اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 348 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,872 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,268,196 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,404,418 |
Reading Comprehension Passages of Iranian General English Books and MA Reading Comprehension Tests: A Corpus Analysis | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 2، شماره 2، خرداد 2015، صفحه 77-98 اصل مقاله (672.36 K) | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Seyyed Bagher Mirshojaee1؛ Rahman Sahragard2 | ||
| 1PhD student of Shiraz university | ||
| 2Associate Professor of Applies Linguistics at Shiraz University | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 17 فروردین 1395، تاریخ پذیرش: 17 فروردین 1395 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This is a corpus study aimed to compare six Iranian general English university textbook’s reading comprehension passages and the passages of reading comprehension section of MA exams from 2010 to 2014. The study used three reading related factors to make the comparison: vocabulary coverage, syntactic complexity and discourse features. To meet these needs, three test types were used: measures of vocabulary coverage by the vocabprofiler software, measures of readability by means of readability formulas and measures of text easibility of the Coh-Metrix software. The analyses showed a big gap between what textbooks offered with regard to vocabulary, structures and discourse and what the MA examinations asked from the readers regarding the reading comprehension processes. The findings and results were presented along with the pedagogical implications and some suggestions for future researches. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| reading comprehension؛ vocabulary coverage؛ readability؛ text easibility | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| متون انگلیسی آزمون کارشناسی ارشد و کتب زبان عمومی: مطالعه تحلیل پیکره | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| سید باقر میر شجاعی1؛ رحمان صحراگرد2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری دانشگاه شیراز | ||
| 2دانشیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه شیراز | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| مطالعهی فرا روی شما با روش تحلیل پیکره به مقایسه ی متون درک مطلب آزمون های کارشناسی ارشد و کتب زبان عمومی پرداخته است. سه عامل مرتبط با مهارت درک مطلب جهت مقایسه متون انتخاب شده به کار رفته است: گسترهی واژگانی، پیچیدگی نحوی، و مشخصه های گفتمانی. از سه روش تحلیل متون مطالبات واژگانی متون، قابلیت خواندن، و آسانی و از سه نرم افزار vocabprofliler, readable.com, cohmetrix مربوط به هر یک از این مشخصه ها، استفاده شده است. تحلیل ما نشان داده است که شکاف بزرگی بین کتب زبان عمومی و آزمون های کارشناسی ارشد از نظر هر سه فاکتور مورد مطالعه وجود دارد. در پایان، علاوه بر ارائه نتایج به دست آمده از این مطالعه به صورت توصیفی، کاربست این تحقیق و محدودیت ها ی تحقیق حاضر برشمرده شده است و پیشنهاداتی برای محققان بعدی داده شده است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| درک مطلب, مطالبات واژگانی, قابلیت خواندن, آسانی متون | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alderson J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Alimohammadi, A., Khalili, H. (2011). General English. Tehran: Payam Noor publication.
Baker, F. (2013). How can corpora be used in language testing? In A. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 633-45). London: Routledge.
Birjandi, P. (2012). Basic English for university students. Tehran: SAMT Publication.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practice. New York: Pearson Education.
Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 15-30.
Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 37-54.
DuBay, W. H. (2007). Smart language. California: Impact information.
Flesch R. 1948. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221‐233.
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of applied psychology, 32(3), 221-228. Ghasemzadeh, A., Honarvar, A., Jalalipour, J., Nejati, R. (2009). Basic English readings for university Students. Tehran: Shahid Rajaee University Publication.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371-398.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
Gunning, R. (1952).The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill International Book Co. Gunning, R. (1968). The techniques of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hargis, G. (2000). Readability and computer documentation. ACM journal of computer documentation, 24(3), 122‐131.
Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J. H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second language vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17, 145-163.
Hu, M., & Nation, P. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403-430.
Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 403-430.
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jahandar, S., Khodabandehlou, M., Golijani, B., Abbasi, S. (2008). General English reading for university students. Chaboksar: Novin Pouya Publication.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klare, G. R. (1984). Readability. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp.681-744). New York: Longman.
Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 15-30.
McCallum, D. R., & Peterson, J. L. (1982). Computer-based readability indexes. In Proceedings of the ACM'82 Conference (pp. 44-48). ACM. McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of reading, 12(8), 639-646. McLaughlin, G. H. 1969. SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of reading, 22, 639‐646.
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (vol.51) (pp. 297-384). New York: Elsevier Science.
Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 261-276.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nation, I. S. P. (2011). Research into practice: Vocabulary. Language Teaching, 44(4), 529-539.
Pourgive, F., Tajalli, G., Sadighi, F., Yamini, M. (2005). Reading for general English. Tehran: SAMT Publication.
VanderVeen, A., Huff, K., Gierl, M., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., & Graesser, A. C. (2007). Developing and validating instructionally relevant reading competency profiles measured by the critical reading section of the SAT reasoning test. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 137-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yazdani Moghaddam, M., Seyyedrrezaee, S. H., Rajabi, M., & Barani, G.(2011). Live reading. Tehran: Rahnama Publication. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,047 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,077 |
||