Running head: FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 1
The case study of factors for retelling scores and perceptions of QtA
Young Yi. Lee
Sookmyung Women’s University MA TESOL
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 2
ChapterⅠIntroduction
1. Introduction
It cannot be emphasized enough that reading is one of the most important
skills in language learning. Reading comprehension includes reconstructing
an author’s message and constructing readers’ meaning from text by using
their schema (Hayes, 1991; Al-Issa, 2006). Constructing meanings means
readers create their new understandings based on an interaction between
knowledge readers already knew and knowledge that readers encounter on
text (Richardson, 2003). By constructing meanings, readers’ understanding is
stimulated (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000, as cited in Foong, Png, Raslinda &
Silver, 2009).
Unfortunately, not all readers build the meanings from text. In order to
help students connect their world knowledge and the text during the reading
process, Beck, McKeown, and Worthy (1993) suggested the idea of
Questioning the Author (from here on, QtA). It provides students with an
opportunity to find out and think about “what the ideas are behind an
author’s words” (Beck et al., 1993, p. 562) by using questions during the
reading process (Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1997). During QtA
lessons, students look closely into the authors’ intent with open-ended
questions, and then students finally try to negotiate the meaning by
integrating students’ background knowledge and the author’s words.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 3
Many researchers have used QtA to examine how QtA works in
reading comprehension. McKeown, Sandora, Kucan, and Worthy (1996),
Sandora, Beck, and Mckeown (1999), Liu and Chu (2008), and Reichenberg
(2008) focused on the effect of QtA for L1 and L2 reading comprehension
and found that QtA helped students improve their reading comprehension.
However, no one has thought about the relations between QtA and other
factors in L1 setting as well as L2 or EFL settings.
Factors that may affect reading comprehension have been studied.
Calisir and Gurel (2003), Ozuru, Dempsey, and McNamara (2009), Tarchi
(2010) found that prior (world) knowledge contributed to reading
comprehension. However, Calisir and Gurel and Ozuru et al. (2009)
conducted with undergraduate and graduate students, and Tarchi put the
emphasis on the effect of world knowledge about history and science texts,
so other population of participants and other types of texts need using for the
future study.
Word knowledge was revealed as a factor that may affect reading
comprehension by Tannenbaum, Torgesen, and Wagner (2006), Zhang and
Annual (2008), and Ricketts, Nation, and Bishop (2007). However,
Tannenbaum et al. (2006) did with the third grade students, Ricketts et al.
(2007)’ study did not show why not all students with poor comprehension
showed their lack of vocabulary. Even though Zhang and Annual’s study was
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 4
done in L2 setting, similar study in Korea is needed.
In addition, Schiefele and Krapp (1996), ETIN (2010), and Boscolo
and Mason (2003) found that students’ interest play an important role in
reading comprehension, but Schiefele and Krapp and Boscolo and Mason’s
studies were conducted in L1 settings and ETIN used only one topic.
Therefore, various topics in L2 or EFL settings need using for the further
study.
The world knowledge, word knowledge, interest about topic and
stories come from students’ own capacity. In order to stimulate learning from
text, questioning is used (Cotton, 2003). Van den Broek, Tzeng, Risden,
Trabasso, and Basche (2001) agreed that teachers’ inferential questions work
as a factor for reading comprehension, and Erdogan and Campbell (2008),
and Zucker, Justice, Piasta, and Kaderavek (2010) found open-ended and
inferential questions were more used to promote students’ knowledge
construction. However, Van den Broek et al. (2001) study did not displayed
why inferential questions were challenging for less proficient students, and
Erdogan and Campbell, and Zucker et al. (2010)’s studies did not showed the
relation between teachers’ questions and reading comprehension.
With these results, I wondered why only one strategy and one factors
were examined in reading comprehension. According to McNeil (2012), L2
reading is so complicated that many factors might be encompassed, so it
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 5
might not be appropriate to examine the result of the one reading strategy or
one factor. It could be helpful for English reading teachers in Korea to know
how QtA works with other factors for their students’ reading comprehension
to help them build meanings from L2 text.
The purpose of this study is to investigate factors that may influence
students’ retelling scores after QtA and students’ perceptions of QtA.
Displaying students’ improvement of reading comprehension or making
them improve reading comprehension is not a focus of this study. Two
research questions have been posed:
RQ1. What factors affect students’ retelling scores in QtA?
RQ2. What are students’ perceptions of QtA?
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 6
Chapter Ⅱ Literature Review
This chapter includes theoretical perspective and literature reviews related to
this study.
2.1 Theoretical perspective
Theoretical perspective is based on schema theory, constructivist theory, and
the transactional reader-response theory to underpin this study.
2.1.1 Schema theory
For development of the theory perspective for this study about how students
use their world knowledge, the schema theory provides us with the process
that readers encounter new information and move the information into their
store of world knowledge to reconstruct another world knowledge. A text
only provides directions for readers about how they should retrieve or
construct meaning from their own, previously acquired knowledge, which is
called the readers’ world knowledge (Adams & Collins, 1977).
The world knowledge plays a role in language comprehension as schema
theory (Rummlhart, 1980, as cited in Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983). In an
important cognitive aspect, schema theory is that “how knowledge is
acquired, processed, and retrieved” (Al-Issa, 2006, p. 41). The act to
understand accompanies readers’ knowledge of the world, which bases on
schema theory. Schemata as one more schema are regarded as cognitive
constructs by which readers arrange information in long-term memory
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 7
meaningfully (Widdowson, 1983). The relationship among the schemata is
seen as a network of ideas.
The essence of schema theory is the idea that the text is comprehended in
terms of the readers’ idea of world knowledge and readers’ concept can be
changed when new information in print or discussion is met. Thus, while
readers share their understandings through the discussion, readers’ schemata
are often affected. Readers’ understandings rely on how much related schema
readers have while reading and taking about the story. As a result, readers’
failure to make sense of the text is triggered by “their lack of appropriate
schemata” (Al-Issa, 2006. p. 42). In QtA class, students discuss contents with
peers, teachers, and text to maximize the depth of comprehension. Through
discussion and questions that teachers throw, students’ schemata are rebuilt,
reconstructed or changed to fill the lack of their schemata.
To summarize, schemata shape interrelated ideas that are constructed and
reconstructed readers’ world knowledge to understand the text. QtA plays an
important role in constructing and reconstructing readers’ schemata by
interacting with texts, peers, and teachers to bring comprehension into deeper
understandings.
2.1.2 Constructivist theory
With respect to learning or meaning making with interaction, constructivist
theory is fit to show how students construct a meaningful representation
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 8
from the text by interacting with peers, teachers and the text. The sense of
constructivist theory is that readers shape their own new comprehensions
through interaction between “what they already know and believe ideas and
knowledge with which the come into contact” (Resnick, 1989, as cited in
Richardson, 2003, p. 1624).
According to Spivey (1987), constructivist theory depicts readers as
actively building a mental description by integrating new information or
knowledge from the text with already learned or acquired knowledge. In this
theory, the role of reader or learner is regarded as one of building and
transforming knowledge (Applefield, Huber, & Moallem, 2001). Readers
build meanings by organizing the content depending on the structure of the
text or depending on another structure in a cognitive store. Reading related to
text includes making connections of content. Although texts provide signs
for readers in making connections, readers use already learned or acquired
knowledge to form more connection through making inferences and
elaborations (Spivey, 1987). Due to limitation of memorizing information
from the text readers read, readers have to select the information by using
important principles.
In a view of the constructivist theory, “a constructivist classroom provides
students with opportunities to develop deep understandings of the material,
internalize it, comprehend the nature of knowledge development, and
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 9
develop complex cognitive maps that connect together bodies of knowledge
and understandings” (Richardson, 2003, p. 1628). Unfortunately, in current
English reading classes in Korea, many English teachers teach students how
to decode or translate text rather than how to build meaning from texts.
Therefore, QtA as a reading strategy allows students to use their world
knowledge, to build meaning, and to connect their knowledge with teachers
and peers’ understanding and texts. Through QtA, students organize content,
select content, and connect the content with discussion as consistent with
constructivist theory.
In summary, reading is the multiple process of constructing meaning from
the text in a point of constructivist theorists’ view. Readers employ their
acquired knowledge to bridge gaps in the message and integrate the different
pieces of information in the massage, which is the way that readers construct
the meanings (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985). QtA may help
students build meanings by teachers’ queries through discussion which
stimulate students’ schema.
2.1.3 Transactional reader-response theory
In terms of a theoretical perspective for studying creating meanings and
active engagement in group interactions, transactional reader-response theory
is helpful to explain the response to teachers’ questions in QtA class because
teachers’ questions work as a device to link students’ knowledge and
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 10
experiences to build meanings and to lead students to engage with the
discussion and text actively. Readers bring their own “personal linguistic-
experiential reservoir, the residue of past transactions in life and language”
(Rosenblatt, 1993, p. 381) to the transaction to build meanings while they are
reading texts and while they are sharing their responses in similar group
readings.
Reader-response theory was originated in literary critical field. This
theory focuses on the interpretation of text rather than the text itself.
According to Selden (1989), without considering readers efforts of the text,
readers cannot talk about the meaning of a text any more (as cited in Hirvela,
1996). Like this, reader-response theory stresses the creative role of the
reader. Readers gain the literary and aesthetic experience through “dialogue
between reader and text” (Carlisle, 2000, p. 12). The transactional reader-
response theory contains two readings: efferent and aesthetic readings
(Rosenblatt, 1993). When the reader’s attention is focused on acquiring
information from the text, this is called an efferent reading. On the other
hand, the aesthetic reading focuses on the emotion and readers’ experiences
during reading. Therefore, one text might show two different kinds of
readings and produce diverse interpretations based on readers’ experiences.
Also, reader-response theorists argue that “reading is based on collective
conventions and readers can share certain reading strategies, allowing for the
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 11
possibility of grouping similar readings and shared responses” (Scott, 1994,
p. 463).
Readers have to be critical readers who know how to select a possible
interpretation and decide the proper reading and go beyond the author’s point
of view to create meanings (Rosenblatt, 1993). Reading class should function
as a facilitator to encourage students to employ various interpretations and
become critical readers. Also, reading class should help students make a
connection between texts and the individual view. However, reading class
especially English reading class in Korea focus more on students’ getting
better score on the exam with this problem. QtA helps students go beyond
the author’s point of view. Even though the questions in QtA lessons are
asked students to answer the author’s intension, the questions are just
mediums that students interact with the text and the author to stimulate
comprehension. Also, students are exposed to multiple interpretations of the
same text through QtA class, so students are able to learn how to connect
comprehension with their experiences. Sharing their experiences and their
interpretations can activate students’ engagement of discussion in QtA. As a
reading strategy, QtA is suitable for students to encourage not only the
reader-text transaction, but also students’ active participation in class.
To sum up, reader-response theory is to have readers make a decision
about interpretations while they read the text. The decision may be changed
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 12
according to their intensions from grabbing information from the text,
through connecting their reading with their experiences, and to sharing their
understandings. QtA could provide the way to promote the theory for
students to become active and critical readers.
2.2 Literature review
This chapter involves literatures on the components that affect reading
comprehension first. Second, research studies about QtA for reading
comprehension are reviewed. After literature review, the research questions
of this study are presented.
2.2.1 Components of the influence on reading comprehension
To explain how students build their reading comprehension is very
complicate, but still many researchers try to distinguish what make students
comprehend the text well. There are many components that may influence
students’ reading comprehension, but in this section four factors that world
knowledge, word knowledge, students’ interest, and teachers’ questions will
be discussed.
2.2.1.1 World knowledge for reading comprehension
World knowledge helps readers understand many various subjects
(background knowledge) and domain, and world knowledge also helps
readers make a connection with one another for comprehension (McEwan,
2009). Moreover, world knowledge leads students to build the inferences on
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 13
the text, which accelerates students’ comprehension (Hirsch Jr, 2003). There
are researches which were carried out to examine the relationship between
world knowledge and reading comprehension.
Calisir and Gurel (2003) examined the influence the leaners’ prior
knowledge on reading comprehension with 30 graduate students who
composed knowledgeable and non-knowledgeable students proportionally.
This result showed knowledgeable students produced higher reading
comprehension scores than non-knowledgeable students’ scores. This
research explained that domain knowledge helped knowledgeable students
make sense of the text. However, Calisir and Gurel (2003) examined
graduate students’ comprehension at Istanbul Technical. The result could be
different with other participant populations.
Also, Ozuru, Dempsey, and McNamara (2009) examined how prior
knowledge was committed to reading comprehension with 108
undergraduate students who had similar reading skill with low and high
levels of biology knowledge. Ozuru et al. (2009) found that overall
comprehension was positively related to participants’ prior knowledge.
However, this study focused on quantitative data analysis, so this study did
not show how participants responded to the reading comprehension
questions. To figure out how participants’ prior knowledge works in their
reading comprehension, qualitative data analysis is needed.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 14
Tarchi (2010) examined how prior knowledge about content
contributed to reading comprehension with 149 participants in grad 7 in Italy.
This result showed the prior knowledge works in reading comprehension
importantly. However, this study focused on science and history texts, so the
effect of prior knowledge should be studied in different subjects or genre to
get more extensive results.
Calisir and Gurel (2003), Ozuru et al. (2009), and Tarchi (2010)’s
studies supported that how important students’ prior knowledge and prior
knowledge (world knowledge) plays a central role in reading comprehension.
It is obvious that “the more facts the reader knows about a topic, the better
he/she will understand a text” (Tarchi, 2010, p. 419). However, three studies
focused on quantitative data analysis, so these did not show how the prior
knowledge works in the process of the comprehension.
2.2.1.2 Word knowledge for reading comprehension
Word knowledge means readers know about the meaning of words, the
correlation between words, and the knowledge about linguistic form to
comprehend the story (McEwan, 2009). Word knowledge is closely
connected with vocabulary knowledge which is closely connected with
reading comprehension ability for children and adults (Stahl, 2003; Davis,
1994).
Tannenbaum, Torgesen, and Wagner (2006) examined the relationships
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 15
between reading comprehension and breadth, depth in L1 setting with 203
third grade students. The result revealed that reading comprehension
increased when breadth of word knowledge increased. Tannenbaum et al.
(2006) confirmed that there was a strong relationship between vocabulary
and reading comprehension. However, this study conducted with the third
grade students. This study needs examining with high grade students because
high grade students would have a large amount of vocabulary capacity.
Zhang, and Anual (2008) explored how 37 secondary students’
vocabulary knowledge worked in Singapore. The result supported that depth
of vocabulary knowledge contributed to their reading comprehension. Even
though Zhang and Annual (2008) found the vocabulary knowledge is one of
central roles for reading comprehension, it is doubtable that similar results
was yielded in Korea because students in Singapore learn English in L2
setting but Korean students learn English in EFL setting.
Unlike Tannenbaum et al. (2006) and Zhang and Anual (2008)’s
studies, Ricketts, Nation, and Bishop (2007) conducted a study to examine
the relationships between oral vocabulary skills and reading comprehension
with 81 children aged 8 to 10 years in England. The result revealed that
children who had poor comprehension displayed their lack of oral
vocabulary and the relation between vocabulary and reading comprehension
seemed to be interactive. However, not all students with poor comprehension
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 16
showed the lack of the vocabulary. Even though this study revealed the role
of the vocabulary, this study did not examine what made students show their
poor comprehension except vocabulary skills. There might be other factors
that seem to affect students’ poor reading comprehension.
Tannenbaum et al. (2006), and Zhang, and Anual (2008) admitted
world knowledge plays a central role in reading comprehension, but a study
with other age group in EFL setting is needed. Also, Ricketts et al. (2007)
proved students’ oral vocabulary skill was related to their reading
comprehension but this study did not explain why not all students with poor
comprehension displayed their vocabulary deficiency.
2.2.1.3 Students’ interest for reading comprehension
Interest plays an important role in readers’ text processing (Hidi, 2001).
According to Schraw and Dennison (1994), readers’ interest comes from
readers’ own preferences for the text, and reader’s interest is likely to change
through “external manipulations under certain conditions” (p. 13). Many
researches have been conducted to examine the relationship between reader’s
interest and reading comprehension.
Schiefele and Krapp (1996) conducted a study to determine whether
the relations between topic interest and recall test could be separated from
prior knowledge and intelligence with 80 male first-semester university
students. The result showed that topic interest significantly affected students’
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 17
recall. Also, relations between interest and learning were not related to prior
knowledge and intelligence. Even though this study showed positive effect
of recall test with students’ interest, this study was conducted in L1 setting.
To get more wide data, this study would need to be conducted in L2 or EFL
settings.
Boscolo and Mason (2003) investigated to figure out the effects of
topic knowledge and topic interest on learning from text with 160 high
school students. The result revealed that students with high-knowledge and
high-interest in text performed well, and topic interest seemed related to the
amount of readers’ topic knowledge. Boscolo and Mason (2003) determined
that positive effects of topic knowledge and topic interest on reading
comprehension, but the researchers did not explain the relation between low
interest and topic knowledge. To get detailed data, the relation needs
studying.
ETIN (2010) examined the effects of topic interest and prior
knowledge on text recall with 54 proficient university students in Turkey.
The result showed that topic interest played a significant important role in
text recall, but prior knowledge did not. Also, readers with high topic interest
and high prior knowledge performed recall well. This study showed a
positive effect of topic interest on recall, but more researches would be
needed because this study carried out only one topic. With more topics, there
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 18
is a possibility that the result could be different.
Schiefele and Krapp (1996) and ETIN (2010) found that topic interest
is not related to prior knowledge. Schiefele and Krapp and ETIN determined
no relations between topic interest and prior knowledge, but with high topic
interest and high prior knowledge readers produced better results on recall as
Boscolo and Mason (2003) and ETIN (2010) showed. However, Schiefele
and Krapp (1996) and Boscolo and Mason (2003)’ studies were conducted in
L1 condition with one topic, so to know whether the research produces the
same result, the research in L2 or EFL settings with various topics is needed.
2.2.1.4 Teachers’ questioning
Questioning regards as an important tool for learners to stimulate learning.
Teachers have been encouraged “to use appropriate questions to activate
students’ prior knowledge, as well as to actively engage them in the
exploration and transformation of knowledge” (James & Carter, 2006, p. 1).
Van den Broek, Tzeng, Risden, Trabasso, and Basche (2001)
examined what the effects of inferential questioning on reading
comprehension of narrative texts from fourth-grade students, seventh-grade
students, and tenth-grade students. The study found that very proficient
students had a benefit from questioning during reading, but to the youngest
students, inferential questioning gave negative effects during reading.
However, this study did not examine the reason why inferential questions did
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 19
not work to less proficient students. To know about how the reason affect
less proficient students’ comprehension, another study would be needed.
Erdogan and Campbell (2008) examined the role of teachers’
questions in classroom with 22 K-12 teachers. The result revealed open-
ended questions were often used for teachers to help students build their
knowledge in harmony. Even though this study confirmed the role of
teacher’s questions, Erdogan and Campbell did not develop how teachers’
question could affect students’ reading comprehension.
To examine the relation between teachers’ inferential questioning and
children’s vocabulary outcomes, Zucker, Justice, Piasta, and Kaderavek
(2010) conducted the study with 25 preschool teachers and 159 four-year-old
children. Zucker et al. (2010) found the frequency and proportion of
teachers’ inferential questions did not affect children’s vocabulary growth.
Vocabulary is one of the factors that affect reading comprehension, so just
measuring vocabulary growth might not be appropriate for reading
comprehension.
Van den Broek et al. (2001)’s study support that teachers’ questions
affect reading comprehension, but Van den Broek et al did not explain the
relationship between inferential questions and less proficient students’
comprehension. In addition, Erdogan and Campbell (2008) yielded the
function of open-ended questions, but the study connected with reading
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 20
comprehension and the questions might be needed. In Zucker et al. (2010)’s
study, the result revealed that no relation with teacher’s inferential questions
and vocabulary growth. The purpose of reading books is not for growing the
vocabulary but for being critical readers, so measuring development of
comprehension would be helpful for further study.
2.2.2 Questioning the Author
QtA is a protocol of inquiries that students can make about the content they
are reading. This instructional strategy induces teachers pose open-ended
questions to make students think about text content. As students respond,
teachers encourage students to “elaborate, connect, and collaborate toward
building meaning” (Beck, & McKeown, 2006, p. 33). Students “had
internalized QtA queries as the way to approach text” (p. 34). In QtA
teachers are facilitators who lead students to active engagement with text.
Beck, McKeown, Sandora, Kucan, and Worthy (1996) examined
implementing QtA to analyze a year-long classroom implementation of QtA
and students perception of implementing QtA from 23 fourth graders and
two teachers. The results showed that teachers’ talk decreased in QtA while
the quality of students’ talk increased in QtA, and students’ talk became more
complex. Also teachers’ questions changed from retrieving information to
construction meaning. Students interacted more with each other, which
indicated that QtA may facilitate thinking. In addition, students showed their
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 21
confidence with their thinking. QtA lesson gave a fruitful result in L1 field;
however, Beck et al. (1996) could not show whether QtA was applicable in
L2 or EFL settings. The study of an application of QtA in L2 or EFL settings
is need to whether teachers’ questions affect students’ comprehension and
students’ perception of QtA in L2.
In order to compare the effect of the QtA approach with the Grate Books
approach, Sandora, Beck, and Mckeown (1999) conducted a study with 24
sixth graders using QtA approach and 25 seventh graders using the Great
books approach. The results yielded students who took QtA approach
showed high scores on recalls and responses to the open-ended questions. In
spite of positive results, this study focused more on the results of recalls and
open-ended questions. To know the relations between the results of recall
and teachers’ open-ended questions, a qualitative research is needed.
Reichenberg (2008) conducted a three year longitudinal study to examine
teachers’ questions, the changes of teachers’ questions, students’ responses,
and students’ participation in text talks according to types of questions and
answers with 36 Swedish 10.3 years old students. Reichenberg found that
normally teachers used factual questions that are easy for students to answer
with one word from the texts. Four teachers who taught experimental
students used QtA, and then they changed the type of questions from factual
questions to half-opened question and inference questions. Students’ answers
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 22
also changed from text to their own words. Also, experimental teachers were
more attentive to make students to participate in the discussion process. This
change was not found in the control groups. Although this study showed the
process of development of students’ answers and teachers’ questions,
Reichenberg (2008) did not consider how teachers’ questions could affect
students’ comprehension.
Liu and Chu (2008) examined the effect of QtA on the reading
comprehension with 62 ninth graders in Taiwan. The results showed the
experimental group with QtA was better on inferences and interpretive
questions. However, there was no significant difference between groups on
written recall. Recall is one of the tools to assess students’ reading
comprehensions, but Liu and Chu (2008) did not examine why students
showed no significant difference in recall. To solve this problem, researchers
need to investigate classroom situations and the development of students’
written recalls closely.
In summary, Beck et al. (1996), Sandora et al. (1999) and Reichenberg
(2008) showed the positive effects of using QtA in reading class, but Beck et
al., Sandora et al., and Reichenberg (2008)’s studies did not consider how
applicable QtA was in EFL setting. On the other hand, Liu and Chu (2008)
showed positive effects of using QtA lesson in L2, but this study did not
explain why there was no difference between students’ recall in QtA and
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 23
control group.
Many studies have confirmed QtA affected students’ reading
comprehension. I partly agree on these claims, but I doubt only QtA could
influence their reading comprehension. While I planned this study, I
hypothesized there might be other factors with QtA in reading
comprehension. To figure out this hypothesis after QtA students were asked
to write down retell immediately so as to analyze the factors that could
influence their retelling. Also, students’ perception of QtA was examined.
Here are two research questions as follows.
RQ1. What factors influence students’ retelling scores in QtA?
RQ2. What are students’ perceptions of QtA?
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 24
Chapter Ⅲ Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology that was used in
this study. The investigator starts by describing participants, data collection
and data analysis. The goal of this study was to investigate main factors that
influence students’ retelling scores in QtA and students’ perception of QtA.
3.1 Participants
There were two participants who were a boy (SA) in grade 8 and a girl (SB)
in grade 7 in the same middle school that is located in one of new suburban
towns of Seoul and in which, participants take English three times a week for
50 minutes. Also, both participants graduated from the same elementary
school. Both were from upper middle-income families, and whose parents
graduated from the university, and they have not lived in English-speaking
countries.
Both participants’ English proficiency is lower than the average in their
school (see Table 3.1). The calculation method of English scores is displayed
in Appendix A
Table 3.1 Participants’ English scores in the second semester, 2013
ParticipantsEnglish scores in school (perfect score) / Average score
Test Listening Reading Writing
SA71 (100)/79
45(70) 9.5(10) 5(5) 11(15)SB 68 (100)/ 78
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 25
50(70) 10(10) 1(5) 7(15)
As Table 3.1 showed, two participants’ scores of English in their
school were below the average, but they got almost perfect scores on
listening test. However, on writing and reading test, student A got higher
scores than student B, but on test that consisted of midterm test and final test
proportionally student B got slightly higher scores than student A’s.
Participants have been studying English for over five years. Both
participants have taken an English private class with the researcher twice a
week for about two years. Each lesson is 100 minutes long. During the
private class, participants take grammar, listening, writing, and reading
lessons in Korean. In reading class, two participants are familiar with finding
unknown words in advance, translating the text into Koran, and taking the
comprehension questions that the text book provides as their homework.
Student A seems not to like learning English because he said he would not
travel abroad, and work for the company that asks him to use English
whenever he missed the English questions. Also, student A said he does not
like reading because it is boring, but he thinks that reading books is
necessary to improve his knowledge. In reading lesson, when he is asked to
read the book, he tends to read aloud. Once he feels familiar with a topic in
the book, he looks like he enjoys bragging about his knowledge about the
topic. Sometimes he tries to make an answer in English, but he usually
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 26
responds to the teachers’ questions in Korean. In grammar lesson, when a
teacher tries to correct his wrong answer, he refuses the teachers’ help and
tries correct on his own.
When student B was young, she used to want to be an English teacher,
but now she seems like she is not interested in English any more. Student B
sometimes says she does not understand why she has to learn English since
she lives in Korea, there are few chances to use English. Also, student B said
reading books is not fun, so it is unnecessary. In reading lesson, student B
reads English books so quietly, so student A and I have to listen carefully to
her voice. Also, she rarely shows her opinion on the English book. In
grammar lesson, student B needs more time to understand how to use the
rule of the grammar. However, once she understands the rule of grammar,
student B easily solves the grammar questions.
Participants tend to have an argument about the reading topic and the
grammar answer, so more attention is needed to control the class atmosphere.
3.2 Materials
The materials used in QtA class included six fiction and six non-fiction
stories from Reading A to Z (see Table 3.2).
Table 3.2 The information of books used in QtA
No. Title Text type / Genre Word
1 Baltic Rescue Nonfiction / Narrative 710
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 27
2 Barack Obama Nonfiction / Biography 805
3 Salt Rocks Nonfiction / Informational 938
4 Desert People Nonfiction / Informational 897
5 Summer Olympics Legends Nonfiction / Informational 748
6 Sonia Joins the Supreme Court Nonfiction / Biography 837
7 Rainy-Day Savings Fiction / Realistic 814
8 Goldilocks and the three bears Fiction / Fairy tale 862
9 The Footprint Fiction / Narrative 938
10 Mystery at Camp White Cloud Fiction / Mystery 1003
11 Pluto’s new friends Fiction / Fantasy 726
12 The backpack Tax Fiction / Realistic 843
There were 12 books chosen including narrative text, biography text,
informational, realistic text, fairy tale, mystery text, and fantasy text, and
some definitions of these books were found (See Appendix B). These books
were employed in accordance with school English education curriculum by
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The number of words used
in the materials consists of about 700 to 1000, which is specified in the
National Curriculum Information Center (2011) for 7th graders and 8th
graders.
3.3 Procedures
3.3.1 General procedures
This study that followed a case study format was conducted for 12 weeks
from October 23, 2013 to February 16, 2014 to examine the factors that may
affect retelling scores in QtA and perceptions of QtA. In the middle of this
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 28
research, the experiment was stopped for about one month from November
17, 2013 to December 18, 2013 because of two participants’ preparation for
their final exam. The sequential order in this study is as follows.
Table 3.3 Research Schedule
Procedure Date Methodology
Pre-survey Oct. 23, 2013 -Pre-survey with written structured questions was conducted to find out participants’ perception of reading books and their preference for choosing the books.
-The researcher introduced QtA to two participants (see Appendix C)
Experiments October 23, 2013 ~November 16, 2013
-QtA was carried out with four books.-QtA lessons were audio and video taped.-After QtA, each participant was interviewed about the book.
-Teacher wrote journals after each book.-An interview was done to figure out the perceptions of QtA every four weeks.
Break Time for the final examination
November 17, 2013~December 18, 2013
-Preparation for the final examination.
Experiments December 19, 2013 ~February 16, 2014
-QtA was carried out with eight books.-QtA lessons were audio and video taped.-After QtA, each participant was interviewed about the book.
-Teacher wrote journals after each book.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 29
-An interview was done to figure out the perceptions of QtA every four weeks.
Post-interview February 16, 2014 -Participants were asked to grade the books as they liked.
Analysis February , 2014 ~April, 2014
-Collecting and transcribing, and analyzing data to answer research questions and to draw conclusions and implications.
3.3.2 QtA classes and lesson procedure
There were 24 classes. Two participants took reading classes twice a
week. For two days participants used one book. Each class took about 25 to
35 minutes. The schedule and topics of the books were listed (see Appendix
D). In QtA, the teacher introduced the book and asked what they could see
and what the author would write this story by showing the cover and the
back cover. Then, one participant read one page of the book, and the teacher
asked questions of participants to check what they read and figure out the
author’s intentions. After QtA, participants took retelling tests and interviews
about the topics and their behaviors that they showed during QtA (see Table
3.4 Sample lesson plan).
Table 3.4 Sample lesson plan for one week
The first day
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 30
Class Activities Times
Questioning the Author 1
Teacher introduces the book showing the cover.
Participant reads one or two paragraphs voluntarily.
Teacher asks student about question that participants might be confused or not know about the author’s intent.
25 to 35
min.
The second day
Class Activities Times
Questioning the Author 2
Teacher asks what they learned the previous lesson.
Participant reads one or two paragraphs voluntarily.
Teacher asks student about question that participants might be confused or not know about the author’s intent.
After QtA, participants take retelling tests.
25 to 35
min.
3.4 Data collection
This study was conducted for 12 weeks with QtA in my private place. In
order to answer the first research question that what factors influence
students’ retelling scores in QtA, students took retelling tests after QtA.
Counting words, categorization of text types and the teacher’s questions,
taping video, recoding audio, survey, and interviews were investigated to
find out the correlation between their scores and those data. The second
research question that what are student perceptions of QtA was answered
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 31
through the data from interviews.
3.5 Data sources
To answer the research questions, retelling test, observation, interview,
teacher’s journal, and survey were used.
3.5.1 Retelling test
In QtA, teachers tend to focus on students’ thinking about the text deeply;
however, on traditional tests such as multiple-choice formats students seem
not to get higher scores (Beck & McKeown, 2006). Back and McKwown
(2006) suggested another assessment that may go beyond multiple-choice
tests such as students’ recalls, journal, and assessment of participation.
Retelling is one of the tools for checking reading comprehension.
Retelling asks readers to arrange the information that readers find from the
text to create reader’s own summary (Hoyt, 2009) “on a free recall basis”
(Kissner, 2006, p. 7). After QtA, participants were asked to write down the
text content such as main idea, key events, and characters as possible as they
remembered (see Appendix E and F). Both participants used their L1 to
lower the linguistic burden (Cotterall, 1990; Dashwood and Mangubhai,
1996, as cited in Fung, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2003). Students’ retellings were
measured by two raters according to the rubrics offered by Reading A to Z
(see Appendix G and H). All scores are 21 with four steps from three points
by completing retelling in seven sections to zero points with incorrect or
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 32
omitted retelling.
3.5.2 Observation
Classroom observation is used for collecting data during lessons “by
watching, listening, and recording” (Nunan and Bailey, 2009, p. 258).
The observation was conducted as means to analyze teacher’s questions by
taking video tapes and recording audio tapes.
Beck et al. (1996) and Reichenberg (2008) used the observation to
know about the impact of QtA lesson. The investigator took part as a teacher
to collect QtA lesson data for approximately 720 minutes. After each
observation, the investigator categorized the types of questions and examined
students’ responses to the questions. The camera was placed in front of the
students, and the recorder was placed in the middle of the desk.
3.5.3 Interview
Interviews are time-savers, so interviews enable researchers to collect a large
amount of data in shorter times than observation (Nunan and Bailey, 2009).
ETIN (2010) used a semi-structured interview to support the data
obtained from the analyses of the think-aloud protocols. McKeown et al.
(1996) interviewed students to investigate their views of QtA. Two studies
informed the interview is suitable to gather students’ perception and
thoughts.
The structured interview like a questionnaire and unstructured interviews
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 33
were employed to support students’ perceptions of QtA every four weeks and
to know about the difference between previous reading class and QtA and the
use of QtA in their own reading after QtA on an irregular basis. The
structured interview questions were three (see Table 3.5).
Table 3.5 Interview questions
No. Interview questions
1 Why does the teacher conduct QtA instead of the previous reading class?
2 Do you think QtA help you understand the English books better? Why?
3 What do you prefer discussing the content of the book or reading English
books alone? Why?
Also, unstructured interviews were conducted after QtA to know about their
interest in the topics and the reason their behaviors during QtA.
3.5.4Teacher’s journal
Journal is one of the introspective methods that other methods could not be
gathered. Journals are required us to remember the events, so reliability and
validity could be problematic. To resolve them, teachers have to keep writing
the journal consistently (Nunan and Bailey, 2009).
McKeown et al. (1996) used teachers’ journals to examine teachers’
perspectives in QtA. To examine the relation between students’ interest and
students’ behaviors during QtA, teacher’s journal was used. For this study,
the teacher as an observer wrote what happened and what participants did
during QtA.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 34
3.5.5 Survey
This study employed survey to gain “a snapshot of conditions and attitudes at
a single point” (Nunan and Bailey, 2009, p. 125). There were seven questions
in the survey. Among seven questions, two questions were for students’
perception of reading books, and five questions were for their perception of
choosing the books.
Table 3.6 Questions in the survey
Categories Questions
Perception of
reading books
1. Do you like reading books? Why?
2. Do you think reading books is important? Why?
Perception of
choosing the books
3. When you choose the books, what do you consider?
4. What kinds of the stories do you like most?
5. Please write the reason.
6. Which genres of books do you like to read?
7. Please write the reason that you choose.
As shown on Table 3.4, the survey (see Appendix I in English and
Appendix J in Korean) consisted of four open-ended items asking students to
complete short answers and three closed items. The questions in the survey
were offered in Korean to make sure that participants answered the
questionnaire completely (Nunan and Bailey, 2009).
3.6 Data analysis
The data analysis in this study was conducted based on research questions.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 35
To investigate the first research question of what factors may affect students’
retelling scores and the second research question of what are students’
perceptions of QtA, data were analyzed qualitatively.
3.6.1 Analyzing retelling scores with other data
Once students’ retelling scores were collected, the scores were examined to
determine whether their scores improved or not. If not, with other data, the
scores were investigated again.
During analyzing students’ interview, survey, teachers’ journal and
observation, four themes emerged: world knowledge, word knowledge, topic
interest, and teachers’ questions. Three themes that world knowledge, word
knowledge, and topic interest were subcategorized to get more detailed data
from other data sources such as ‘having world knowledge, word knowledge,
or students’ interest’ and ‘having less world knowledge, word knowledge, or
students’ interest’. Teachers’ questions were subcategorized into ‘literal
questions’ and ‘inference questions’ to investigate whether the types of
questions would affect the retelling scores (see Table 3.7). Inferential
questions ask students to get information that is not indicated directly but is
expressed indirectly in the text, which allows students make the
interpretation of feelings and ideas related to students’ experience (Morrow,
1984) while literal questions students to recall “facts, cause and effect
relationships, and the classification of information”(p. 275).
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 36
Table 3.7 The example of low and high inferential questions
Types of questions ExamplesLiteral question What can you know in this paragraph?
What was Sonia’s first dream? How many have women become justices? What can you learn in this sentence?
Inferential question Why does the author use ‘white men’ in this sentence?
What does the author want to say? Why does the author write doctor told her that she
should not be a detective? What if the only white make decision as a justice,
what would happen?
All these will be described in Chapter 4.
3.5.2 Analyzing students’ interview and survey of QtA
In order to answer the second research question (what are students’
perceptions of QtA), interviews are used to investigate how students perceive
QtA compared to previous reading classes they because interviews are a
good method to elicit students’ thoughts directly (Nunan and Bailey, 2009).
Trustworthiness
According to Dooley (2007), trustworthiness is related to a certainty that the
finding of the study comes from the respondents and their context.
“Prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, referential
adequacy materials, peer debriefing, and member checks” (p. 38) are used to
achieve a study’s trustworthiness.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 37
To support trustworthiness in this study, the triangulation was used from
diverse data sources such as survey, interviews, journal, and observations of
data by recording and taping the classes.
Chapter Ⅳ Results
4. Results
This study was conducted to look into the factors that may affect students’
retelling scores in QtA and students’ perception of QtA with two participants.
4.1 Retelling scores on QtA
4.1.1 Comparison scores with types of books and preference of the books
Students produced better scores on nonfiction stories than those on fiction
stories, but it showed a different result of the survey.
Table 4.1 The average of scores on nonfiction and fiction stories
Types of the books A’s average B’s average Total average
Non-fiction stories scores 14.8/21 11.8/21 13.3/21
Fiction stories scores 12.8/21 10.8/21 11.8/21
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 38
Table 4.2 The result of the preference of types of the book
Types of the books Student A Student BNon-fiction stories - -Fiction stories 0 0
As Table 4.1 showed, student A and B produced higher scores on
nonfiction stories than those on fiction stories, but it sounded contradictive
compared to the result of their survey (see Table 4.2) because the result said
they liked fiction stories more than nonfiction stories. Also, in the middle of
the interviews, students said that they liked fiction stories more. In spite of
their preference for fiction stories, the result displayed different stories.
A type of genres seemed associated with students’ retelling scores, but
the scores were not likely to be in connection with the results of the survey
about their preference for types of the genres directly (see Table 4.3 and 4.4).
Table 4.3 The average of scores on different types of nonfictions
Types of the text A’s average B’s average Total average
Informational 11.0/21 9.7/21 10.3/21
Others 18.7/21 14.0/21 16.3/21
Table 4.4 The average of scores on different types of fictions
Types of the text A’s average B’s average Total average
Realistic 10.5/21 11.5/21 11.0/21
Fantasy and Fairy tale 15.0/21 14.0/21 14.5/21
Mystery and Narrative 13.0/21 7.0/21 10.0/21
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 39
According to Table 4.3 and 4.4, students got lower scores on
informational nonfiction stories that are ‘Salt Rock’, ‘Desert People’, and
‘Summer Olympics Legends’ than those on other stories, and student A and B
got lower scores on mystery and narrative fiction stories and realistic stories.
Interestingly, in student A’s survey, student A said he is interested in realistic
text and mystery text, but he produced lower scores on both types of the text
than those on fantasy and fairy tale text. On the other hand, student B
produced a high score on fantasy and fairy tale text. In student B’s survey,
student B said she likes fantasy text. Considering students’ preferences for
genres and the scores, the result of survey and the retelling scores seemed
different.
In summary, both students produced better scores on nonfiction
stories, but it was different from their previous survey. Also, in comparison
to genres and the scores, common ground was not found. Therefore, it is hard
to say that the types of texts or genres could affect students’ retelling scores.
There might be other factors.
4.1.2 Comparison scores with each book
Student A and B showed similar patterns on the scores in both
nonfiction stories and fiction stories, but in some books student A and B
showed contrary scores.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 40
Baltic Rescue
Barack Obama
Salt Rocks Desert people
Summer Olympics Legends
Sonia Joins the Supreme
Court
13579
111315171921
Student AStudent B
Figure 4.1 The results of the retelling scores on nonfiction stories
As Figure 4.1 showed, student A and B showed high scores on ‘the
Baltic Rescue’, ‘Barack Obama’, and ‘Salt Rocks’, and students got low
scores on ‘Desert People’, and ‘Summer Olympics Legends’ among the
nonfiction stories. On other hand, student A got a higher score on ‘Sonia
Joins the Supreme Court’ than student B’s score.
In fiction stories, student A and B showed similar patterns of scores,
but on ‘The Footprint’, students produced opposite scores.
Average13.3
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 41
Rainy-Day Savings
Goldilocks and the three bears
The Footprint
Mystery at Camp
White Cloud
Pluto’s new
friends
The backpack
Tax
13579
111315171921
Student AStudent B
Av-erage11.83
Figure 4.2 The results of the retelling scores on fictions
Figure 4.2 shows the scores of the retelling on fiction stories displayed
similar patterns except ‘The Footprint’. Student A and B got high scores
compared to the average score on ‘Mystery at Camp White Cloud’, ‘Pluto’s
new friends’, and ‘The backpack Tax’ while they had low scores on ‘Rainy-
Day Savings’ and ‘Goldilocks and the three bears’. There was also an
opposite results between student A and B. Student A got a higher score on
‘The Footprint’ than student B did. Normally student A got high scores on
fiction stories, but in ‘The backpack Tax’ student B got high scores than
student A’s.
To sum up, student A and B had similar patterns on the scores on
nonfiction stories and fiction stories, but in some books, they showed
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 42
opposite patterns of the scores. It told both student A and B had something
different factor that would affect the scores.
4.1.3 Comparison scores with the number of words
No relationship was found between words in the book and the scores (see
Table 4.5 and 4.6). It means there may be other factors that could affect the
retelling scores.
Table 4.5 The results of scores on nonfiction retellings
Title Word A Retelling B Retelling
Baltic Rescue 710 20/21 14/21
Barack Obama 805 17/21 17/21
Salt Rocks 938 16/21 14/21
Desert People 897 12/21 13/21
Summer Olympics Legends 748 5/21 2/21
Sonia Joins the Supreme Court 837 19/21 11/21
As Table 4.4 showed, student A and B made the lowest scores on
‘Summer Olympics Legends’ even though the book consists of 748 words.
On the other hand, ‘Salt Rocks’ has 938 words, but both students produced a
bit high scores compared to the average score ‘13.3’.
There were similar results found in fiction stories like Table 4.5.
Table 4.6 The results of scores on the retelling fictions
Title Word A Retelling B Retelling
Rainy-Day Savings 814 2/21 2/21
Goldilocks and the three bears 862 10/21 10/21
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 43
The Footprint 938 12/21 2/21
Mystery at Camp White Cloud 1003 14/21 12/21
Pluto’s new friends 726 20/21 18/21
The backpack Tax 843 19/21 21/21
Among the fiction stories, student A and B earned the lowest scores on
‘Rainy-Day Savings’ that consists of 814 words while on ‘Mystery at Camp
White Could’ both students produced high scores that were 14 and 12
compared to the average score ‘11.8’. Also, on ‘The Footprint’ that has 938
words, student A got 12 score but student B got 2 score. It showed the
number of the words in the books seems not to correlate the retelling scores.
In short, no relationship between the number of the word and the
scores were found.
4.1.4 Comparison with the scores and the type of the teacher’s questions
Teacher’s inferential questions seemed to affect students’ retelling scores but
not all scores were affected (see Table 4.7 and 4.8).
Table 4.7 The types of questions and retelling scores on nonfictions
Title Literal question (%)
Inferential question (%)
A’s score
B’s score
Baltic Rescue 14(36.8) 24(63.2) 20/21 14/21
Barack Obama 27(45.8) 32(54.2) 17/21 17/21
Salt Rocks 19(40.4) 28(59.6) 16/21 14/21
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 44
Desert People 29(50.9) 28(49.1) 12/21 13/21
Summer Olympics Legends 34(63.0) 20(37.0) 5/21 2/21
Sonia Joins the Supreme Court 22(40.7) 32(59.3) 19/21 11/21
According to Table 4.7, the teacher asked students over 54% of the
inferential questions in ‘Baltic Rescue’, ‘Barack Obama’, and ‘Salt Rocks’.
Students produced high scores compared to the average score ‘13.3’.
However, when the teacher asked questions that accounted for almost similar
proportion of literal and inferential questions like ‘Desert People’, students
got the score around the average score. In ‘Summer Olympics Legends’, the
teacher focused more on literal questions that accounted for 34%. Students
made the lowest scores among nonfiction stories. Also, in student B case,
even though the teacher asked more inferential questions, student B got the
score below the average score. There might be another factor that could
affect the retelling scores on ‘Sonia Joins the Supreme Court’.
Table 4.8 The types of questions and retelling scores on fictions
Title Literal Inferential A’s B’s
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 45
question (%) question (%) score score
Rainy-Day Savings 17(40.5) 25(59.5) 2/21 2/21
Goldilocks and the three bears 26(48.1) 28(51.9) 10/21 10/21
The Footprint 16(37.2) 27(62.8) 12/21 2/21
Mystery at Camp White Cloud 19(40.4) 28(59.6) 14/21 12/21
Pluto’s new friends 21(42.0) 29(58.0) 20/21 18/21
The backpack Tax 17(38.6) 27(61.4) 19/21 21/21
Like Table 4.7, Table 4.8 showed the teachers’ inferential questions
would affect students’ retelling scores on fictions stories. Student A and B
got high score compared to the average of fiction score ‘11.8’ in ‘Mystery at
Camp White Cloud’, ‘Pluto’s new friends’, and ‘The backpack Tax’.
However, unlike Table 4.6, the teacher threw 59.5% of the inferential
questions, but both students produced the lowest scores on ‘Rainy-Day
Savings’ among fiction stories. Also, with 62.8% of inferential questions in
‘The Footprint’, student A made a high score compared to the average score,
but student B made the lowest score on ‘The Footprint’. As already
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 46
mentioned above, there might be another factor that could influence the
scores.
To sum up, the amount of inferential questions would be related to
students’ retelling scores, but some scores seemed not to be affected by the
teacher’s inferential questions.
4.2 Students’ contextual (world) knowledge with word knowledge
Students’ ample contextual (world) knowledge seemed to contribute to
understanding words within the context, which seemed to highly correlate
with students’ retelling scores.
In order to figure out the relations with students’ retelling scores, world
knowledge, students’ interviews were analyzed (see Table 4.9 and 4.10).
Table 4.9 Student A and B’s world knowledge with scores on nonfictions
Title
Student A Student B
World knowledge
Score World knowledge
Score
Baltic Rescue + 20/21 + 14/21
Barack Obama + 17/21 + 17/21
Salt Rocks + 16/21 + 14/21
Desert People - 12/21 + 13/21
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 47
Summer Olympics Legends - 5/21 - 2/21
Sonia Joins the Supreme Court + 19/21 - 11/21
Note. + = high, and – = low.
Considering the retelling scores and their interviews, there were some
similarities between student A and student B. Both student A and B said they
already had some knowledge about ‘Baltic Rescue’, ‘Barack Obama’, and
‘Salt Rocks’. On their interview about ‘Baltic Rescue’, both students agreed
that they felt familiar with the topic and structure (see Excerpt 4.1, 4.2).
Excerpt 4.1 Student A’ interview about Baltic Rescue (2013. 10. 26)
As soon as I read the title, I can imagine the story. The title gave me a lot of
information. Also, this book looked like a fiction story, so I can predict what
happened to the Baltic.
Student A was interviewed in Korean.
Excerpt 4.2 Student B’ interview about Baltic Rescue (2013. 10. 26)
At first, I did not know the meaning of word ‘Rescue’, but I could guess what was
wrong with the Baltic when I heard the meaning from student A in QtA. Also, this
book was similar with a novel, so I easily predicted the end of this story.
Student B was interviewed in Korean.
Both students showed their world knowledge about content and
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 48
structure. It seemed to contribute to getting high scores. Furthermore,
students’ world knowledge about Obama was seen in their interviews. Both
students said that they already read a biography that was ‘who was’ about
him in English in their interviews. As Table 4.11 showed, students produced
the scores over the average ‘13.3’ on nonfiction stories. By contrast, in their
interviews of ‘Summer Olympics Legends’, they said they had no idea about
this topic, so they hardly understood many words. They said even though
they knew each word, they could not make sense of the content with those
words, which played a part for both students to produce the lowest scores on
it.
The fiction stories have the similar pattern like Table 4.9 (see Table 4.10).
Table 4.10 Student A and B’s world knowledge with scores on fictions
Title
Student A Student B
World knowledge
Score World knowledge
Score
Rainy-Day Savings - 2/21 - 2/21
Goldilocks and the three bears + 10/21 + 10/21
The Footprint 12/21 2/21
Mystery at Camp White Cloud 14/21 12/21
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 49
Pluto’s new friends + 20/21 + 18/21
The backpack Tax + 19/21 + 21/21
Note. Space = students did not mention. + = high, and – = low.
Seemingly, students showed similar patterns like Table 4.11. When
students answered they had some contextual (world) knowledge about
‘Pluto’s new Friends’ and ‘The backpack Tax’, they got the high scores,
while they produced low scores when students had little contextual (world)
knowledge as 4.12 showed.
In QtA of ‘Rainy-Day Savings’, both students showed their poor
contextual (world) knowledge, which seemed to affect their interpretation of
the context.
Excerpt 4.3 QtA of Rainy-Day Savings (2013. 12. 21)
Transcription comment
SB
T
SA
T
It also showed how much interest, or
additional money, her savings had earned.
What can you know about Anita?
Ah, interest, show interest (to her).
So, Anita finally…? What?
SB reads one sentence.
T checks SS’s
comprehension.
SA answers.
T checks SS’s
comprehension again.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 50
SA
T
SA
T
SA
T
SB
T
SA
T
SB
T
SB
She earns her money.
Why did the bank send an email to her?
To show how much money she has.
And?
How much interesting
Do you know the word of interest?
Interest is interesting.
It is a different meaning in the bank.
Ok, if you read it more, you can know the
meaning of the interest, ok?
Why are they giving me interest? Anita asked
her dad.
Ok, what does the author put in this sentence?
Interest!
So, after this sentence, what does the author
say?
(The author will say) Why banks give
interest.
SA answers.
T asks a question to check
whether SS know about
‘interest’ exactly.
SA answers.
T asks more.
SA answers.
T asks a question.
SB answers.
T gives a hint.
T encourages SS to
inference the meaning.
SA read sentences.
T asks a question.
SB answers correctly.
T tries to let SS infer next.
SB answers.
*Bolds are spoken in L1 (Korean).
In this book, students used the word ‘interest’ as the meaning of
making a sentence such as something is interesting or someone is interested
in something at first even if they noticed the word ‘interest’ was used in a
different way in this book.
On the contrary to ‘Rainy-Day Savings’, both students showed high
world knowledge about ‘Pluto’s new friends’, which affect their retelling
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 51
scores (see Excerpt 4.4).
Excerpt 4.4 Teacher’s journal in Pluto’s new friends (2014. 2. 6)
I thought students feel difficult with this book because there are many planet names
and science terms. However, during QtA, they looked familiar with them and looked
interested in this topic, and they explained why Pluto was kicked away from the solar
system. Also, student A corrected student B’s pronunciation several times. I was
surprised. Both students answered my questions very well. The looked confident
about this topic. After QtA, I asked what happed to them. They answered they
already learned this in their school. Maybe, their knowledge led them to understand
this book easily.
In the middle of QtA of ‘Pluto’s new friends’ both students told the
reason why Pluto was kicked out of the solar system. Also, they knew about
many terms concerning the solar system. Those seemed to correlate their
scores that student A had the highest score and student B got the second high
score.
On the other hand, in their interviews about ‘Goldilocks and the three
bears’, both students answered they already knew about the story
‘Goldilocks and the three bears’, but they got the scores below the average
‘11.8’. It indicated not all world knowledge would not be related to the
retelling scores.
In short, the presumption is that world knowledge would correlate the
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 52
retelling scores, but not all world knowledge was related to the scores. Also,
students with high world knowledge seemed to know about more words than
students with low world knowledge did. Presumably, contextual or world
knowledge is likely to correlate word knowledge.
4.3 Students’ interest in the topic
Allowing for the survey result that they said they consider the topic first
when they choose a book, students’ interest about the topic might affect
students’ retelling scores. By comparison with the retelling scores, the rating
of the interest in topic that students determined seemed to have in common.
After QtA, students were interviewed to investigate what topic students are
interested in, and students made a list as they liked (see Table 4.11 and 4.12).
Table 4.11 Student A and B’s rating interest in the topic among nonfictions
A Title B Title
1 Baltic Rescue 1 Baltic Rescue
2 Sonia Joins the Supreme Court 2 Desert People
3 Salt Rocks 3 Salt Rocks
4 Desert People 4 Sonia Joins the Supreme Court
5 Barack Obama 5 Barack Obama
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 53
5 Summer Olympics Legends 5 Summer Olympics Legends
Table 4.12 Student A and B’s rating interest in the topic among nonfictions
A Title B Title
1 Pluto’s new friends 1 Pluto’s new friends
2 Goldilocks and the three bears 2 The backpack Tax
3 Mystery at Camp White Cloud 3 Mystery at Camp White Cloud
4 The backpack Tax 4 Goldilocks and the three bears
5 The Footprint 4 The Footprint
6 Rainy-Day Savings 6 Rainy-Day Savings
Interestingly, both student A and B determined the ranking in similar ways.
Both students were interested in ‘Baltic Rescue’ most, but they were not
interested in ‘Summer Olympics Legends’ and ‘Barack Obama’ least in
fiction stories. Also, student A and B prioritized ‘Pluto’s new friends’ was the
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 54
most interesting topic and ‘Rainy-Day savings’ was the least interesting topic
among the fiction stories. In addition, students produced high scores on
‘Baltic Rescue’ and ‘Pluto’s new friends’ that they regarded as the most
interesting books.
On the other hand, students got the lowest scores on ‘Summer
Olympics Legends’ and ‘Rainy-Day savings’ that were put on the least
interesting story. The teacher wrote students’ behaviors in QtA of ‘Summer
Olympics Legends’. Students’ less interest in the story was observed during
QtA in the teacher’s journal (see Excerpt 4.5).
Excerpt 4.5 Students’ little interest in Summer Olympics Legends
(2014. 1. 19)
Student A could not answer my questions. He looked tired so he could not
concentrate on this class. Student B looked bored, and she checked the number of the
pages of this book. Also, she touched her hair and her arm. Student A and B seemed
less interested in this book. Moreover, both students hardly remember what they
learn two days ago. I have doubts about keeping conducting my research. Also, I
wonder how many scores they would produce.
As the teacher wrote, both students produced the lowest scores ‘2’ on
‘Summer Olympics Legends’.
However, both students put ‘Barack Obama’ in the last place, but
student A got the third higher score and student B got the highest score on
nonfictions stories. With these results, it is obvious that students’ interest in
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 55
the topic would be somewhat connected to students’ retelling scores.
In summary, students’ interest in the topic and story were likely to
influence their retelling scores, but in some books, there was not relationship
between their interest and scores.
4.3 Students’ perception of QtA
The interview questions consist of three parts: the role of QtA in reading
class, the preferences between QtA and previous reading class, and the
degree of the help in using QtA.
4.3.1 Students’ understanding the role of QtA
One question was asked about the reason why the teacher conducts QtA
instead of the previous reading class. Student A and B answered to improve
their reading comprehension and English reading skills in every interview.
However, in student A case, he added more in his interview. Student A said
QtA helps him to develop his English skill, especially speaking skill. Finally,
in the last interview, he said that QtA makes him improve overall English
skills such as speaking and writing.
To sum up, both understood the teacher used QtA to help them develop
their reading comprehension. In addition, QtA would make them have better
English skill.
4.3.2 Students’ preferring QtA to the previous reading class
Student A and B said QtA is much more interesting than the previous reading
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 56
class. About the first question of why QtA helps them understand the English
better compared to the previous class, student A was interviewed (see
Excerpt 4.6).
Excerpt 4.6 Student A’s interview about QtA (2013. 11. 10)
I like reading class that I am taking now. Previous reading class seems robotic, for
example, as soon as I read an English book, I had to translate it into Korean, but now
I do not need to translate. What I need to do is to understand the story.
Now, this class encourages me to think about the meaning and to tell about my
thinking in front of my teacher and my peer. It makes me digest the content of the
story. If I continue this class, I think my reading skill could increase and I can read
English books by myself.
Student A answered in Korean.
Likewise, student A showed his preference on QtA to the previous reading
class because as he mentioned, QtA helped him comprehend the content.
Student B also agreed that QtA helped her check her thinking about the
content compared to the previous reading class. Student B’s interview is as
follows (see Excerpt 4.7).
Excerpt 4.7 Student B’s interview about QtA (2013. 11. 10)
I prefer this class to the previous reading class because it is helpful. When I did my
reading homework including finding unknown words and solving comprehension
questions, I was confused if the meaning of the words I found was suitable in this
story. However, through my peer’s talk and the teacher’s talk in QtA, I can
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 57
understand the content even though the teacher speaks English. In the previous class
I would find unknown words with a dictionary to grab the gist of the book, but I
sometimes have a different opinion about the book. However, there was no way to
check whether my opinion was correct or not, but in QtA I can confirm my thinking
and compare it with others. That is why I like QtA more.
Student B answered in Korean.
About the second question that which you like more, talking about
English books with peers or reading English book alone, student A answered
he liked talking about the story more because he can learned what he did not
know by listening the peer’s and the teacher’s thought and questions, which
made him foster his thinking power. Also, student B answered while she
talked about the story with her peer and the teacher, she felt confident.
Student B said she seemed to improve her thinking power, understood the
story well, and learn new words she did not know during QtA.
4.3.3 Students’ thinking of using QtA
In order to figure out students’ thinking of using QtA for their future reading,
one question was given to students.
About the question that how you will use this QtA in your own
reading, both students answered QtA will be helpful to pick up the main idea
and the author’s intent to understand the text better. Student A said that he
tried to think about the reason why the author wrote book in Korean essay
class. It helped him understand the context. On the other hand, student B said
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 58
she does not like reading books, so she is not sure of using QtA in her own
reading. However, student B agreed if she thought of the author’s purpose in
the book, student B could understand well.
Both students showed positive perceptions of using QtA and both students
agreed it helps them comprehend the context better than before.
To sum up, students considered QtA a helper for their improvement of
comprehension and English skill and both students preferred QtA class to the
previous reading class because they could concentrate on the content of the
story. With discussion they could reduce the gap between their understanding
and the content that the author really wanted to say. Also, both agreed that if
they use QtA in their reading, their comprehension would be developed.
ChapterⅤDiscussion
5. Discussion
The central purposes of this study were 1) to figure out the factors may
influence students’ retelling scores in QtA and 2) to know students’
perception of QtA. The results will be discussed to deal with two purposes.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 59
5.1 Research Question 1
What factors may influence students’ retelling scores?
Since there was no control group, the amount of the influence of each factor
could not be measured. By comparing the retelling scores with observation,
students’ interviews, and teacher’s journal, the data will be explained with
other researches. The finding of this study is not clear, but there is some
evidence that students would be affected by some factors.
This research hypothesis is that students’ world knowledge, word
knowledge, interest, and teachers’ questions are related to students’ retelling
scores. Like Calisir and Gurel (2003), Ozuru et al. (2009), Tarch (2010)’s
findings, students world (prior, domain, or contextual) knowledge seemed
closely connected to students’ retelling scores. In students’ interviews,
student A and B showed they already had world knowledge about Pluto and
Barack Obama. It made students get the high scores. On the other hand, as
students already interviewed, they did not know about some events of the
Olympics and the athletes’ name and terms about economy such as interest,
so it occurred they got the lowest scores.
What’s more, their ample world knowledge was likely to lead students
to understand the words in the text accordingly, but students showed students
had difficulties using and understanding words in the text in inappropriate
ways when their lack of world knowledge in the text such as interest. This
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 60
finding is opposite to Tannenbaum et al. (2006)’s finding that breadth of
word knowledge that has regarded as the quantity or number of words
(Nation, 2001, as cited in Nassaji, 2004) was strongly connected with
reading comprehension. In that case, in QtA students showed their thinking
and responded to teachers’ questions. When the teacher asked a definition of
the word, one of students answered it. Also, as students asked the teacher
about the definition of the word, the teacher threw an inferential question to
let student guess the meaning or gave an explanation of the meaning directly
or indirectly. Therefore, breath of word knowledge did not seem a problem in
QtA, but depth of word knowledge which “how well the learner knows a
word” (Meara, 1996; Read, 1993, 2000, as cited in Nassaji, 2004, p. 112)
seemed to matter. When students read text, they not only know the meaning,
but also students “expect in light of what they already know about a concept”
(Seidenberg, 1982 as cited in Sáenz & Fuchs, 2002, p. 33) in accordance
with schema theory.
In addition, this study showed when they had difficulty understanding
the words inappropriately, students produced poor retelling scores. It means
students with poor word knowledge possibly get low scores on reading
comprehension as Tannenbaum et al. (2006), Zhang and Annual (2008), and
Rictetts et al. (2007)’ findings that reading comprehension is highly
correlated with word knowledge. In students’ interviews, students with
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 61
abundant world knowledge had enough word knowledge on ‘Baltic Rescue’
and ‘Pluto’s new friends’ directly or indirectly through QtA, which helped
students produce high retelling scores.
On interviews, students A and B displayed they were less interested in
‘Barack Obama’, but they got the high scores. Also, students already knew
about the story of ‘Goldilocks and the three bears’, but they produced the
scores below average. Those are explained by Schiefele and Krapp (1996),
ETIN (2010)’s finding that readers’ interest was independent of readers’
world knowledge. However, it is obvious that students with high interest and
high world knowledge produce high retelling scores as ETIN (2010) and
Boscolo and Mason (2003) found. Student A and B graded ‘Pluto’s new
friends’ as the most interesting fiction story, and they had world knowledge
about Pluto. Both readers’ interest and world knowledge made better scores.
It could be said topic interest seemed related to the amount of readers’ world
knowledge (Boscolo and Mason, 2003). Also, as students determined the
ranking about the topic, students got the high or low scores except ‘Barack
Obama’. This finding is similar to Schiefele and Krapp (1996)’s finding that
topic interest was highly related to students’ recall.
As far as students’ world, word, and interest are concerned, this study
has in common. When students had high interest, ample world knowledge,
and word knowledge, they made high scores while students with low
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 62
interest, poor world knowledge, and poor word knowledge produced low
scores. It presumes that students’ world knowledge, word knowledge, and
interest are closely connected with their reading comprehension scores.
In QtA, it is expected that teacher would use inferential questions for
students to construct their knowledge and to find out the author’s intent. This
study showed the inferential questions seems to affect students to build their
knowledge and it seems to affect their retelling scores as Erdogan and
Campbell (2008)’s study, and Van den Broek et al. (2001)’s finding that
students had a benefit from inferential questions. However, in Van den Broek
et al. (2001)’s study, it was not proven that why inferential questions did not
work to less proficient students. In this study, students showed they got the
low scores on some texts even though the teacher asked many inferential
questions. With student’s interviews, the scores had overlapped points. The
lowest scores on nonfiction and fiction story showed students had low
interest, world knowledge, and word knowledge about them. Considering
students’ world knowledge is strongly related to word knowledge, maybe
world knowledge would be a main factor to prevent students from
constructing their knowledge. In light of the constructivist theory, students
used the world knowledge that they already acquired to build meanings by
inferring the meaning from text and integrating new world knowledge with
world knowledge they had (Applefield et al., 2001; Spivey, 1987). As
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 63
Rosenblatt (l993) mentioned, students produce diverse interpretation of text
by inferential questions. Also, as reader-response theorists claimed, students
can share their responses with peers (Scott, 1994). However, because of both
students’ lack of world knowledge, students could not build meanings and
create their interpretation of text with the teachers’ inferential questions.
Therefore, another hypothesis would be deduced from this study that without
world knowledge, teachers’ inferential questions do not work to students’
reading comprehension. World knowledge plays a significant part, as it
allows readers to create inferences to comprehend the text (Pressley, 2006 as
cited in Fan, 2010).
In conclusion, students’ world knowledge, word knowledge, interest,
and teachers’ inferential questions seem to play central roles in retelling
scores. When it comes to word knowledge, it is likely connected with
students’ world knowledge. With regard to teachers’ inferential questions
when students have world knowledge, the inferential questions make
students build meanings and create interpretation of text by going beyond the
author’s intent. Therefore, world knowledge seems to work to students’
retelling scores mainly.
5.2 Research Question 2
What are students’ perceptions of QtA?
Finding out an author’s intent or purpose is one of basic skills for
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 64
comprehension in reading (Davis, 1944). QtA might is appropriate for it.
Most of the researches conducted with QtA have focused on development of
readers’ comprehension (McKeown et al., 1996; Sandora et al,. 1999;
Reichenberg, 20009; Liu and Chu, 2008). Among them, only McKeown et
al., (1996)’s study examined students’ perception of QtA. This study also
focuses on students’ perceptions of QtA and comparison QtA and previous
reading class for future students’ reading classes.
The interviews were conducted to demonstrate how students think about
QtA, how students prefer QtA to previous reading class, and students will
use QtA for their reading. The results of interviews were quiet positive.
What is remarkable for the findings of this study is that students were in
favor of QtA. Students answered QtA is one of tools to help them for
improvement of reading comprehension and overall English skills.
Also, for preference between QtA and the previous reading class,
students thought the previous reading class was robotic and mechanical.
They just found new words with their dictionaries and translate English into
Korean mechanically, so students felt bored. Even they could not know
whether they understood the content or not. However, they could check their
understanding with peers and the teacher during QtA, which lets students
have confidence about their reading. This result was similar with McKeown
et al., (1996)’s finding that students had confidence about their thinking.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 65
Also, they did not need to focus on translation, but students had to focus on
understanding the content. In a transactional reader-response theory point of
view, students come up with their idea by constructing their world
knowledge in their schema. Through teachers’ questions, students themselves
fill a gap by creating answers with their acquired knowledge (Anderson et
al., 1985). In the previous reading class, students did not think about the
author’s intent but they just thought about the surface information for their
grade of the school test. The previous reading class may helpful for their
grade, but it was not a real purpose of reading class that become critical
readers who go beyond the author’s point of view to create meanings
(Rosenblatt, 1993).
For using QtA for their reading, students answered that it would be
useful to think about the author’s intent when they read a book. One student
already used QtA in his essay class. Student A said QtA led him to
understand the content more. Student B also answered positively, but it is
doubtable whether student B uses QtA in her reading because she said she
does not like reading books.
To sum, both students have positive perception about QtA compared to
the previous reading class. They showed their interest in using QtA and their
preference on QtA compared to the previous reading class.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 66
Chapter Ⅵ Conclusion
6. Conclusion
6.1 Conclusion of this study
This study was conducted to investigate the factors that would influence the
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 67
retelling scores and the perception of QtA. The reason why the researcher
investigate the factors was that many researches that teach reading
comprehension strategies have focused on how successful the training or
teaching reading strategies. However, it is questionable that only the strategy
affects students’ reading comprehension or the result, so this study was
planned to figure out what factor would affect the result by using QtA.
Firstly, according to the findings of study, students’ world knowledge,
word knowledge, and interest were significantly related to students’ retelling
scores. Students’ world knowledge and their interest seemed work as
independent factors, but students’ world knowledge and word knowledge
were regarded as dependent factors. What’ more, teacher’s inferential
questions seemed strongly related to students’ world knowledge which
would affect students’ retelling scores. Students with high interest, world
knowledge, word knowledge, and the number of inferential questions
produced high scores while students with low interest, world knowledge, and
word knowledge got low scores regardless of the number of inferential
questions. Therefore, although students’ world knowledge, word knowledge,
interest, and teacher’s inferential questions could influence students’ reading
comprehension, but the main prerequisite to successful reading
comprehension is students’ word knowledge among factors.
Secondly, unlike the previous reading class, QtA may offer an opportunity
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 68
to build the meaning from the text. Also, QtA may offer students an
opportunity to focus on thinking of the authors’ intent and the content, so it
might lead students to build the meaning from the text with high level
questions. Finally, students could use it in their own reading and become
critical readers as the purpose of reading books.
6.2 Implication
The findings of this study offer some pedagogical implications for Korean
teachers in EFL reading context. First, world knowledge is important for
students not only to build the meaning from the text for their comprehension
in reading but also to learn contextual words from text. However, without
teachers’ guiding to comprehension and using the words appropriately,
students may lose their point and interest in reading. Second, QtA is a good
tool for students to share their world knowledge, word knowledge in reading
class and draw students’ attention to reading. By talking about the author’s
intent and main ideas from the text with peers and teachers, students could
learn their word and world knowledge, which helps students construct the
meanings. Third, in order to forest students’ reading comprehension, teachers
need to focus on asking inferential questions more than literal questions.
Since teachers’ questions play a role of connecting students’ world
knowledge with the text, students’ reading comprehension would be
developed.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 69
6.3 Limitations and suggestions
There were several limitations in this study. First, it was difficult to
generalize the result of this study because the participants were not randomly
chosen, due to the researchers’ condition participants were just the students
that the researcher taught together in the same time and the number of
participants was relatively small. If this study had been conducted with a lot
of participants, the results could be different. Second, 12 weeks’ short
duration of this study was not enough to draw a conclusion from this study.
Third, there was a break for about one month because of students’ finial test,
which might affect their retelling scores. Fourth, there was one grader who
scored participants’ retelling scores. Two or more graders would be more
appropriate to get more reliable scores. Five, this study aimed at finding out
the factors that would affect participants’ retelling scores, so participants
were not encouraged to use English in their reading class.
In order to resolve these limitations for further study, it is essential that
the study be conducted with more participants by randomly choosing them.
Also, a prolonged study and consecutive study are needed to generalize the
findings. To get reliable scores, co-graders are needed. In addition, so as to
know about whether QtA would influence students’ English skills, the
researchers ask participants to use English as possible as they can.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 71
Adams, M. J., & Collins, A. (1977). A schema-theoretic view of reading.
Technical Report, 32, 1-49.
Al-Issa, A. (2006). Schema theory and L2 reading comprehension:
Implications for teaching. Journal of College Teaching & Learning
(TLC), 3(7), 41-48.
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. (1985).
Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on
reading. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Applefield, J. M., Huber, R., & Moallem, M. (2001). Constructivism in
theory and practice: Toward a better understanding. High School
Journal, 84(2), 35-53.
Baleghizadeh, S. (2011). The impact of students’ training in questioning the
author technique on efl reading comprehension. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1668-1676.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Improving comprehension with
questioning the author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful
approach. NY: Scholastic.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997)
Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student
engagement with text. Newark, DL: International Reading
Association.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 72
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996).
Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to
engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4),
385-414.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Worthy, M. J. (1993). Grappling with text
ideas: Questioning the author. The Reading Teacher, 46(7), 560-566.
Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2003). Topic knowledge, text coherence, and
interest: How they interact in learning from instructional texts. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 126-148.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2004). Reading comprehension difficulties. In
Handbook of children’s literacy (pp. 313-338). Springer Netherlands.
Calisir, F., & Gurel, Z. (2003). Influence of text structure and prior
knowledge of the learner on reading comprehension, browsing and
perceived control. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2), 135-145.
Carlisle, A. (2000). Reading logs: An application of reader-response theory
in efl. ELT Journal, 54(1), 12-19.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and esl reading
pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573.
Cotton, K. (2003). Classroom Questioning. School improvement research
series, Or: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 73
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). CA: Sage.
Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading.
Psychometrika, 9(3), 185-197.
Day, R. R., & Park, J. S. (2005). Developing reading comprehension
questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(1), 60-73.
Dooley, K. E. (2007). Viewing Agricultural Education Research through a
Qualitative Lens. Journal of agricultural education, 48(4), 32-42.
ETIN, G. L. E. (2010). Effects of topic interest and prior knowledge on text
recall and annotation use in reading a hypermedia text in the L2.
Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction
patterns in classrooms facilitated with differing levels of
constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science
Education, 30(14), 1891-1914.
Fan, Y. C. (2010). The effect of comprehension strategy instruction on efl
learners' reading comprehension. Asian Social Science, 6(8).
Flynn, P. A. M. (2002). Dialogic approaches toward developing third
graders' comprehension using questioning the author and its
influence on teacher change (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI3056139
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 74
Foong, P. Y., Png, J. L. H., Raslinda, A. R., & Silver, R. E. (2009).
Questioning-the-author: primary school students' perceptions. In
Educational Research Association of Singapore, 2009: Unpacking
Teaching and Learning through Educational Research. Singapore:
Educational Research Association of Singapore, pp. 17. Retrieved
from http://www.nie.edu.sg/profile/rita-elaine-silver
Fung, I. Y., Wilkinson, I. A., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal
teaching to improve esl students’ comprehension of english
expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13(1), 1-31.
Golinkoff, R. M. (1975). A comparison of reading comprehension processes
in good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 623-
659.
Guthrie, J.T. (2001, March). Contexts for engagement and motivation in
reading. Reading Online, 4(8). Retrieved Oct 21, 2013, from
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/
handbook/guthrie/index.html
Guszak, F. J. (1967). Teacher questioning and reading. Reading Teacher. 21,
227-234.
Hayes, B. L. (1991). The effective teaching of reading. Effective Strategies
for Teaching Reading, 3-12.
Harrop, A., & Swinson, J. (2003). Teachers' questions in the infant, junior
and secondary school. Educational Studies, 29(1), 49-57.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 75
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical
considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 191-209.
Hirsch Jr, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge-of
words and the world. American Educator, 27(1), 10-13.
Hirvela, A. (1996). Reader-response theory and elt. ELT Journal, 50(2), 127-
134.
Hoyt, L. (2009). Revisit, reflect, retell: Time-tested strategies for teaching
reading comprehension. NH: Heinemann.
James, I., & Carter, T. S. (2006). Questioning and informational texts:
Scaffolding students comprehension of content areas. Forum of
Public Policy.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kissner, E. (2006). Summarizing, paraphrasing, and retelling. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Liu, Y., & Chu, H. J. (2008). Questioning the author: Effects on recall,
inference generation and responses to questions by efl junior high
school students. 英語教學期刊, 32(2), 77-121
Liying, X. U. (2012) Teacher questioning as a way to open up dialogue in the
efl intensive reading classrooms in china. Journal of Cambridge
Studies, 7(4), 101-115.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 76
National Curriculum Guide (2011). (Available from the National Curriculum
Information Center).
Nassaji, H. (2004). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge
and L2 learners' lexical inferencing strategy use and success.
Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des
Langues Vivantes, 61(1), 107-135.
Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom
research: A comprehensive guide. MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
McEwan, E. K. (2009). Word and world knowledge. In Teach them all to
read: Catching kids before they fall through the cracks. (2nd ed., pp.
89-113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452219325.n6
McNeil, L. (2012). Extending the compensatory model of second language
reading. System, 40(1), 64-76.
Morrow, L. M. (1984). Reading stories to young children: Effects of story
structure and traditional questioning strategies on comprehension.
Journal of Literacy Research, 16(4), 273-288.
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge,
reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts.
Learning and instruction, 19(3), 228-242.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 77
Reichenberg, M. (2008). “But before you said you believed that…” A
longitudinal study of structured text talks in small groups. Reading,
8(1), 158-176.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. The Teachers College
Record, 105(9), 1623-1640.
Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. (2007). Vocabulary is important for
some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3),
235-257.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1993). The transactional theory: Against dualisms.
College English, 55(4), 377-386.
Sandora, C., Beck, I., & Mckeown, M. (1999). A comparison of two
discussion strategies on students' comprehension and interpretation of
complex literature. Reading Psychology, 20(3), 177-212.
Sáenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the Reading Difficulty of
Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities Expository Versus
Narrative Text. Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 31-41.
Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of
expository text. Learning and individual differences, 8(2), 141-160.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). The effect of reader purpose on
interest and recall. Journal of Literacy Research, 26(1), 1-18.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 78
Scott, L. M. (1994). The bridge from text to mind: Adapting reader-response
theory to consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3),
461-480.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an r&d program in
reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Spivey, N. N. (1987). Construing constructivism: Reading research in the
United States. Poetics, 16(2), 169-192.
Stahl, S. A. (2003). Vocabulary and readability: How knowing word
meanings affects comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders,
23(3), 241-247.
Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships
between word knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade
children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 381-398.
Tarchi, C. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary
school: A focus on direct and indirect effects of reader's prior
knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 415-420.
Van den Broek, P., Tzeng, Y., Risden, K., Trabasso, T., & Basche, P. (2001).
Inferential questioning: Effects on comprehension of narrative texts
as a function of grade and timing. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(3), 521.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 79
Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography
and second language classroom research. New York: Longman.
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Zhang, D., Liu, Y., & Hong, H. (2006). Teacher questioning in chinese
language classrooms: A sociocultural approach. In the American
Educational Research Association of San Francisco, 2006.
Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, pp. 22.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10497/3100
Zhang, L. J., Gu, P. Y., & Hu, G. (2008). A cognitive perspective on
singaporean primary school pupils' use of reading strategies in
learning to read in english. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78(2), 245-271.
Zhang, L. J., & Anual, S. B. (2008). The role of vocabulary in reading
comprehension the case of secondary school students learning english
in singapore. RELC Journal, 39(1), 51-76.
Zucker, T. A., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. B., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010).
Preschool teachers’ literal and inferential questions and children's
responses during whole-class shared reading. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 25(1), 65-83.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 80
Appendix A
The way used to calculate students’ English scores in participants’ middle
school.
Test scores: Those scores consist of mid-term and final tests. Each test
accounts for 35 from 70. If students get perfect scores in each test, they get
70.
Listening scores: Students take an English listening comprehension test
which consists of 20 questions every semester. The test result accounts for
10.
Reading scores: There is a system that students have to read the certain
number of books that have a certain point. The book points that students read
have to reach 200 points. To get the point, students should log in a reading
gate cite, and they need to take a comprehension test. If students reach 200
points, they can get 5 for reading score.
Writing scores: The middle school appoints an English trade book for
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 81
writing test. Students have to read the book by the reading test. English
teachers allocate a question differently, and then students have to write it on
the paper in English. The perfect score is 15. The book that was designated
for the second grade students (SA) was ‘Number the stars’ and was
appointed for the first grade students (SB) was ‘Charlotte’s web’.
Appendix B
Definitions of types of text
Adventure: stories that include elements of the unknown, danger,
risk, or excitement
Biography: nonfiction texts about the facts and events of a real
person's life
Fables: folktales with animals that have a moral
Fairy Tales: folktales that contain magic and conflict between good
and evil
General Folktales: stories that may contain elements from different
types of folktales, including fables, fairy tales, legends, pourquoi
tales, and tall tales
Interview: written accounts of conversations between two or more
individuals through direct quotes
Legends: folktales that explain events in the world after its creation;
includes stories about the supernatural and adventures of real heroes
Mysteries: suspenseful stories about a crime or other event, the
writing of which involves the process of solving a puzzle
Persuasive: texts that attempt to convince readers to embrace a
particular point of view
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 82
Pourquoi Tales: folktales that explain the origins of a characteristic
or feature, often within nature
Tall Tales: folktales about characters with exaggerated adventures
and abilities for a dramatic and/or humorous effect
This definitions are provided by reading a to z.
Appendix C
Introduction for Questioning the Author Strategy We are going to be learning a new strategy to help our comprehension
called “Questioning the Author.” What do you think we might be doing?
How could we question the author? For what reason would a reader question
the author?
Well, many readers have found that sometimes the author thinks they
know more about a subject already than they really do. Therefore, the author
may think he or she is being clear, when the reader is missing some
important information that would help them read and understand better. So,
if we ask ourselves what the author is doing or why the author is telling us
something, we might better comprehend or understand what is meant.
Sometimes, the author leaves clues in the text to help us keep a track of the
authors’ intents that is really important such as main idea or massage.
There are two types of stories non-fictions and fictions. In non-fiction
stories, there are more facts and information that is presented. It might be the
order of what happened, which consists of the cause and effect of some
actions or the comparison and contrast of different ideas. Fiction stories are
what we are most used to. It is the story from with a setting, characters, a
problem, attempts to solve it and a resolution. We will learn how to ask the
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 83
author and ourselves questions to understand both kinds of writing. This
strategy should help us do our best.
2002 Adaptation of introduction of QtA written by Patricia Antoinette
McHale Flynn from Dialogic approaches toward developing third graders'
comprehension using Questioning the Author and its influence on teacher
change (Doctoral dissertation). ETD Collection for Fordham University.
Appendix D
The schedule and topics of the books
Week Classes Date Times Participants
1 Baltic Rescue1 Oct. 23th 25 min.
(each)Two(One girl in grad 7 and one boy in grade 8)
2 Oct. 26th
2 Barack Obama1 Oct. 30th
35 min.(each)
2 Nov. 2nd
3 Salt Rocks1 Nov. 6th2 Nov. 9th
4 Desert People1 Nov. 13th2 Nov. 16th
5 Rainy-Day Savings1 Dec. 19th2 Dec. 22th
6Goldilocks and the three bears
1 Dec. 26th 25 min.(each)2 Dec. 29th
7 The Footprint1 Jan. 2nd
30 min.(each)
2 Jan. 5th
8Mystery at Camp White Cloud
1 Jan. 9th2 Jan. 12th
9 Summer Olympics Legends1 Jan. 16th 35 min.
(each)2 Jan. 19th10 Sonia Joins the Supreme
Court1 Jan. 23th 30 min.
(each)2 Jan. 26th
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 84
11 Pluto’s new friends1 Feb. 6th
25 min.(each)
2 Feb. 9th
12 The backpack Tax1 Feb. 13th2 Feb. 16th
Appendix E
RetellingYou will read and write retellings for one story. After we have
finished reading, return the story to me. You may not use the story book to help you with your retelling. I will give you a sheet of lined paper. Write a retelling of the story you just read, including all the important facts and details to the best of your ability. When you are finishing writing your retelling, turn it in to me.
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 85
Appendix F
Retelling
여러분은 책을 읽고 retelling 을 해야 합니다. 리딩 수업이 끝난 후, 책을 선생님께
돌려드리세요. 여러분은 retelling 을 위해서 책을 다시 읽을 수 없습니다. 이 종이에
이 책에 대한 가장 중요했던 사실들을 세부사항과 함께 retelling 을 하시기 바랍니다.
쓰기가 끝난 후, 이 종이를 선생님께 제출하시기 바랍니다
Appendix G
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 86
Assessment: Fiction retelling (Scoring rubric)Student’ s name:Date:Title:Reviewer:This assessment is completed by
Rubric for Scoring Individual Story Elements
Complete, detailed 3 points
Partial 2 points
Fragmentary (sketchy) 1 points
Inaccurate or not included 0 points
Key
Elements
Prompts 0 1 2 3
Beginning How does the story begin?
Setting Where does the story occur?
Characters Who are the main characters?
Which was most important? Why?
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 87
Problem What is one important problem in the story?
Sequence What important things happened in the story?
What was the order of events?
Resolution How is the problem solved?
How does the story end?
Level of prompting: high (1), medium (2), none (3)
Total points :
Total points 15-21: Skilled, 8-14: Developing, 0-7: Needs work
This rubric is adopted from reading a to z.
Appendix H
Assessment: Nonfiction retelling (Scoring rubric)Student’ s name:Date:Title:Reviewer:This assessment is completed by
Rubric for Scoring Individual Story Elements
Complete, detailed 3 points
Partial 2 points
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 88
Fragmentary (sketchy) 1 points
Inaccurate or not included 0 points
Key Elements Prompts 0 1 2 3
Topic(understands the topic)
What is this book about?
Main idea(s) What are the main ideas of the book (sections)?
Details(recalls details linked to main ideas)
Name the supporting details of each main idea.
Organization(knows how the book is organized)
How is the information in the book organized?(e.g., chronological, classification, randomly)
Command ofvocabulary(uses key vocabulary from story)
What are some of the key terms presented in the book?
Accuracy(retells facts accurately)
How is the problem solved?How does the story end?
Level of prompting: high (1), medium (2), none (3)
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 89
Total points :
Total points 15-21: Skilled, 8-14: Developing, 0-7: Needs work
This rubric is adopted from reading a to z.
Appendix I
The survey of students’ perception of reading and choosing the books
1. Do you like reading books? Why or why not?
2. Do you think reading is important? Why?
3. When you choose a book, what do you consider?
1) Topic 2) Cover 3) Page 4) Pictures in the book 5) No matter
4. What kinds of the stories do you like most?
1) Fiction narrative story 2) Non-fiction expository story
5. What kinds of fiction or nonfiction story do you like most?
6. Which genres of books do you like to read or listen to? (check all that you
like)
_____ nonfiction/informational _____ adventure
_____ biography/autobiography _____ poetry
_____ realistic fiction _____ mystery/suspense
_____ historical fiction _____ series
_____ science fiction _____ other
_____ fantasy
FACTORS OF COMPREHENSION AND PERCEPTIONS OF QTA 90
7. Why do you choose the genre?
Appendix J
책 선호도 조사
1. 책 읽는 것을 좋아합니까? 이유를 쓰세요.
2. 책 읽는 것이 중요하다고 생각합니까? 이유를 쓰세요.
3. 책을 선택할 때, 무엇을 주로 생각하며 고릅니까?1) 주제 2) 표지 3) 책 페이지수 4) 책속의 그림등 5) 상관없다.
4. 어떤 종류의 책을 좋아합니까?1) 소설종류 2) 설명문과 같은 종류
5. 4 번 질문에서 1 번 혹은 2 번을 선택한 이유를 쓰세요.
6. 어떤 장르의 책을 좋아하는지 표시하세요. _____ 실화 바탕의 책/ 정보가 많은 책 _____ 모험 이야기_____ 전기 혹은 자서전 _____ 시집_____ 현실과 비슷한 소설 _____ 미스터리 이야기_____ 역사 소설 _____ 시리즈류_____ 과학 소설 _____ 기타_____ 판타지
7. 왜 위의 책들을 선택했는지 이유를 쓰세요.