4__

Effects of Reader's Knowledge, Text Type, and Test Type on L1 and L2 ReadingComprehension in SpanishAuthor(s): Cindy BrantmeierSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 89, No. 1 (Spring, 2005), pp. 37-53Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern LanguageTeachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3588550Accessed: 09/04/2010 19:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3588550?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

Effects of Reader's Knowledge, Text

Type, and Test Type on L1 and L2

Reading Comprehension in Spanish CINDY BRANTMEIER Washington University Department of Romance Languages and Literatures

Campus Box 1077 One Brookings Drive St. Louis, MO 63130-4899 Email: cbrantme@artsci. wustl. edu

The present study examined how a reader's subject knowledge, the analogy versus nonanalogy difference in text type, and type of test (written recall, sentence completion, and multiple choice) affect first language (L1) and second language (L2) reading comprehension. There were three participant groups: (a) 53 native Costa Ricans enrolled in advanced English as a Foreign Language courses in SanJos6, Costa Rica; (b) 102 university-level students of intermediate Spanish in the United States; and (c) 138 university students of advanced Spanish in the United States. The participants read two scientific passages, two versions each (Hammadou, 2000). Analysis of covariance revealed that subject knowledge related significantly to reading comprehension as measured by three assessment tasks. However, the addition of analogies to scientific texts did not compensate for the lack of subject knowledge. There was no overall positive effect of the analogy text type on L1 and L2 comprehension as measured by recall, sentence completion, and multiple choice tests. The positive effect for the nonanalogy version held for the recall task. The participants scored higher on the nonanalogy version of both texts than on the analogy version when assessed by the recall test; no such differences emerged for either passage on the sentence completion and multiple choice tests.

AT THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL, SECOND

language (L2) readers are motivated for various reasons: Some students want to read authentic literary texts of the target culture, and others learn to read so that they can use their L2 reading skills in a professional setting after

graduation. In order to satisfy the motivations of all students studying Spanish, the authors of the most widely used 1st- and 2nd-year textbooks for

university-level Spanish are beginning to include such readings as newspaper articles, reports about social issues, encyclopedia-like vignettes about historical events, and excerpts from science and medical journals.1 Many L2 textbooks incor- porate analogies into the readings in order to aid the L2 reader because, presumably, analogies

The Modern Language Journal, 89, i, (2005) 0026-7902/05/37-53 $1.50/0 ?2005 The Modern Language Journal

simplify the content of the text; that is, they provide transitions, similes, and metaphors.

And yet, Hammadou (2000) reported that

analogies did not aid the L2 reading comprehension process of university-level students in French. She assessed comprehension via a written recall test by asking students to write down everything they remembered from a text they had just read. Would the same results be obtained if comprehension assessment tasks involved an open response task such as a sentence completion test and a limited response task such as a multiple choice test?

The use of analogies as a reading aid is grounded in research involving first language (LI) reading with children (Rumelhart & Norman, 1981; Ortony, 1983) and is frequently found in teaching children to read in their L1 (Brisk & Harrington, 2000). It would appear use- ful, then, to compare research about comprehension with analogies in LI and L2 situations. A

_ _

l: :

38

review of the research database revealed, however, only a few studies of this nature. The present in-

vestigation considered whether or not the com- bination of subject knowledge and the text type (analogy vs. nonanalogy), as well as the test type (written recall, sentence completion, and multiple choice), influence LI and L2 reading com-

prehension in Spanish among adults. More specifically, the present study examined

whether adding analogies to the scientific passages with the intention of making unfamiliar L1 and L2 texts easier has the expected effect when comprehension is measured via various assessment tasks.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Prior Studies about Subject Knowledge

In L2 reading studies, the term subject knowledge is often referred to by such names as content

knowledge, domain knowledge, topic knowledge, back-

ground knowledge, and readers'schema. The extent to which subject knowledge affects L2 reading has been widely explored in research on participants studying English as a second language (ESL) both within and outside the United States (Biigel & Buunk, 1996; Carrell, 1984a, 1984b; Hudson, 1982; Johnson, 1981; Mohammed & Swales, 1984; Pritchard, 1990; Steffensen, Joag-dev, &

Anderson, 1979) as well as in studies of participants in foreign language programs in the United States (Brantmeier, 2002, 2003; Schueller, 1999; Young & Oxford, 1997). The results of the studies cited highlight the fact that topic knowledge, whether familiar or unfamiliar, can be a highly influential force in L2 reading comprehension. Given this finding, it is easy to understand the belief that analogies might aid L2 comprehension of unfamiliar texts. If the topic of a text is

conceptually difficult or unfamiliar, additions to it could make it easier to comprehend. Analogies might serve to anchor new information to the ex-

isting knowledge in the cognitive domain of the reader.

Prior Studies of Text Type

The term text type often surfaces in discus- sions about structure or organization, both of which are present in the text and can be rec-

ognized directly. How paragraphs relate to each other and how the connections among ideas are

signaled or not signaled (including the use of similes and metaphors) have been areas of in-

quiry for some time (Beck, McKeown, Sinatra, &

The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

Loxterman, 1991; Kintsch & Yarbrough, 1982; Meyer, 1975). Researchers have investigated how different text types might influence comprehension in LI studies (Hiebert, Englert, & Brennan, 1983; Englert & Hiebert, 1984; Mandler, 1978) and L2 studies (Carrell, 1984a, 1984b, 1985). The most frequent research on text type examines differences in the comprehension and processing of

expository and narrative texts (Alderson, 2000). For example, when reading a L2 narrative text, readers often visualize or form a mental repre- sentation of what they are reading (Denis, 1982). Consequently, the use of analogies in the L2 read-

ing of scientific texts may help the visualization

process. With analogies, readers may easily visualize

scenes through personal associations. When faced with new words or phrases in a text, L2 readers

may process how ideas in the text are related to each other with the use of analogy. Furthermore, analogies may arouse interest and curiosity and

consequently may affect the reader's comprehension positively. However, research has shown that L2 readers use a large proportion of their cognitive resources to decode words and identify syntactic structures of sentences, both bottom-up processes (Bernhardt, 1987). The added structural features of an analogy may hinder successful com-

prehension of a scientific text because of the additional linguistic properties.

Some L1 reading researchers have manipu- lated text structure by creating readings that include or do not include structural material such as topic sentences and signal words (e.g., Kieras, 1985; Meyer, 1975; Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980), and a few L2 studies have added structural and lexical properties, such as analogies, to texts

(Hammadou, 1991, 2000). In a review of LI read-

ing research on text structure, Roller (1990) concluded that studies have produced contradictory results and, in the process, have left researchers of text structure with no conclusive generalizations about the influence of text structure on comprehension. L2 research examining the effectiveness of text simplification, or the altering of syntactic and lexical properties, also has shown conflict-

ing results (Bernhardt, 1984; Brown, 1987; Leow, 1993, 1997; Tsang, 1987). Therefore, the issue of whether the addition of analogies to unfamiliar scientific texts makes L2 reading easier remains unresolved.

Prior Studies of Test Type

Development of test design and procedures has long been investigated in reading research,

Cindy Brantmeier

and Alderson (2000) argued that there is no one best method for testing reading. Two significant matters of concern to reading researchers are the types of assessment tasks and the language of questions. Some reading assessment measures include multiple choice, written and oral recall, cloze, sentence completion, open-ended- question, true/false, matching activity, checklist, and fill-in-the-blank tests. The outcome of each individual assessment task provides a limited rep- resentation of reading comprehension; however, many reading researchers continue to use only one comprehension assessment task. In order to understand the complete picture and to be able to generalize research findings, a variety of assessment tasks is needed (Bernhardt, 1991). Research has also shown that in order to examine the valid-

ity of reading comprehension tests, the relation-

ships among the tasks should also be analyzed (Bernhardt, 1991). There are some studies that have examined how readers perform on different

types of comprehension assessment tasks (Carrell, 1991; Lee, 1990; Shohamy, 1984; Wolf, 1993). The

present study used the following comprehension tasks: written recall, open-ended sentences, and

multiple choice items. For more than 2 decades, free-written-recall

tests have served to measure the quantity of ideas recalled from L2 texts (Bernhardt, 1983; Brantmeier, 2002, 2003; Carrell, 1984a; Conner, 1984; Lee, 1986; Maxim, 2002; Young & Oxford, 1997). Written recall is an unstructured task that

provides a comprehensive depiction of a reader's

understanding because there is no tester interfer- ence and there are no retrieval cues to facilitate recall (Bernhardt, 1991). Sentence completion uses retrieval cues, but it is an open-response task with certain limits placed on possible answers. The sentences are created so that all possible answers are foreseeable, and the objectivity of scoring de- pends on the comprehensiveness of the answer key. Multiple choice questions, the most widely used means of assessing reading comprehension, include retrieval cues, and the answers are pre- determined with no ambiguity in the scoring of right or wrong answers. Participants are familiar with multiple choice tests; however, the value of multiple choice questions in assessing reading has been disputed for decades.

The review of previous research that examines subject knowledge, text type, and test type led to the following overall question: Does adding analogies to scientific reading passages, with the intention of making unfamiliar L1 and L2 texts easier, have the expected effect when comprehension is measured via various assessment tasks?

39

THE PRESENT STUDY

The following research questions guided this

study.

1. In reading analogy and nonanalogy expository texts, does subject knowledge play a role in LI and L2 comprehension as measured via varied assessment tasks?

2. With L1 and L2 readers, do analogies in expository texts facilitate comprehension, as measured by various assessment tasks (recall, sentence completion, and multiple choice)?

3. With LI and L2 readers, do nonanalogy expository texts better facilitate comprehension than analogy expository texts as measured by the aforementioned comprehension assessment tasks?

Participants

The first group of participants in the present study consisted of 53 university-level Costa Rican students of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) who were enrolled in advanced level courses at the Centro Cultural Costarricense Norteamericano located in San Jose, Costa Rica. This binational center, founded in 1945 by the United States Infor- mation Agency (USIA) and the Costa Rican gov- ernment, is a private institution whose mission of promoting cultural exchange and understanding is carried out through a number of programs and

departments, one of which is the EFL Program.2 The second group of participants comprised 102 university-level students of Spanish enrolled in a 2nd-year course, the intermediate level, at a private university in the United States. The third

group of participants consisted of 138 university- level students of Spanish enrolled in sections of an advanced-level grammar and composition course at the same American university. The participants in the second and third groups pursued major and minor degree programs of study in a variety of disciplines, including premedicine, computer science, and psychology.3 At this American university there is no L2 requirement. Consequently, the students were not obliged to enroll in the Spanish classes.

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES

Reading Passages

Four reading passages (two topics, two versions each with one in Spanish and one in English, one with analogies and one without) were adapted

40

from Hammadou's (2000) study and were con- structed specifically for research purposes (see Appendix A for selections in English from the

analogy and nonanalogy versions of both passages). For the present study, each English version of each passage was assessed for syntactic complexity following Barry and Lazarte's (1995) rubric.4 See Table 1 for a list of numbers of words and clauses in each version of the two passages. The first passage described the human eye. The nonanalogy, English version explained the function of the eye in approximately 159 words with 22 embedded clauses. The analogy version com-

pared the eye to a camera and used approximately 191 words and 26 embedded clauses. The second

passage described the chain reaction of nuclear fission. The nonanalogy version explained nuclear fission in approximately 241 words including 31 embedded clauses. The analogy version com-

pared nuclear fission to population explosions in mice and consisted of 365 total words with 45 embedded clauses. Two different passages with different lengths and content were used in the present study so that the findings would be generalizable to similar groups of participants who read a variety of texts.

Assessment Tasks and Data Collection

The multiple choice items for the present study met the following criteria: all items were

absolutely passage dependent (Bernhardt, 1991; Wolf, 1993) and the test takers were not able to determine correct responses by looking at the other questions on the page (Brantmeier, 2003). Each of the multiple choice questions had four response choices: one correct response and three distractors. All distractors were plausible (Alderson, 2000), and all multiple-choice questions were designed so that they could be an- swered correctly only if the participant had read and understood the relevant passages.

TABLE 1 Number of Words and Embedded Clauses for Both Passage Versions in English

Passage Topic Analogy Nonanalogy

Eye Word Count 191 159 Embedded Clauses 26 22

Chain Reaction Word Count 365 241 Embedded Clauses 45 31

The Modern LanguageJournal 89 (2005)

The recall task, which asked the readers to write down as much as they could remember about each

passage, was written in the reader's LI in order to avoid testing writing skills rather than reading comprehension (Lee, 1987; Shohamy, 1982, 1984; Wolf, 1993).5 In fact, in the present study, all three

comprehension assessment tasks were written in the reader's L1, regardless of the language of the

passage. Topic experts and reading specialists were con-

sulted concerning the construction of the content of the sentence completion and multiple choice questions. The questions referenced only information from the scientific portion of each passage; they did not focus on any of the analo-

gies added to the texts. Given the length of the

readings, five sentence completion and five mul-

tiple choice questions were used, including one overall global comprehension question, as well as detail-oriented items. Examples of comprehension test items in the three task formats appear in

Appendix B. Data collection took place in the participants'

classrooms during regular class time. On two different days, the participants received a packet con-

taining the following: a consent form, a reading passage, a recall comprehension task page, a sentence completion test, and a multiple choice com-

prehension test. All participants read one version of both passages (both analogy versions in either

English or Spanish or both nonanalogy versions in either English or Spanish) and completed all measures for the passages. Because there was a

response for each sentence completion question that corresponded to an item in each multiple choice question (Wolf, 1993), the participants did the sentence completion task before the multiple choice questions. Half of each group of participants read the English versions of both passages and the other half read the Spanish versions of both passages. Before beginning the experiment, the participants were told that they would read a passage in their second/foreign language or in their L1 and that once they read it and began the following sections, they could not look back at the passage. The researcher or a research assistant was present at all data-collection sessions and gave the same instructions to all participants. Approximately 2 to 3 weeks after completing the measures, all participants completed a subject knowledge test in their LI that included 12 mul-

tiple choice questions about the topic that differed from what was directly stated in the passages (Hammadou, 2000). The reason for conducting the subject knowledge test weeks after the experiment was so that the questions would not activate

Cindy Brantmeier

relevant schemata in the readers. In other words, if the subject knowledge test had been administered before the experiment, readers who pos- sessed subject knowledge might have performed better because of schema activation and, conse-

quently, those with no subject knowledge would have been disadvantaged. It is important to note that the subject knowledge test covered other information about the topic that was not in the passage. The subject knowledge test might have al- tered the readers' comprehension of the topic if administered beforehand, but the passage could not give the answers to the subject test.6

SCORING AND DESIGN

As in the study by Hammadou (2000), each written recall task for both passages in both languages was scored according to procedures developed by Meyer (1985). Idea units were identified as actual content units, as well as rhetorical idea units. This

process entailed counting the number of correct content and rhetorical idea units a participant recalled for each scientific passage. For the participants who read the analogy versions of the two

passages, idea units recalled concerning the anal-

ogy part of the passage were not included. The reason for not including the analogy idea units was that the analogies were to aid the comprehension of the original, scientific passage. Therefore, only correct idea units recalled from the scientific

passage were included in this present study.7 The total number of correct idea units was the index of recall.

Sentence completion items were scored accord-

ing to a template of correct and acceptable answers supplied by the researcher and a research assistant. The written recalls and sentence com-

pletion were scored by both the researcher and a research assistant. Both sets of scores were sub- mitted to correlational analysis to determine in- terrater reliability. Raters agreed on all scores for the sentence completion items. For recall, inter- rater reliability was .97. A third rater was con- sulted when there was disagreement about recalls to reach a final decision. The total number of correct answers was used for the dependent variables, recall, sentence completion, and multiple choice, respectively.

A 2 x 4 research design was used for the study. The three between-subjects variables were: L1 or L2; Analogy or Nonanalogy; and Group (U.S. In- termediate, U.S. Advanced, or Costa Rican). The within-subjects variable was the type of passage: the eye passage and the chain reaction passage. The covariate was subject knowledge. Dependent

41

TABLE 2 Tests of Subject Knowledge: Mean Scores and (Standard Deviations)

Eye Chain Passage Reaction

Group N (SD) (SD)

Costa Rican 53 4.7 (2.4) 3.9 (2.3) U.S. Intermediate 102 5.8 (2.0) 6.8 (2.1) U.S. Advanced 138 6.2 (1.9) 7.1 (1.8) Total 293 5.8 (2.1) 6.4 (2.3)

Note. The highest score possible for both tests of subject knowledge was 12.

variables were recall, sentence completion, and

multiple choice questions.8

RESULTS

The data were subjected to 2 x 2 x 2 x 2

(Group: U.S. groups vs. Costa Rican x L1 vs. L2 x

Analogy vs. Nonanalogy x Passage: Eye vs. Chain Reaction) analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs), with the latter variable treated as a repeated measure and subject knowledge included as the covariate.

Subject Knowledge

An initial analysis focused on whether the

groups of participants differed in their knowledge of the topics used in the passages. The relevant means and standard deviations appear in Table 2.

Separate one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated significant group differences (Table 3), due largely to differences in scores between the Costa Rican and the combined U.S. groups. The two different L2 groups from the United States

outperformed the LI Costa Rican readers on the

TABLE 3 ANOVAs on Subject Knowledge by Passage

Source df MS F p

Eye Passage Between Groups 2 81.3 9.8 .00* Within Groups 290 1209.3

Total 292 1290.6

Chain Reaction Passage Between Groups 2 207.9 50.8 .00* Within Groups 290 4.1

Total 292

*p < .05.

42

test of subject knowledge for both the eye passage and the chain reaction passage.

Prior content knowledge and the analogy variable did not interact. When they read the analogy versions, readers with low content knowledge did not perform significantly better than readers with

high content knowledge, as indexed by three com-

prehension tasks. Subject knowledge related significantly to overall reading comprehension. For the eye passage, there was a significant main effect of subject knowledge for recall, F(1, 291) =

2.51, p .01, sentence completion, F(1, 291) 4.10, p = .00, and the multiple choice items, F(1, 291) = 3.79, p = .00. For the chain reaction

passage, there was also a significant main effect of subject knowledge for recall, F(1, 291) = 3.41, p .00, sentence completion, F(, 291) 4.32, p = .00, and multiple choice, F(1, 291) = 4.08, p .00.

Analogy and Assessment Variables

One major goal of this study was to determine whether the analogy versions of both passages would be associated with better participant com-

prehension than the nonanalogy versions of the

passages. Sample means and standard deviations for the main effect of analogy/nonanalogy for all comprehension tasks appear in Table 4. As the table shows, participant scores were strikingly higher for the nonanalogy version of both texts when the recall task was the measure. No such re- markable differences emerged for sentence com-

pletion or multiple choice although scores for the nonanalogy version were slightly higher in all cases.

The results of the ANCOVAs (discussed in detail later with Tables 5, 6, 7) indicated that the main effect for analogy/nonanalogy for each passage was significant for recall, but not for sentence

completion and multiple choice. More specifi-

TABLE 4 Analogy and Nonanalogy Versions: Overall Mean Comprehension Scores and (Standard Deviations) Adjusted for Prior Content Knowledge

Passage Topic Analogy (SD) Nonanalogy (SD)

Eye Recall 14.4 (4.9) 20.8 (6.3) SC 3.7 (1.4) 4.2 (1.0) MC 3.0 (1.1) 3.9 (1.1)

Chain Reaction Recall 14.9 (6.7) 20.4 (9.8) SC 3.6 (1.5) 4.0 (1.2) MC 3.3 (1.4) 3.4 (1.4)


cally, for the eye/camera analogy passage, the difference from the nonanalogy version was statisti-

cally significant for all three comprehension tasks, but in a negative direction (p < .05). In other words, overall, the participants performed significantly better for the nonanalogy eye passage than for the analogy eye passage on all three comprehension tasks. Likewise, the use of analogy for the chain reaction passage did not positively affect overall comprehension measured via the recall task. The data revealed a significant difference between the analogy and nonanalogy versions of the chain reaction passage measured via recall (p < .05). However, no significant difference between the analogy and nonanalogy version of the chain reaction passage surfaced when comprehension via sentence completion (p = .09) and multiple choice questions (p = .50) were the measures.

In summary, the positive effect for the nonanal-

ogy versions of both passages held for all com-

prehension assessment tasks, with two exceptions: The sentence completion and multiple choice scores did not differ significantly for the analogy and nonanalogy versions of the chain reaction passage. In Appendix C, Figure 1 visually dis-

plays the effects of analogy and nonanalogy on recall, sentence completion, and multiple choice for each passage. As shown, the nonanalogy version of the eye passage was associated with better

performance on all three comprehension assessment tasks in comparison to those for analogy versions of this text. Likewise, higher scores were achieved for recall for the nonanalogy chain reaction passage than for the analogy version of this

passage. Almost the same mean scores existed for sentence completion and multiple choice tasks on the nonanalogy and analogy versions of the chain reaction passage.

Learner Variables, Text Variables, and Comprehension Tasks

Sample means and standard deviations for learner variables (L1/L2 and Group) and text variables (Analogy/Nonanalogy and Eye/Chain Reaction), with subject knowledge as the covariate, appear in Appendix D. The results of the ANCOVAs for the interaction effects of learner variables and text variables on comprehension tasks (recall, sentence completion, and multiple choice) also appear in Tables 5, 6, and 7.

Recall

Table 5 shows between-subject effects for recall. The interaction of L1/L2 and analogy/

nonanalogy variables was significant in the case

TABLE 5 ANOVA for Eye and Chain Reaction Recall Scores

Eye Passage Chain Reaction Passage

Source df MS F p df MS F p

Analogy or Nonanalogy 1 2343.4 83.6 .00* 1 1312.5 23.8 .00* L1 or L2 1 95.3 3.4 .07 1 1835.1 33.2 .00* Group 2 37.1 1.3 .27 2 4.8 0.1 .92 LI or L2 x Analogy or Nonanalogy 1 148.0 5.3 .02* 1 179.0 3.2 .07 L1 or L2 x Group 2 146.5 5.2 .01* 2 162.1 2.9 .06 Analogy or Nonanalogy x Group 2 12.5 0.4 .64 2 1039.0 0.2 .83 L1 or L2 x Analogy or Nonanalogy x Group 2 37.2 1.3 .27 2 3.3 0.1 .94 Error 279 28.0 280 55.2

*p < .05.

of recall for the eye passage (p < .05), but not for the chain reaction passage (p = .07). In the case of the eye passage, the participants scored

significantly higher for the LI and L2 nonanalogy versions than they did for the LI and L2 analogy versions (see Figure 2 in Appendix C). With re-

spect to the chain reaction passage, participants scored higher for the LI and L2 nonanalogy versions than for the L1 and L2 analogy versions. However, as reported previously, these differences were not statistically significant.

The interaction of L1/L2 and Group was significant for recall for the eye passage but not for the chain reaction passage (p = .06). For the eye passage, the Costa Rican group performed better for L2 recall (M = 19.1, SD = 5.6) than for LI recall (M = 16.0, SD = 6.7); however, the Costa Rican group performed better for L1 recall (M = 16.0, SD = 8.4) than for L2 recall (M = 14.7, SD =

7.8) for the chain reaction passage. Both groups from the United States performed better on the LI versions than on L2 versions of both passages.

No significant interaction of the Analogy/ Nonanalogy and Group for recall emerged for either passage. However, close examination of the recall scores for the Costa Rican group and the two separate U.S. groups (see Appendix D) indicates that for the L2 analogy version of the eye passage, the advanced U.S. group scored lower (M = 13.8, SD = 4.4) than both the intermediate U.S. group (M = 16.5. SD = 5.4) and the Costa Rican group (M = 16.4, SD = 3.6).

The three-way interaction of the L1/L2, Group, and Analogy/Nonanalogy variables was not significant for recall for either passage. On the chain reaction passage, the participants scored higher in recall for the LI analogy and nonanalogy versions than for the L2 analogy and nonanalogy versions, with the exception that the Costa Rican

group scored the same for the LI and L2 analogy versions.

The ANOVA revealed no significant effect of the learner variable L1/L2 for overall recall task scores on the eye passage (p = .07) but there was a significant effect for overall recall scores in the case of the chain reaction passage (p < .05). With the LI eye passage recall tasks, the mean score for all participants (M = 17.6, SD -6.9) was es-

sentially the same as their mean score for the recall task on the L2 eye passage (M = 17.5, SD = 5.9). On the recall task for the chain reaction passage, the participants scored higher for the LI version (M = 20.9, SD = 8.9) than they did for the L2 version (M = 14.3, SD = 7.4). No significant differences emerged between the Costa Rican and U.S. groups in total recall scores for either passage.

Sentence Completion

Table 6 shows the results of the ANOVA for

between-subject effects for the sentence completion measure.

There was no significant interaction of the L1/L2 and Analogy/Nonanalogy variables for either passage, however, the interaction of the L1/L2 and Group variables was significant for the chain reaction passage (see Figure 3 in Appendix C). The mean scores for Group on the LI version of the chain reaction passage reveal that overall, U.S. readers (M = 4.4, SD = 1.5) outscored their Costa Rican counterparts (M = 3.4, SD = 0.9). Average scores were the same for the L2 versions of this passage.

No significant interaction of the Analogy/ Nonanalogy and Group variables was evident for either passage. The three-way interaction of the L1/L2, Group, and Analogy/Nonanalogy

Cindy Brantmeier 43

TABLE 6 ANOVA for Eye and Chain Reaction Passage Sentence Completion Scores



Analogy or Nonanalogy 1 19.1 16.0 .00* 1 4.4 2.9 .09 L1 orL2 1 11.5 9.6 .00* 1 27.8 18.2 .00* Group 2 8.0 6.7 .00* 2 0.8 0.5 .58 LI or L2 x Analogy or Nonanalogy 1 0.4 0.3 .58 1 4.2 0.0 .96 LI or L2 x Group 2 2.8 2.3 .10 2 5.2 3.4 .03* Analogy or Nonanalogy x Group 2 2.2 1.9 .16 2 1.9 0.1 .99 L1 or L2 x Analogy or Nonanalogy x Group 2 3.5 3.0 .05* 2 2.9 0.0 .98 Error 280 1.2 280 1.5

*p < .05.

variables was significant for the sentence completion task for the eye passage (p = .05), but not for the chain reaction passage.

The data showed a significant effect of the learner variable L1/L2 for the sentence completion task for both passages (p < .05). Overall, av-

erage scores were higher in the participants' L1 (M = 4.2, SD = 1.0) than in their L2 (M = 3.7, SD =1.4).

For the Group variable, a significant effect was found for sentence completion task scores on the

eye passage (p < .05). Overall, U.S. participants (M = 4.1, SD = 1.1) scored higher than the Costa Rican participants (M = 3.2, SD = 1.4) for all versions of this passage, with one exception: The U.S. intermediate group scored the same as the Costa Ricans on the L1 nonanalogy version of the

eye passage. For the chain reaction passage, no

significant effect was found for the Group variable. However, when the U.S. group scores were

separated by level, the U.S. advanced groups out-

performed the Costa Ricans, with one exception: Both groups had the same mean score for the L2 nonanalogyversion. For this passage, the Costa Ri- can group had higher mean scores than the U.S.

intermediate group for two different versions: the L2 analogy (Costa Rican, M = 3.0, SD = 1.8; U.S. intermediate, M = 2.8, SD = 1.7) and the L2

nonanalogy version (Costa Rican, M = 3.7, SD =

1.4; U.S. intermediate, M = 3.3, SD = 1.6).

Multiple Choice

Table 7 shows the results of the ANOVA for

between-subject effects for the multiple choice measure.

A significant interaction effect of the Analogy/ Nonanalogy and Group variables was present in the case of the eye passage (see Figure 4 in

Appendix C), but not in the chain reaction passage. The average scores for the analogy version of the eye passage (Table 6) revealed that the Costa Rican group (M = 3.5, SD = 1.0) outperformed the U.S. groups (M = 2.9, SD = 1.1). However, the reverse was true in the case of the nonanalogy version of the eye passage: U.S. groups (M = 4.0, SD = 1.0) outperformed the Costa Rican readers

(M = 3.5, SD = 1.4) on the multiple choice task. ANOVA revealed a significant effect of the

L1/L2 variable in the case of the chain reaction

TABLE 7 ANOVA for Eye and Chain Reaction Passage Multiple Choice Scores



Analogy or Nonanalogy 1 24.3 22.9 .00* 1 0.8 0.5 .50 L1 orL2 1 2.5 2.4 .12 1 44.7 27.6 .00*

Group 2 1.2 1.2 .32 2 0.7 0.4 .65 LI or L2 x Analogy or Nonanalogy 1 0.2 0.2 .69 1 1.7 1.1 .30 LI or L2 x Group 2 1.9 0.0 .98 2 0.6 0.3 .71 Analogy or Nonanalogy x Group 2 6.5 6.2 .00* 2 2.2 1.4 .25 L1 or L2 x Analogy or Nonanalogy x Group 2 0.4 0.4 .70 2 2.8 1.7 .18 Error 280 1.1 280 1.6

*p < .05.

44 The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

Cindy Brantmeier

passage (p < .05), but not for the eye passage. Average scores for the LI in the chain reaction

passage were higher than L2 scores. Significant differences for the Analogy/Nonanalogy versions for the eye passage emerged, but not for the chain reaction passage (Table 6).

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Overall, the present study provides more evidence to support Hammadou's (1990, 2000) observation that analogies do not enhance read-

ing comprehension among adults and her conclusion that more research needed to be con- ducted to determine when and why analogies might be helpful. In order to assess comprehension, Hammadou used a recall task. Could Hammadou's results be due to a test-method effect? The different comprehension tasks used in the present study (both production-type tasks as well as fixed-answer tasks) reveal additional insights into the use of analogies to aid comprehension. The present study included learners from two different language backgrounds (Spanish and English) and incorporated three measures of comprehension. The assessment tasks required the readers to understand and produce (via recall and sentence completion) and understand and select (via multiple choice) proof of comprehension for both analogy and nonanalogy texts. The results showed that the addition of analogies in scientific texts did not aid LI and L2 reading comprehension when measured by recall, sentence completion, and multiple choice tests.

More specifically, when the comprehension scores of the analogy and nonanalogy versions of both passages were compared, the added syntactic features and word length of the analogies appeared to hinder comprehension for all but two tasks for one passage. For the eye passage, the readers performed better across all three comprehension tasks for the nonanalogy than for the analogy version, and as in Hammadou's (2000) study, the difference in scores for the analogy versus nonanalogy versions of the eye passage was

significant. For the chain reaction passage, the readers had significantly higher scores on the nonanalogy version of the recall task than on the analogy version and slightly, but not significantly, higher scores on the nonanalogy version of the sentence completion task than on the analogy version (both production-type tasks). The scores were essentially the same for the multiple choice measure. The data provide evidence that the use of analogies in scientific texts may impede comprehension when measured by means of production-type tasks.

45

In the present study, as in Hammadou's (2000) study, there was a significant effect of subject knowledge on comprehension. The U.S. participants scored higher than the Costa Rican students on the subject knowledge test. One might hypothesize that the addition of analogies supple- mented the Costa Rican readers' lack of subject knowledge. However, the findings in the present study reveal that the addition of analogies did not enhance comprehension of unfamiliar texts. The analogy versions of the passages actually appear to have made the readings more difficult to understand, as suggested by the results of the recall and sentence completion tasks. However, a close examination of the differences between groups on the multiple choice questions in the present study revealed that, for the nonanalogy version of the chain reaction passage, the Costa Rican L2 readers scored only 1 point lower than the U.S. groups scored on the L2 analogy version of the same passage. For particular test questions (detail- oriented vs. overall textual gist), the Costa Rican

nonanalogy L2 readers were apparently unable to grasp some specific details of the text. This finding suggests that the added analogies may have en- hanced their ability to understand specific ideas when tested via multiple choice items. However, it is important to note that the difference between the nonanalogy and analogy scores on multiple choice within this group was not significant.

The U.S. groups outperformed the Costa Rican readers on the written recall task for the LI versions of both the analogy and nonanalogy passages but not for the L2 versions of the texts. On the written recall tasks for the L2 versions of both passages, the Costa Ricans scored higher than or the same as the U.S. participants. A possible explanation for this finding could be test coaching, because the Costa Rican readers were advanced ESL students preparing to take the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) examination. Part of the writing component of this exam requires students to read and respond to essays in order to show both reading comprehension and writing abilities. They must demonstrate that they understand an essay by using features from it in their writing. To prepare students for the TOEFL exam, instructors often ask students to recall what they read from a text; therefore, the Costa Rican students may have been previously exposed to this task in their L2 training. The U.S. participants may not have been formally exposed to the written recall procedure in their L2 training because their readings more typically use multiple choice questions as comprehension checks.

All readers in the present study had similar scores for the multiple choice task (fixed-answer

46

questions) for the analogy and nonanalogy versions of the chain reaction passage, but their scores were higher on the L1 versions than on the L2 versions. This finding indicates that for the

longer, more difficult passage, the use of analogies may neither hinder nor enhance comprehension when tested via the standard multiple choice procedure. Berman (1984) reported a significant effect of simplified syntax on reading comprehension scores (measured via multiple choice and

open-ended questions) for two groups of ESL readers. For both measures, readers of the simplified version outperformed their counterparts. In the present study, readers of the analogy version (the version that supposedly aids comprehension) did not outperform readers of nonanalogy versions. These results suggest that the analogy versions may be more difficult for the reader. Berman also stated that comprehension scores for the more complex text indicated more errors for specific information than for overall text gist. Berman concluded that the addition of complex sentences to a text may impede the comprehension of details more than the comprehension of main ideas. In the present study, there were more errors on the detail-oriented sentence completion and multiple choice questions for the analogy version of both texts. If we consider the analogy version to be the more complex text, then these findings parallel those of Berman. In both studies, the addition of sentences hindered the comprehension of details more than the understanding of overall textual

gist. The advanced group from the United States

scored lower than the intermediate U.S. group and the Costa Rican group on the recall for the L2 analogy version of the eye passage, but not for the chain reaction passage. Scores were the same across groups for the sentence completion and

multiple choice tasks. This finding could be an ar- tifact of the test method, the written recall task. At advanced levels of L2 Spanish courses, a central focus of the course is on writing well-organized compositions. Given the emphasis on writing, perhaps the upper-level students were more cautious while writing than they were when completing the other tasks. A closer look at the written recall tasks reveals that the upper-level students wrote their recalls in a narrative-like fashion, and the intermediate students simply wrote down lists of ideas. The instructions were the same for all groups: to write as much as they could remember about the text they just read. Perhaps if the advanced students had simply written lists of ideas, they would have scored the same as the other two groups. The instructions were intended to allow students

autonomy in their recall.


The text length increased considerably with the addition of the analogies, and this may be an intervening variable between the analogy and

nonanalogy texts. A close look at the recall scores shows that all three groups of participants performed better on the recall task for the nonanal-

ogy versions of both passages in both L1 and L2 than on the analogy versions. The nonanalogy texts were shorter and included fewer embedded clauses than the analogy versions. This difference

suggests that the text length and added clauses in the analogies may have increased the readers' burden when they were asked to write everything they could remember about the passage. In a study on linguistic simplification of L2 reading texts of varying lengths and syntactic difficulty, Young (1999) reported that a shorter, simplified text led to higher scores for written recall. However, Young also noted that a closer look at the recall tasks of the shorter text revealed a greater amount of misunderstood information. She concluded that the simplification of short texts could encourage word-level reading with no overall, global under-

standing of the text. Recall task results for the

analogy and nonanalogy texts in the present study should also be analyzed for incorrect information. In addition, if longer scientific passages were used, then more sentence completion and multi-

ple choice questions could be created. Perhaps then there would be greater variation in sentence

completion and multiple choice scores. Recent research has reported gender differ-

ences in topic knowledge and L2 reading comprehension (Brantmeier, 2002, 2003; Bugel & Buunk, 1996; Chavez, 2000; Schueller, 1999). Future studies of analogies, background knowledge, and assessment measures could yield interesting insights into gender-related issues in L2 reading. Perhaps at certain levels of language acquisition, analogies may aid the comprehension of texts that predis- pose one or the other gender toward success.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

For many L2 readers, content-area reading is often a frustrating and complex process. Text- book writers at times try to ease the demanding L2 reading challenge by adding analogies to the written passages. In the present study, there was an apparently negative effect of analogy texts on

comprehension, as measured by recall, sentence

completion, and multiple choice comprehension assessment tasks with adult LI and L2 Spanish and ESL learners. The changes and additions to scientific texts via analogies to make unfamiliar LI and L2 texts easier to understand did not have

Cindy Brantmeier

the expected positive effect on comprehension. In fact, in the present investigation, the addition of analogies to scientific texts appeared to make the reading process even more multifarious. How-

ever, more research of this type needs to be con- ducted with varied sample populations and read-

ing passages before authors and text constructors are alerted to the potential added difficulty and demands that analogies may bring to L2 adult

language learners. The present study, along with Hammadou's (1990, 2000) investigations, have shown that analogic changes to scientific passages do not have the expected positive effect on L2

comprehension. Nevertheless, given the interplay of other factors involved in L2 reading, this area of inquiry is worthy of more sustained and exhaus- tive inquiry.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual conference of the American Association of

Applied Linguistics, Portland, OR, in May 2004. I would like to thank JoAnn Hammadou Sullivan for her assistance in the creation of data collection instruments. I would also like to acknowledge gratefully the assistance

provided by Yazmina Moreno-Florido in data coding, and thank Mike Strube for his statistical advice. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to the four anonymous reviewers for their very insightful comments.

NOTES

1 Examples of textbooks that include scientific read-

ings are Que te parece, Conexiones, and Atando Cabos. 2 The researcher was employed by USIA and, in the

past, has worked at this language center, therefore she had special permission to conduct the study.

3At Washington University in St. Louis, many students are premedicine majors and express the desire to read more scientific readings in Spanish.

4 Syntactic complexity was defined by the number of embedded clauses per sentence.

5 Upton (1993) found with advanced ESL learners that recall scores were not affected by language of recall. Because of the dearth in other studies to support this finding, the researcher chose to use the LI as the language of written recalls.

6 A potential limitation of this study is that the readers' knowledge of the subject as revealed via the subject knowledge test could have been influenced by the experiment that was administered beforehand.

7Hammadou (2000) included both the correct idea units recalled from the scientific passage and the analogy additions and then calculated a percentage correct based on the text versions.

47

8The justification for using ANOVA instead of MANOVA is that the MANOVA may produce a distorted

impression of the relationship of the independent variables to the dependent variables. The recall and sentence completion are production-type tasks, and the

multiple choice is a fixed-answer task.

REFERENCES

Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. (1995). Embedded clause effects on recall: Does high prior knowledge of content domain overcome syntactic complexity in students of Spanish? Modern LanguageJournal, 79, 491-504.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, M., & Loxterman, A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of

improved comprehensibility. International Reading Association, 26, 251-276.

Berman, R. A. (1984). Syntactic components of the for-

eign language reading process. In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign lan-

guage (pp. 139-159). Harlow, England: Longman. Bernhardt, E. B. (1983). Three approaches to reading

comprehension in intermediate German. Modern

LanguageJournal, 67, 111-115. Bernhardt, E. B. (1984). Towards an information pro-

cessing perspective in foreign language reading. Modern Language Journal, 68, 322-331.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1987). Cognitive processes in L2: An examination of reading behaviors. In J. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Eds.), Delaware Symposia on Language Studies: Research in second language acquisition in the classroom setting (pp. 35-50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second

language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Brantmeier, C. (2002). The effects of passage con-

tent on second language reading comprehension by gender across instruction levels. In J. Ham- madou Sullivan (Ed.), Research in second language learning: Literacy and the second language learner

(pp. 149-176). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Brantmeier, C. (2003). Does gender make a difference?

Passage content and comprehension in second

language reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 1-27.

Brisk, M. E., & Harrington, M. M. (2000). Literacy and

bilingualism. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, R. I. (1987). A comparison of the comprehen-

sibility of modified and unmodified reading materials for ESL. The University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 6, 49-79.

Bigel, K., & Buunk, B. P. (1996). Sex differences in foreign language text comprehension: The role of interests and prior knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 80, 15-31.

Carrell, P. L. (1981). Culture-specific schemata in L2 comprehension. In R. Orem &J. F Haskell (Eds.),

48

Selected papers from the Ninth Illinois TESOL/BE

(pp. 123-132). Chicago: Illinois TESOL/BE. Carrell, P. L. (1984a). The effects of rhetorical organizat-

ion on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 441- 469.

Carrell, P. L. (1984b). Evidence of a formal schemata in second language comprehension. Language Learning, 34, 87-112.

Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727-752.

Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 462-481.

Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12, 159-179.

Chavez, M. (2000). Gender in the language classroom. New York: McGraw Hill.

Conner, U. (1984). Recall of text: Differences between first and second language readers. TESOL Quar- terly, 18, 239-256.

Denis, M. (1982). Imaging while reading text: A study of individual differences. Memory and Cognition, 10, 540-545.

Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children's de-

veloping awareness of text structures in expository materials.Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 394-401.

Hammadou,J. (1990). The effects of analogy on French

reading comprehension. The French Review, 64, 239-252.

Hammadou, J. (2000). The impact of analogy and content knowledge on reading comprehension: What

helps, what hurts. Modern Language Journal, 84, 38-50.

Hiebert, E. H., Englert, C. S., & Brennan, S. (1983). Awareness of text structure in recognition and production of expository discourse. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 63-79.

Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the short-circuit in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learn-

ing, 32, 1-32.

Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 169-181.

Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on comprehension of build-

ing background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 503-516.

Kieras, D. E. (1985). Thematic processes in the comprehension of technical prose. In B. K. Britoon &J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 89-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kintsch, W., & Yarbrough, J. C. (1982). Role of rhetorical structure on text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 828-834.

Lee, J. F. (1986). On the use of the recall task to measure L2 reading comprehension. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 8, 201-212. Lee, J. F. (1990). A review of empirical compar-

isons of nonnative reading behaviors across stages of language development. In H. Burmeister & P. Rounds (Eds.), Variability in second language


acquisition (pp. 453-72). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Press.

Lee,J. F., & Ballman, T. L. (1987). Learners' ability to recall and rate important ideas of an expository text. In B. VanPatten, T. R. Dvorack, & J. F Lee (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 108-117). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Leow, R. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 333-355.

Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers' comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8, 151-182.

Mandler,J. M. (1978). A code in the node: The use of story schemata in retrieval. Discourse Processes, 1, 14-35.

Maxim, H. (2002). A study into the feasibility and effects of reading extended authentic discourse in the

beginning German language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 86, 20-35.

Meyer, B. J. F (1975). The organization of prose and its

effect on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton &J. B. Black

(Eds.), A theoretical and practical handbook for an-

alyzing explanatory text (pp. 11-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Meyer, B. J. E, Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72-103.

Mohammed, M. A., & Swales, J. M. (1984). Factors af-

fecting the successful reading of technical instructions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 2, 206-217.

Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research

Quarterly, 25, 273-295. Roller, C. M. (1990). The interaction of knowledge and

structure variables in the processing of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 79-89.

Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1981). Analogi- cal processes in reading. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 335-359). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schueller,J. (1999). The effect of two types of strategy train-

ing on foreign language reading comprehension. An

analysis by gender and proficiency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin- Madison.

Shohamy, E. (1982). Affective considerations in language testing. Modern Language Journal, 66, 13-17.

Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make the difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 1, 147-170.

Steffensen, M. S.,Joag-dev, C., &Anderson, R. C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 10-29.

Tsang, W.-K. (1987). Text modifications in ESL reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Hawai'i, Manoa.

Cindy Brantmeier 49

Upton, T. (1993). The influence of first and second lan- Young, D. J. (1999). Linguistic simplification of sec-

guage use on the comprehension and recall of written ond language reading material: Effective instruc-

English texts by Japanese readers. Unpublished doc- tional practice? Modern Language Journal, 83, 350- toral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Min- 366.

neapolis. Young, D.J., & Oxford, R. (1997). A gender-related anal- Wolf, D. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used ysis of strategies used to process input in the na-

to measure FL reading comprehension. Modern tive language and a foreign language. Applied Lan-

Language Journal, 77, 473-489. guage Learning, 8, 43-73.

APPENDIX A Selections from the Analogy and Nonanalogy passages

THE EYE (without analogy)

The role of the eye is to perceive illuminated objects. It focuses on them and projects the image on the retina. The retina in turn analyzes this image and transmits the visual message to the brain. This entire mechanism is necessary in order for us to see. The eye focuses distinctly at any distance because its optic system accommodates automatically. Thus we can see well

objects that are millimeters from us as well as objects that are very far...

THE EYE (with analogy)

In fact, it functions a little like a camera. Just like a camera, the eye can first adjust when it focuses on illuminated

objects. Then it projects the image on something that has the same function as film and is called the retina. The retina analyzes this image and transmits the visual message to the brain, in other words it develops the film to obtain a picture a little later. To take a picture, it is necessary to regulate three things: the time, the shutter and the distance. The accommodations

system of the eye serves a similar function to the regulating of the distance between a subject and the camera lens. Thanks to this system, the eye focuses clearly at any distance...

CHAIN REACTIONS (Nonanalogy passage)

Chain reactions are chemical or physico-chemical reactions whose speed increases rapidly and which become explo- sive. The nuclear fission reaction, for example that of uranium, is a chain reaction. When a uranium atom receives a neutron, it disintegrates into several lighter atoms and emits energy and several new neutrons. Each neutron will be able to strike another uranium atom, which, in turn, will disintegrate emitting several neutrons. FThe speed of the nuclear reaction, that is the number of disintegrations by unit of time, increases exponentially and becomes infinitely large: This is the explosion. For there actually to be an explosion, it is necessary for the emitted neutrons to be able to strike the uranium atoms. For that, a sufficiently large number of uranium atoms is needed, in other words, a large enough mass. If the sample of uranium has a mass less than a certain value, called critical mass, too many neutrons escape from the sample without having encountered any other uranium atoms. Then, the speed of the reaction remains low....

CHAIN REACTIONS (analogy passage)

Chain reactions are chemical or physico-chemical reactions whose speed increases rapidly and which become explo- sive. The nuclear fission reaction, for example that of uranium, is a chain reaction. One can compare chain reactions to the development of a population of mice. When a mouse is fertilized, it gives birth to several mice. When a uranium atom receives a neutron, it disintegrates into several lighter atoms and emits energy and gives birth to several new neutrons. Each emitted atom will be able to strike another uranium atom, which, in turn, will disintegrate emitting several neutrons. In the same way the female mice will be able to reproduce and each give birth to several new mice. The quantity of mice and the number of births per day increase exponentially and become very large. In the same way, the speed of the nuclear reaction, that is, the number of disintegrations by unit of time, increases exponentially and becomes infinitely large: This is the explosion. If the mice spread out over a large territory (to look for food for example), they have few chances to meet, and the

population is not going to increase rapidly. For the same reason, if the sample of uranium has a mass less than a certain value, called critical mass, too many neutrons escape from the sample without having encountered any other uranium atoms. Then, the speed of the reaction remains low....

APPENDIX B

Example of Test Item That Is Equivalent in Test Formats for Both Passages

Eye Passage Recall

Sentence Completion

Multiple Choice

Chain Reaction Passage Recall

Sentence Completion

Multiple Choice

English Without looking back at the text, write in English all that you remember about the text. Try to mention the main ideas as well as details. The emphasis is on the quantity of ideas recalled.

Spanish Sin mirar el texto, escibe en espanol todo lo que recuerdes del mismo. Trata de mencionar las ideas mas importantes asi como detalles. El 6nfasis radica en la cantidad de ideas recordadas.

English According to the passage, the iris

Spanish Segun el pasaje, el iris

English According to the passage, what part of the eye regulates the amount of light that penetrates the eye?

a. the iris / b. the pupil / c. the retina / d. the optical system Spanish Segin el pasaje, <qu6 parte del ojo manda la cantidad de luz que

penetra el ojo? a. el iris / b. la pupila / c. la retina / d. el sistema optico

English Without looking back at the text, write in English all that you remember about the text. Try to mention the main ideas as well as details. The emphasis is on the quantity of ideas recalled.

Spanish Sin mirar el texto, escibe en espanol todo lo que recuerdes del mismo. Trata de mencionar las ideas mas importantes asi como detalles. El enfasis radica en la cantidad de ideas recordadas.

English According to the passage, if you want to control the speed of the nuclear reaction, it is necessary

Spanish Segun el pasaje, en una reaccion nuclear, si se quiere controlar la velocidad de la reaccion es necesario

English According to the passage, if one wants to control the speed of the nuclear reaction, it is necessary...

(a) to prevent many of the emitted neutrons from striking the uranium atoms. (b) to try to strike as many of the neutrons as

possible. (c) to prevent the amount of cadmium. (d) to try to increase the emitted neutrons.

Spanish Segfn el pasaje, en una reaccitn nuclear, si se quiere controlar la velocidad de la reaccion es necesario...

(a) evitar muchos de los neutrones emitidos por el choque de los atomos de uranio. (b) tratar de chocar con muchos de los neutrones. (c) evitar la cantidad de cadmio. (d) tratar de incrementar los neutrones emitidos.

50 The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

APPENDIX C

Figures Showing Effects of Analogy versus Nonanalogy Texts on Tasks Measuring Reading Comprehension

FIGURE 1 Recall, Sentence Completion, and Multiple Choice Tasks for the Two Passages

Eye IPassage

- Recall

- Sentence Completion

- MMuIltiple Choice

( '5b~

Nonanalogy

--- Recall

-!-- Sentence Completion

-- Mtltiple Choice

Nonanallog

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

9

Analogy

(hain Reaction Passage 299

20 -

18 -

16 -

4 14 -

12 -

10 -

8

(5

4

2

0)

1)g

. A

Cindy Brantmeier 51

i

rr - .-

The Modern LanguageJournal 89 (2005)

FIGURE 2 Recall for Eye Passage: L1/L2 x Analogy or Nonanalogy

22

20 -

18 -

16 -

14 -

I-

- Analogy

- - Noinanalog

12

1.2

FIGURE 3 Sentence Completion for Chain Reaction Passage: L1/L2 x Group Variables

LI I 2

52

!

1

1,1

I,i 1,2

FIGURE 4

Multiple Choice for Eye Passage: Analogy or Nonanalogy x Group

Analogy Nonanalogy

APPENDIX D Effects of Analogy on Comprehension Assessment Tasks by Language Read and Group Mean Scores and (Standard Deviations)


Analogy Nonanalogy Analogy Nonanalogy Language M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Recall Costa Rican LI 11.7 (5.9) 19.9 (4.8) 13.4 (7.2) 18.4 ( 8.9)

L2 16.4 (3.6) 22.5 (5.9) 12.7 (7.6) 16.9 ( 7.6) U.S. Intermediate L1 13.4 (3.4) 21.8 (7.8) 18.7 (6.8) 26.2 (10.7)

L2 16.5 (5.4) 19.3 (7.2) 11.7 (5.0) 16.2 ( 9.5) U.S. Advanced L1 14.2 (5.2) 21.7 (5.9) 18.2 (6.0) 24.7 ( 8.0)

L2 13.8 (4.4) 19.6 (5.0) 12.7 (5.3) 16.5 ( 8.4) Sentence Completion

Costa Rican LI 2.9 (1.1) 4.1 (1.0) 3.3 (1.6) 3.4 (1.3) L2 2.8 (1.7) 3.3 (1.3) 3.0 (1.8) 3.7 (1.4)

U.S. Intermediate LI 4.1 (0.9) 4.1 (1.0) 4.3 (1.1) 4.5 (0.6) L2 3.7 (1.3) 4.1 (1.0) 2.8 (1.7) 3.3 (1.6)

U.S. Advanced L1 4.4 (1.1) 4.7 (0.6) 4.1 (1.0) 4.5 (0.7) L2 3.1 (1.4) 4.3 (1.1) 3.5 (1.4) 3.7 ( 1.3)

Multiple Choice Costa Rican L1 3.7 (1.0) (1.1) 3.2 (1.8) 3.1 (1.3)

L2 3.2 (1.0) 3.3 (1.7) 2(1.1) 2.1 (1.1) U.S. Intermediate LI 2.9 (1.2) 4.0 (0.8) 3.7 (1.2) 3.9 ( 1.4)

L2 2.9 (1.0) 3.7 (1.2) 3.1 (1.3) 3.0 (1.7) U.S. Advanced LI 3.0 (1.1) 4.2 (1.0) 3.9 (1.2) 4.0 (1.0)

L2 2.9 (1.0) 3.9 (1.0) 2.6 (1.2) 3.2 ( 1.4)

Cindy Brantmeier 53

Documents

4__