Knowledge Interpretation strategies. In fact, one352language group seemed to use the reasoning strategy morefrequently while answering one type of question on a text,and the reverse would be the case with the other languagegroup apparently using the reasoning strategy more often inthe same type of question on the other text.While answering Textually Explicit questions on bothtexts, Li students appeared to comment more often aboutremembering, while L2 students apparently made more frequentcomments about knowing.In the Textually Implicit questions on both texts Listudents seemed to comment more frequently than L2 studentsdid about not knowing, not remembering and remembering. L2students apparently commented more often about getting theanswer, and knowing in the Textually Implicit questions onboth texts.While answering Scriptally Implicit questions on bothtexts, Li students appeared to make more frequent commentsabout not knowing and not remembering. L2 students seemed tocomment more often about thinking and trying in ScriptallyImplicit questions on both texts.Li students apparently commented more often than L2students about the text as their Source of Answers toTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions on both texts.L2 students seemed to make more frequent commentsthan Li students did about re—reading in Textually Explicit353questions, and about books as their Sources of Answers toScriptally Implicit questions on both texts.Question 4 (d) Differences between the three types ofquestions on each text and use of specific Non PriorKnowledge strategies by LI and by and L2 students.When they answered Textually Explicit questions bothlanguage groups apparently used the quoting strategy, andcommented about remembering more frequently than they did inthe other two types of questions on both texts.In the Textually Explicit questions on the Insectstext Li and L2 students seemed to comment more frequentlyabout the text as their source of answers. This was also thecase with Li students, but not with L2 students, in theTextually Explicit questions on Whales. L2 students appearedto make more frequent comments about the text as the sourceof their answers to Textually Implicit questions on Whales.In the Textually Implicit questions Li and L2students seemed to use the making inferences strategy moreoften than in the other two types of questions on bothtexts.In the Scriptally Implicit questions both languagegroups apparently employed the reasoning strategy morefrequently than they did in the other two types of questionson both texts.354Question 4 (e) Li and L2 readers’ ratings of Question—Answering Non Prior Knowledge strategy statements.No significant differences were found between Li andL2 students’ ratings of Question—Answering statements abouttheir use of Non Prior Knowledge strategies.There was a similarity of mean scores in both Li andL2 students’ agreeing with statement (C), “I got the answersby remembering what I had just read” for questions on bothtexts.Question 4 (f) Results of Correlational tests betweenreaders’ scores on Textually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit questions and their scores on ratingNon Prior Knowledge strategy statementsTwo correlations between readers’ scores on the threetypes of questions and their ratings about statements weresignificant.One was between Li students’ scores on TextuallyImplicit Questions on the Insects text and their rating ofthe Reading-Strategy statement (E), “I read some sentencesagain that I didn’t understand”.The other was between L2 students’ scores onScriptally Implicit Questions on the Whales text and theirrating of the Question-Answering Strategy statement (C), “Igot the answers by remembering what I had just read”.355Conclusions and DiscussionThe study resulted in conclusions being drawn fromthe findings, methodology, materials and instruments, andthe proposed Question-Answering model.Conclusions and Discussion: FindingsOne general conclusion was drawn from the study’sextensive findings. This conclusion was:Li and L2 students seemed to use very different specificPrior Knowledge and specific Non Prior Knowledgestrategies when they interacted with a text and when theyanswered questions on that text.This conclusion speaks to the focus of the study:that is, the possible differences between Li and L2 studentsas they interacted with texts and answered questions ontext. This evidence is believed by the researcher to be thefirst such in—depth evidence obtained on primary Li and L2children.The assumption has been made that if an Li and L2group score equally on a paper and pencil reading test, theycan be considered to be using the same processes as theyread. The study shows that this is not, in fact, correct.356When an “open-ended” procedure (such as T-O-L procedure) isused L2 children’s responses seemed to be quite differentfrom those of their Li classmates.The problem arises, of course, as to whether oneshould decide that one or other of the groups is using the“better” strategies. It might be assumed that L2 students,who are believed to be in the “weaker” language position,should be encouraged to react more like Li students.However, this assumption may not be valid. It may be that Listudents should be encouraged to react more like L2students. The study gives us no guidance on this problem. Itsimply supplies clear evidence of apparent differences whenLi and L2 students interacted with a text and answeredquestions on that text in a T-O-L procedure.A number of more specific conclusions should also bediscussed.1. The Prior Knowledge strategies within the Interpretationcategory of strategies did play a role while both Liand L2 students were reading the texts.The Li and L2 students were alike in that they used anumber of specific Prior Knowledge strategies. They usedsuch strategies as giving examples, providing facts andmeasurement, visualizing, elaborating, comparing, andgeneralizing strategies. These strategies were used as they357tried to “fill” in the “slots” of their script/schema intheir attempt to understand the text. Their schema wasacting as “ideational scaffolding for assimilating textinformation” as described by Anderson (1985, p. 376).It may be noted here that readers in the study alsoused their Prior Knowledge in ways which were not describedby Anderson (1985). Both Li and L2 readers used thestrategies of stating probable ideas, changing mind, andexpressing misconceptions. Readers in the study did notalways have correct information nor were they certain abouttheir facts. They were, however, willing to express use oftheir Prior Knowledge even when what they knew was incorrector uncertain.The researcher also noted that the text did notchange the misconceptions of some students who continued touse an inappropriate schema, a phenomenon which had beendiscussed by Rumeihart (1980). For example, Student #8referred to “ivory” when he read Sentence ii of Whales whichreferred to the many useful things made of blubber. Eventhough Sentence 12 of Whales was, “It is made into paint andsoap”, he held on to his misconception of “ivory” and said,“Some is made to paint and soap. And some is made to ivory”.His schema/script was “incompatible” with the text, or thereverse could be true and the text was “incompatible” withhis Prior Knowledge (Alvermann et al, 1985).Readers in the study had not been told to summarizeor re-tell information and this may have been the reasontJ(A)r1Cl-I—’U)0)<i-”0i—i-Cl-(-1-•m(i)Cl-tjI-••Hi(j)CrrmXU)rirjw01CDCDoU)0)i-iCrCn0)P1CU)t0‘-i-r-’HCt1•CtCrH0)-riCDCt0HiH01CDCtCD(DCDI—’rtCDi-.-riçci0)Ht1>Cti0tli--C)0)0)0)CtI—aCDCD—rtCD-•CrNt’i-i-ZCtIIiC)1o0CDMXCT)I-i-i-—CtI-ti01.—.-P-<U)ClCrU)0)CrU)k<*‘-00)CDI—’I-a.HCDCrIU)C)C)tt-00CDCDCD‘10)c:citr‘-s-oCrt\)01CDCr01U)0)CD<010tSr-tiU)CCr‘tjC)U)CDCE)CDCCrCl-CDHH—.•U)CtCCDi-tiCDU)I—’)CtCD‘1CDI-”CDttZSCI—’-(I)0)C)HP.CDCrP1iIP1)Ct0.P1•CA)<CDCDU)‘1U)U)tTCDCrCI-U)H—JCDU)Cr-‘-i-P10CCDU)•CD(A)aiP1C)CrHrtI—i0)HrtU)LC)H—.1—HP-i0)t1C0)‘ZS0)trCD0)tU)—.J‘-I—sPCDCtI’.)CDU)HI—’jCt0)P101CD‘t0-0NbI-CDCDi-•CDCDCDt)I—’U)t3U)•HI-”0CDHLOU)Cl-CrU)C)CDrtCDI—’CI)ZC)01P.Cr:z-0I-”HU)i-hP1CDCDI-tiP-ICDCHi-hCDC)CDCDriHOa0Crj)HU)0jCDU)i0’0rtCDCDCDHP.,<P.CDCDU)0’i-CU)CDCDQQaCL)0,00ozC)Cr€-i-<I—’cipHi-tirtCrCDZ<00)ciCt0)CDCI-U)CrP•t)U)C)0,I-i-01ci•Z0rt0001U)I-”U)C0CD0Cri-ii-tici-tiCDCrU)CD‘-‘i01ciU)CDt)t‘1IàciP10’CDH00)CDU)r’-i--C)CDiCt—C)‘-<U)Cri—”H—1P1U)*CtCDC)HiU)CrCDCDHiCD—Ct0I-0Hip.Cr01—U)I-.P•HirtZCD)CDHijCDNt)CDrt)t)CrCL)CrC)CDH‘1CDCDU)CCDHP--1.0P-CD01C)0,tYCDUIP1OaCt-CDCrC0ZftH0CD0t-•F-P.-DHC)CDHC)0)CDI-”0)CtHi0CD00UICDX‘tiU)Cr)‘-i-H0(11‘1rCCtUI0Cl-c-i-CDU)iI-’.Cl-CDI-i0)U)‘--ZciCDCri-’•I-’C)•UItTCD00I-”rt0)<CDSCDCD0C)Z*U)CDCDCDHXI-”0•t,‘-3rCDCi-U)I-’Cr01H0CrCrHU)H•CDCDP10,CD<U)CDCr0,CD--CD0P1CDCDrI-t-••CDCHCDW‘-<P1CrU)rt0i-i.CiP1U)CiH-CDU)CDCl-CrP1ci‘-i-t’CDC)O0’i-tiP1‘C)CDCDHi-’-Hi0t--Cr<—P-0U)CDHXi-’-0i-C)F-’0-0’HC)Cl-iU)C)CDU)CDCl-Hi0U)U)‘-0C01i-tiCrU)CDCDI-ti(I)ZMiCrU)0)ciHP1000000CrC)0P10)0HiCrCrC)HiP100CtCD)C)HiC)CDHCr)U)Z0.’CtCCD0,CrCDCDU)0-•CDCDU)01U)CDi-ti359Scriptally Implicit questions on Whales, and elaborating inthe Textually Implicit questions on Insects and in theScriptally Implicit questions on Whales. Apparently readersseemed to be uncertain about their ideas when they answeredScriptally Implicit questions on Whales, and they elaboratedor added descriptive details to their answers on TextuallyImplicit questions on Insects and Scriptally Implicitquestions on Whales.One difference lay in the fact that L2 students, butnot Li students, appeared to use the expressingmisconceptions strategy frequently in the Textually ImplicitQuestions on both texts. As an interesting side issue, anegative correlation which approached significance was foundbetween L2 students’ scores on Prior Knowledge (Whales) Testand their scores on Textually Implicit questions on Whales.These findings on Textually Implicit questions are incontrast to Jenkins’ comment (1987) that Li students in herstudy were not superior to L2 Science students in theirperformance on Textually Implicit Questions and that, “ifPrior Knowledge is high, the task of untangling the syntaxin order to comprehend TI questions would not be sodifficult” (p. 73). Apparently in the study L2 students’Prior Knowledge sometimes did not seem adequate enough toassist them in answering Textually Implicit Questions.Readers in this study were more like the Iranianstudents in Vahid—Ekbatani’s study (1981) who performed lesswell than the American students did on inferential questions360when they read a culturally “neutral” text in their nativelanguage.Another difference between Li and L2 students wasthat L2 students apparently used the elaborating strategymore frequently than Li students did while answeringTextually Explicit, Textually Implicit and ScriptallyImplicit questions on both texts. This was consistent withtheir text-bound approach when they read the two texts. L2students, who seemed more focussed on the text than Listudents were, elaborated or added descriptive details tothe text in their answers to the three types of questions.4. Both Li and L2 average Grade Three readers used all sevencategories of Non Prior Knowledge strategies whileinteracting with texts.They used the categories of Explanation,Interpretation, Evaluation, Monitoring of Understanding,Attempts to Understand, Comments on Strategies and Commentson Sources of Knowledge.One of the seven categories which apparently was notfrequently used was Monitoring of Understanding. Thisfinding is consistent with the results in other researchstudies. Markham (1979) noted that among her subjects inThird to Sixth Grade, 96% of them failed to notice thecontradiction in the essays that were read to them.3615. There were apparent differences between Li and L2students in their use of Non Prior Knowledge categoriesof strategies while reading the two texts.Li students appeared to use the Comments onStrategies category more frequently than L2 students onInsects. Apparently Li students felt free to comment ontheir actions while reading the Insects texts.L2 students seemed to use the Explanation of Textcategory more frequently than Li students did. Theresearcher judged that L2 students seemed to be more “text-bound” than Li students in their approach to both texts.This finding is in keeping with the results of Pritchard(1987) who commented that, “the only strategy the Palauansused significantly more often than the Americans was‘paraphrase’” (p. 126). Carrell (1988) had also remarkedthat L2 students were “text—bound”.6. There were apparent differences between Li and L2students in their use of specific Non Prior Knowledgestrategies while reading texts.While reading both texts, Li students seemed to makemore frequent use of the referring to previous sentencesstrategies. L2 students appeared to use more often themaking inferences and reasoning strategies. The differencesled the researcher to conclude that Li students seemed less362focussed on the immediate text they were reading andreferred to previous sentences. L2 students appeared tofocus on the text when they made inferences between twosentences and gave reasons about what was stated in thesentence.In both texts, Li students seemed to use frequentlythe agreeing and judging the truth strategies. L2 studentsapparently made frequent use of the questioning strategy inboth texts. The researcher judged that Li students seemedto stand back from the text and evaluate it, while L2students appeared to be more closely involved with the text,turning sentences into questions.The apparent differences in Li and L2 students’ useof specific Interpretation and Evaluation strategiesdescribed in the preceeding paragraphs caused the researcherto conclude that Li students seemed to be less “text-bound”than L2 students were.In both texts Li students appeared to commentfrequently about knowing and not knowing, while L2 studentsapparently often commented about thinking. The researcherthought that Li students seemed to feel free to comment onthe state of their knowledge, while L2 students appeared tocomment that they were performing the task of Thinking-OutLoud.The researcher believed that Li students also feltmore free, when they rated statements, to acknowledge theirlack of understanding than L2 students were. While L2363students agreed with statement (A), “I understood all thesentences” for both texts, Li students did not ratestatement (A) as highly as Li did after they read theInsects text.Analysis of Li and L2 students use of specificComments on strategies and their ratings of statement (A)led the researcher to conclude that Li student seemed tofeel more free to admit their lack of knowledge andunderstanding than L2 students were.7. There were apparent differences between the three typesof Questions and use of the categories of Non PriorKnowledge strategies by Li and by L2 students.There is evidence in the readers’ use of Non PriorKnowledge categories of strategies that provides support ofthe definition of the three types of questions: TextuallyExplicit questions could be answered from the text;Textually Implicit questions required inferences on thetext; and Scriptally Implicit questions required the readersto use their own resources.Both Li and L2 students seemed to use theExplanation category more frequently in the TextuallyExplicit questions than they did in the other two types ofquestions on both texts. Answers to this type of questioncould be found in the text and it was no surprise thatreaders would use the category of Explanation which included364the strategies of paraphrasing and quoting words of thetext.Both language groups appeared to use the Non PriorKnowledge Interpretation category more often in theTextually Implicit questions than in the other two types ofquestions on both texts. Answers to Textually Implicitquestions would invite readers to make inferences on thetext or use their own Interpretation.Both Li and L2 readers appeared to use the Non PriorKnowledge strategies more often in the Textually Explicitthan in the Scriptally Implicit questions. Answers toScriptally Implicit questions which could not be found inthe text would invite readers to use their Prior Knowledgeand not their Non Prior Knowledge strategies to answer thesequestions.There is support in this conclusion for Wixson’scomment (1983) that different types of questions influenceduse of different strategies.8. Li and L2 readers’ use of the specific Non PriorKnowledge strategies seemed to be sometimes alike andsometimes different when they answered the three types ofquestions.In the Textually Explicit questions Li and L2 studentsappeared to use the quoting strategy and commented aboutremembering more often than they did in the other two types365of questions on both texts. Answers to Textually Explicitquestions could be found in the text, and it is notsurprising that the students would use the quoting strategyand comment frequently about remembering when they answeredTextually Explicit questions.In the Textually Implicit questions on both textsboth Li and L2 students seemed to use the making inferencesstrategy frequently. Readers’ use of this strategy fulfilledthe expectation that Textually Implicit questions wouldinvite use of the making inferences strategy.In the Scriptally Implicit questions on both textsthey apparently used the reasoning strategy often.Scriptally Implicit questions began with the word “Why..”and students seemed to react to this word by using thereasoning strategy.L2 students differed from Li students in that L2students seemed to focus on the text apparently usingthe paraphrasing strategy more often than Li students didwhile answering Textually Implicit questions on both texts.L2 students, but not Li students, seemed to commentmore frequently about the text as their source of answers toTextually Implicit questions on the Whales text. L2students, who apparently used the paraphrasing strategy moreoften in the Textually Implicit questions, also appeared tofocus on the text as the source of their answers toTextually Implicit questions on Whales.366L2 students appeared to make more frequent commentsthan Li students about getting the answer and knowing in theTextually Implicit questions on both texts. They seemed tocomment more frequently than Li students did about tryingand thinking in the Scriptally Implicit questions on bothtexts. L2 students thus appeared to be more preoccupied thanLi students about the task of answeringquestions, just asthe L2 students in the study by Padron, Knight and Waxman(1986) were concerned about the questions their teachersmight ask them.Li students seemed to comment more frequently than L2students did about not knowing and not remembering in theTextually Implicit and Scriptally Implicit questions on bothtexts. Li students apparently felt more free to comment ontheir lack of knowledge.As a comment on the conclusions discussed above, itmay be said that the study has supplied evidence of what areconsidered to be apparent differences between Li and L2students in their use of Prior Knowledge strategies and NonPrior Knowledge strategies while they interacted with a textand answered questions on that text.Conclusions and Discussion: MethodologyThe conclusion was reached that the methodology wasappropriate.367It had been decided to use an exploratory case studydesign to answer the research questions about Li and L2average Grade Three readers’ use of Prior Knowledge and NonPrior Knowledge strategies while reading texts and whileanswering questions. The researcher believed that an in—depth study was required to answer the questions and thatthe use of a second measure would serve as a means ofchecking the findings of the first measure. The two measureschosen were the Think-Out-Loud procedure and the rating ofstrategy statements.The Think-Out-Loud procedure was found to be a viableone with the students in the study. They were given onepractice training with a passage not used in the analysisand most students felt comfortable about the procedure ofThinking—Out-Loud (T—O-L) after each sentence.The rating scale procedure was also appropriate.The students in the study did not find it a difficult taskto rate statements. They received one training in ratingstatements and were attracted to the visual aid in the formof five faces. In fact, one student commented that it was aneasy task.One drawback to using a rating scale was that thestatements had to be created before the students had donetheir T—O—L. The researcher was not able to foresee exactlythe types of strategies the students would use, although thethird pilot study had provided insight into some strategiesthe students used. However, each group of students may use368certain strategies that are unique to that group, making ita difficult task to design, before students’ Think-Out—Loud,statements which would coincide with students’ Think-Out-Loud protocols.Conclusions and Discussion: Materials and InstrumentsIt was concluded that both materials and instrumentsgenerally served their purposes well.The two texts on Whales and Insects were adaptedfrom Lipson (1981). The texts were interesting to thestudents and allowed them to Think-Out-Loud after eachsentences.The researcher concluded that the Whales text was moredifficult than the Insects text for some students because oftwo words, “blubber” and “mammals”. Students in the thirdpilot study had not commented that these two words weredifficult and so no forewarning had been given that theywould pose a challenge.The Textually Explicit (TE), Textually Implicit (TI)and Scriptally Implicit (SI) questions proved to be neitherextremely easy nor difficult for the students as seen in therange of scores, (1—3 for TE on Whales, 0—3 for TE onInsects; 4—6 for TI on Whales, 2—6 for TI on Insects; 3—9for SI for Whales, 2—8 for SI on Insects). The researcherconcluded that the readers found the questions on Insects369slightly more difficult than they did the questions onWhales.The Coloured Progressive Matrices and Gates-MacGinitieReading Test were instruments not designed by theresearcher. The Coloured Progressive Matrices served itspurpose to equate the two groups selected for the Sixth andSeventh Sessions. The Comprehension subtest of the GatesMacGinitie Reading Test served its purpose in selectingstudents who were considered to be average readers and whosescores fell between the fourth and seventh stanines.The Prior Knowledge Test seemed to serve its purposeof testing the students’ knowledge of Whales and Insects.Students’ scores ranged from 2-7 out of 8 items on Whalesand Insects indicating that all students found it neitherextremely easy nor very difficult.The Free-telling of Whales and Insects gave thestudents the opportunity to describe what they knew aboutthese two topics. The students were given time to prepareeither mentally or in writing and most students made notesto themselves. Lipson’s instructions (1981) were effectivein that students went along with the belief that theresearcher knew nothing about Whales and Insects and thatthey had a reason to tell what they knew. The two promptsallowed them to add whatever had been forgotten.The scoring of free-telling was adapted from Langerand Nicolich (1981). There was a spread of scores rangingfrom 1-3 out of a maximum of 3.370The Question-Markers Matching Test was designed toassess the students’ knowledge of some question-markers.Although the scores ranged from 0-5, the researcher feltthat the test was difficult for some students who knew thecorrect answers to oral questions which contained thequestion-markers, but were unable to find the correct matchwhen they did the Question-Markers Matching Test.The Reading and Question-Answering Rating Scales wereattractive to the students because of the visual aid in theform of five faces. The statements were read to the studentsand they all showed in their behaviour that they stopped andthought about the statements before they rated them. Someeven made comments after their rating, giving reasons fortheir judgment. The range in scores from 1-5 on eachstatement also showed that students did not all react in thesame way towards the statements.Conclusions and Discussion: Proposed Question-AnsweringModelBoth Li and L2 average Grade Three readersillustrated in their T—O—L (Questions) protocols and intheir ratings of statement some of the stages of theQuestion-Answering model proposed in Chapter I.The first stage of the Question-Answering model iswhen students try to comprehend the meaning of the question.371Students made reference to their understanding of thequestion in their T—O-L (Questions) protocol. Readers usedthe specific Monitoring of Understanding strategy ofquestion not understood (O—.8% for Textually Explicit, 0-1.0% for Textually Implicit, and 0-.8% for ScriptallyImplicit questions). While the percentage of use was nothigh, the students did indicate when they did not understanda question.The second stage in question-answering is whenreaders categorize the type of question. Students in thisstudy did not comment on their categorizing of questions.The researcher had attempted to tap this aspect of question-answering by designing the Question-Markers Matching Test.Although the students could answer orally questions whichcontained different types of question-markers, themetalinguistic nature of the Question-Markers Matching Testwas difficult for some of the students in this study. Theresearcher concluded that the second stage of question-answering was not illustrated by the students in the study.The third stage of answering question is when readerssearch in their memory for an answer. Readers used theremembering strategy in their T-O-L (Questions) protocols(.6—3.8% for Textually Explicit, 0—2.9% for TextuallyImplicit, and 0-2.1% for Scriptally Implicit Questions).Although the percentage of use was not high, there is stillevidence that readers used their memory to find an answer.Readers’ rating of Question-Answering strategy statement372(C), “I got the answer by remembering what I had just read”indicated that they agreed with the statement.The fourth stage in question-answering is whenreaders cannot find an answer in their memory and search foralternate sources, for example the text. L2 students, butnot Li students, used the specific Attempts to Answerstrategy of re-reading (.7-1.1% for Textually Explicit; 1.7-2.2% for Textually Implicit; and .4—1.2% for ScriptallyImplicit questions on both texts). The support for thisfourth stage exists although slight. Some readersexperienced difficulty when they re-read the text to searchfor an answer to Textually Implicit questions on Insects.They may not have acquired the ability to “scan” the text.Garner et al (1985) who hypothesized about the stages inacquiring an efficient “lookback” strategy, considered theability to scan as one which develops after undifferentiatedre-reading, when one is not able to scan the text.The fifth stage is when readers construct an answerthat matches the type of question asked. There is no supportfor this stage, neither in readers’ T—O-L (Questions)protocols nor in their ratings of statements. In fact theresearcher did not devise any statement about this stagebecause the pilot studies had shown that it was difficultfor students to rate statements about types of questions.Monitoring the quality of one’s answer was part ofthe proposed question-answering model. One reader in thestudy did monitor the quality of her answer. While answering373Question 7 of Whales Student #2, an L2 reader, said,“...that maybe that was a good answer”.Suggestions for Further ResearchA number of suggestions for further research can bedrawn from the study.1. The researcher devised a taxonomy of categories ofstrategies which readers used while interacting withtexts and while answering questions on the texts. Theresearcher amalgated categories created by otherresearchers (Pereira, 1991) and new categorieswhich emerged from the readers’ T-O-L protocols. Otherresearchers might replicate the study with students ofdifferent age groups or reading ability and providevalidation of the researcher’s taxonomy for categorizingoral responses in T-O-L situations.2. Researchers might replicate the study using the sametexts and procedures with other students who are ofaverage reading ability. This would provide furthervalidity and reliability data on the findings of thestudy.3. The focus of the study was the differences between Li andL2 students and for this reason the researcher did notanalyze in depth the data for differences between Maleand Female readers. Initial subjective analysis of thedata revealed what seemed to be some differences between374Male and Female readers. The researcher speculateswhether other researchers replicating the study with alarger sample might find differences between Male andFemale readers when they read texts and answer questionson them.4. The proposed Question-Answering model was not fullyvalidated by the students in the study. Evidence islacking that students categorized questions beforeanswering or that they matched the categories.Researchers in future may devise instruments orprocedures which could test whether students docategorize the questions before they answer and whetherthey match their answers to the types of questions theycategorized.Implications for Teaching StrategiesIn this study Textually Explicit, Textually Implicitand Scriptally Implicit Questions resulted in differentstrategies being used by these average Li and L2 Grade Threereaders just as Wixson (1983) commented that different typesof questions resulted in different responses from hersubjects. Similarly in this study there were Explanations inthe form of quoting from the text when readers wereanswering Textually Explicit Questions, while there was useof the reasoning strategy when they answered ScriptallyImplicit Questions. Thus if teachers wish to develop their375students’ use of the reasoning strategy they might try toask fewer Textually Explicit Questions and more ScriptallyImplicit Questions, providing models for the strategy.The three types of questions assessed what theresearcher or a teacher would like to measure of readers’comprehension of the texts. But the three types of questionscould not fully assess readers’ comprehension of the text.The Think-Out-Loud (T-O-L) methodology, it was felt, wasbetter able to capture what the readers’ did to understandthe text. The researcher believes that students’ T-O-L(Text) protocols reveal their comprehension of the text toa fuller degree than simple direct questions would haveor even by having the students’ re-tell the text. Whenstudents re—tell the text, certain parts they are uncertainabout or do not understand may be omitted in their account.This study has shown that it is not difficult for average Liand L2 Grade Three readers to Think-Out-Loud. They were ableto express their thoughts after one training session on theDinosaurs text. Classroom teachers could use the Think-OutLoud activity during the time they have individual readingconferences with their students. Teachers could tape theirstudents’ T-O-L and record their impressions of the T-O-Lresponses as a means of assessing their students’ readingcomprehension.376REFERENCESAfflerbach, P., & Johnston, P. (1984). On the use of verbalreports in reading research. Journal of ReadingBehavior, 16(4), 307—322.Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic?Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 203—231.Alessi, S. M., Anderson, T. H., & Goetz, E. T. (1979).An investigation of lookbacks during studying.Discourse Processes, 2 197—212.Alvermann, D. E. (1984). Second Graders’ strategicpreferences while reading basal stories. Journal ofEducational Research, 77(3), 184—189.Alvermann, D. E. (1988). Effects of spontaneous and inducedlookbacks on self-perceived high and low-abilitycomprehenders. Journal of Educational Research, 81(6), 325—331.Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readance, J. E. (1985).Prior knowledge and the comprehension of compatibleand incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 420—436.Anderson, N. 3. (1989). Reading comprehension tests versusacademic reading: What are Second Language readersdoing? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Texas at Austin.Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisitionof knowledge. Educational Researcher, 13(9), 5—10.Anderson, R. C. (1985). Role of the reader’s schema inComprehension, Learning and Memory. In H. Singer &R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical Models and ProcessesOf Reading, (pp. 372-384), 3rd. ed. Newark, Delaware:International Reading Association.www CD0)0)U)ZZoo‘-1‘10.aio0c-I-c-I-Cl-CDCDCD0)0I—’0‘1‘l‘1O-t1-Q01‘-•I--‘tP)CD(fl‘iI—-U)U)WQjØU)Miii0)CDHtc-I--ZOiic-I-01Q.ZOOO’OOOL’J.‘--OOWLTi(1)0--(DQct-..1U)(D00.0.U)’i-<m-0)00(D-IOc-tCD0)CD•.1—U)(flCntici)-WON0..•O’’Ic-I-Zc-tP3oc:-OOU)W’LO.cl-i--QjP)tJ0.(D(Di--P3rI-.—ii•..—WCDCDP)U)(Dc-I-.03.Oct03•U)t’iCDQCflW—.c-I-’i-’-‘10)0•-Z-0CD.0Oiiii—‘-‘•u0—-“<‘-II-’.0300).••00)1-103.00CD00•Cl)-Ci)-.3..jU)(j)..‘lJMiQ.03OZ)0)CD.o‘1.—.••.OQ.i0i-iiCD—c-I-OCD—.U)—--U)(I)CDOiiCD’—QjO)Mi—J0)—‘.0.CD0t—CD0)0—no—‘i.30OW—U)P3i—CD—<ZO‘tU)CD0OOF..)‘.0CDO-ti’-t‘-i’.o•c’i.CD•F-t’•3O00’—030Mb‘-.JO•O0)CD.LO’-I—’.(iii0”0’.JF0OtiCDF—’-CD•.00I—’0)—0.,Mit1CD(flCD—.3(Diic-I-’lP)•CDPCi)•(1)0—LOCDI-’-CDQt-3CD0I-..•‘1(flU)’.0CflOJCD•3C-irtZLx1IJmCDcl-UiOCDCDCDii(DO)CDCDOCDLQC1P303w0)00)co.•P3.—ii<U)0)U)‘10C)iI—ti—0I—•1-’-I—-.CD.CDCD’---CD‘-‘-CDP)CDZQaO0)CDL’i‘100)0‘-i‘-iCDP3i-’-r1c-I.-I-3P)(DU)iiOCl)i-•I-IF—’U)i-’OCDIi•Oc-I-z’opi•CDctU)c-I-ZU)c-V‘-3I-’-0CnCD.0)—.CDt-’-‘-<CDrI-CD(DO0...03(1)0Cl)1—‘10•U)1QjtOZIUi’lCDI—’CDW-’-l.00’iI—U)P)0ti-CDkt-t--h0)5ctP)‘CD•.CDCDCn3OF--’U)cCDCD0U)d-.’CjO(Diii—’0I-1-.0F—’c-I-TU)0)‘1c-I-‘-3c-I-W‘1U)CD—0•P)CDr..’ii—’CD,--’iI--0WCD—CDOti0cDWt-’-I-’CDCD(DO.‘1l>U)P)OrIO.c-I-U)I—hCflZiP-CDX‘is’—..U)CDI..(DWU)•.i1.CDZ.OOiLO(DiiU)j-I-1b‘zj.0Q.CDU)-.0)‘-Cl)•I-”P30CD.WCD—I-’-Oct.C4lU)0)—Qmm0-’-OCDt’01.i1.OF-’CD-0ZO—.Z.01U)P)CD‘.0000)XQ.10U)tiQ.-IKi--I‘1iPMic-I-ct0)I-.) (I-’-CD‘.0I-’-i’.) 00c-I-U)•00-.JCDc-I-ri0-.)0)R’(j)rit-’-IU)k<t--Mi0I—’ LO-CD•CDc-I-CD0)ZWrI-‘--—00F—’0)WI-’-CD•—c-I-I—I‘-10c-I-•O‘‘CDc-I-I-03c-I0.0U)0)I—’t-I-’0378Bransford, J. D. (1984). Schema activation and schemaacquisition: Comments on Richard C. Anderson’sremarks. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn & R. J.Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in Americanschools: Basal readers and content texts, (pp. 259-272), Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Eribaum Associates,Publishers.Bransford, J. D., & McCarrell, N. S. (1974). A sketchof a cognitive approach to comprehension. In W. B.Weimer & 0. S. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and thesymbolic processes. Hilisdale, N. 3.: LawrenceEribaum Associates, Publishers.Brown, A. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading.In R. 3. Spiro, B. C. Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.),Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, (pp. 453-481), Hillsdale, N. 3.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Publishers.Buswell, G. T. (1926). Diagnostic studies in arithmetic.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of backgroundknowledge in reading comprehension. Language learning,33(2), 183—207.Carrell, P. L. (1988). Some causes of text-bounc3edness andschema interference in ESL reading. In P. Carrell, 3.Devine and 0. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches toSecond Language Reading, (pp. 101-113), CambridgeUniversity Press.Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and SecondLanguage reading. Modern Language Journal, 73(2),121—134.Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). TheAmerican heritage word frequency book. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company.Davey, B. (1987). The nature of response errors for goodand poor readers when permitted to reinspect textduring question-answering. American EducationalResearch Journal, 25(3), 399—414.379Davey, B., & Kapinus, B. A. (1985). Prior knowledge andrecall of unfamiliar information: Reader and textfactors. Journal of Educational Research, 78(3),147—151.van Dijk, T. A.., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies ofdiscourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. PsychologicalMonographs, No. 270.Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal report asdata. Psychological Review, 8L 215-251.Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis:Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects on textcomprehension of differing proportions and locationsof difficult vocabulary. Journal of Reading Behavior,15(3)., 19—39.Fry, E. (1977). Fry’s readability graph.: Clarification,validity and extension to level 17. Journal ofReading, 21(3), 242—252.Garner, R., & Alexander, P. (1982). Strategic processingof text: An investigation of the effects on adults’question-answering performance. Journal of EducationalResearch, 75(3), 144—148.Garner, R., Hare, V. C., Alexander, P., Haynes, P., &Winograd, P. (1984). Inducing use of a text lookbackstrategy among unsuccessful readers. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 21(4), 789—798.Garner, R., Macready, G. B., & Wagoner, S. (1984).Readers’ acquisition of the components of the textlookback strategy. Journal of Educational Psychology,76(2), 300—309.380Garner, R., & Reis, R. (1983). Monitoring and resolvingcomprehension obstacles: An investigation ofspontaneous text lookbacks among upper-grade goodand poor comprehended. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(4), 569—582.Gates, A. (1947). The improvement of reading: A program ofdiagnostic and remedial methods. 3rd ed. New York:Macmillan Co.Goldman, S. R., & Duran, R. P. (1988). Answering questionsfrom Oceanography texts: Learner, task, and textcharacteristiäs. Discourse Process, 1j 373—412.Goodman, K. S. (1986). What’s whole in Whole Language?Richmond Hill, Ont.: Scholastic.Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in Second Languagereading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406.Gray, W. S. (1941). Reading. In W. S. Monroe (Ed.),Encyclopedia of Educational Research, (pp. 891—926),London: Macmillan Company.Guszak, F. J. (1967). Teacher questioning and reading.Reading Teacher, 227-234.Hahn, A. L., & Smith, T. (1983). Students’ differentiationof reader-based and text-based questions. Journal ofEducational Research, 76(6). 331—334.Hare, V. C. (1981). Readers’ problem identification andproblem solving strategies for high- and lowknowledge articles. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13(4). 359—365.Hare, V. C., & Smith, D. C. (1982). Reading to remember:Studies of metacognitive reading skills in elementaryschool—aged children. Journal of Educational Research75(3), 157—164.1-ICc_IXP1P1P100CD0CDi.QP1I—I:ic-i--<CDI—’•Ci)U)--——CD‘tJC1)i-OjOOCD—oct0001’1P1i(•Z0Qcn0i-h—t000t-hI-hDjI1cn0CD’-CD1’ihc:—C)P1•-op)c.CnP1..CDP1k-’t—Q.ZCDQj1U)W-C).0c-ttY•(D.<‘1P1w-•cCl)C)P1CD(Dcl.(nc-I-‘-IWCD•—(DtJrIt.‘<U)P)’l.•0—P1i-•or.CDQ-1-i--i-C)-‘‘.0Q.0C)C)CD.Li‘.DCD—.<.CD0CD—..rcP1CD‘1It—c-tP1—P10-<—•.ZIi)U)Qi1II—.‘tJ0.—Ci)-•i.Q‘.0tSCi)HiCD‘.0—P1i--Q—iii-i—a’i-•‘.oCDa’‘-“cci-qi—OX•—(ThP)i.DU)P1’.0CDI-h-0a’-P1C—‘-DcflciiP1WU)’.o0a’U)N--JU)l-hQ’•‘-C)---OQ.i0’.0CD•’—C)-CDa’(D(D-.1U)P)1110.CflCDa’P10•i-t•CT•(1)c-ICTI—’—.3C).1Zi--CDP1ri‘—0(1).c-I-.ii-”i---‘.1111P1F—c-i-CDP1G‘Ic-I-P10PCl)P1111-’MiCl•IQCDc-i-liI-’P1iflctCDc-t-C).P1U)1CDfrhCDCn‘-3‘IZ•P1PICnctP1--P100’—Z•I-’-X(DP1CDCfl00‘Ii-.c-i-i-.0U)C)I——N0C-s-C)CDc-i-CD.0)OCD0CD-0i-Z-‘IWc-I-rt0’-’-0PiP)I-hZQ.-‘II-‘i’<U)<ZCDH(-’c-I-0-CD•I-”IICDCl)c-i-P1LiCDc-i-P.CDI-h—I-.(ii LoI-hCDCDc(ni-.WZCDP10CD0c-i-I-hLxiflO0OH,Z0I-0O.QjO‘iC)P1CDZOPI•I-•0i-hu)(nc-i-CDC)fle—iiI-hc-I-0-‘ICDCDi-•0’.0CDOCDc-I-lIIiI-”P1C)U)P1-P1ZP’111100)CliP1‘<P)ZCDOU)-c-ttl00QCnCDOt3—I--’Q.•I-0P1HiI-•P1QjHi0——CDCDCjic-t-i-’•Q..•P1Ic-i-Q.CD•Hi•U)U’II-”I—’I-”0C)-‘t0<I--P1P1CDP)i-P)LQM-ic-i-CDa’010c-I-t’311flP1r..P1U)P1U’•QjP10pL%i(D0‘ICli‘—i-C)Wi-I--‘-311P1—I-h.11‘.0U)i.QC)—0CD.—C)CDCD‘1U’CDICD‘i11<0P1‘-P1U)0‘1Z0tP1CD—W’Cc-i-CDi-’C)CD••c:iooCJilIc-I-P1OC)li0)CDP1‘I‘I0U1C).Q.,‘.DCDc-i-Wli•(DliQ.0I0CD0CDE•c-i-CD’I—CDlI—‘lCD0CD’1(nc-i-I—hIII—’U)CTCDP1c-i-L0O0P1(D0Zc-i-CnCD0I—’P1’IZ(DCnCD—-t--t,II•U’c-i-•U,CDc-i-ci-I-I•1-’-CDCl)•c-I-H,CDP1CnCDcn‘-iU’011i-•C)I-’-P1CDI—’•lI00P1U)0’-OtxiP1ClC-4CDCDU)‘.U’rtCDc-i-I-’-00U’OCflCD0P1LQ11-I-h0C)I—’I—’c-i-I-II-’•I-’-‘.0I-h•(nI-I0)U)TCD—CDKKKKKoCD00P3-CDCDCDP3o-1-i<CDI-iC)0P3U)I-i.—0CDCDIi’W—s--.CDI—iIiU)QU)c.Q‘-‘-IWQZ0b(DZ’iKCi0IP3tiCDZCDc-PCD0(D-I—0-Z-hP3-Ct-i-rI-0Q,P3CF-00OCD-00ZC)bI--I—0(DtiU)C).OP3c-t00rI-KP3CflXI—I--’CD1CDc-I-OCDF-IiCDC..jZCDLi01-.I-CDLQ.--U)ci.X(DCDQjOU)•‘lCDU)O’lU)Qj.U)U)F—’iU)LO.P3(1P3WI--c-I-P3Qj000cnCD•-t-•U)P3K1—’•)C•CDI-OCCDP3CD•0—.cnoP3cI-I.CD-Q.,-‘lCD.0—I—CDCD•c-I-00..—CD‘-<0101U)I—CD•C)c-I--‘.0P3c-I-—-“‘1•‘—“——-•c—-•t’Q’•—c-a-‘-tCD—.P3<P3(flC’.o0U)-U)—P3e—U)frh<.0’.0Ii(..iQa‘IC)WCDc-I-‘I—U)P3CX)I--C)‘.0U)—01iZK•‘.0P3•00I-”HOCD.-—000C‘lCD®—CDcCD—JCD’----—L00P3—JI-ti1--tJ-U)‘.O‘lCD.-—U)0’.C)ti’..OCECC..iCDW0’—CDc-I-ZI—I—”“CDOc-V••0.-—c-I-MP3I—U)•—P3P3U)0.c-I-CD’.DI—.P3CD—Cii.Q(D—...C0U)I—’c-t‘<U)U)—c-I-CDc-I-ti.-—‘.DCDP.0norP3’c5’-—-0•0’--).•.i—.i--W--CD.-0G)tlc-3c:i-Q0CD..ti’l003•.t-h<-0001YCDOZII—CD.P3tic-ic-lU)0301CDCDCD3-‘-•‘--‘--i--P3Zc-I-’-3C..iCDCD0‘TiflZP3•CD1’’lCi)-ZZf-I-I--‘--J‘.0W0Ci‘-I03C00‘lCDC)OCDPi.c-I-CD<010.c--0---.JtiZ.CDF—Zti--.-‘Qa0frhP3frhU).‘b0CDtiNCu-ti•ti01011—U)Cc-lCDCD0U)eiCD--0.CDc-I-—.00‘--01N’--U)Plc-iCDCDCDG)tror-,ooc-I-mz-otiZ—.CD()c--c-I-U)CDOc-II—Cl-h‘li--<-<0U)CD’.OCD0r’--.01Ztii--CD0CDU)CDti•CX)11w0M<—•CCP30I--U)cfl0CD’103I—c-I-l0)‘101c-lU)—-•O1CD—c-I-0Plc-I-OCDOc-I-c-I-CDc-I-OP3U)c-IQ1iCD’—I——CDc-iCDPJU)0’--P3‘--CD®OW•bO—CDrJP3>U)--CDc-t‘Ic-I--0CD0P)rI-c-I-Plc--ti-0.cZ01c-I-0P3CD,--.0mci‘-<CDc-iCD’--’-3C01<W1’I-’U)0.‘--i-tiU)CD‘-<CDCD.-.—P3c--)ti-U)•0c’--Oc-I-Z00U)P3cOCDccr1-c-I-U)•0’—’—0<c-I-0t-tiCDCt—tii---Q.,‘CDC)P3(flc-I-c-I-CDCD‘--U)OCDOCDU)U)IZCD<i—-i—-w’0U)U)<.1--0iU)Q.K’lt0-hU)c-I-W010U)U)U)0I-Cl)tic-I-c-I-CDt3C)01—-.U)P3H’0c---Cii‘IC.--®01C)P3’--IIi-h0‘bCD00t-’U)P3C)P3ci0)I—’I-hU)ClCDI—h‘10•V.30U)IU)P30,--c-iCX-ic-I-I--CICCCDc-I-P3Oct‘-0-—U)Z•CD01c-I-c-ic-t-’bCDLQZU)c-I-P3ciCX)CD‘1‘—-i--‘-<CZCACW’bCDCD0CDCD0I--’-LO‘—U)‘.‘0CflOP3•bC)IZCCDfrhU)U)P3Cflti-U)—Cwc-I-i-i--0.•OC)U)-0-’ZP30•CDP)CDcn,—-zu-iCDi—’i-tii—.i.--.zow‘.DCD‘10U)01‘1I-’-0IiZCiP3CQ01Q013•CDc-I-I-hC•U)U)c--•I—‘-i•CD—.1c-I-•03CDc---c-I-I-iZ•••U)‘1c-IIc-I-001ZP3CD’--cnCDi--Z010•CDCD001‘-1U)---ico383Neuman, S. (1990). Assessing children’s inferencingstrategies. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.),Literacy theory and research: Analysis frommultiple paradigms. Thirty-ninth yearbook of theNational Reading Conference, (pp. 267-274), Clemson,S.C.: National Reading Conference, Inc.Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more thanwe can know: Verbal reports in mental processes.Psychological Review, 8j 231-259.O’Donnell, R. C., Griffin, W. J., & Norris, R. C. (1967).Syntax of kindergarten and elementary school children:A transformational analysis. National Council ofTeachers of English Research, Report No. 8, Champaign,Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.O’Flahavan, J. F., Hartman, D. K., & Pearson, P. D. (1988).Teacher questioning and feedback practices: A twentyyear retrospective. In J. E. Readance & R. S. Baldwin(Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research: Thirty-seventhyearbook of the National Reading, (pp. 183-209),Clemson, S. C.: National Reading Conference, Inc.Olshavsky, J. E. (1976-1977). Reading as problem solving:An investigation of strategies. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 1_?, 654—674.Olson, G. M., Duffy, S.A., & Mack, R. L. (1984). Thinking—Out-Loud as a method for studying real-timecomprehension processes. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just(Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research,(pp. 253—286), Hilisdale, N. J.: Lawrence EribaumAssociates, Publishers.Pac3ron, Y. N., Knight, S. L., & Waxman, H. C. (1986).Analyzing bilingual and monolingual students’perceptions of their reading strategies. ReadingTeacher, 39(5), 430—433.Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. II (1981). Comprehensionmonitoring, memory, and study strategies of goodand poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13(1),5—22.tJIt,It)‘13Di‘1r-oaCDaaDi‘1CDDiDici-ci-CDCDC)11IIDiC)(_)I-JI-,.U)U)U)Lib’jCDQ-t,O’1ft’l.JctLrjflOCfloo0CDi-’-I--CDCDDiC(DDi‘-•O’1-I-nCDDi—JCDi-ii0Z00hD-ftDirt-I-IIDiWiDiCD-—JX-tiCi-C‘ILl)‘IDift00.’I’1Q’QflOC•ri-CD.rjrDi.(DU)CD.--CDI-I•0-‘i’JI-IDiI-c)DftDi,_•I.ZQ.CD‘I0Orla).ftCD.DiCDfl.CA)CDG)I’1t.0ftO(flttrtU)Di<F-tiILO.1-IDiuliII-’•Di-tiCD.0.Q.CiC40DiCDCDt0‘(50j<’(5ftU)‘1‘-•Ofrt’ZZ.0rI.—0I-tIØ.4‘Ii.Q—-I.III—”Di—.-•CU)-I-tiU)0-0—OcnC—Di—‘ICDI--‘--C•0‘Di-0oU)U•Z009’OtCD’tjCD‘-“CDDiDUiCDo-CDCD‘(5flDDibZ(DZOaWDiCnDi’-•0XU)U)0..0C01.O•C1DiOjOcnQ—wDi‘—Cn—1—SO00jOU)(DZ)-U)ft4•—,r‘-i-—•—0I-s-U)i—I-tiZCD‘1’.oCD‘-.,1•MiNfiiozci-‘LOI--‘U)CD‘-‘CDU)CD-XDici-’it’iZ-OCDMU)ti.CDCDCDtiW’(5CDCCDrVDi’-<DiCD-.JftCDDiWCD0.ZCDC-CDF-’Qj•O’clQj(A)rQjU)n’rj.03)-L0’ti.DiOCD‘-‘(5CDIDiCDCCCDDi0.’-•’-IDi’1‘IdWOCDci-<tiC.1ti-<i-3rtI-titiZI-I000ft-W•9’CD‘--Din.‘-01.OCDM,i-.’rJ(fl-.0ti-‘0.•.‘--ftO(rnOCD<CtiftCDOI-I-C)tiQ‘1--—‘t)DiC•‘-“flCDODiDi0IlDi00U)---U)cl-ctCDrt-‘IF-4U)rt‘I’IODi9’0ti<’Ift0.,‘.0I—”I-’-U)U)U)I-”‘-Di0i-tiI--’tit—’--0.’00-’Di—C’Inoo•-U)ctOI-0Oci----COI-lU)U1QJCDC.4J0CDrtIt)’1-‘.0—‘-titi00U)I-ti1<CDCDU)tiU)I—C—Ji.0—-.I—’0•0.,0I-”U)CDCDCD(X—‘(5(A)I-”U)0I-hI-tiCD0I-tiU)CD00-’(5I-i--—(A)0(Oj—:z‘0WCOiCDUIU)U)trLoCDti•—I--’-•—t-i’•U,,--otinCDt-”OCDI—’CD•Oh-’.n.-“ft00‘lOftI—’-‘--‘-i-’---DiOCDCDCDU)cttiCri-Diri-I-tiCOOtiDiCDftQj-ft..—.—.JftU)X-ft‘1‘10DiDii-iDii-I‘.IDici-DiI—C0Di‘I(D’IctQftftC)—‘-‘-CD--.)O’.D00i-.1-.QU)I—’DiCDi-’-‘Ii-”t—’Itit)‘.0t)Oi00•‘-<‘(5CDi--ti0DiOCD9’’-’-ta--.—DiCA)—‘t-’-CDU)U)ZCDZQ.,Z—iDi.tiQ0U).F—’—’ZIDiItiC)CD0—CD.P.’-l‘.oIIt—’-Dirt-—LOftDiti’QjU)•‘-It)ftti‘-‘•wI-’-IICDi-’-i-’-Cl)0—I-’-•IIDiti’U)‘—“(DO•rt-<OBI-tiC)tiCDU’Lilt)CflCDc-i-CDCDOtiti’CDDiI-lit)‘-‘<CD‘-‘L0ri-Di-‘-00t)CDCDftCD<CDI-’--OQ0CD•‘10DiIiCDt)I-ti’.Dt)-tiI-lih-’I-hCDIIh-’.—.1II••I-liI—’I—’ti0U)ti—iO)CDOt)ftI-’-—--__01.0ftI•ciDi—c-IOiCDIxc.CnCi)Cl)(1)‘zS5C)I-...I-..SI-.I-c-I-c-I-0)CD‘--:z-WQ1--C..1()‘t-t-X’.Cl)LiOW((nL’iZr-I0C)-roioW0CDzUQ.5c-t•CD’-lZI—c—-b5(DcOI-1Cl)W0i•c-I-.CDI-’Zc-I-OCDF-’<1_1.11.0c-I-c-I-—.Wc-1m_.-_DZS•‘-‘-OWC)CCD1c-I-I-I0)—.00.,.)—(DC)5‘-‘-Libct—C.i(DO)-•CD—0•WzCD)I--Ij).CD‘Zt’iZ0-‘-CDI—’OO-..J—X(Dr..)CflUQ.LiP3(s)———(fe--Cl)•‘lCDWI—’‘—<I-’0).‘..D00.CDCD‘-Ii•CDI-’C)0III-.)CDC)Z‘-4—•0r01oCl)•c-I-e-.--WLQr1.-0‘-‘-a-’-(*3’—0)‘..Oc-I-CD(D<CDCDtsI-’QQI.c-I---.’-3JCDC)a-’-.e-’-XQ.,01(s)CDCD.CDCDO—0c-I-CD‘10‘-1CDU)CD‘—CD‘1QjI-ICDZ-(1)e0)-0L•IQjCDC.4‘-‘-‘c——c-I-••Ii•CDCD0<’l•U)0)(0CDCfl-‘-0G)c-I-CCC..ic-I-Cl)()•WuICD’l00.r..)•OQa0)I’CCDi-’•(0I-IC)e-’-CD<‘1WWCna-Qa’•CDI-’-oiW.15WC<‘if—I--U).•(fOiI—0WP)CD—3CfI-’-—CD0)——c-I-C)OW01—.CD--0)0(DIHiQC)•-CD01‘1(fW.•C0I-..)a-’-D‘.0IDCs)X•<a-’-a-hcO<rI-Oe-’-CDQj5•‘-‘-Ca-CDZQCD’HiCDL’JQa-’-CDI—’CDfl‘1•Cl)—5I—Cl).CD—<ICTtrQ.,e-’-(00U)0)0)-‘-0—I-’•‘101’-’-WbWI-’i-’oSCDk<LV)‘1C•C)I-’WXCD(*3•I—’Ca-’-OW00)‘1CD’lC)l-’CDWOQ.iPa-CDCDQa0)ZIt’Paa-’-P-)a-’-•.CD0-1Q.,.-i.ZCD0ZQat)CD-C)P.’1.0•‘-‘-Q<II-’-i--’i--’i-’•t50P)Wa-’-a-’-a-’-c.4c-II-hZc-I-••f—CD<I-tiCS)ZI-’-•.0OOS010Cflc-I-CD<‘xJC)CO—r-CDt’•<I.,CfC0)Ci)(DU)-Zna-ri,.•c-I0‘10a-’-‘1CDHiC..10Z•z•.C)..CDx, CD0)0)n Z Ct0)0),••ai(Dn0’lXCnCDZ(DZOf—’I—’Hi(D.c-I-I--’OLiWe-tiC—CDCl)t-1,•Q.iO’lSc-I-Qa0)I—’I-’-‘Ic-Pa-U)Za-’-.c-I-e-3CDZSZ•0CDZCD.Qa•9)IZC1LQc-IaTJ•ZLVe-’-xjOCDS’-’-’l•9)t-15CD.Ccz-(DOW‘lOU)ZQ.’•ZZtCDCDV’OCDO0)CD9)1-tiI—’LOU)‘lOCflW1‘-‘-:3or-’n’-*c-t-o••r—’n’i--’oOOe-’-Y’CZ•PaLOMi01CDWQ.’ZZ—Z®WW(DWC_iCDQ)LiWCU)ZC)c-I-P)•ZQ.,Pat’Wc-I-O‘-‘-0101-CQa•‘lCDU)c-I-0a-’-Cac-Ill.c-IW1—.CDe-’--0)t)CDCD•c-I-0—‘IU)I—’U)—a-’.’.I-’c.OCDC)OhCDZ•iO‘ILIZ2’ZCD0(1)Wa-i—0a-’-----Wa-iiflU)WI—’CD.r.i5c-I---01CDc-I-.:3(D0)‘-‘-‘SDa-.’l0)O01L’itl<CDZCDO-a-*Cfl(DHi—CDe-’-UiLOCDU)III—ti(a)Ct—C)•.‘V‘-10flU)CD‘—CD’<•nCD(Da-’-ZZ—C-0-t1Z0c-I-Cflc-P5r.3a-”0CDe-ti---..CD‘V0(D0CD0a-’-(DZCD1Q.5r-ti)Z(f(00IOCD.c-I-CDd‘I‘Ti1—.) QCc-PIa-i-.‘<‘1‘.OC‘1CDC)013<c-I-CDa-’-o-,CDO:3CD0I-’-(Da--’----.CDOO•tflCD.-’-IZU)O—’Hillc-I-U)ZO’ic-I-‘.O.—.‘-‘(0‘-4(.*3Z’0U)CD—00Z’—’Z.CD‘--ZHiC)——U)•CD•ID‘-III:33- 0 0 -co Ui386Steffensen, M. S., Joag—dev, C., Anderson, R. C. (1979).A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension.Reading Research Quarterly, 15(1), 10-29.Thorndike, E. L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study ofmistakes in paragraph reading. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 8(6), 323—332.Titchener, E. B. (1912). Protegomena to a study ofintrospection. American Journal of Psychology,, 427—448.Vahid—Ekbatani, G. (1981). The effects of culturalorientation and bilingualism on inferentialcomprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Van Allen, R. (1978) Language experiences in communication.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.White, p. (1980). Limitations on verbal reports ofinternal events: A refutation of Nisbett & Wilson andof Bern. Psychological Review, 8L 105-112.Wixson, K. (1983). Questions about a text: What you askabout is what children learn. Reading Teacher, 37(3),287—293.Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods.Beverly Hill, CA.: Sage Publications.387APPENDIX 1RESEARCHER-DEVELOPED PRIOR KNOWLEDGE TESTCircle the best answer1. A whale’s eyes are:a. smallb. medium-sizedc. big2. A whale is:a. a fishb. a mammalc. a reptile3. Whales breathe through their:a. gillsb. mouthsc. blowholes4. A whale’s hearing is:a. poorb. goodc. neither poor nor good.5. Whales have a layer of blubber that is:a. thickb. thinc. neither thick nor thin3886. The biggest whale is the:a. fin whaleb. gray whalec. blue whale7. Baleen whales have:a. no teethb. some teethc. many teeth8. To the Inuit, whale meat tastes:a. terribleb. deliciousc. neither terrible nor delicious9. An insect has:a. two body partsb. three body partsc. four body parts10. The body of most insects is covered by a shell which is:a. hardb. softc. neither hard nor soft11. Some insects make:a. woolb. plasticc. silk38912. Spiders have:a. four legsb. six legsc. eight legs13. When a grasshopper first hatches from its egg it lookslike:a. a wormb. a caterpillarc. a grasshopper14. In winter one kind of Canadian butterfly goes to:a. Icelandb. Mexicoc. England15. Mosquitoes which suck blood are:a. only malesb. only femalesc. both males and females16. An ant which lays eggs is:a. a queen antb. a male antc. a worker ant17. The word dinosaur” means terrible:a. alligatorb. lizardc. crocodile39018. When the dinosaurs lived it was:a. warmb. coldc. neither warm nor cold19 The brains of most dinosaurs were:a. largeb. medium-sizedc. tiny20. The most fierce dinosaur was the:a. Corythosaurusb. Tyrannosaurusc. Ankylosaurus21. Most giant plant—eating dinosaurs moved:a. slowb. fastc. neither fast nor slow22 The Triceratops protected themselves with their:a. teethb. tailsc. horns23 A meat-eating dinosaur was the:a. Brontosaurusb. Stegosaurusc. Allosaurus39124 Dinosaurs died out about:a. 65 million years agob. 265 million years agoc. 465 million years ago25 New Guinea is near to:a. Africab. South Americac. Australia26. Compared to the size of Greenland, New Guinea is:a. smallerb. the samec. larger27. In New Guinea there is:a. no winterb. a short winterc. a long winter28. Most meat which were eaten by the people in New Guineacame from:a. cowsb. chickensc. pigs29. Some people in New Guinea grow:a. bananasb. pearsc. apples39230. Some people in New Guinea could make:a. long swordsb stone axesc. metal shields31. Some people of New Guinea wore headdresses made of:a. sealskinb. human hairc. colored paper32. At the fair held by the people of New Guinea, they:a. juggled ballsb. did tricksc. showed their animals33. Winter in the Far North is:a. shortb. longc. neither short nor long34 An igloo was made of:a. snowb. rocksc. brick35. In summer the Inuit lived in:a. igloosb. tentsc. trailers39336. The Inuit’s sleds were pulled by:a. dogsb. horsesc. bears37. Hunters lived in igloos:a. all the timeb. in the summerc. for a while38. The Inuit made thread from the muscles of:a. a foxb. a walrusc. a caribou39. The Inuit are well—known for their carvings of:a. coalb. soapstonec. gold40. Nowadays most Inuit get their food by:a. hunting animalsb. fishing sealsc. shopping at a store394APPENDIX 2QUESTION-MARKERS MATCHING TESTFind the number on the right that best completes thestatement on the left, and write that number in the blanknext to the statement.to answer “why” questions 1. you tell the placethat thingshappened.2. you tell thenumber of things.3. you tell thereasons thatthings are done.4. you tell the timethat thingshappened.5. you tell the namesof things.— to answer “when” questionsto answer “which” questionsto answer “where” questionsto answer “how many” questions395APPENDIX 3RESEARCHER-DEVELOPED READING STRATEGY RATING SCALEPoint to the face that best describes how you feel when youhear the following sentences.:\ GE)NEUTRAL1 2 3 4 5A. I understood all thesentences.B. I guessed what would come inthe following sentences.C. My guess about what wouldcome in the next sentencewas rightD. I used what I already knewto help me understand thispassage.E. I read some sentences againthat I didn’t understand.F. I just went on reading whenI came to some difficultwords.G. When I read I thought aboutsomething I had seen onthe TV or in movies.H. When I read some sentencesI said to myself, “I don’tget it”.1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5STRONGLYDI SAGREEDI SAGREE AGREE STRONGLYAGREE1 2 3 4 5396I. I think the writer forgotto write some facts Iknow about (whales orinsects) 1 2 3 4 53. I stopped and thought aboutthe meaning of some hardsentences. 1 2 3 4 5K. The writer made me remembersome things that hadhappened to me. 1 2 3 4 5L. Some difficult words becamemore clear after I readmore sentences. 1 2 3 4 5M. When I read some sentences,I remembered some factsmy teacher or my mom ordad had told me. 1 2 3 4 5N. I could “see” picturesin my head when I readsome sentences. 1 2 3 4 50. I had to read some sentencesmore slowly than othersentences 1 2 3 4 5P. I knew a lot about thissubject before I startedreading this passage. 1 2 3 4 5Q. When I read some sentences,I thought some facts weremissing, and I added orfilled in those facts. 1 2 3 4 5R. I read a book about (whales,or insects). 1 2 3 4 5397Point to the face that best describes how you feel when youhear the following sentences.CCDISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE1 2 3 4 5A. I understood the meaningof the questions 1 2 3 4 5B. I knew the answers becausethey were about some thingsmy teacher or my mom or dadhadtoldme. 1 2 3 4 5C. I got the answers byremembering what I hadjust read. 1 2 3 4 5D. I got the ideas for theanswers from watching TVormovies. 1 2 3 4 5E. The answers were from thesentences I just read. 1 2 3 4 5F. I had to think a lot toanswer some questions. 1 2 3 4 5G. I had to use two sentencesin the passage to answersome questions. 1 2 3 4RESEARCHER-DEVELOPED QUESTION-ANSWERING STRATEGY RATINGSCALESTRONGLYDISAGREESTRONGLYAGREE5H. I was sure about my answers. 1 2 3 4 5398I. My answers came from whatI have seen around me. 1 2 3 4 53. The answers just came tomy mind. 1 2 3 4 5K. I had to read the passageagain to answer some questions 1 2 3 4 5L. I guessed some