Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorPeker, Bena Gül
dc.contributor.authorBaysal, Oktay
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-08T20:14:01Z
dc.date.available2016-01-08T20:14:01Z
dc.date.issued1997
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/17854
dc.descriptionAnkara : The Institute of Economics and Social Sciences of Bilkent Univ., 1997.en_US
dc.descriptionThesis (Master's) -- Bilkent University, 1997.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical refences.en_US
dc.description.abstractStrategy training is suggested as an effective way of promoting language learning by many researchers. Among the various types of suggested strategy training models, narrow-focus and broad-focus strategy training are two models that maximize the learning potential of students. This is particularly true for reading comprehension which is considered as one of the most important skills in learning a language (Carrell, 1988). In this study, two hypotheses were put forth. The first hypothesis was that both narrow-focus and broad-focus strategy training are effective in promoting reading comprehension of EFL students. The second hypothesis was that broad-focus strategy training is more effective than narrow-focus strategy training in promoting reading comprehension of EFL students. Three intact groups were used in this study, thus, a quasi experimental design was adopted. The groups were selected from the same language proficiency level, upper-intermediate. There were three groups: two experimental groups and one control group. All three groups had six 50-minute treatment sessions. The first experimental group was trained with a narrow-focus strategy training model. In the second experimental group a broad-focus strategy training model was used. The control group did not receive any strategy training, in other words, they continued their regular reading classes. The researcher had no control over the choice of the groups in the experiment. A total of 48 EFL upper-intermediate level students at Osmangazi University participated in this study, with 19 subjects in the first experimental group, 17 in the second experimental group and 12 in the control group. The data for this study were collected by means of pre- and post-tests and a reading strategy inventory. The reading strategies to be trained in the treatment sessions were selected through an analysis of the reading strategy inventory (SILL). In the first experimental group (narrow-focus group), the selected reading strategies were trained individually within each reading passage within a given time period. In the second experimental group (broad-focus group), the three reading strategies were trained in an integrative manner within a reading passage in a given time period. The subjects in the control group read the passage, found out the meanings of new vocabulary and answered the related comprehension questions. In the data analysis, the mean scores and standard deviations of both pre-and post-tests, for each group, were calculated. For the pre-test, a one-way ANOVA was used to determine whether the level of proficiency in reading comprehension among the groups was equal. After the pre-test, a reading strategy inventory was administered to elicit strategy use among the subjects. Frequency distributions and percentages for each item in the inventory were calculated. After the treatment a post-test was administered to all groups. A t-test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between pre- and post-tests within each group. Then, a one-way ANOVA was used among the three groups to determine whether there was a significant difference. Later, a t-test was applied across groups to determine which of the three groups significantly improved their reading comprehension skills. Following the post-test, a reading strategy inventory was administered a second time to elicit responses regarding whether the subjects in each group made use of the strategies trained in the treatment sessions. Finally, the frequency distributions from the first and second administration of the inventory were compared to note difference in use of strategies reported. Data analysis showed that after the training, improvement in the reading comprehension test scores of experimental group 1 (narrow-focus) was not significant. Thus, the hypothesis that stated narrow-focus strategy training is effective in promoting reading comprehension was rejected. On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in the reading comprehension scores of the second experimental group (broad-focus) at the level p<.001. Thus, the second hypothesis, that stated broad-focus strategy training is more effective than narrow-focus strategy training was accepted.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityBaysal, Oktayen_US
dc.format.extentxii, 105 leavesen_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subject.lccPE1068.T8 B39 1997en_US
dc.subject.lcshEnglish language--Study and teaching (Higher)--Turkish speakers.en_US
dc.subject.lcshReading comprehension.en_US
dc.titleThe role of narrow-focus strategy training and broad-focus strategy training on promoting reading comprehension of Turkish EFL studentsen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.departmentM.A. in Teaching English as a Foreign Languageen_US
dc.publisherBilkent Universityen_US
dc.description.degreeM.S.en_US
dc.identifier.itemidBILKUTUPB038300


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record