GOING BEYOND THE TEXT: THE INFERENCING PROCESSES OF SKILLED READERS IN L1 AND L2 ACROSS READING TASKS ANGELA J. MEYER STERZIK A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO MAY 2017 © Angela Meyer Sterzik, 2017 ii Abstract This small exploratory study investigated the inferencing processes of skilled first language (L1) and second language (L2) readers for two academic tasks. The goal was to examine possible effects of language and task, or reading purpose, on the frequency and distribution of inferences. Participants (n = 10) were native speakers of German enrolled at a large university in Hessen, Germany in a B.Ed. program. Participants read two expository texts (one written in German and the other written in English) in two task conditions: summary and position-paper. Think-aloud protocols while reading and stimulated recall immediately after reading were recorded, transcribed, coded, and the results were compared quantitatively and qualitatively across tasks and languages. The statistical analyses indicated that there were task effects on inferencing processes, and that they were stronger in L2. When reading for a summary purpose, inferencing processes differed across languages which was not the case for the position-paper task. Readers’ inferencing processes differed significantly across tasks in L2, but not in L1. The results suggest that skilled readers strategically inference based on academic task demands, but that transfer of strategic inferencing skills from L1 to L2 is not complete even with advanced L2 readers. Findings raise questions about the explicit instruction of strategic inferencing for academic tasks in L2 reading classrooms. iii Acknowledgements Firstly, I must thank my dissertation committee supervisor, Carol Fraser, co-supervisor Khaled Barkaoui, and member Antonella Valeo. Thank you for supporting, challenging, and pushing me throughout this process. Your patience, guidance, and feedback during all stages of this dissertation were invaluable, and I could not have done it without you. To the past and present Chairs and Coordinators in the School of Language and Liberal Studies and the English Language Institute at Fanshawe College, I thank you for the support, flexibility, and encouragement that you consistently showed me throughout my Doctoral studies. I would also like to thank my colleagues at Fanshawe College, especially Claire Marin and Hongfang Yu, for your support throughout this process. I also acknowledge Rose Frezza-Edgecombe, the Graduate Program Assistant, DLLL, York University for her assistance and guidance through all things administrative in the completion of my graduate studies. I would also like to express my gratitude to the members of the IEAS program in Hessen, Germany who made this research possible: Faculty members Daniela Elsner and Britta Viebrock, Administrative Assistant Helena McKenzie, and the students who agreed to participate in this study. Thank you to William Marshall for his guidance in all things stats related throughout my graduate studies, and I am especially grateful to Zachary Marshall for completing, discussing, and explaining the statistical analyses in this study. Finally, I would like to thank Jon, Josh, and Alicia for their constant love and encouragement. iv Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Importance of Study ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Dissertation Outline ................................................................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 12 2.1 Major Perspectives Framing Reading Research .................................................................................. 12 2.2 L1 and L2 Discourse Processing and Reading Comprehension ......................................................... 15 2.2.1 Schema Theory in L1 and L2 Reading Comprehension ............................................................... 19 2.2.2 Memory-based Models of Reading Comprehension ..................................................................... 25 2.2.3 The Construction Integration Model ............................................................................................. 32 2.2.4 The Rauding Theory of Reading Processes ................................................................................... 35 2.3 Inferences in L1 and L2 Reading........................................................................................................... 41 2.3.1 Bridging Inferences in L1 and L2 Reading Research ................................................................... 43 2.3.2 Elaborative Inferences in L1 and L2 Reading Research .............................................................. 50 2.4 Metacognition and Strategic Inferencing in L2 Reading .................................................................... 55 2.5 Inference and Processing Components’ Categorisations .................................................................... 64 2.6 Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 72 CHAPTER 3: METHODS ............................................................................................................................... 77 v 3.1 Participants and Materials ..................................................................................................................... 78 3.2 Data Collection Procedures .................................................................................................................... 81 3.3 Data Transcription .................................................................................................................................. 87 3.4 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 89 3.4.1 Coding ............................................................................................................................................... 89 3.4.2 Statistical Analyses ........................................................................................................................... 95 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 98 4.1 Inference Variability across Tasks ...................................................................................................... 100 4.1.1 L1: German Summary and Position-paper Tasks. ..................................................................... 100 4.1.2 Bridging Inferences. ....................................................................................................................... 101 4.1.3 Elaborative Inferences. .................................................................................................................. 105 4.1.4 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 111 4.1.5 L2: English Summary and Position-paper Tasks ....................................................................... 111 4.1.6 Bridging Inferences ........................................................................................................................ 113 4.1.7 Elaborative Inferences ................................................................................................................... 116 4.1.8 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 121 4.2 Inference Variation across Languages ................................................................................................ 122 4.2.1 L1 and L2: Summary Tasks .......................................................................................................... 122 4.2.2 Bridging Inferences ........................................................................................................................ 123 4.2.3 Elaborative Inferences ................................................................................................................... 123 4.2.4 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 125 4.2.5 L1 and L2: Position-paper Tasks ................................................................................................. 126 4.2.6 Bridging Inferences ........................................................................................................................ 126 vi 4.2.7 Elaborative Inferences. .................................................................................................................. 127 4.2.8 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 128 4.3 Results Summary .................................................................................................................................. 128 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS................................................................................. 130 5.1 Key Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 130 5.1.1 L1 Summary and L1 Position-paper Inference Processes .......................................................... 131 5.1.2 L2 Summary and L2 Position-paper Inference Processes .......................................................... 134 5.1.3 L1 Summary and L2 Summary Task Inference Processes ........................................................ 136 5.1.4 L1 Position-paper and L2 Position-paper Inference Processes ................................................. 138 5.2 Limitations and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 142 5.3 Implications ........................................................................................................................................... 146 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 151 Appendix A: English Text .............................................................................................................................. 166 Appendix B: German Text ............................................................................................................................. 168 Appendix C: Informed Consent Form .......................................................................................................... 170 Appendix D: Summary Task Instructions ................................................................................................... 171 Appendix E: Position-paper task Instructions ............................................................................................. 172 Appendix F: Think Aloud Instructions and Practice .................................................................................. 173 vii List of Tables Table 2.1: Carver’s Rauding Theory…………………………….……………………………………………….36 Table 2. 2: Inference Categories for Expository Texts ………...………………………………………...………70 Table 3.1: Transcription Conventions………………………………………………………………….………...88 Table 3.2: Inference Categorisations……………………………………………………………….…………….94 Table 4. 1: Percentage of Inference Type of Reported Inferences Across Tasks and Languages ……………….99 Table 4. 2: Descriptive Statistics of Percentages of Inference Episodes in L1 Tasks…………………………..101 Table 4. 3: Descriptive Statistics of Percentages of Inference Episodes in L2 Tasks…………………………..113 Table 4. 4: Descriptive Statistics for Inference Episodes for Summary Tasks in L1 and L2 …………………..124 Table 4. 5: Descriptive Statistics for Inference Episodes for Position-paper tasks in L1 and L2……………....127 Table 4. 6: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Results for All Language and Task Conditions…………………………...129 viii List of Figures Figure 1: The Reading Systems Framework……………...………………………………………………………17 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to investigate the inferencing processes of skilled adult readers in their first and second language (L1 and L2) across two reading tasks. Academic tasks that require students to write, usually require students to read texts before they write. This is one of the reasons why high-stakes language proficiency assessments, such as TOEFL and the exams aligned with the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), now include ‘integrated writing tasks’ that require test-takers to read an article and use its content in a written summary task (Cohen & Upton, 2006; Rosenfeld, Leung & Oltman, 2001). Interestingly, these summary tasks do not often include analysis of or critical reflection on the content of readings; they typically focus on reporting the main ideas and key support from the text (Khalifa & Weir, 2009). Nonetheless, when these students enter postsecondary institutions, they are often expected to analyze, assess, and synthesize information from multiple texts into one essay (Grabe, 2009; Macknish, 2011; Meyer Sterzik & Fraser, 2012). These are often very difficult tasks for students in L1 and L2. Written texts are the mode through which much knowledge is shared and gained in academic environments. “Independent reading accounts for as much as 85% of learning in college” (Bosley, 2008, p. 285) and is, thus, one of the most important skills for postsecondary success in L1 and L2 environments (Schmitt, Jiang, & Grabe, 2011). In spite of this, “a recent study by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) reported that nearly half of all potential college students, those who took the ACT test in 2004, were not prepared for college-level reading” (Bosley, 2008, p. 285). Further, many first year college students are also underprepared for the academic demands of college (Fischer & Hoth, 2010), but those that successfully complete an academic upgrading course prior to enrollment are far less likely to dropout or fail within the first year of fulltime studies (Fisher & 2 Engemann, 2009). Fisher and Hoth (2010) reported that under-preparedness in higher-order thinking skills is a major contributor to college attrition because many first and second year students are unable to synthesize or analyze information; they are unable to effectively engage with texts. Cohen and Upton (2006) cautioned that many academic tasks can also cause problems for non-native speakers (NNSs). With a better understanding of the cognitive inference processes that skilled post- secondary readers engage in while reading in L1 and L2 for specific academic tasks, reading teachers may be better able to foster appropriate and effective inferencing behaviours. Grabe and Stoller (2002) define reading as “the ability to draw meaning from the printed page and interpret this information appropriately” (p. 9). The authors contend that such a definition is insufficient because of its simplicity; it does not explain different reading purposes, the different skills and knowledge, and the cognitive processes involved, or the differences in L1 and L2 read. Reading requires decoding linguistic information such as graphemic-phonemic relationships (Grabe, 2009; Smith, 2004; Koda, 2005); additionally, knowledge of morphemes, words, syntax, and semantics are all important to reading comprehension (Alderson, 2000; Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Koda, 2005; Smith, 2004). Further, Carrell and Grabe (2002) asserted that readers “engage[] in processing at the phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and discourse levels, as well as engage[] in goal setting, text summary building, [and] interpretive elaborating” (p. 234). Moreover, when one looks at comprehending discourse (more than one meaning unit, or proposition, in succession), relationships among the propositions in the text must be made through an inferencing process (Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Kintsch, 1986, 1998; Koda, 2005; Myers & O’Brien, 1998).