Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between text structure and two levels of reading comprehension, namely literal and inferential, in Iranian EFL learners. Studies have generally found that learners perform differently after they have read different text structures (Amiri et al. in Proc Soc Behav Sci 66:402–409, 2012). The text structures in focus were descriptive and enumerative expository texts. One hundred eighty upper-intermediate EFL learners were assigned four reading passages, two including descriptive and the other two enumerative text structure, followed by both literal and inferential multiple-choice items. A number of paired-samples t tests were run to provide answers to the research questions of this study. The results indicated that the participants meaningfully outperformed on the descriptive texts at both levels of literal and inferential comprehension. The findings also revealed that in both text structures of description and enumeration, literal comprehension significantly outweighed inferential comprehension. Implications were made for L2 materials developers, language teachers, and language testers regarding the consideration of text typical features in their practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alptekin, C. (2006). Cultural familiarity in inferential and literal comprehension in L2 reading. System, 34, 494–508.
Alptekin, C., & Ercetin, G. (2011). Effects of working memory capacity and content familiarity on literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 275–289.
Amiri, F., Zainal, Z., & Abdul Samad, A. (2012). Effects of text structure on the Iranian students’ reading comprehension performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 402–409.
Basaraba, D., Yovanoff, P., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2013). Examining the structure of reading comprehension: do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist? Reading and Writing, 26(3), 349–379.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Matadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 28–44.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2010). Direct Instruction Reading (5th ed.). Boston: Merrill.
Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading comprehension by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 727–752.
Cope, B., & Kalantis, M. (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. Hong Kong: Falmer Press.
Davey, B. (1988). Factors affecting the difficulty of reading comprehension items for successful and unsuccessful readers. Journal of Experimental Education, 56, 67–75.
Dickson, S. V., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Text organization and its relation to reading comprehension: A synthesis of the research (report no. 17). Oregon, Washington, DC: National Center to improve the tools of educators. (ERIC document reproduction service no. ED 386 864).
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264.
Geva, E. (1992). The role of conjunctions in L2 text comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 731–747.
Ghaith, G. M., & Harkouss, S. A. (2003). Role of text structure awareness in the recall of expository discourse. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 86–96.
Goff, S. (2010). What are the causes and effects of literal comprehension? Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/info_12044849
Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension: Helping primary-grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26, 211–234.
Herber, H. L. (1970). Teaching reading in the content areas. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Jude, W. I., & Ajayi, O. B. (2012). Literal level of student’s comprehension in Nigeria: A means for growing a new generation African scholars. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(7), 120–129.
Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–226). Malden: Blackwell.
Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1983). Teaching reading to every child. New York: MacMillan.
Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2001). Effects of causal text revision on more or less-skilled readers’ comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 525–556.
Marzban, A., & Seifi, S. (2013). The effect of genre structure on reading comprehension ability of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 1043–1048.
McCormick, S. (1992). Disabled readers’ erroneous responses to inferential comprehension questions: Description and analyses. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 54–77.
McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purpose, procedures and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11–64). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students’ reading. Research Quarterly, 16(1), 72–103.
Meyer, B., & Freedle, R. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 121–143.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of text. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 319–351). New York: Longman.
Nodoushan, M. A. S. (2010). The impact of formal schemata on L3 reading recall. International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 4(4), 113–128.
Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Issues of causality in children’s reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 47–72). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121–152.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoart (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167–208). New York: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Malden: Blackwell.
Pettit, N. T., & Cockriel, I. W. (1974). A Factor study of the literal reading comprehension test and the inferential reading comprehension test. Journal of Literacy Research, 6(1), 63–75.
Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 276–279.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). On evaluating story grammars. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4, 313–316.
Rupley, W. H., & Blair, T. R. (1983). Reading diagnosis and remediation: Classroom and clinic (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Schumm, J. S. (2006). Reading assessment and instruction for all learners. New York: The Guilford Press.
Sharp, A. (2002). Chinese L1 schoolchildren reading in English: The effects of rhetorical patterns. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(2), 1–20.
Snider, V. E. (1988). The role of prior knowledge in reading comprehension: A test with LD adolescents. Direct Instruction News, 6–11.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77–110.
Toledo, P. F. (2005). Genre analysis and reading of English as a foreign language: Genre schemata beyond text typologies. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1059–1079.
Vacca, J. L., Vacca, R. T., Gove, M. K., Burkey, L. C., Lenhart, L. A., & McKeon, C. A. (2009). Reading and learning to read (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Vahidi, S. (2008). The Impact of EFL learners’ rhetorical organization awareness on English academic/expository text comprehension. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji. 41. Special Issue, English, 200, 145–158.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
Voss, J. F., & Bisanz, G. L. (1985). Knowledge and processing of narrative and expository texts. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 173–198). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Voss, J., & Silfies, L. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 45–68.
Zhang, X. (2008). The effects of formal schema on reading comprehension–An experiment with Chinese EFL readers. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 13(2), 197–214.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Saadatnia, M., Ketabi, S. & Tavakoli, M. EFL Learners’ Levels of Comprehension Across Text Structures: A Comparison of Literal and Inferential Comprehension of Descriptive and Enumerative Expository Texts. J Psycholinguist Res 45, 1499–1513 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9414-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9414-6