FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

THE EFFECT OF BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE AND PREVIEWS ON ELEMENTARY

NATIVE MANDARIN-SPEAKING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ READING

COMPREHENSION

By

CHIA-I CHEN

A Dissertation submitted to the School of Teacher Education

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2008

ii

The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Chia-I Chen defended on October, 27, 2008.

____________________________ Ithel Jones Professor Directing Dissertation

____________________________ Shouping Hu

Outside Committee Member

____________________________ Carolyn Piazza Committee Member

____________________________ Diana Rice Committee Member

_________________________________ Walt Wager, Chair, School of Teacher Education

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………..vi List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………vii ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………......viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION..…………………………………………………………………………….1 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 3 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework ....................................................................... 4 Purpose and Significance of the Study ....................................................................... 12 Questions and Hypotheses ....................................................................................... 17 Definitions of Terms .................................................................................................... 18 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………………………………20 The Need of This study …………………………………………………………………......20 Native Mandarin-Speaking English Language Learners ........................................... 24 Elementary Students’ Reading Comprehension ....................................................... 27 Reading Comprehension .......................................................................................... 29 Skilled Decoders and Skilled Readers ...................................................................... 31 What Is Wrong? .......................................................................................................... 32 Informational Texts Lacking in Classrooms……………………………………………….34 Background Knowledge .............................................................................................. 35 Research on Background knowledge and Reading comprehension .......................... 38 Background Knowledge and Reading Comprehension of Cross-cultural Students………………………………………………………………………………………41 Native Mandarin-Speaking ELLs Need Background Knowledge ................................ 46 Why This Age Group .............................................................................................. ..47 First Language ............................................................................................................ 48 Previewing Texts ........................................................................................................ 50 Text Genres…………………………………………………………………………………..57 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………...58

iv

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD……………………………………………………………………..59 Pilot Study……………………………………………………………………………………60 Method………………………………………………………………………………………..60 CHAPTER IV RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………………….74 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………..82 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………...83 Summary….…………………………………………………………………………………..83 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………..84 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………….85 Recommendations for Practice…………………………………………………………….87 Assumptions………………………………………………………………………………….92 Generalizations………………………………………………………………………………92 Measurement and Statistical Issues……………………………………………………….93 Recommendations for Future Studies……………………………………………………..94 Closing Remarks..……………………………………………………………………………95 APPENDIX A PILOT STUDY...…………………………………………………………..99 APPENDIX B READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUMENTS.……………………104 APPENDIX C PARANTAL CONSENT FORM………………………………………...151 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………..155 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH………………………………………………………………..169

v

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 2X2X2 Within-Subject Factorial Design………………………………………..65 TABLE 2 Proposed Timeline for Research Study………………………………………...73 TABLE 3 Gender, Time in School, and Grade Level of the Participants……………….77 TABLE 4 Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations for Reading Comprehension by Type of Book, Previewing and by Time……………………………………………………77 TABLE 5 Summary of the Effects of Type of Book, Previewing, and Time on Reading Comprehension………………………………………………………………………………81

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Means for Reading Comprehension Scores by Type of Book and Previewing at Time 1………………………………………………………………………...78 FIGURE 2 Means for Reading Comprehension Scores by Type of Book and Previewing at Time 2………………………………………………………………………...79 FIGURE 3 Relative Means for Reading Comprehension Scores Combined both Times (time 1 and 2) by Type of Book and Previewing…………………………………………..80

vii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of background knowledge and

previewing texts on the reading comprehension of native Mandarin-speaking English

Language Learners (ELLs). Participating in the study were 20 3rd-5th grade ELL students

whose first language is Mandarin. Using a within-subjects design, the participants’

reading comprehension was measured after reading culturally familiar and culturally

unfamiliar texts, both before and after participating in previewing instructional activities.

The previewing activities were designed to provide the students with relevant

background knowledge to help them comprehend the texts. The results indicated that

there was a statistically significant interaction between the type of book (familiar vs.

unfamiliar) and the preview intervention (preview vs no preview). The students had

significantly higher reading comprehension scores when they were provided a

previewing text before reading a culturally unfamiliar text. The results are discussed in

terms of the facilitative effects of previews and culturally familiar texts on ELL students’

reading comprehension.

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

America has always been a nation of immigrants, and American schools have

always been populated with children from diverse backgrounds; educationally,

linguistically, and culturally. The nature and extent of this diversity has been captured

and discussed in recent reports. In its 1996 report, for example, the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES, 1996) noted that approximately 36% of the student

population in K-12 public schools was students of color. They also predicted that this

population would increase to more than 40% by the year 2010. According to the 2000

United States Census, Americans aged five and older who speak a language other than

English at home grew by 47% during the preceding decade. This group accounts for

slightly less than one in five of all Americans (17.9%). A later statistic from the National

Center for Education Statistics (2002) shows that the number of English Language

Learners (ELLs) in our nation’s public schools has grown to a staggering 4.5 million

students, or 9.6% of the total school population. This means that, 43% of teachers in

American public schools teach non-English-speaking students, or ELLs (National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2004). Martin and Midgely (1999)

claim that this number will continue to increase in the future because more than a million

new U.S. immigrants arrive in this country annually. Indeed, according to the American

Federation of Teachers (2008) ELLs make up more than 5 million of our nation’s k-12

student population, which means 60 percent of all preK-12 teachers nationwide have at

least one ELL in their classrooms. Clearly, the increasing numbers of English language

learners who constitute a large proportion of the K-12 public school population have both

2

educational and policy implications.

The diversity of the student population in our nation’s schools is also reflected in the

variety of languages spoken by students. Indeed, there are increasing numbers of

speakers of minority languages in the United States. Included in these numbers are

Asian language speakers, including Mandarin speakers. This group alone has increased

by more than 75 percent in the past two decades (Klein et al., 2004). In March 1999, the

number of Asian and Pacific Islanders in the U.S. was 10.1 million (Wallraff, 2000), and

of these, 2.4% were Mandarin speakers. Most of these Mandarin-speaking students

(80%) speak Mandarin at home. According to the American Federation of Teachers

(2006), the fourth most common language spoken by ELLs in U.S. public schools is

Mandarin. It is troubling, yet hardly surprising, that many of these students have some

difficulty learning to speak English. Even more troubling is the fact that the proportion of

Asian language speakers, including native Mandarin-speaking ELLs, who have difficulty

speaking English has almost doubled in the past two decades (Klein et al., 2004).

Unfortunately, ELL students who struggle to learn to speak English also have

difficulties in other academic areas, such as reading. The American Federation of

Teachers (1999), for example, reveals that the rate of reading failure for limited-English

speakers ranges from 60 percent to 70 percent. In addition, a disturbingly large

percentage of English language learners receive low grades, and they score below their

native-speaking peers on standardized reading tests. For example, the U.S. Department

of Education’s prospects study (August & Hakuta, 1997) reported that third-grade ELL

students had a mean percentile score of 24.8 in reading on the Comprehensive Tests of

Basic Skills (CTBS) tests, as compared to a mean percentile score of 56.4 for all

third-graders in public schools. It seems that ELL students lack the content knowledge of

3

American education as well as the background knowledge that is included and implied in

the texts they read in school (Fu, 2003). This may appear to be a trivial matter, yet in

reality, it is important because of its significance in the area of reading comprehension.

There is, therefore, a need for research to explore teaching strategies that can support

ELL students as they struggle to learn to read in their second language.

This study examined the relationship between background knowledge and the

reading comprehension competency of third- to fifth-grade native Mandarin-speaking

ELLs. This first chapter presents an overview of the study. First, the statement of the

problem is presented. This is followed by a discussion of the conceptual framework that

guides the study. Next, the purpose and significance of the study is outlined. The final

section of this chapter includes the research questions, hypotheses, and definitions of

key terms used in the study.

Statement of the Problem

The poor reading performance of K-12 students has become a national issue.

Most troubling is the underachievement of ELLs in the area of reading (Moats, 2001).

One crucial determinant of what can be read by both children and adults is the amount of

background knowledge readers possess to help them determine the meaning of what

they are reading (Schank, 1982). It seems, however, that background knowledge is not

adequately addressed in most American schools (Hirsch, 2006a), especially during the

early grades. Reading researchers, such as McCardle and Chhabra (2004), have

focused on teaching children to become good readers so that they can turn printed

symbols into sounds and words quickly and accurately, a process called decoding. Yet,

becoming a skilled decoder does not guarantee that one will become a skilled reader

(Hirsch, 2006b). Hirsch (2006a) argues that knowledge is important for all children’s

4

minds when it comes to reading comprehension. Fu (2003) supports this point of view by

arguing that native Mandarin-speaking ELLs need content knowledge so that they can

be on an equal footing with their native English-speaking peers, in terms of academic

progress and success.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Reading has always been an important area of concern for educators. It is therefore

troubling that many ELLs, as well as native English-speaking students perform poorly on

reading tests. The poor reading performance of school children has, according to Moats

(2001), become more than national news; rather it is a national crisis. Hirsch (2006b)

also expressed concern about this issue by noting that in international comparisons of

reading achievement, US students reading achievement scores are lower than those of

students from other developed nations. In addition, the American Federation of Teachers

(1999) reports that twenty-five percent of adults in America lack the basic literacy skills

required in a typical job. This report also notes that 20 percent of elementary students

nationwide have significant problems in learning to read. In addition, another 20 percent

cannot read fluently enough to enjoy or engage in independent reading.

It is hardly surprising that researchers, educators, and policy makers are troubled by

these figures. Reading is a critically important skill, and the ability to read plays a

significant role in academic learning, as well as for future social and economic

opportunities. Success in literacy, especially reading, is certainly one of the most

important achievements for all students (National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development, 2000). Children’s reading comprehension performance concerns

educators at all levels today (Pearson, 1985). Of all school learning, as Boyer (1995)

notes, learning to read is extremely important. He also claims that the success of an

5

elementary school is judged by its students’ proficiency in reading. Furthermore, he

suggests that, “learning to read is without question the top priority in elementary

education” (p.69).

The importance of reading was highlighted in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act.

When this important Act was signed into law a new era of reading education had dawned.

Through this legislation, close to a billion-dollars is invested annually to ensure that every

child learns to read by the time he or she finishes third-grade. Yet, despite the recent

investments in improving basic skills, and literacy in particular, a large percentage of the

population demonstrates reading skills at the lowest levels. Despite efforts by educators

and policy makers to improve the teaching of reading, students still have difficulty with

reading in general, and with specific aspects such as reading comprehension. Thus,

there could be some truth to Hirsch’s (2006b) assertion that something is definitely amiss

in the education of young people.

Hirsch (2006a) points out that none of the current teaching methods attempt to build

up children’s knowledge and activate children’s prior knowledge. The National Reading

Panel describes reading comprehension as understanding a text that is read, or the

process of constructing meaning from a text (National Institute of Child Health and

Human Development, 2000). Reading comprehension is an active process that engages

the reader. Comprehending is constructed through interactions between the text and the

reader (Durkin, 1993). Furthermore, Durkin (1993) argues that if students need to

“construct meaning” from a text, they need to have something in their mind to connect to

it. That is, students need to possess background knowledge of a text they are about to

read in order to comprehend the text. This idea is supported by Anderson and Pearson

(1984) who claim that reading comprehension is influenced by the text and by the

6

reader’s prior knowledge that is brought to bear on it. Bransford (1979), in turn, argues

that background knowledge must be activated “in order to facilitate one’s current abilities

to understand and learn” (p.135). Anderson, Spiro, and Anderson (1978) also point out

that the background knowledge a person already possesses is a principal factor in

determining what will be learned from a text. Willingham (2007) also supports this idea in

his claim that one gets a rich understanding of a text by relating what he or she is reading

to other material that he or she already knows. Moreover, the National Council of

Teachers of English (2004) note that reading is a complex and purposeful sociocultural,

cognitive, and linguistic process in which readers simultaneously use their knowledge of

the language, their knowledge of the topic of the text, and their knowledge of their culture

to construct meaning within the text.

In addition to reading comprehension, Hirsch (2006a) argues that content is not

adequately addressed in American schools, especially in the early grades. Moreover,

Neuman (2001) claims that research to date has examined how children come to

understand the symbols of reading and concepts of print, with the focus on how children

develop knowledge of literacy, rather than knowledge through literacy.

Inadequate background knowledge can have an effect on all children’s reading

comprehension, including ELLs’. Fitzgerald (1995) argues that the process of reading in

English is essentially similar for all readers, whether they are native or non-native

English-speakers. That is, good readers bring some prior knowledge of a text’s topic.

Peregoy and Boyle (2000) assert that background knowledge is a powerful variable for

both native and non-native English readers. In addition, according to Hirsch (1987), real

literacy depends on being acquainted with one’s own national culture.

Therefore, when it comes to reading comprehension, building American cultural

7

background knowledge seems to be extremely important for ELLs. Background

knowledge, however, is even more important in second language reading. This is

because background knowledge and language knowledge interact during second

language reading, and it alleviates the comprehension difficulties stemming from

language proficiency limitations, so that comprehension limitations can be overcome to

some extent when the text’s topic is familiar. This is especially applicable for students

who are literate in a logographic system such as Mandarin, and who are faced with

learning the English convention of representing speech sounds instead of meaning units,

and the practice of reading from left to right instead of right to left. Unlike native

English-speaking readers, who typically have a more tacit knowledge of American

culture and of the English language, a good part of this knowledge has to be taught to

ELLs through direct instruction in the classroom (Grabe & Stoller, 2002). By building

background knowledge for specific text content, teachers can significantly increase their

students’ chances for success in reading English.

It is possible, therefore, that a lack of American cultural background knowledge

might be a critical factor related to ELLs’ low scores on tests of reading comprehension.

According to Fu (2003), many native Mandarin-speaking immigrant “students lack the

content knowledge needed for American education” (p. xxii). Mandarin has few if any

structural overlaps with English, and it has no orthographic overlaps. Unlike their

romance language speaking ELL peers (e.g. Spanish speakers), native

Mandarin-speaking ELL children carry more linguistic differences. As such, it creates an

enormous challenge for both teachers and students. Given the large numbers of native

Mandarin-speaking ELLs in American schools, this is an important issue that needs to be

addressed by educators and researchers.

8

As experienced readers, we use our background knowledge automatically, without

even realizing it. Therefore, providing background knowledge before reading is often

overlooked when teaching young readers. McCardle and Chhabra (2004) contend that

children’s future success in becoming skilled readers depends on their awareness of the

fact that spoken words are composed of smaller elements of speech. Then, they can

grasp the idea that letters represent these sounds, learn the correspondences between

sounds and spelling, and acquire a repertoire of highly familiar words that can be

recognized on sight. Therefore, research substantiates the importance of phonemic

awareness instruction and phonics instruction in teaching and learning to read. After

becoming a master decoder, a student who reads widely can indeed gain greater

knowledge, and therefore become better at comprehending what he or she is reading.

However, such gains will only occur if the student already knows enough to comprehend

the meaning of what he or she is decoding (Hirsch, 2006b). In addition, students not only

need to understand the words, they also need to grasp the meaning of the words. That is,

the reality within the text that the words are referring to. If a child does not understand the

meaning of the words, and what they refer to in the text in reality, then being good at

sounding out words is not helpful (Hirsch, 2006b). In order to support young readers as

they attempt to make sense of what they are reading, teachers should select texts that

build on what their students already know or understand about their world.

According to Hirsch (2006b) the reading comprehension problem is in reality a

knowledge problem. Once students learn how to decode the printed words accurately

and fluently, the main reason they do not read as well as they should is that they do not

know as much as they should about the various things the printed words refer to.

Possessing a wealth of vocabulary and linguistic resources provides a tremendous boost

9

for young ELLs beginning learning to read (Grabe & Stoller, 2002). It is necessary,

however, to have the relevant background knowledge that goes beyond vocabulary and

syntax—relevant knowledge that is far broader than the words of a text (Hirsch, 2006a).

Without broad relevant knowledge, children’s reading comprehension will suffer, and

their scores on reading comprehension tests will not improve. Furthermore, Schank

(1982) posits that when students read, they frequently rely on knowledge that is derived

from their experiences. If teachers expect children to understand what they read,

children must possess background knowledge related to the material they are reading.

What the text does not say often far exceeds what it says (Hirsch, 2006b; Braunger

& Lewis, 2006). Therefore, the reader has to fill in the blanks and make the unstated

connections in order to make sense of the text. The ability to fill in these blanks depends

entirely on whether children know what is to be filled in. Since relevant, domain-specific

knowledge is an absolute requirement for reading comprehension, there is no way

around the need for children to gain broad general knowledge in order to gain broad

general proficiency in reading. Background knowledge has a major influence on reading

comprehension. A large body of literature has argued that prior knowledge of text-related

information strongly affects reading comprehension.

Anderson et al., (1978) report that adults’ background knowledge affects how much

is recalled from text and Steffensen et al., (1979) posit that background knowledge

affects the interpretation of information from texts. Studies conducted with children

demonstrate that having more knowledge of the topic can lead to improved

comprehension (Marr & Gormley, 1982; Pearson et al., 1979; Stevens, 1980). Research

has also emphasized that not only does a lack of knowledge about a topic impede

comprehension, but the extent of knowledge influences the quality of understanding that

10

a reader can construct (McKeown et al., 1992). Recent research (McKenzie & Danielson,

2003) further suggests that children read more fluently, and comprehend at a much

higher level, when the content is familiar to them.

Educational psychologist David Ausubel (1968, p. vi) stated that, “the single most

important factor influencing learning is what the student already knows.” Drawing on this

idea it is plausible that nothing is comprehended if it does not reflect what the reader

already knows. Readers acquire meaning from a text by analyzing words and sentences

according to their own personal knowledge of the world. Personal knowledge is

conditioned or influenced by age, sex, race, religion, nationality, and occupation; in short,

it is conditioned by one’s culture. Reynolds et al., (1982) reported that culture influences

knowledge, beliefs, and values; and that knowledge, beliefs, and values, in turn,

influence reading comprehension processes. It follows that readers who cannot mobilize

the missing information in the text from their own knowledge will be at a disadvantage.

This situation would clearly apply to ELL students.

Language is a reflection of culture; therefore, understanding the cultural content of

what one reads is a crucial factor in reading comprehension (Nelson, 1987). Bartlett

(1932) provided one of the earliest reports of the influence of cultural schemata and

revealed that when it comes to processing unfamiliar texts, evidence of the cultural

differences in background knowledge are obvious. Furthermore, the result of the study

by Steffensen et al. (1979) showed that readers recalled more ideas from familiar texts

about their own cultures, and that students read the culturally-familiar texts more rapidly.

It is evident that background knowledge plays an important role in text

comprehension, both in the context of first-, and second-language. For example, whether

reading in a first- or second-language, one can assume that both native and non-native

11

readers will understand more of a text when they are familiar with the content, formal,

and linguistic schemata. An ELL reader, however, who does not possess content

schemata, can experience schema interference, or a lack of comprehension. A

significant problem for ELL students is that texts sometimes contain unfamiliar concepts

of culture-specific elements. According to schema theory, ELL students from different

countries have different schemata, and most have difficulties in processing knowledge

the way native English speakers can. Steffensen et al. (1979) elaborated on the belief

that content schemata that are needed for comprehension are not usually provided in the

text for ELL students. This occurs probably because the author assumes that the

intended readers will already possess the relevant knowledge. When the relevant

cultural background is not included in the text, reading can become a time-consuming

and laborious task for ELL students.

Hudson (1982), and Grabe and Stoller (2002) have demonstrated that teaching

relevant knowledge to ELL students beforehand can enable them to override, to a certain

extent, their linguistic limitations. It seems that the instruction a teacher provides before

students read could be more important than what the teacher does afterwards. Graves et

al.,(1983) and Chen and Graves (1995) promote the strategy of previewing as an

approach that can support and assist in the reading comprehension of students,

including ELLs.

Several theories support the use of teacher-directed strategies in the teaching of

reading, such as previews. Ausubel’s (1960), for example, promoted a theory of advance

organizers. This approach is applicable here because previews can be considered

somewhat similar to advance organizers. Smith (1978), on the other hand, employs the

term, “prior knowledge”, and emphasizes that learning occurs in relation to students’

12

existing knowledge. Rumelhart and Ortony (1977) prefer to use the term, “schemata”. In

addition, both Au (1979) and Langer (1981, 1984) have successfully used a similar

strategy, known as “interactive prereading strategy”, to improve students’

comprehension of the text being read. Previews can aid students in using or building

prior knowledge or schemata, and in turn, using such prior knowledge aids students in

comprehending and remembering what they read (Graves et al., 1983; Chen & Graves,

1995). It is therefore predicted that the use of previewing with native Mandarin-speaking

EEL students will be related to improvement in their reading comprehension.

Purpose and Significance of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between background

knowledge and the reading comprehension of native Mandarin-speaking third- to

fifth-grade ELLs. During the last few decades, there has been an emphasis on teaching

students strategies for comprehending the texts they read. This emphasis has focused

on providing direct instruction strategies to help students to consciously use strategies in

different contexts. As Hirsch (2006a) points out, however, none of the current methods

attempt to build up children’s knowledge. Neuman (2001) further argues that research to

date has examined how children come to understand the symbols of reading and

concepts of print, with the focus on how children develop knowledge of literacy, rather

than knowledge through literacy.

Readers, especially ELLs, need to realize that what the text does not say often far

exceeds what it says (Hirsch, 2006b). This means that the reader has to try to

understand the context, recognize what is not stated in the text, and make the unstated

connections in order to make sense of the text. Every person who writes must determine

or estimate what can be left unexplained and what must be explicitly stated. Otherwise it

13

would take authors many chapters to explain one simple concept. Experienced readers

possess this communicative competence that allows them to make such connections.

This competence is, therefore, something all our children in general, and ELLs in

particular, need to be taught in school. Palmer et al. (2006) suggest that insufficient

knowledge of, and unfamiliarity with American culture makes it more difficult for ELL

students to adapt in their classes. ELL readers do not possess the same degree of

background knowledge as native-speaking readers do. This, In turn, leads to difficulties

in reading comprehension. From a teaching perspective, it seems extremely unfair to

expect ELL students to be able to read and comprehend material for which they do not

possess the presupposed background knowledge, or hold the related values (Reynolds

et al., 1982).

Research on the effects of background knowledge on first language reading has

received considerable attention in the literature (e.g., Anderson et al., 1978; Marr &

Gormley, 1982; Pearson et al., 1979; Stevens, 1980; McKeown et al., 1992; McKenzie &

Danielson, 2003). Some research studies have examined the effects of background

knowledge on second language readers. Most of the participants in these studies,

however, were adults (Bartlett, 1932; Kintsch & Greene, 1978; Steffensen et al., 1979).

There is a need for research on the effects of cultural and linguistic differences in

background knowledge and text structure on the reading comprehension of younger

second language learners. This is especially important because of the recent growth in

the population of ELLs in the elementary grades. Furthermore, since Mandarin speakers

are amongst the largest immigrant groups, it is important to try to understand the

effectiveness of strategies that support their reading comprehension. To date, the

relationship between the effects of background knowledge on native Mandarin-speaking

14

elementary ELLs’ reading comprehension has not been considered by educational

researchers.

The difficulties related to reading comprehension seem to be most evident amongst

students in the elementary grades. Moats (2001) reports that by the fourth-grade many

students are clearly lost in the more complex texts they encounter in school, even if their

decoding skills are good. Furthermore, according to the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), about one third of American fourth graders fail to reach

even a low level of performance in reading (National Center for Education Statistics,

2004). In referring to the reading problems evident in the elementary grades, Hirsch

(2003) talks of a “fourth grade slump”. This is because, according to Hirsch (2003), many

students struggle when they get to the fourth grade and are required to tackle more

advanced academic texts. It seems that it is important to study strategies that can

potentially support the reading comprehension of students in the upper elementary

grades. Moreover, there is clearly a need for research on the effects of background

knowledge on third- to fifth-grade ELLs’ reading comprehension. Children who lag in

comprehension skills in the elementary grades tend to fall even further behind in later

years. (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997). For children to make substantial progress in

reading, they must make early and substantial progress in knowledge acquisition (Hirsch,

2006b).

Few studies have examined third- to fifth-grade native Mandarin-speaking ELLs

reading comprehension. This study, therefore, examined the effectiveness of

instructional strategies designed specifically for native Mandarin-speaking students.

According to Grabe and Stoller (2002) when ELL students are asked to read material

that is difficult for them, they will rely on any resources available to try to make sense of

15

the text. ELLs’ strongest resources are their first language, their reading ability, and their

knowledge of the world. The instructional strategies used in this study were designed to

allow students to draw on their store of knowledge to help them comprehend the texts

they were reading. It is expected that findings from this study can be used to develop

resources and instructional strategies that can support native Mandarin-speaking ELL

students in learning to read.

The proposed study focused on native Mandarin-speaking ELLs in part because the

researcher shares most aspects of Chinese culture, and she is also fluent in the

Mandarin language. The study examined the relationship between reading

comprehension and background knowledge of native Mandarin-speaking third- to fifth-

grade elementary ELL students. Although many researchers have directed their

attention to ELLs’ reading ability, the level and quality of the research on elementary

native Mandarin-speaking ELLs has not kept pace with this growing population. Li (2004)

states that, “Chinese learners are often stereotyped as high achievers and overlooked in

literacy research” (p.31). Many Americans mistakenly assume that all native

Mandarin-speaking students come to this country with special academic skills and

acumen (Palmer et al., 2006). Lee (1996) and Li (2002, 2003) suggest that researchers

should pay more attention to individual and differential achievement, especially with

regard to under-achieving native Mandarin-speaking ELLs.

There are several reasons for conducting research with this particular age group. As

early as in 1980, Beck, McCasin, and McKeown pointed out that the majority of ELL

students learn to decode adequately, but that a large number of them experience serious

problems with comprehension. Moreover, this difficulty usually emerges during the

fourth-grade. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

16

only one third of American fourth graders read proficiently at their grade level, another

third have only partial mastery of the knowledge and skills appropriate for reading at the

fourth-grade level, and the bottom third of the population fail to reach even a minimal low

level of performance (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). According to

Hirsch (2003) educators make good progress in teaching children to decode, that is

turning print into speech sounds, yet educators and researchers still have not overcome

the “fourth-grade slump” in reading comprehension. Hirsch (2003) argues that many

students struggle when it comes time in grade four to tackle more advanced academic

texts. Thomas and Collier (1997) also point out that non-native speakers schooled in a

second language for part or all of the day typically do reasonably well in the early years;

however, from fourth grade on, students fail to maintain positive gains when the

academic and cognitive demands of the curriculum increase rapidly.

Chen and Graves (1995) argue that providing a preview of what the text will be

about is significantly better than just asking students to read the text. In addition, they

point out that previewing is a prereading activity appropriate for situations in which texts

are difficult, and when texts might contain culturally unfamiliar material. Chen and

Graves (1995) define previews as “introductory materials presented to students before

reading to provide specific information about the contents of the reading material”

(p.665). Of interest in the current study is how the use of previews, including providing

necessary linguistic knowledge (e.g., lexical knowledge and semantic knowledge) and

background knowledge assists and affects native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ reading

comprehension.

ELL children have had fewer opportunities to acquire the knowledge of the major

culture (American culture). That is, the knowledge which appears in standardized tests,

17

basal reading programs, and content area texts. For these students the most accessible

schemata are those of their parents. This is especially true for those native

Mandarin-speaking ELL students whose parents (with low English proficiency and little

sense about American culture) immigrated to the United States for better economic

opportunities, and who often work long hours (Fu, 2003; Palmer et al., 2006).

In addition to lacking the relevant background knowledge, ELL readers are not

exposed to enough English print so that they can build and develop fluent processing

(Grabe & Stoller, 2002). These students also do not have enough language exposure to

be able to build a large vocabulary. It seems that bringing all children to reading

proficiency, while at the same time narrowing the academic gap between racial groups,

are goals that have eluded most American schools (Graves et al., 2001). One strategy

that can potentially lead to improved reading proficiency is to provide ELLs with the

related and necessary background and linguistic knowledge (e.g. lexical and semantic

knowledge) in reading. Possibly, such an approach can bring the country closer to the

ideal of giving all children an opportunity to succeed regardless of their cultural

background.

Questions and Hypotheses

In this section the research questions and related hypotheses are outlined. The

research questions are as follows:

1. What is the effect of culturally familiar texts on the reading comprehension of

third- to fifth-grade native Mandarin-speaking ELLs?

2. What is the effect of previewing on the reading comprehension of third- to

fifth-grade native Mandarin-speaking ELLs?

18

The following hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis 1. The mean reading comprehension scores of students who read

culturally-familiar texts will be significantly higher than the mean reading

comprehension scores of students who read culturally unfamiliar texts.

Hypothesis 2. The mean reading comprehension scores of students who preview

texts will be significantly higher than the mean reading comprehension scores of

students who do not preview texts.

Definitions of Terms

In this section operational definitions of the terms used in the study are given.

Background Knowledge. The terms background knowledge and prior knowledge are

generally used interchangeably. The knowledge and understandings of the world that

students have acquired through their everyday experiences -- riding in cars or buses,

playing and talking with other children and adults, that help them to make sense of the

texts they read.

Culturally Familiar Text. A text that is about readers’ own familiar culture.

Decoding. Decoding is the ability to determine how to read unknown words by using

knowledge of letters, sounds, and word patterns.

English Language Learner (ELL). The term English language learner (ELL), as used

here, indicates a person who is in the process of acquiring English and has a first

language other than English. (e.g. Chinese ELL, meaning, he who is in the process of

acquiring English language and has a first language, Mandarin Chinese).

Preview/ Previewing Text. Introductory materials presented to students before reading

to provide specific information about the contents of the reading texts (e.g. the definition

19

of the vocabulary, the story, the needed background knowledge and information

regarding the story).

Reading Comprehension. The National Reading Panel describes reading

comprehension as understanding a text that is read, or the process of constructing

meaning form a text. Students need to possess background knowledge of a text they are

about to read in order to comprehend the text.

Schemata. Prior Knowledge to which new information may be connected.

20

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The primary purpose of this chapter is to review relevant literature as a basis for

articulating the micro level conceptual framework and the hypotheses and design for this

study. In order to establish the basis for the research study, this chapter focuses on the

need of the study. Second, the characteristics of the native Mandarin-speaking ELL

population are described. Third, the researcher provides a definition of reading

comprehension and discusses problems concerning the reading comprehension of

elementary students. Fourth, a definition of background knowledge is presented,

followed by a proposition that students need background knowledge in order to be able

to comprehend what they are reading. In the chapter’s fifth section, research on

background knowledge and reading comprehension is reviewed. The sixth section

discusses and analyzes the interference of ELLs’ first language with learning to read in

their second language. Finally, the researcher discusses the importance of previewing

texts and its relationship with reading comprehension.

The Need of This Study

American schools have always been populated with children from various

educational, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds (Mora, 2001). According to Mora (2001)

public school classrooms in the United States consist mainly of white teachers

instructing increasingly culturally diverse student populations. These non-native English-

speaking students contribute to the linguistic diversity of America’s schools. Typically,

however, teachers in public schools are trained and prepared to teach in contexts where

English is the only language spoken; that is in monolingual schools. Crawford (1997)

reminds us that U.S. demographics show that 9.9 million children, or 22% of the

21

school-age population, live in homes where a language other than English is spoken.

Indeed, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (1996)

approximately 36% of the student population in K-12 public schools was students of

color, and that this population will increase to more than 40% by the year 2010. Pan,

Craig, and Scollon (2005) note that there are about 45 million people aged five years and

older who speak a language other than English at home. This represents about 18

percent of persons within this age group. Of these 45 million individuals, it is estimated

that more than 10.5 million speak English either “not well” or “not at all”. Pan et al. (2005)

further report that more than 75 percent of the foreign-born population in the U.S. come

from Latin American countries or Asian nations.

Out of all of the Asian nations, native Mandarin-speaking ELLs comprise a large

proportion of immigrant students. In March 1999, the number of Asian Pacific Islanders

in the U.S. was 10.1 million (Wallraff, 2000). Among this population, 2.4 percent were

Mandarin speakers; and, of these, more than 80 percent spoke Mandarin at home. The

proportion of Asian language speakers who are between the ages of five and twenty-four

years, and who have difficulty acquiring English, has increased substantially from 15

percent in 1979 to 25 percent in 1999 (Kleinet al., 2004). Clearly, this represents a major

educational challenge for educators, policymakers, schools, and school districts.

Even though the ELL population is large, there is a lack of teachers who are

prepared to address the educational needs of the increasing numbers of

language-minority students (Mora, 2001). Data from national reports confirm this trend

and suggest that the issue is becoming a national crisis. Forty-three percent of teachers

in America’s public schools teach non-English-speaking, or English language learning

children (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2004). However, in

22

the report sponsored by the National Research Council in 1997, August and Hakuta

indicate that only 10 percent of the nation’s teachers are certified in bilingual education,

and only eight percent hold a certificate in the teaching of English as a second language.

In addition, the National Center for Education Statistics (1999) report that only 20 percent

of teachers who have ELLs in their classroom feel adequately prepared to serve ELLs.

While the numbers of these students are increasing, their educational attainment

remains at a low level. For example, a recent congressionally mandated study suggests

that English language learners receive lower grades, are judged by their teachers to

have lower academic abilities, and score below their classmates on standardized tests of

reading (August & Hakuta, 1997).

ELLs are experiencing difficulties in learning to read, and in becoming literate,

because they are not native speakers of English. The differences between non-native

English speakers, such as native Mandarin-speaking ELLs, and a white teacher in

language styles and expectations might prevent learning from taking place. Therefore,

Braunger and Lewis (2006) remind teachers that they should be aware of differences in

the structure of the child’s native language. Birch (2002) proposes that teachers could try

to understand that there are differences in writing systems across the world and that

learning to read a new script and comprehend it could be problematic for ELLs. Yet,

according to Palmer, et al. (2006), with adequate support from schools and teachers,

ELLs, including native Mandarin-speaking ELL children, can accomplish tasks they could

not master independently.

Grant and Wong (2003) suggest that “the mainstream literacy professionals have

often failed to accept their role of helping language-minority learners develop skills in

English reading” (p.392). They conclude that the literacy performance chasm between

23

language minority students and those whose first language is English results from two

systemic failures: (1) the failure of education programs to adequately prepare teachers to

work with language-minority learners; and (2) the failure “of education researchers to

engage in more substantive research on English reading development for such students

[language-minority students]” (p.386).

Beyond education programs and researchers, it is increasingly apparent that the

students themselves are aware of this chasm. Yi Zheng, a student in a New York City

school, describes scaffolding in his own writing:

Bridge

Teacher is like a bridge

give us knowledge and let

us cross

School is like the bridge pole

lift us up and don’t let

us fall

The books are like a

bridge railing

let us know it is not the way

to go there

And this bridge must be

a very big and strong

Bridge

And it can lead us to

Future (cited in Barbieri, 2002, p.16).

24

Braunger and Lewis (2006) support Yi Zheng by proposing that schools must create

bridges to literacy for students of all backgrounds. McKenzie and Danielson (2003)

remind teachers that children frequently come to school lacking in essential language

skills, as well as the life experiences that are necessary for them to successfully learn to

read and comprehend. ELLs’ early experiences have not supported learning English, the

primary language of U.S. schools. When children begin school with little knowledge of

people, places, things, or books, teachers sometimes confuse their lack of information

with a lack of ability, and consequently, they lower their expectations for literacy learning.

McKenzie and Danielson (2003) propose that the match between cultural expectation for

literacy and school expectations for literacy is critical for successful acquisition of

reading.

According to Garcia (2000), the research on second-language children’s reading is

limited in both scope and quantity. Grabe and Stoller (2002) propose that L2 (second

language) learners, while learning to read, must broaden their linguistic and background

knowledge. As schools find themselves in this richness of diversity, they need to be

attentive to what students bring as a framework, building on their experiences and

background knowledge to introduce them to more public forms of literacy (Labov, 2003).

Gambrell (1996) states that “the central and most important goal of reading instruction is

to foster the love of reading” (p.14). Moats (2001) argues that most early reading failure

is preventable. Possibly, providing students with the relevant background knowledge

could motivate them to read, and eventually improve their reading comprehension.

Native Mandarin-Speaking English Language Learners

Besides teaching English and other content areas, one important part of a teacher’s

responsibility is to help ELL students feel welcome in school. Feeling welcome is

25

essential for learning, and feeling welcome can’t happen if no one understands the

teacher, or if the teacher can’t understand ELLs (Fu, 1995). This is especially true for

native Mandarin-speaking ELLs. Li, (2004) notes that “Chinese learners are often

stereotyped as high achievers and overlooked in literacy research” (p.31). Many

Americans mistakenly assume that all native Mandarin-speaking students come to their

new country with special academic skills and acumen. Li (2004) urges teachers to pay

attention to native Mandarin-speaking within-group diversity. Teachers of native

Mandarin-speaking ELLs could try to understand that not all native Mandarin-speaking

ELLs are hardworking people and high-achievers, just like not all African Americans are

all good at sports and music, and not all the white Americans are the same. In fact, Wong

(1995) notes that “a greater proportion of Chinese than whites were also at the lower end

of the education spectrum” (p.80). In addition, almost twice as many Chinese as whites

(16.8% versus 8.9%) had less than a ninth-grade education (U.S. Bureau of the Census,

1992). Lee (1996) and Li (2002, 2003) suggest that researchers should pay more

attention to individual and differential achievement, especially for the under-achieving

native Mandarin-speaking students within the native Mandarin-speaking ELL population.

Teachers should recognize that native Mandarin-speaking ELLs need to adapt

themselves to the American world, its culture, its ways of living, its customs, its ways of

thinking, and its ways with words. They should also understand that without the teachers’

help, native Mandarin-speaking ELLs might feel helpless, incapable, and defeated.

Without a teachers’ understanding, native Mandarin-speaking ELLs might be the ones

silently sitting in the corner of the classroom impassively working on worksheets and

tests. They might also be buried in decontextualized words and meaningless language

skills. Native Mandarin-speaking ELLs might also feel overwhelmed and frustrated as

26

outsiders in American schools and culture.

ELL students, including native Mandarin-speaking ELLs, don’t think and read like

their native English-speaking peers. It might not necessarily be because of their low

English proficiency, but it might result from their lack of knowledge of the American world.

Fu (2003) argues that native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ limited knowledge of their new

culture, and of American textbooks highlight the distance between ELLs and their native

English-speaking peers. Fu (1995) points out that it is not that some of the ELLs are

unable to learn; it might be that the teaching approach sometimes fails to reach them, to

discover their potential as learners, or to invite them into the American learning

community.

According to Fu (2003), many native Mandarin-speaking ELL “students lack the

content knowledge needed for American education, have limited to no English

proficiency, have no parental or adult support at home for their school work, and need to

make tremendous adjustments emotionally, socially, culturally, and academically in their

new lives in America” (p. xxii). Dochy et al. (1999) propose that it is important not to

confuse domain-specific prior knowledge with overall general ability, or intelligence.

Teachers should be aware and understand that their native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’

low performance might be due to a lack of background knowledge, and that this does not

necessarily mean they are less intelligent.

Fu (1995) argues that in order to face the social needs of a pluralistic society,

American schools should prepare children with different cultural backgrounds to work

and live together as one nation with their native-speaking peers. Risko and

Walker-Dalhouse (2007) propose that all children who go to school expect that they will

succeed. It is, however, a familiarity with schooled literacy discourses and classroom

27

reading texts that is a mark of school success. Native Mandarin-speaking ELL students

whose language, ethnicity, and race are not represented in the school’s dominant culture

experience varying degrees of success in reading achievement, resulting in persistent

gaps in reading achievement. Thus, ELL students need support to become engaged with

reading.

Elementary Students’ Reading Comprehension

Whitehurst and Lonigan (2001) propose that learning to read is a key milestone for

children living in a literate society. Therefore, children’s reading comprehension

performance is a major concern for educators at all levels (Pearson, 1985). Boyer (1995)

contends that the importance of learning to read is such that the success of an

elementary school is judged by its students’ reading proficiency.

As previously discussed, reading comprehension is the process of constructing

meaning from written texts. For this to occur, the words in the text, along with their

meanings, must be accessible to the readers (Honing et al., 2000). In addition, students

must learn to use comprehension strategies, including accessing and using prior

knowledge, when reading a text. This is because using prior knowledge is one of the key

comprehension strategies that students need to master to become proficient readers.

Even though reading has always been a critical concern of schooling, Moats (2001)

argues that poor reading has become more than national news, rather it is a national

crisis. Hirsch (2006b) points out that American students have lower scores than students

from other developed nations in international comparisons of reading. In addition, the

American Federation of Teachers (1999) reports that twenty-five percent of adults in

America lack the basic literacy skills required in a typical job. The same report also

shows that 20 percent of elementary students nationwide have significant problems

28

learning to read. In addition, another 20 percent can not read fluently enough to enjoy or

engage in independent reading.

It seems that significant numbers of native English speakers, as well as ELLs,

receive low scores on standardized measures of reading ability. In addition, as early as

in 1982, Johnson argued that the cultural background of the topic, and the level of

vocabulary difficulty of a passage, influence reading comprehension. This suggests that

cultural background and reading comprehension matters in ELLs’ language and

academic development.

The American Federation of Teachers (1999) reveals that the rate of reading failure

for limited-English speakers ranges from 60 percent to 70 percent. In addition, a

disturbingly large percentage of English language learners receive low grades, and

score below their native English speaking classmates on standardized reading tests. For

example, the U.S. Department of Education’s prospects study reported that third-grade

ELL students had a mean percentile score of 24.8 in reading on the Comprehensive

Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) tests, as compared to a mean percentile score of 56.4 for all

third-graders in public school (August & Hakuta, 1997).

The result of the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

reveals that average reading scores for fourth-grade Asian/Pacific Islander students

were higher in 2007 than in 2005 and 1992. The score for fourth-grade English language

learners was higher in 2007 when compared to 1998 (the average score was 188 in

2007 and 174 in 1998), but not significantly different from the score (187) in 2005. There

was, however, still a gap between ELLs and native English speakers in the

2007assessment; ELLs average score was 188 while native English speakers’ average

score was 224 (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007). Proctor et al. (2007)

29

argues that much more work must be done with ELLs in order to improve our

understanding of the components and processes of English reading comprehension, and

to develop appropriate instructional interventions that target the persistent gap in reading

achievement highlighted in the NAEP report.

Reading Comprehension

Linguistic schemata are associated with reading problems, and content schemata

are associated with comprehension problems. The current study focused on the

relationship between content schemata and comprehension. Anderson et al., (1985)

argue that a complete definition of reading must include both decoding and the

construction of meaning. Moreover, Foertsch (1998) claim that in the reading process,

sounding out words is necessary but not sufficient for the task; the reading process is in

reality meaning driven.

Rumelhart (1977) claims that comprehension consists of an interaction between

text-based and reader-based information. Smith (1982) further argues that reading is an

interaction between a reader and a text. In addition, James (1987) states that reading is

an interactive (two-way) communication between readers’ minds and the information

printed. Therefore, in the process of reading, the reader relates the new information to

his or her background knowledge. Goodman (1984) also argues that fluent readers use

the smallest amount of text information necessary in relation to his or her existing

linguistic and conceptual schemata to comprehend a text. In short, reading is

comprehending and the construction of meaning. That is, readers construct meaning by

interacting with the text (Pearson et al., 1990), on the basis of their background

knowledge about the world (Rumelhart, 1980).

30

Reading comprehension can be affected or influenced by world knowledge.

Anderson and Pearson (1984) demonstrate that readers who possess rich prior

knowledge about the topic of a reading often understand the text better than their

classmates with limited prior knowledge.

From the schema-theoretic view, a reader plays an active role in reading (Barnitz,

1986), and comprehending a text is an interactive process involving the reader’s existing

background knowledge of the text (Rumelhart, 1977; Stanovich, 1980). Efficient

comprehension requires that readers relate the material to their background knowledge,

and they rely appropriately on their background knowledge to comprehend the text. The

use of background knowledge is, therefore, one of the major activities in reading

comprehension (Chen & Graves, 1995).

The importance of background knowledge is supported by David Ausubel (1968, p.

vi) who stated that, “the single most important factor influencing learning is what the

student already knows.” Smith (1983) also supported this idea by noting that nothing is

comprehended if it does not reflect what the reader already knows. Readers acquire

meaning from a text by analyzing words and sentences according to their own personal

knowledge of the world. Therefore, fundamental to reading comprehension is the

reader’s ability to organize information and connect new knowledge to the knowledge he

or she already possesses. Since all the information necessary for comprehending a text

is not present in the text, the role of prior knowledge of the reader in reading

comprehension becomes crucial (Hirsch, 2006a). How well the reader constructs

meaning out of what she or he reads will influence reading comprehension. Because

comprehension results from reader-text transaction, what the reader knows, who the

reader is, what values guide the reader, and what purposes or interests the reader has,

31

will play a significant role in the reading process (Goodman, 1984).

Personal knowledge is conditioned by age, sex, race, religion, nationality, and

occupation; in short, it is conditioned by one’s culture. Reynolds et al., (1982) have

reported that culture influences knowledge, beliefs, and values; and that knowledge,

beliefs, and values influence comprehension processes. It follows that readers who

cannot mobilize the missing information in the text from their own knowledge will be at a

disadvantage. This is especially applicable for ELL students.

Skilled Decoders and Skilled Readers

For many years it was thought that once children acquired the basic ability to read,

they would, automatically, and without specific instruction, be able to understand

whatever they could decode (Williams, 2005). Yet, as noted by Williams (2005) this is not

the case. In reality, teachers often feel frustrated because after teaching vocabulary to

their ELL students, these learners are still unable to comprehend what they read, even

though they know all of the words in the text. Thelen (1982) makes a useful distinction

between reading problems and comprehension problems. Often students might not have

a reading problem. Instead, the problem might be comprehension that hinders their

reading performance. Becoming a skilled decoder does not ensure that one will become

a good reader, because it is not just the words of which one has to grasp the meaning; it

is also the kind of reality to which the words are referring (Hirsch, 2006a).

Hirsch (2006a) argues that, in reality, what a text does not say often far exceeds

what it says; therefore, one has to fill in the blanks and make the unstated connections.

Comprehending a text depends on knowing the meanings of most of its words. Hirsch’s

(2006a) critical finding, showing that word learning takes place most efficiently when a

reader already understands the context well, extends our understanding of reading

32

comprehension. The understanding of a whole text is the basis for guessing the

meanings of new words. Research shows that a reader can guess accurately what the

word ought to mean in a particular context simply because he or she knows what is

being talked about (Gipe & Arnold, 1979). In addition, Hirsch (2006a) suggests that

students learn words up to four times faster in a familiar as opposed to an unfamiliar

context. Therefore, without relevant background knowledge, students can not guess

unknown words correctly; hence, reading comprehension suffers. Researchers, such as

Ganske, Monroe, and Strickland (2003), report that topic knowledge supports children’s

word identification and comprehension. Rumelhart’s (1977) interactive model of reading

proposes that readers utilize several knowledge sources in word recognition.

Background knowledge, word recognition, and reading comprehension, thus, form a

“virtuous circle”. Since relevant background knowledge is an absolute requirement for

learning vocabulary and comprehending a text, there is no way around the need for

students to gain broad knowledge in order to achieve better reading proficiency.

What Is Wrong?

Hirsch (2006a) asserts that one needs a wealth of relevant background knowledge

that goes beyond vocabulary and syntax—relevant knowledge that is far broader than

the words of a text. Without broad knowledge, children’s reading comprehension will

suffer and their scores on reading comprehension tests will not improve . Yet, as Hirsch

(2006a) points out, content is not adequately addressed in most American schools,

especially in the early grades. Beck, McKeown, and Gromoll (1989) analyzed the content

and presentation of textbooks on four widely used social studies programs. They found

that the texts assumed an unrealistic variety and depth of prior knowledge from

target-age children, and the texts tended to present numerous facts, but there was little

33

explanation of relationships among facts; that is, the content was not coherent.

The research from the National Reading Panel has made it clear that reading

comprehension requires students to possess a decent amount of vocabulary and

background knowledge (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,

2000). Textbook writers, however, seem to assume background knowledge and

vocabulary on the part of their readers. This assumption affects younger readers’

reading comprehension in general and ELLs in particular. No amount of reading

comprehension skills and strategies instruction can compensate for the lack of

knowledge (Hirsch 2006a). Young children must have access to additional knowledge so

that they can understand textual content, express their new knowledge, and increase

their reading comprehension.

During the past few decades, there has been increasing emphasis on teaching

students strategies for comprehending texts. This emphasis has focused on providing

direct instruction strategies to help students to consciously use the strategies in different

contexts. However, as Hirsch (2006a) points out, none of the current methods attempt to

build up children’s knowledge. For example, the state language arts standards rarely

mention a specific piece of information. The reading textbooks simply jump from one

trivial piece of information to another. Finally, in some States 90 to 120 minutes per day

of language arts classes are devoted to comprehension strategies drills. As a result,

school administrators, teachers, and parents assume that comprehension can best be

improved by acquiring formal strategies and kills rather than by building children’s

knowledge (Hirsch, 2006a). Although direct strategy instruction is a needed, it is not

enough to consider strategies without considering students’ knowledge base (Chi,

Glaser, & Rees, 1982). Hirsch (2006a) also writes that deficient attention to building

34

young children’s knowledge is the main reason why the reading scores of 13- and

17-year-olds on the National Assessment of Educational Progress have not increased in

the past 15 years. Hirsch (2006a) argues the most harmful idea that teachers, teacher

educators, textbook publishers, and administrators possess is that children do not need

a knowledge-rich curriculum to become proficient readers. It is possible that the reading

underachievement of ELLs is the result of such inaccurate ideas, as opposed a lack of

effort by students. The literature suggests that strategy instruction and developing

students’ knowledge base should be considered in the design of reading instruction and

reading curricula.

Informational Texts in Classrooms

McCardle and Chhabra (2004) contend that children’s future success in becoming

skilled readers depends on their awareness of the fact that spoken words are composed

of smaller elements of speech. Then, they can grasp the idea that letters represent these

sounds, learn the correspondences between sounds and spelling, and acquire a

repertoire of highly familiar words that can be recognized on sight. Therefore, research

substantiates the importance of phonemic awareness instruction and phonics instruction

in teaching and learning to read. On the other hand, research since the mid-1980s has

consistently shown that basal readers include very little informational text (Flood & Lapp,

1986; Moss & Newton, 2002). Second, studies show that little classroom time has been

devoted to reading informational texts. Palincsar and Duke (2004) once noted that,

“[there is a] scarcity of informational text in primary-grade classrooms” (p.189). From a

study of the prevalence of informational texts in 20 first-grade classrooms in and around

Boston, Duke (2000) found that only 3.6 minutes per day of instruction was devoted to

informational texts. The situation was much worse in classrooms in schools within

35

districts with large numbers of low socioeconomic status families. In these schools, only

1.4 minutes per day, on average, were devoted to reading or using informational texts.

Background Knowledge

Hirsch (2006a) argues that high-level reading comprehension depends on a solid

base of background knowledge and vocabulary. Without these, it is much more difficult

for children to develop into strong readers. Lacking strong reading skills in the

elementary grades, students will be less likely to able to comprehend secondary school

texts. In addition, scoring well on SAT-like tests will be difficult. Moreover, succeeding in

college or a career could become a problem. As Hirsch (2006a) concludes, knowledge

matters for all children’s minds in reading.

Dochy, Segers and Buehl (1999) believe that it is difficult to overestimate the

contribution of individuals’ prior knowledge. They propose that prior knowledge is an

essential variable in learning, and a springboard for future learning. Prior knowledge is

the knowledge that students bring to the learning process. Dochy (1994) further defines

prior knowledge as “the whole of a person’s actual knowledge that: (a) is available before

a certain learning task, (b) is structured in schemata, (c) is declarative and procedural, (d)

is partly explicit and partly tacit, (e) and is dynamic in nature and stored in the knowledge

base” (p.4699). In addition, Bransford (1979) suggests that prior knowledge must be

activated, and that it will facilitate students’ current abilities to understand and learn.

Connecting the known to the new has long been considered a way to motivate and

focus students, as well as a means of evaluating the existence of background knowledge.

When a teacher draws on a child’s prior experiences and helps the child connect those

to new vocabulary and story concepts, it provides a basis for discovering meaning.

Children need to see the relevance of a story to their own lives. Classrooms with

36

culturally relevant materials easily accomplish this task (Vacca et al., 2003). Also, when

children see books and materials with characters that look and sound like themselves,

their lives are validated (Vacca et al., 2003). The stories they read connect to their own

experiences, and so new vocabulary is more easily learned (Vacca, et al. 2003).

Carrell (1984) argues that the role of background knowledge in language

comprehension has been formalized as schema theory. Barlett (1932) provided the

earliest definition when he noted that comprehending a text is an interactive process

between a reader’s past experiences (background knowledge) and a text. Excellent

comprehension requires the ability to relate the reading material to one’s own knowledge.

Johnson (1982) mentions in her article on schema theory that activating or building

readers’ existing knowledge prior to reading would improve or alter reading

comprehension and recall. Pearson, Hansen, and Gorden (1979) suggest that schemata

serve two important functions during reading comprehension. First, they provide a

framework for classifying concepts presented in a text. Therefore, the stronger the

framework, the more likely concepts are to be classified and available for subsequent

retrieval from long term memory. The second function is to allow readers to fill in gaps

not completely specified in the text. That is, readers understand a passage by analyzing

the text according to their schema, or their past personal experiences. The crucial

determinant in what can be read by both children and adults is the amount of background

knowledge they possess to help them determine the meaning of what they are reading

(Schank, 1982). Researchers, such as Hirsch (2006a), suggest that schools should be

responsible for imparting this knowledge through a rich, common grade-by-grade

curriculum. This way, teachers can systematically build on their students’ knowledge and

skills.

37

Braunger and Lewis (2006) maintain that worldview, background knowledge, and

schooling experiences in the home country are critical for the effective acquisition of

literacy. The diversity of students in public schools today does not support “one size fits

all” reading instruction. Braunger and Lewis (2006) propose that teachers must be able

to provide instruction appropriate to the wide range of students’ experiences and needs.

Carrell (1984) argues an ELL reader’s failure to activate appropriate schema during

reading may result in various degrees of not comprehending. This failure to activate an

appropriate schema may be due to the fact that the ELL reader does not possess the

appropriate schema anticipated by the author. A mismatch between what the author

anticipates, what the reader can comprehend from the text, and what the reader is

actually able to do, thus, exists.

Coady (1979) and Krashen and Terrell (1983) hold a similar point of view and they

note that a reader’s background knowledge is assumed to be a major factor in ELL and

foreign language reading comprehension. As Pritchard (1990) points out, a reader’s

comprehension of a specific text is related to her or his cultural background. Early

theorists, such as Barlett (1932), suggested that a foreigner who reads a story that

presupposes the perspective of a culture will comprehend it quite differently, and

probably less efficiently, than a native speaker. This is probably because schemata are

influenced by the culture in which one lives (Pritchard, 1990). Johnson (1982) notes that

ELLs might depend more on background knowledge of the topic than on linguistic

analysis of the text for comprehension and reconstruction of a passage because of their

incomplete knowledge of the language. Teachers of ELLs could try to understand what

experiences their students have had that will make the topic familiar. Teachers could

also try to find out what communication styles the ELLs are familiar with, and what

38

school/classroom experiences they have had (Pearson-Casanave, 1984).

Anderson and Pearson (1984) assert that the importance of prior knowledge in

reading has been demonstrated through research based on schema theory. The relation

of background knowledge to text comprehension in processing and recalling information

has been studied by schema theorists. According to schema theory, readers understand

what they read only as it relates to what they already know. That is, background

knowledge about a particular topic influences the extent to which children understand

what they read about that topic. Widdowson (1983) defined schemata as cognitive

constructs which allow for the organization of information in long-term memory. As noted

by Cook (1989), "the mind, stimulated by key words or phrases in the text or by the

context, activates a knowledge schema" (1989, p. 69). Pritchard (1990) argues that

knowledge is stored in schematic structures, or schemata, which are organized

representations of one’s background experiences. Therefore, schemata allow one to

relate new information to already known information. Clearly, research on the theory of

schema has had a significant impact on our understanding of reading.

Research on Background Knowledge and Reading Comprehension

According to Applegate, Quinn, and Applegate (2002) the essence of reading is the

ability to link past experience and background knowledge with the text. Barnitz (1986)

reminds us of a well-documented fact that native language reading comprehension

involves the role of knowledge of the world, and knowledge of native text structure.

Droop and Verhoeven (1998) also state that the relationship between background

knowledge and reading comprehension in native-language reading has been

investigated extensively. Results in this area have consistently shown that having

background knowledge of a text that is to be read can facilitate reading comprehension,

39

in both adults and children. Adams, Bell, and Perfetti (1995) posit that people with high

domain knowledge comprehend a text better than those who lack that knowledge.

Schema theory is offered as an explanation of the facilitative effect of prior knowledge on

text comprehension (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). This theory explains why readers with

high prior knowledge of the content domain have well-developed schemata, or

knowledge structures, into which they assimilate the information from a text. That is,

information from the text is mapped onto the reader’s existing knowledge structures

(Afflerbach, 1990). Finally, Fincher-Kiefer, Post, Greene, and Voss (1988) determined

that prior knowledge of the content domain of a text allows the reader to interpret a large

amount of information from the text more quickly, and to organize large chunks of the

text for both comprehension and retrieval.

In their study, Anderson et al. (1978) report that adults’ background knowledge

affects how much is recalled from text. Seventy-five undergraduate students participated

in their study by reading and recalling two passages. Their findings confirm that

background knowledge plays a role in the learning and remembering of text information.

They, therefore, conclude that the schemata a person already possesses is the principal

determiner of what will be learned from a text.

Afflerbach’s (1990) study shows that doctoral expert readers automatically construct

the main idea more often when reading texts about familiar topics. Afflerbach (1990) also

points out that readers with relatively high background knowledge of textual information

performed significantly better on comprehension measures than readers with equivalent

reading ability, but low background knowledge of the text topic.

Alvermann, Smith, and Readence (1985) examined 52 sixth-grade students to

determine whether they would activate what they believed to be relevant background

40

knowledge prior to reading two science passages. The researchers concluded that

middle- school students’ background knowledge may interfere with reading

comprehension. The result of Stevens’s (1980) study suggests that ninth-grade students’

background knowledge is a significant factor for all ability groups. In addition, Stevens

(1980) concludes that possessing high background knowledge of the topic being read

greatly supports reading comprehension of that topic. Finally, Recht and Leslie (1988)

find that when the reader has knowledge about the text to be read, comprehension is

better, and there are fewer errors in recall. In their study, 32 seventh- and 32

eighth-grade students were examined. The results of their study replicate the findings

from a majority of research studies on the effects of background knowledge on memory.

In sum, students with greater background knowledge of a topic have better

comprehension of that topic. In addition, greater knowledge results in better recognition

of important ideas in a text. Recht and Leslie (1988) also find that students with high

reading ability but low knowledge were no more capable of recall, or summarization, than

were students with low reading ability and low knowledge. The findings of their study

suggest that knowledge of a content domain is a powerful determinant of the amount and

quality of information recalled; powerful enough for poor readers to compensate for their

generally low reading ability.

Studies conducted with younger children also demonstrate that having more

knowledge of the topic results in greater comprehension (Marr & Gormley, 1982;

Pearson et al., 1979; Taft & Leslie, 1985). In Marr and Gormley’s (1982) study, fourth

graders read 100-word selections, and students retold more from texts for which they

had prior knowledge than they did from unfamiliar texts. Pearson et al (1979) chose

younger children (second graders) to investigate the applicability of schema-theoretic

41

operations to novice as opposed a mature population of readers. They concluded that

younger students with well developed schemata of a topic were able to answer more

questions (orally in their study) about a passage than those with weakly developed

schemata. This effect is particularly prominent when the reading comprehension

questions require background knowledge to be accessed. Similarly, Taft and Leslie

(1985) examined 57 third-grade average readers as they read expository passages

orally. Their results suggest that children should not be expected to comprehend

material where the major concepts contained therein are unknown, even when the

concepts are explicitly defined in the text. In Taft and Leslie’s (1985) study, they also

found that third-grade children with high prior knowledge can comprehend up to 75% of

texts that are at a 5th-6th grade readability level. This suggests that readers with high

background knowledge can not only comprehend better, but they also read beyond what

is considered their normal reading level. Research has emphasized that not only does

lack of knowledge about a topic impede comprehension, but the extent of knowledge

influences the quality of understanding that a reader can construct (McKeown et al.,

1992). Recent research (McKenzie & Danielson, 2003) also indicates that children read

more fluently and comprehend at a much higher level if the content is familiar to them.

The results of the research studies mentioned above demonstrate that having more

knowledge of the topic results in increased comprehension. It is noteworthy in the

context of the current study, however, that in all of the studies discussed; the sole

participants were native-English speakers.

Background Knowledge and Reading Comprehension of Cross-cultural Students

Applegate, Quinn, and Applegate (2002) explain that when readers encounter

printed text, they comprehend by retrieving background knowledge rooted in their culture

42

and their language. Language is a reflection of culture; therefore, understanding the

cultural content of what one reads is a crucial factor in reading comprehension (Nelson,

1987). Levine, Haus, Sims, and Ramos (1987) claim that a reader’s background

knowledge is a major factor in ELL reading comprehension, just as it is in first language

reading. Research on the effects of background knowledge on the reading

comprehension of elementary ELLs is limited. There is, however, some empirical

evidence which shows that background knowledge affects reading comprehension in

ELLs.

Bartlett (1932) provided one of the earliest reports of the influence of cultural

schemata. He reported his observations of how Englishmen read and recalled stories

based on North American Indian folk tales. Bartlett (1932) revealed that when it comes to

processing unfamiliar texts, evidence of the cultural differences in schemata are quite

apparent. A half century later, Kintsch and Greene (1978) conducted research on a

group of American college students. They presented the college students with two

stories: a Brothers Grimm fairy tale and an Apache folk tale. The results indicated that

American college students had better recall of the Brothers Grimm story. Steffensen et al.

(1979) conducted a more intricate study by having 20 college-level students from the

United States and 20 from India read and recall a passage describing a traditional

wedding in each culture. Here, the results showed a) readers recalled more ideas from

the passage about their own cultures, and b) they read the passage about the wedding in

their own culture more rapidly.

Reynolds, et al. (1982) investigated the relationship between cultural schemata and

the reading comprehension of urban black and agrarian white eighth-grade students.

These two groups of students read a letter about an incident in the school cafeteria

43

which dealt with an instance of “sounding” or “playing the dozens,” a form of verbal ritual

insult commonly found in the black community. Black students tended to interpret the

passage as being about verbal play, while white students tended to interpret it as being

about physical aggression. The finding of these research studies suggest that cultural

knowledge cannot be ignored in a model of reading.

Levine et al. (1987) investigated the effects of relevant background knowledge on

the reading comprehension of 428 ELL high school students. The students read an

authentic report of a soccer game and responded to reading comprehension questions.

The findings of their study indicate that background knowledge significantly affected the

reading comprehension of ELL high school students with both intermediate and

advanced English proficiency.

The cultural schemata research mentioned above were all conducted with high

school and older students. Only a few studies examined cross-culture variables in the

reading comprehension of elementary school students. Andersson and Gipe (1983)

demonstrated a strong relationship between cultural group and performance on

measures of inferential reading comprehension of sixth-grade students. These young

subjects showed improved inference of information for the passages that related to their

own cultures.

It is evident that schema plays an important role in text comprehension, both in first-,

and second-language contexts. In addition, the studies previously discussed

demonstrate that cultural background knowledge not only affects the reading

comprehension of students with foreign cultural schemata but also students with

subcultural background, such as African American culture, and American Indian culture.

Therefore, whether reading in a first- or second-language, one can assume that both

44

native and non-native readers will understand more of a text when they are familiar with

content, formal, and linguistic schemata. An ELL reader, however, who does not

possess content schemata, can experience schema interference, or a lack of

comprehension.

A significant problem for ELL students is that texts sometimes contain unfamiliar

concepts of culture-specific elements. According to schema theory, ELL students from

different countries have different schemata and most have difficulties in processing

knowledge like English native speakers. Steffensen et al. (1979) elaborated on the idea

that needed content schemata are not provided by the text to ELL students probably

because the author assumes that the readers already have them. When the cultural

background assumed by an author is missing, reading can become a time-consuming

and laborious task for ELL students.

Content schema or cultural orientation in terms of background knowledge is

definitely a factor that influences second language reading. Carrell (1984) also

emphasizes that readers do indeed employ content schema in the process of reading in

a second language. In addition, reading comprehension depends on a solid base of

background knowledge and vocabulary.

A body of literature examines the role of schemata in second language

comprehension. Johnson (1981, 1982) investigated the role of background knowledge

on reading performance of university level ELL students. From the first study, Johnson

(1981) concluded that language complexity did not have as much of an effect on Iranian

students’ comprehension as cultural origin of the text. In addition, Johnson concluded

that native readers were influenced by both language complexity and cultural origin of

the text. In a later study, Johnson (1982) demonstrated that university ELL students can

45

more easily recall a text on a familiar topic than they can an unfamiliar text. Johnson also

pointed out that vocabulary exposure did not produce a significant effect on recall.

Therefore, prior knowledge (content schema) was more important to ELL readers than

vocabulary definitions. Hudson (1982) also designed a study with university level ESL

students. Hudson found that induced schemata can compensate for the potentially

negative effects of limitation in second language proficiency or for the limitation of lower

level reading skills. An interesting study was carried out by Kang (1992) who examined

how second language readers filter information from second language texts through

culture specific background knowledge. From the results Kang concluded that

background knowledge is important, and that content schema plays an integral role in

reading comprehension. Then in the area of foreign language reading, Adams (1982)

found that background knowledge aided students in university French classes in

guessing the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary in a series of specially constructed

reading passages.

Studies on the effect of background knowledge on second-language reading have

been carried out almost exclusively with adults. However, knowledge about the impact of

content schemata on the reading behaviors of children is important because of the

consequences for reading education. Droop and Verhoeven (1998) note that it is difficult

for children to understand texts in existing reading curricula that refer to situations that

they do not, or only partly share. Therefore, content schemata issues may be

exacerbated for ELL children who are reading texts in their second language, English.

Children from non-English speaking homes are especially dependent on schools to

impart content schemata since they are unlikely to pick it up at home. Carrell and

Eisterhold (1983) argue that teachers should use background knowledge to minimize

46

cultural conflicts and interference and to maximize reading comprehension.

Braunger and Lewis (2006) maintain that reading is a complex array of making

sense of the world around us. Anderson (1984) and Schank and Abelson (1977)

describe schema theory as the organization of individual and social knowledge,

experience, background, and connection as a means for interpreting and understanding

the world. Anderson (1984) also notes that learning is slow and uncertain without a

schema to which an event can be assimilated. Anderson (1984) believes the knowledge

a person already possesses is the principal determiner of what a person can come to

know. Knowledge, in turn, is conditioned by culture. Therefore, a person’s culture is a

principal determiner of what he or she can come to know.

Barlett (1932) proposes that a schema is the organization of a subject’s past

experiences that directly influence current perception. McKenzie and Danielson (2003)

noticed that children read more fluently and comprehended at a much higher level when

the content was familiar to them. Pearson-Casanave (1984) sees the reader as an active

processor of information, one who selects only the most productive cues from the printed

page. Readers bring to a text a store of background knowledge, which is used in

conjunction with linguistic information to help them make and confirm predictions about

content. She also finds that a text provides clues which enable readers to construct

meaning from existing knowledge—the text activates and builds on existing schemata.

Comprehending a text then becomes an interactive process between the text and the

reader’s background knowledge, and input is dealt with in terms of the schemata that

readers bring with them.

Native Mandarin-Speaking ELLs Need Background Knowledge

Nelson (1987) describes language as a reflection of culture, so understanding the

47

cultural content of what one reads is also a crucial factor in reading comprehension.

Pritchard (1990) explains that ELLs often exhibit more problems with reading

comprehension than do native English speakers partly because of differences in

background knowledge relevant to what is read in school. Ganske, Monroe, and

Strickland (2003) also argue that insufficient background knowledge about U.S. customs,

slang and idioms, and history may interfere with bilingual students’ reading. They also

point out that stories that reflect their culture and experience are likely to be appealing,

and will enable the ELL students to use what they know to support their reading

comprehension.

Acquiring a second language is never easy. Some people would like to think it is

fairly simple for young children; however, researchers have proposed a different point of

view (Collier, 1987). Cummins (1981) distinguishes CALP (cognitive academic language

proficiency), context-reduced, cognitively demanding aspects of language proficiency

from BICS (basic interpersonal communicative skills), face-to-face conversational

proficiency. Cummins (1981) argues that young children with little or no formal schooling

in their first language require approximately five to seven years to reach the level of

native speakers in CALP in the second language (e.g. third- or fourth- grade native

Mandarin-speaking ELLs).

A second language is acquired to varying degrees of proficiency depending on the

context in which the learner needs to use it. Native Mandarin-speaking ELLs who must

acquire English in the context of schooling need to develop full proficiency in all English

language domains (including syntax, semantics, vocabulary, etc.) and all language skills

(listening, speaking, reading, writing, and metalinguistic knowledge of English) for use in

all the content areas, such as language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.

48

English language used in school is sometimes unique to that context, and it becomes

increasingly abstract as native Mandarin-speaking ELLs move from one grade to the

next one (Collier, 1987). English language is the focus of every content area task. Birch

(2002) claims that world knowledge can affect ELLs’ expectations about words and

meaning, which can allow ELLs to recognize some words faster than others or

understand some meanings faster than others.

Books in schools, according to Li (2004) all feature white, middle-class characters or

neutral themes such as animals, and they seem detached from the students’ cultural

backgrounds. Children seem to have a hard time relating to the characters in the books.

The detachment could potentially lead to children’s lack of interest in reading. This

detachment occurs because much of the text in such books is not fully explicit, and

readers must draw from their existing background knowledge in order to understand it.

Therefore, helping native Mandarin-speaking ELLs develop needed knowledge might

help them with reading English texts. It follows that the use of previewing texts would

help build native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ background knowledge and thus improve

their comprehension of the text.

Why This Age Group?

Graves, Cooke, and Laberge (1983), Durkin (1978) and Cummins (1981) finds that

in U.S. schools where all instruction is given through the second language, English,

non-native speakers with no schooling in their first language take seven to ten years to

reach age- and grade-level norms. Immigrant students who have had two to three years

of schooling in their first language in their home countries take at least five to seven

years to reach age and grade level norms (Cummins, 1981). Collier (1989) argues that

language needed for school is unique and very complex. In addition, language in school

49

becomes increasingly complex and less connected to contextual clues as students move

from one grade level to the next. Language becomes the focus of every content-area

task, with all meaning and all demonstration of knowledge expressed through the written

forms of language in textbooks. Cummins (1989) describes context-reduced, cognitively

demanding school language as especially difficult to master. Yet by fourth grade, most

uses of language in school fall into this category. Therefore, from fourth grade, when the

academic and cognitive demands of the curriculum increase rapidly, ELLs might fail to

maintain positive gains (Collier, 1987, 1989). Possibly, teaching third to fifth grade native

Mandarin-speaking ELLs the needed and relevant background knowledge would help

them develop the context-reduced and cognitively demanding school language that is

used in every content-area.

Dong (1999) advocates that, in dealing with non-native students, teachers obtain

information about students’ native literacy learning in order to tailor their instruction.

Teachers of native Mandarin-speaking ELLs could identify Mandarin as an ideographic,

pictographic, and logo graphic language. For native Mandarin-speaking ELLs, the

transition to English with its Latin alphabet is an additional source of confusion.

Ernst-Slavit, Moore, and Maloney (2002) and Li (2004) indicate that the more the ELLs’

native language and home culture is academically supported and valued, in combination

with balanced second-language development, the more ELLs are able to academically

achieve in the second language.

Barbara Birch (2002) also proposes that teachers consider whether students

transfer their first language (L1) knowledge to process a second language (L2). Wong

and Lopez (2000) point out that the Mandarin language, which is so different from

English, interferes with native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ learning of English. Birch (2002)

50

mentions there was no positive transfer from Mandarin to English reading because the

writing systems are so different. Native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ L1 knowledge of

sinograms does not aid in reading alphabetic writing. She also mentions that teachers

should recognize that no other writing system is like English; therefore positive transfer

or facilitation from L1 will be either limited or nonexistent, and negative transfer could be

significant. Teachers who overlook this possibility may not have a realistic view of the

demands of reading for their students, and their expectations may be unrealistic.

Teaches should strive to provide ELL students with the relevant background knowledge

and, thereby, activate schema. Birch (2002) argues that it is important to remember that

native-speaking children learning to read English vary in terms of in how long it takes for

them to become good readers. Some are reading well at 4 years of age; others take until

the age of 7 or 8 to read well. Teachers are often eager to show progress in English L2

reading, and consequently they often rush students into texts that are too difficult,

without allowing them the time to acquire automaticity with English graphemes and

common spelling patterns. Teachers will, undoubtedly, rush students if they overlook or

minimize the complex task of switching from L1 orthography to English.

August and Hakuta (1997) observed that English as a second language (ESL)

based programs help ELL children learn to read in a second language, without serious

negative consequences. Teachers of native Mandarin-speaking ELLs should therefore

learn to understand that bilingualism, far from impeding a child’s overall cognitive or

linguistic development, can lead to positive growth. Native Mandarin-speaking ELLs who

receive Mandarin assistance do not compromise on their acquisition of English.

Previewing Texts

It is evident that for reading comprehension, background knowledge is important.

51

When children begin school with little knowledge of people, places, things, or books,

teachers should not confuse their students’ lack of information with a lack of ability, and

lower their expectations for literacy. The problem for teachers is how to find a quick, easy,

and effective way to teach the necessary background knowledge for new topics. If

teachers can utilize efficient strategies to build background knowledge, then their

students will develop the specific schema needed so that they can comprehend the texts

they read.

Sweet (1993) maintains that there are two specific types prior knowledge: text

specific and topic specific. Text-specific knowledge calls for understanding about the

type of text — for example, a story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Topic-specific

knowledge entails understanding something about the topic -- for example, knowing

about dinosaurs before reading a book on prehistoric animals. Paris et al. (1991) argues

that both text-specific and topic-specific prior knowledge play an important role in helping

students construct meaning in reading. Carrell (1984) further argues that schema theory

research shows that the greater the background knowledge of a reading passage, the

greater the comprehension of that passage. She points out that ELL readers’ reading

problems may be problems of insufficient background knowledge. She, then, proposes

providing help for ELLs to build the background knowledge of a text prior to reading by

using appropriate prereading activities. According to Stevens (1982) “A teacher of

reading might thus be viewed as a teacher of relevant information” (p. 328). It follows that

the use of previewing texts should help activate native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ prior

knowledge.

If students’ existing schemata are crucial for text comprehension, then it is important

to identify ways that teachers can help build students’ prior knowledge so that they can

52

maximize students’ comprehension. Omaggio (1979) demonstrated that visual aids used

as an “advanced organizer” helped readers structure their existing store of knowledge

before reading. Swaffar (1988) points out that prior familiarity with subject matter

enhances language recognition, concept recall, and inferential reasoning. Carrell and

Eisterhold (1982) suggest that teachers use previewing to pre-teach key concepts and

vocabulary which could cause problems in comprehension. Melendez and Prichard

(1985) also propose that teachers should use prereading activities to help students

develop the cultural background needed to understand the content they are about to

read.

Pearson and Johnson (1978) recommend that teachers use previewing techniques

in order to establish in the minds of the readers what is known in anticipation of learning

what is new in the text. Though their discussion is aimed at native English language

reading, a plausible assumption it that their suggestions would apply to ELL reading.

Honing et al. (2000) found that cognitive research into how the brain acquires and

stores knowledge has determined the importance of activating prior knowledge in the

comprehension of text. Schema theory proposes that as a person learns about and

experiences the world, he or she develops various frameworks, or schemata, which are

revised to accommodate new information. Honing et al. (2000) conclude that when

students preview text, they begin to determine the prior knowledge needed to help them

understand what they are about to read. When previewing, teachers can ask students

what they already know about the content of the selection, the vocabulary used in the

text, and what experience they have regarding the text. When students’ prior knowledge

is formed, their schema provides a framework for the new information they are about to

read.

53

Ausubel (1962) says that informing students with an advanced organizer before a

lesson would preview the parts of new schema, bridge gaps, and accelerate learning

information with greater understanding. Rothkopf (1972) adds that teachers could insert

prompts, cues, and questions into a text or provide verbal instruction to guide

unsophisticated students in what to notice and how to process new content.

Researchers who study English reading instruction suggest that teachers can use

prereading activities to provide the necessary background knowledge for specific

reading tasks (Graves & Graves, 1994; Mayer, 1984). Prereading activities are devices

for bridging the gap between the text’s content and the reader’s schemata (Chen &

Graves, 1995). Researchers who study second language reading instruction suggest

that teachers can use prereading activities such as pictorial context, vocabulary

preteaching, and prequestioning to activate appropriate knowledge structures and

facilitate students’ comprehension (Taglieber, Johnson, & Yarbough, 1988). In addition,

Carrell (1984) supports the use of prereading activities such as text previewing,

preteaching unfamiliar vocabulary, and providing prereading questions as effective

strategies for ELL students.

Johnson (1982) accepts the schema theory that activating or building students’

existing knowledge prior to reading will improve and/or alter reading comprehension and

recall. Graves et al. (1983) and Chen and Graves (1995) found that previewing helped

American junior high school students and Taiwanese college students with their reading

comprehension. Dole et al., (1991) examined 63 fifth-grade students. Their findings

suggested that well-developed prereading instruction improves students’ comprehension

of texts. More importantly, the results of their study showed that the teacher-directed

strategy was the most effective. When given information about key vocabulary and

54

concepts for understanding upcoming texts, students had better comprehension of the

texts. Thus, for the purpose of the current study it is assumed that native

Mandarin-speaking ELLs are more familiar with such a teacher-directed strategy used as

a previewing activity. It would be, presumably, easier for native Mandarin-speaking ELLs

to attend to a short lecture which focused students’ attention on only the most important

information (Fu, 2003).

Graves, et al. (1983) defines previews as introductory material presented to

students before they read specific texts. Previews provide students with a framework

within which they can understand a text and give them specific information about the

contents of the material itself. Previews are prepared scripts that teachers read to

students to improve their comprehension of difficult narrative texts. (Graves, et al.,

1983).

The key components of a previewing text consist of:

1) The teacher gives the students a framework for understanding upcoming texts;

2) The students engage in a brief discussion about the topic of each upcoming text.

3) The teacher gives the students both specific information and general information

about the content of upcoming texts, including “key element of plot, characters, point

of view, tone, setting, and perhaps theme,” as well as “definitions of difficult

vocabulary, translations of foreign phrases, and explanations of potentially difficult

concepts” (Grave et al., 1983, p.264).

The teacher gives the students both specific information and general information Graves,

et al. (1983) argue that previews help students in using or building prior knowledge or

schemata, and using such prior knowledge aids students in comprehending and

remembering what they read. Graves’ preview is designed to provide students with the

55

essential background knowledge they need to understand new material. Providing such

previews would presumably help native Mandarin-speaking ELLs alleviate the anxiety of

lower English proficiency and build necessary background knowledge of reading texts

and lead to improved reading comprehension.

Previews have been used effectively with native English-speaking students for a

number of years. For example, Graves and Palmer (1981) conducted a study with 80

fifth- and sixth-grade students. Two short stories were deliberately selected so that they

would be challenging for the students and previews were written for each story. Each

preview provided students with a framework for understanding the story by giving

students a link between their prior knowledge and the topic of the story, by describing the

plot up to the climax, and by briefly introducing the characters. The previews were four

hundred words long and they were read to the students immediately before the students

read the stories. The findings indicate that students receiving the previews scored

significantly higher than those not receiving the previews. In addition, it appears that the

previews were equally effective with both high and low ability students.

Another study conducted in 1980 lends support to the value of previews. In their

study, Graves and Cooke (1980) worked with 92 eleventh-grade students. Two previews

of two short stories were provided. Every preview was about 600 words long and they

attempted to provide a link between the topic of the story and the students’ lives, to

describe the plot to the climax, and to briefly introduce the characters. The previews

were read to students prior to their reading of the stories. The results showed that

students receiving the previews scored higher on measures of reading comprehension

than those not receiving the previews

Graves, et al. (1983) also examined 32 eighth-grade students who each read four

56

previews before reading four short stories. Each preview consisted of 600 words and

began with a series of short questions and statements designed to catch the students’

interest, provide a link between a familiar topic (students’ background knowledge) and

the topic of the story, and encourage their active involvement in a brief class discussion

related to the theme and topics of the story. In the preview, the setting was described,

the characters were introduced, the point of view was specified, and the plot was

described. The previews also contained the definitions of difficult vocabulary. The results

showed that the mean reading comprehension scores of students receiving previews

were from 13% to 120% higher than the mean reading comprehension scores of those

not receiving previews.

These studies suggest that previews can produce large gains in students’

comprehension of short stories, and they can be effective with students of all age

(elementary, middle, and high school students) and ability levels (higher and lower ability

students). The previews Graves and colleagues proposed in his different studies make a

serious attempt to engage students, and they tell students basic information about the

stories. A preview is a prereading activity likely to be appropriate for situations in which

texts are difficult and may contain culturally unfamiliar material (Chen & Graves, 1995).

Furthermore, previews are introductory materials presented to students before reading in

order to provide specific information about the contents of the reading material.

Several studies have investigated the effect of previews on L1 (first language)

readers’ comprehension of English. Chen and Graves (1995) show that previews are not

only effective with native English speakers but also with ELLs. Chen and Graves (1995)

investigated 240 Taiwanese college students reading two American stories. They

examined the effects of previewing and providing background knowledge on these

57

Taiwanese college ELLs. Positive effects resulted from the previewing treatment. In

addition, Chen and Graves (1995) emphasize that previews are likely to be more

powerful and richer if they include vocabulary instruction. Carrell (1984) notes that

English vocabulary is likely to pose a problem for ELLs, therefore it is reasonable to

spend class time teaching vocabulary. Therefore, in the proposed study, the researcher

added vocabulary definition in the previews of the stories.

Text Genres

Written text tends to fall into one of two broad categories—expository text, which

communicates information, persuades, or explains; and narrative text, which tells a story.

Narrative text reflects the familiar flow of a child’s everyday life, since, each day has a

beginning, middle, and ending. While narrative text tells a story, expository text provides

an explanation of facts and concepts. As students progress through school, they devote

most of their reading time to expository texts. In each new expository text, students face

the challenge of uncovering its organizational pattern—understanding the presentation,

relationship, and hierarchy of ideas. Reading and understanding expository text involves

more abstract thinking than does reading and understanding the typical narrative

(Honing et al., 2000; Williams, 2005).

In this study, the researcher provided two expository texts and two narrative texts.

The study attempted to determine whether providing background knowledge via

previewing texts helps native Mandarin-speaking ELLs on each type of book. According

to Pritchard (1990) a passage dealing with a culturally familiar topic will be easier to

comprehend than a culturally unfamiliar one. Furthermore, ELLs’ are able to activate and

utilize the relevant schemata to facilitate comprehension of the culturally familiar text.

58

Summary

Research showed and supported the importance of scaffolding ELLs, including the

growing native Mandarin-speaking ELL population, in American schools. Literature

shows there are many factors affecting ELLs learning of English, such as learners’

attitude, sex, age, social class, ethnic identity, and so on (Ellis, 1994). However, ELLs’

background knowledge plays a critical role in reading comprehension. This review of

literature provides an overview of how background knowledge can have an effect on the

reading comprehension of both native English speakers and ELLs. Many researchers

claim that there is a strong connection between students’ background knowledge and

their reading comprehension. In addition, according to Nelson (1987), language is a

reflection of culture; therefore, understanding the cultural content of what one reads is a

crucial factor in reading and comprehending English as a second language. In the

current study, the researcher attempted to build native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’

background knowledge because the English language and American culture could limit

ELLs’ ability to comprehend the texts they read. Recent literature, as noted in this review,

provides evidence supporting the value and potential importance of previews on native

Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ reading comprehension. Finally, based on this review of

literature, there is a need to study the effects of native Mandarin-speaking elementary

student ELLs’ content background knowledge and how it influences their reading

comprehension.

59

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHOD

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of background knowledge

and previews on the reading comprehension of native Mandarin-speaking ELLs. The 3rd,

4th, and 5th grade students participating in the study read culturally familiar and culturally

unfamiliar texts. They also participated in a previewing activity prior to reading each text.

In this study the students’ reading comprehension was measured using instruments

designed by the researcher. In the within-subjects design, children participated under

both the preview and the no-preview conditions, as well as in reading culturally familiar

and culturally unfamiliar texts. In addition, the entire study was replicated using different

texts; thus all participants read four texts on two separate occasions, once without a

preview and the second time with a preview. A counterbalanced approach was adopted

so that the students received the intervention in a different order. The primary purpose of

using two different culturally familiar texts and two different culturally unfamiliar texts was

to limit the possibility that the previewing intervention could be text-specific. That is, if

previewing is to be considered an effective strategy with ELLs, then it is important that it

is equally effective regardless of the type of book that is being read, with the exception of

culturally familiar and unfamiliar texts. Thus, in sum, the goals of the current study were

to validate the relationship between background knowledge and reading comprehension,

as well as the relationship between previews and reading comprehension.

In this chapter the design and methodology that was used is described. Included is a

description of the participants, the setting, the procedures, the instruments that were

used, the methods of data collection, and the methods employed for analyzing the data.

60

Pilot Study

An exploratory study was conducted in the summer of 2007 to pilot the procedures

and methods that were to be employed in the main study. A report detailing the

procedures, results, and conclusions of the pilot study is presented in Appendix A. The

primary purpose of the pilot study was to replicate the main study but using a smaller

sample of subjects. The pilot study was designed for the purpose of field testing the

instruments as well as becoming familiar with the procedures. Findings from the pilot

study were used to design the main study, including developing the reading

comprehension instruments. The results of the pilot study verified the practicality of the

research design and procedures employed in the main study.

Method

Participants

Participating in this study were 20 third- to fifth-grade ELLs whose first language

was Mandarin. These students had come to the United States from Taiwan within the

previous 24 months (i.e., between 9 months to 24 months. Thus, they had been living in

this country for less than two years. The participants were all fluent Mandarin-speaking

ELLs attending a large urban elementary school in the Northeast. They all lived in an

urban location where the native Mandarin-speaking population is much more

concentrated than it is in other parts of the country.

There were 14 male and 6 female participants, all within the age range 8 years to 12

years. Although the participants attended the same school, they were not all in the same

grade, nor were they in the same class. Three of the participants were 3rd graders, 10

were 4th graders, and the remaining 7 were 5th graders. All of the participants were in

classes where the majority of the students were fluent English speakers. The numbers of

61

ELL students in each of the classes that the participants attended ranged from 2-7.

The identities of participants in this study were made confidential by the use of

pseudonyms. Teachers involved in this study were the students’ ESL and mainstream

teachers. The primary criteria for selecting the participants were the length of time they

had lived in this country, fluent in Mandarin, and identified by their school as ELL

students.

According to Cummins (1981; 1992), there are two levels of language proficiency.

First is the Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS), and the other is the

Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). BICS represents the language of

natural, informal conversation, while CALP means the type of language proficiency

needed to read textbooks, participate in dialogue and debate, and provide written tests.

In other words, CALP requires both higher levels of language and cognitive processes in

order to develop the language proficiency needed for success and achievement in

school. Cummins (1981; 1992) also claims that ELLs students who have not developed

their CALP could be at a disadvantage in studying academic subjects, such as reading.

That is because succeeding in reading requires an in-depth understanding of concepts in

order to participate in dialogues and respond to questions in tests. BICS is not adequate

to perform the more demanding tasks required in academic courses (e.g. the school

tasks for grade four and up) since students do not have exposure to, or lack an

understanding of the vocabulary and context-specific or culture-specific language.

Cummins (1986) claims that it can take from five to seven years for ELLs to master

CALP. Additionally, CALP matters in being successful in school. For this reason only

those native Mandarin-speaking ELLs who came to the U.S. within the last five years

were selected as participants for the current study.

62

The criteria for selecting the participants was provided to the school principal who

then selected students from those enrolled in the upper elementary grades (i.e., grades

3-5) within his school. The participants who were finally selected for the study were those

who matched the criteria above, and whose parents had signed the informed consent

form.

Protection of Human Subjects

All research projects under the auspice of the Florida State University that involve

human subjects must be reviewed for compliance with the regulations provided by the

Office for Human Research Protection under the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services. Therefore, before conducting this experiment, the researcher received

permission from the Human Subjects Committee at the Florida State University. Also,

students and their parents were invited to indicate their consent to participate in the

study by signing a consent form approved by the Florida State University’s Human

Subjects Committee (see Appendix C).

Setting

The study was conducted in a large urban elementary school serving a diverse

student population. The school enrollment is approximately 700 students with an

average of five classes at each grade level from kindergarten to 5th grade. The goal of

the ESL program at this school is to provide a supportive environment in which ELL

students will enjoy the challenge of learning a second language, as well as to develop

learning strategies to enable students to be successful in the mainstream program.

There are two components of the elementary ESL program: pull-out and sheltered

immersion. Pull-out ESL classes are designed to target specific language skills. The

results of individual student assessments are used to create focused lessons in a

63

language rich environment, while grade level content is integrated into these lessons

when appropriate. In the sheltered immersion program, the ESL teacher works closely

with the mainstream classroom teacher to provide an individual “language program”

within the mainstream classroom. On a daily basis, the ESL teacher supports students in

their classroom to develop their English while working on regular content material. This

allows students to participate fully in their classroom activities while receiving ESL

instruction and support.

Although the study reported here was a controlled experiment, an attempt was

made to ensure that the setting was naturalistic. First, the study was conducted in an

elementary school. All of the activities were conducted in a classroom within the school.

No other students or adults were present in the room where the activities were

conducted. The researcher had visited each of the participants’ classrooms prior to

conducting the study. Thus, the researcher was known and familiar to the students.

Research Design

The study was a 2 x 2 X 2 within-subjects factorial design. A data schema for the

design is presented in Table 1. The researcher studied a single group of 20 students

using a within-group experimental repeated measures design. The within-subject

variables were the type of books (culturally familiar and culturally unfamiliar), previewing

of texts (previews vs. no previews), and the time of testing (time 1 vs. time 2). All

participants participated in both experimental treatments (i.e., they read both types of

texts, both with and without previewing) with each group becoming its own control. The

participants were randomly divided into two groups of ten subjects and each group

received the same treatment but in a different order. For example, one group was

provided the preview, they then read a culturally familiar text, and then completed the

64

reading comprehension test. The other group received no preview before reading the

same culturally familiar text and completing the reading comprehension test. The

following week the first group read the same text again and completed a different version

of the reading comprehension test, but this time without the preview, while the second

group was provided the preview before reading the text and completing the second

version of the reading comprehension test. The same procedure was repeated using a

culturally unfamiliar text. Then the entire experiment was repeated (i.e., for time 2) using

two different culturally familiar and culturally unfamiliar texts.

The primary strengths of the repeated measures design is that it makes a study

more efficient and it also can reduce variability. This is because participants vary less

within themselves (that is, when compared to themselves) than when compared to others.

This approach can potentially increase the validity of the results, even when the sample

size is small (i.e., such as the 20 participants in the current study). Since fewer subjects

are needed in a within-subjects study, recruitment of participants is easier, and any costs

associated with conducting the study are reduced. According to Gall, Borg, and Gall

(1996), another advantage of within-subject design is that statistical analyses of the data

are sensitive enough when the number of participants is small. The research design

employed attempted to distribute potential bias in the personal characteristics of

individuals among the experimental groups.

Within-subject variables. These included two levels of text previewing: preview and

no preview. Another within-subject variable was the time of testing with two levels of this

variable. The other within-subject variable was two levels of the type of books (culturally

familiar and culturally unfamiliar).

Outcome variable. The outcome variable of interest was the students’ scores on the

65

reading comprehension tests.

Table 1. 2 x 2 X 2 within-subjects factorial design

Culturally Familiar Culturally Unfamiliar

Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2

Preview

No Preview

To accomplish the goals of the study, preview treatments and reading

comprehension tests were employed. In addition, quantitative data from reading

comprehension tests were collected from the participants.

Materials

The materials used in the study were four elementary-level reading books. Two of

the books were selections of American culture related stories or content that would be

relatively unfamiliar to most native Mandarin-speaking ELL students. For this category,

one of the books was in the narrative genre and the other was expository. The other two

books were selections that included themes that would likely be familiar to native

Mandarin-speaking students. Here again, both narrative and expository books were

selected. The four texts that the participants read are described below. Further

information about the texts is provided in Appendix B.

66

The culturally unfamiliar texts were Bald Eagle by J. Mattern (2005), and Paul

Bunyan by S. Kellogg (1984). These two books were selected because they would likely

be somewhat challenging, and relatively unfamiliar, to most of the native

Mandarin-speaking ELL participants. Although the story lines were not complicated, both

selections did presuppose culture-specific information that most native

Mandarin-speaking ELLs lack. In Bald Eagle, the American emblem and how the

national emblem was chosen are described. Then in the narrative Paul Bunyan, Steven

Kellogg (1984) tells an American tall tale about the largest baby ever born in the state of

Maine. In the story Paul Bunyan digs the Great Lakes and gouges out the Grand Canyon.

Based on Fry’s readability index, both of these texts are at the third-grade readability

level.

The culturally familiar reading selections were Chinese New Year by the Global

Chinese Language and Culture Center (2005) and the Cat and Rat by E. Young (1995).

As with the culturally familiar texts, both of these books are at the third-grade readability

level. In the article, Chinese New Year, the author introduces the traditions of celebrating

the Chinese New Year. Then, in the narrative Cat and Rat, Young (1995) tells the legend

of the Chinese zodiac. There were twelve animals representing the symbols of the

Chinese zodiac. In his book, Young (1995) describes how these animals were chosen

and why “Cat” lost the battle over “Rat”.

Procedures

Data collection took place over a period of four weeks in the summer of 2008. For

each of the previewing, reading, and testing sessions, the researcher met with the

students in an empty classroom. During the initial meeting the researcher introduced

herself to the participants and told them about the upcoming activities. The order and

67

nature of the activities are described below and they are summarized in Table 2.

During the first week one group of students were provided the previewing activity

before being asked to read the culturally familiar reading selection, The Chinese New

Year. Students were allowed as much time as they needed to read the text. Then, after

reading the text, the students were administered the reading comprehension test. During

the same week, the second group of students read the same selection, but without the

preview. They were also administered the reading comprehension instrument.

Next, in the same week, the first group of students was asked to read the culturally

unfamiliar selection, The Bald Eagle, without being provided the preview, while the

second group was provided the preview before reading the text. Again, after reading the

texts both groups were administered the reading comprehension test.

During the second week, one group of students was provided the previewing activity

before being asked to read the second culturally familiar reading selection, The Cat and

Rat. Students were allowed as much time as they needed to read the text. Then, after

reading the text, the students were administered the reading comprehension test. During

the same week, the second group of students read the same selection, but without the

preview. They were also administered the reading comprehension instrument.

Next, in the same week, the first group of students was asked to read the second

culturally unfamiliar selection, Paul Bunyan, without being provided the preview, while

the second group was provided the preview before reading the same text. Again, after

reading the texts both groups were administered the reading comprehension test.

In the third week, the same procedures that were followed in week one were

repeated. This time however, the provision of the preview activity was reversed. That is,

the group that did not receive the preview in week one was provided the preview before

68

reading the same text in week three. Although the comprehension instruments were

based on the same reading selections, different versions of the tests were used for the

second administration. Similarly, week four was a counterbalanced version of the

procedures used in week two.

Preview treatments, and reading comprehension tests spanned as much time as

each participant needed. On average, these activities lasted no longer than 40 minutes.

The researchers provided the previewing treatment, supervised the students as they

read the texts, and she administered the reading comprehension instruments.. Initially,

the researcher introduced herself to the participants and explained to them that they

would be reading four short stories. In addition, the researcher confirmed that none of

the participant had read the reading texts before.

When the students were not provided previews, the researcher gave the children a

copy of the text and asked them to read it carefully. She also told the students that they

would complete a short test after they had finished reading the text. The researcher

encouraged the students to try to answer as many of the questions as they could.

Students were allowed to answers in Mandarin if they preferred. When the students

received the preview treatment, the researcher initially told the students that the story

they were about to read would be introduced in the previewing text. The researcher then

read the previewing text out loud to the students. At the same time, the students were

encouraged to follow along by reading their copy of the preview text silently. During the

preview treatment, the researcher encouraged the students to talk about what they knew

about the topic. By doing this, the researcher tried to activate and build students’

background knowledge. The researcher also explained any difficult vocabulary. Finally,

the researcher handed out the story and asked students to read it carefully and noted

69

that there would be a test afterwards. The researcher encouraged the students to

answer as many questions as they could and answers in Mandarin were welcomed.

Preview

The previewing texts were constructed according to the definition and guidelines

provided by Graves, Prenn, and Cooke (1985). The researcher also consulted with an

experienced ESL teacher at a local elementary school regarding the design of the

previewing texts. This teacher helped the researcher chose the vocabulary that was

difficult and culturally-unfamiliar for ELL students.

The previewing activity started with a statement and a question designed to capture

students’ interest. Each previewing activity provided students with a framework for

understanding the story by giving students a link between their prior knowledge and the

topic of the story, to describe the plot up to the climax, and to briefly introduce the

characters. In addition, the previewing texts provided explanations of the difficult

vocabulary in the texts, including definitions in Mandarin.

While providing instruction related to the previewing texts, the researcher gave the

previewing text to the students and told them that the upcoming story was going to be

introduced. She read the first few sentences of the treatment script and then motivated

students to engage in a brief discussion prompted by the questions in the previewing text.

The researcher then explained difficult words. The researcher then handed out the story,

asking students to read it silently and carefully, noting that there would be a test

afterwards. The researcher finally told the students they could take as much time as they

needed to answer the questions.

Selection of Instruments

Reading Comprehension Tests: For the purposes of this study four reading

70

comprehension tests were developed. Each of the reading tests were related to each of

the texts used in the intervention. The researcher consulted an elementary reading

expert regarding the development of the reading comprehension tests. The reading

comprehension tests consisted of 8 four-item multiple-choice questions and two

short-answer questions.

Reading comprehension tests were designed to assess students’ understanding of

key information and main ideas of the stories. The researcher designed a

comprehension question pool. Each native Mandarin-speaking ELL student received ten

questions from the original pool of twenty questions, which were all designed according

to Bloom’s taxonomy. In accordance with this taxonomy, the researcher designed

questions that test knowledge and the recall of specific information. Also included on the

test were comprehension questions that test the understanding of what was read.

Application questions tested students’ ability to convert the abstract content to concrete

situations.

For each text that was read there were two similar versions of a reading

comprehension test. For each comprehension test the same numbers of questions at

each of the first three levels of Blooms taxonomy were included. The purpose of this

approach was to try to ensure that each comprehension test was of comparable difficulty.

Tests were composed of 8 four-option multiple-choice items and two short-answer

questions. Each short-answer question required an answer that included at least one

sentence.

In order to establish construct validity, sample reading comprehension tests were

taken by a group of third- to fifth-grade non-native English-speaking students from an

elementary school in the Southeastern U.S. The purpose here was is was to make sure

71

that the purpose of the test was apparent, and that the items were clear. All of the

respondents indicated that the directions and questions were clear. Several respondents

correctly identified the purpose of the tests as assessing background knowledge and

reading comprehension. The results showed that those Taiwanese respondents who

were born in the States and grew up in the North American culture performed better than

the recent immigrants did. The variations in scores obtained by the respondents provide

some evidence of construct validity. For example, the students identified by their

teachers as “high ability” performed better on the reading comprehension instrument that

than did the students identified as “low performers”.

Eighty percent of the questions were in the “knowledge” and “comprehension”

categories, and twenty percent of the questions were in the “application” category.

Questions and Hypothesis

The research questions and related research hypotheses are listed below.

1. What is the effect of culturally familiar texts on the reading comprehension of

third- to fifth-grade native Mandarin-speaking ELLs?

2. What is the effect of previewing on the reading comprehension of third- to

fifth-grade native Mandarin-speaking ELLs?

Hypothesis 1. The mean reading comprehension scores of students who read

culturally familiar texts will be significantly higher than the mean reading

comprehension scores of students who read culturally unfamiliar texts.

Hypothesis 2. The mean reading comprehension scores of students who preview

texts will be significantly higher than the mean reading comprehension scores of

students who do not preview texts.

72

Data Analysis

A data schema for the 2 X 2 X 2 mixed factorial design is presented in Table 1. The

initial analyses involved computing descriptive statistics for all of the outcome variables

of interest. These included the means, standard deviations, range, and variances. The

data were examined to determine whether they were normally distributed and whether

the variances were homogeneous.

In addition, a repeated measures design was employed in this study. All participants

in this study participated in all experimental treatments with each group becoming its

own control. The researcher compared a group’s performance under one experimental

treatment with its performance under another experimental treatment. The experimenter

decided on two different treatments but administered each separately to only one group.

The schedule that was adopted for this procedure is outlined in Table 2.

Given that the sample size was small, it was considered inappropriate to use

multivariate statistical analyses. Therefore, univariate statistical analyses were used to

test each of the research hypotheses. For each outcome variable a repeated measures

analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. The within subject variables were the type

of books (culturally familiar and culturally unfamiliar), the time of testing (2 levels, i.e.,

time 1 and time 2), and the previewing the texts (2 levels).

Each hypothesis was tested using an F test derived from a repeated measures

analysis of variance (ANOVA). Decisions concerning acceptance or rejection of the

various null hypotheses were based on two indexes, a p-value and an index of effect size

(η2). A “small” p-value (i.e., p < .05) in combination with a “large” (i.e., η2 > .1) effect size

(η2) was considered sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

73

Table 2. Timeline for the research study

Students Text Treatment

Section 1 1-10 Book C 1 with previewing text

11-20 Book C 1 without previewing text

Section 2 1-10 Book N 1 without previewing text

11-20 Book N 1 with previewing text

Section 3 1-10 Book C 2 with previewing text

11-20 Book C2 without previewing text

Section 4 1-10 Book N 2 without previewing text

11-20 Book N 2 with previewing text

Section 5 1-10 Book C 1 without previewing text

11-20 Book C 1 with previewing text

Section6 1-10 Book N 1 with previewing text

11-20 Book N 1 without previewing text

Section7 1-10 Book C 2 without previewing text

11-20 Book C 2 with previewing text

Section 8 1-10 Book N 2 With previewing text

11-20 Book N 2 Without previewing text

Culturally familiar text 1 (C 1 Chinese New Year)

Culturally familiar text 2 (C 2 Cat and Rat)

Culturally unfamiliar text 1 (N 1 Bald Eagle)

Culturally unfamiliar text 2 (N 2 Paul Bunyan)

Participants 1-10 Participants 11-20

74

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

In this chapter the results of the statistical analyses are presented. As described in

previous chapters, this study examined the effects of previewing texts (previews and no

previews) and the type of books (culturally familiar and culturally unfamiliar) on native

Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ reading comprehension. The data was analyzed using the

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (Release 15.0). The first section of this

chapter reports descriptive statistics for the reading comprehension outcome variable.

Next, a summary of the statistical analyses and results for the relevant research

hypotheses are presented. The chapter concludes with a summary of the results.

The study was guided by two research questions as well as two research

hypotheses as follows:

Researcher Questions:

1. What is the effect of culturally familiar texts on the reading comprehension of

third- to fifth-grade native Mandarin-speaking ELLs?

2. What is the effect of previews on the reading comprehension of third- to

fifth-grade native Mandarin-speaking ELLs?

Hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. The mean reading comprehension scores of students who read

culturally familiar texts will be significantly higher than the mean reading

comprehension scores of students who read culturally unfamiliar texts.

Hypothesis 2. The mean reading comprehension scores of students who preview

texts will be significantly higher than the mean reading comprehension scores of

students who do not preview texts.

75

In order to test the hypotheses a type of books (culturally familiar and culturally

unfamiliar) (2) X previews (2) X time (2) repeated-measures analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was conducted. The within subject variables were the type of books (culturally

familiar and culturally unfamiliar), previewing of texts (previews vs. no previews), and the

time of testing (time 1 vs. time 2). The outcome variable of interest was the students’

scores on the reading comprehension tests.

Decisions concerning acceptance or rejection of the various null hypotheses

associated with this design were based on a p-value and an index of effect size (η2). A

small p-value combines with a large index of effect size (η2) was considered sufficient

evidence for rejecting the relevant null hypotheses. Given the exploratory nature of this

study an effect size .1 is considered “large”. Additionally, a p-value of .05 or less is

considered “small”.

The data was also examined to determine whether the values for the outcome

variable were normally distributed. Based on an examination of stem and leaf plots, and

normal probability plots, it was judged that the data approximated a normal distribution.

Participating in the study were 20 native Mandarin-speaking ELLs as described in

Table 3. The participants included students enrolled in 3rd, 4th and 5th-grade classes and

they had attended school in the U.S. for two years or less. There were no missing

subjects or data.

Descriptive statistics were calculated for the measure of reading comprehension.

The ranges, means, and standard deviations for this measure are reported for the entire

sample (N=20) in Table 4. This table shows the descriptive statistics for reading

comprehension by type of books (culturally familiar/unfamiliar), by previewing, and by

time.

76

The mean reading comprehension scores obtained by the students after being

provided a preview and reading culturally familiar texts at times 1 and 2 were 9.70 and

9.35, respectively. In contrast, the mean reading comprehension scores obtained by the

students after being provided a preview and reading culturally unfamiliar texts at times 1

and 2 were 8.80 and 7.40.

On the other hand, when the students were not provided the preview their mean

reading comprehension scores after reading culturally familiar texts and times 1 and 2

were 8.30 and 8.35. Then, when the students had no preview and read culturally

unfamiliar texts at times 1 and 2, their mean reading comprehension scores were 6.75

and 5.85.

The means are also represented graphically in figures 1, 2, and 3. The performance

of the same students when they read culturally familiar and culturally unfamiliar texts

under the previewing and no previewing conditions is represented graphically in the first

two figures. The third figure is a plot of the means for reading comprehension for the total

reading comprehension scores across time 1 and time 2.

77

Table 3. Gender, time in school, and grade level of the participants (N=20) Frequency Percentage Gender Male 14 70%

Female 6 30% Time in School 9 Months 5 25%

12 Months 10 50% 24 Months 5 25%

Grade Level 5th Grade 7 35% 4th Grade 10 50% 3rd Grade 3 15%

Table 4. Ranges, means, and standard deviations for reading comprehension by type of book, previewing and by time

Culturally Familiar Text Culturally Unfamiliar Text

Range Mean Standard

Deviation

Range Mean Standard

Deviation

Preview Time1 7 - 10 9.70 .73 5 - 10 8.80 1.47

Time 2 7 - 10 9.35 .99 5 - 10 7.40 1.35

No

Preview

Time 1 4 - 10 8.30 1.08 2 - 10 6.75 2.22

Time 2 3 - 10 8.35 1.90 3 - 9 5.85 1.46

78

Figure 1. Means for reading comprehension scores by type of book and previewing at time 1

79

Figure 2. Means for reading comprehension scores by type of book and previewing at time 2

80

Figure 3. Means for reading comprehension scores combined both times (time 1 and 2) by type of book and previewing

The data was analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).

The result of this analysis is reported in Table 5. Included in the Table is a summary of

the effects of type of book, previewing texts, and time, on the measure of reading

comprehension. The three-way interaction was judged non-significant. However, the

analyses showed that there was a statistically significant interaction between the type of

book and previewing texts (F= 4.59; p=.045, η2 =.195).

81

Table 5. Summary of the effects of type of book, previewing, and time on reading comprehension Source df SS F p-value η2

A: Type of Book 1 119.03 78.049 .000 .804

Error 19

28.98

B: Previewing

Text

1 90.00 85.500 .000 .818

Error 19

20.00

C: Time 1 16.90 10.493 .004 .356

Error 19

30.60

A X B 1 3.60 4.591 .045 .195

Error 19

14.90

A X C 1 10.00 2.405 .137 .112

Error 19

79.00

B X C 1 2.03 2.408 .137 .113

Error 19

15.98

A X B X C 1 0.03 .073 .789 .004

Error 19 6.48

82

The statistical analyses revealed that there was a significant interaction between the

type of book and previewing. This means that the effects for previewing differed

according to the type of book being read. As shown in figures 1-3, the effect for

previewing was significant when the children were reading culturally unfamiliar texts. In

contrast, there was no significant difference in the scores for reading comprehension for

previews and no previews, when the students were reading culturally familiar texts. The

statistical analyses also indicated that the students had significantly higher scores when

they read culturally familiar text in comparison to when they read culturally unfamiliar

texts.

Summary

This chapter reported the results of the statistical data analyses that were employed

to answer the research questions of interest. A repeated measures analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was used to analyze the data. Two research hypotheses guided the study.

First, it was predicted that the mean reading comprehension scores of students who read

culturally familiar texts would be significantly higher than the mean reading

comprehension scores of students who read culturally unfamiliar texts. This hypothesis

was supported. The second hypothesis was that the mean reading comprehension

scores of students who preview texts would be significantly higher than the mean

reading comprehension scores of students who did not preview texts. Again this

hypothesis was supported, at least when children read culturally unfamiliar texts. The

analyses revealed that, for the reading comprehension measure, students had higher

scores when the teacher had previewed the culturally unfamiliar texts with them.

83

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This final chapter first presents a summary of the study reported in this dissertation.

Conclusions based on the result s of the study are presented. The results and

conclusions are discussed with reference to the theoretical framework that guided the

study as well as recent relevant literature. This discussion is followed by a presentation

of the implications of the study for practice. Included in this section are comments on the

assumptions, generalizations, and measurement and statistical issues, as they relate to

study. The dissertation closes with recommendations for future research and overall

conclusions.

Summary

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the effects reading culturally

familiar and culturally unfamiliar texts on native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ reading

comprehension. A related goal was to determine the effects of previewing texts on native

Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ reading comprehension. In the review of literature the potential

benefits of providing previews and culturally familiar texts to ELLs was discussed. The

research literature seemed to support the use of culturally familiar texts with ELLs

because reading such books would help students comprehend the text. Furthermore,

there was some evidence that using an instructional strategy known as previewing can

lead to improvement in ELLs’ reading comprehension. Few studies, however, have

studied the effects of previews and reading culturally familiar/unfamiliar texts on

elementary school ELL children’s reading comprehension. Moreover, little is known

about the use of such instructional strategy on native Mandarin-speaking students.

84

Participating in the study were 20 Taiwanese students whose first language was

Mandarin. The students read a total of four texts, two of the texts were culturally familiar,

and two were culturally unfamiliar. The students read each of the texts twice. They read

the text one time after having participated in a previewing activity, and the other time

without having the previewing activity. The previewing activity was designed to provide

the students with relevant background information to help them comprehend the text.

After each reading, a reading comprehension instrument, developed by the researcher

specifically for this study, was administered to the students.

Using a within-subjects design, all of the students participated in all of the treatment

conditions, but not in the same order. This design was used in order to control for the

potential effects of individual differences (e.g., reading ability, fluency in English). The

data was analyzed using repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). There was

a statistically significant interaction between the type of book (familiar vs. unfamiliar) and

the preview intervention (preview vs no preview). Thus, the students had significantly

higher reading comprehension scores when they were provided a previewing text before

reading a culturally unfamiliar book.

Conclusions

Two research questions and related hypotheses guided the study. The first research

question was: What is the effect of culturally familiar texts on the reading comprehension

of third- to fifth-grade native Mandarin-speaking ELLs? The related hypothesis tested

was: The mean reading comprehension scores of students who read culturally familiar

texts will be significantly higher than the mean reading comprehension scores of

students who read culturally unfamiliar texts. The results of the data analyses suggest

that there was a difference in the students’ reading comprehension scores when they

85

read culturally familiar and culturally unfamiliar texts. In sum, the students had higher

reading comprehension scores when they read a culturally familiar text. Thus, it is

concluded that these native Mandarin-speaking were able to comprehend what they

were reading when the texts’ theme was somewhat familiar to them.

The second research question was: What is the effect of previewing on the reading

comprehension of third- to fifth-grade native Mandarin-speaking ELLs? The related

hypothesis tested was: The mean reading comprehension scores of students who

preview texts will be significantly higher than the mean reading comprehension scores of

students who do not preview texts. Although the research hypothesis was supported, it is

noteworthy that there was an interaction between the type of book and use of previews.

According to the data, there was an improvement in the reading comprehension scores

when the students had participated in the previewing intervention in comparison to when

they were reading without having participated in the preview activities. The improvement

in reading comprehension resulting from the preview, however, was only evident when

the students were reading culturally unfamiliar texts. In other words, the preview helped

when the students were reading typical American books. Presumably, when the theme

of the book was familiar to the students they could draw on their own background

knowledge and therefore they did not need to rely on the preview to comprehend what

they were reading. When the book was unfamiliar, however, the preview served as a

scaffold that they could rely on to comprehend what they were reading.

Discussion

It seems therefore that when these students were given a book that had a familiar

theme, they had less difficulty comprehending the text. Presumably, this was because

they could draw on their own background knowledge when they were reading the text. In

86

contrast, when faced with a book that contained an unfamiliar theme (e.g., Paul Bunyan)

they lacked the appropriate culture-specific background knowledge. In turn, this placed

limits on the extent to which they could comprehend what they were reading, hence the

lower reading comprehension scores. These findings are consistent with other

researchers’ findings (e.g. Marr & Gormley, 1982; Pearson et al., 1979; Taft & Leslie,

1985) that when children have more knowledge of the texts’ topic children demonstrate

greater comprehension. The findings also consistent with what Kintsch and Greene

(1978), Steffensen et al. (1979), and Levine et al. (1987) claim, that ELLs have greater

comprehension while possessing sufficient background knowledge. Unlike other studies,

however, this study’s sample was a group of native Mandarin-speaking ELL students

who had been in the U.S. for less than two years.

This study’s findings are consistent with Pearson and Johnson’s (1978)

recommendation that teachers should use previewing techniques to establishing in the

minds of the readers what is known, in anticipation of learning what is new in the text.

Additionally, the results of this study support what Carrell and Eisterhold (1982)

suggested that teachers use previewing to pre-teach key concepts and vocabulary which

might cause problems in comprehension.

The results of this study indicated that these native Mandarin-speaking students’

English proficiency is not adequate to perform the demanding tasks required in culturally

unfamiliar reading, since they do not have exposure to, or they lack an understanding of

culture context-specific language and knowledge. Additionally, the findings of this study

suggest that reading culturally unfamiliar stories and being provided with previews

enabled the students to comprehend what they were reading. It seems that these

students could either draw on their own store of culturally-specific information, or they

87

could draw on the background knowledge provided by the teacher. In turn, this

supported their reading comprehension.

The findings reported in this study are consistent with the theoretical premise that

students draw on different schemata to process and understand what they read.

According to schema theory, schemata are cognitive constructs that allow for the

organization of information in long-term memory (Widdowson, 1983). This means that

readers understand what they read as it relates to what they already know. The data

reported in this study lend support to this theoretical premise, in that the students

seemed to have improved understanding of what they were reading when either the text

was familiar to them, or when the teacher had provided them with some background

knowledge. This is because knowledge is stored in schema structures, or organized

representations of one’s own background experiences (Pritchard, 1990). It is plausible,

therefore, that using familiar texts allows students to access or activate those schemata

so that they can understand the new material. Similarly, using previewing activities

should provide the students with knowledge schemata. Thus, when children are reading

their texts, key words, or phrases should, as noted by Cook (1989), serve to stimulate

the mind by activating schematic structures.

Recommendations for Practice

The findings of this study confirm that culturally familiar texts can help ELLs with

their reading comprehension. It is therefore recommended that teachers carefully select

appropriate books for their ELLs. Whenever possible they should select texts with

content that is familiar to the students. Similarly, ELLs should be encouraged to read

more culturally familiar books in order to help them with their reading comprehension.

88

Native Mandarin-speaking ELLs often have difficulty when faced with books that

have American themes. For example, the concept of American Congress in the Bald

Eagle text that was used in the study would have been difficult for these native

Mandarin-speaking ELL students to understand. This is because they might not have an

understanding of what Congress is, nor of what a Congressman does. Additionally,

words like grizzlies, griddle, and flapjack, in the Paul Bunyan text might be unfamiliar to

these students. The students might have a hard time relating grizzlies to bears and, of

course, it is unlikely that they would have ever eaten flapjacks.

It is important, therefore, that teachers should not underestimate how much cultural

knowledge is actually needed for an ELL to progress in the typical American classroom.

In addition, teachers should encourage native Mandarin-speaking ELLs to develop their

ways of expression in English as much as they could, even if they end up with English

written in Chinese syntax.

It is further recommended that teachers should try to find appropriate materials to

support their native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ literacy development. For example, the

book, Mouse Match by Ed Young (1997), which was written both in English and Chinese,

is a good choice for children at a third grade reading level. In addition, books written in

English by Chinese authors with themes with which both ELLs and native-speakers are

familiar are recommended. For example, Ed Young’s Lon Po Po: A Red-Riding Hood

Story from China (1989), and Ai-Ling Louie’s Yeh Shen: A Cinderella Story from China

(1982) are good choices for both Mandarin-speaking ELLs and native-speaking

third-graders.

Teachers could, for example, create an area in the classroom that displays a

collection of books that reflect the culture and knowledge of the ELL students in their

89

classrooms. Then, during center time, or when the class is given an opportunity for

independent reading, the ELLs would have easy access to familiar texts. Similarly,

teachers should collaborate with staff in their schools’ media center to ensure that

collections of culturally familiar books are made available to the ELLs.

In most typical elementary classrooms, however, teachers might not always have

access to culturally familiar texts. After all, teachers are unlikely to have a large enough

collection of books in their classrooms. Furthermore, it is not always easy or convenient

for teachers of ELL students to locate culturally familiar books. In such cases, the use of

previews could, potentially, be an effective pre-reading strategy that teachers could use

with their ELLs.

The findings reported in this study identified preview as an effective strategy that

teachers can use to support ELLs with their reading comprehension. It is, therefore,

recommended that classroom teachers use previewing texts in order to help ELL

students understand and participate in classroom activities, and to develop their ability to

succeed in reading. Previewing texts can help ELLs build relevant knowledge prior to

reading a text. In addition, if grade-level textbooks are too difficult for ELLs, teachers

could start with high-interest nonfiction supplementary texts to help develop students’

knowledge, broaden their vocabulary, and increase their fluency in reading English.

Furthermore, teachers should pay extra attention to cultural-specific concepts and

vocabulary.

While designing the previewing activities, teachers could consult Michael Graves’

(2001) previewing/prereading guidelines. Graves, et al. (1983) defines previews as

introductory material presented to students before they read specific texts. Previews can

provide students with a framework to support understanding of a text by giving them

90

specific information about the contents of the reading material. Graves version of

previews are prepared scripts that teachers read to students to improve their

comprehension of difficult narrative texts. (Graves, et al., 1983).

According to Graves the key components of a previewing text consist of:

1) The teacher gives the students a framework for understanding upcoming texts.

2) The students engage in a brief discussion about the topic of each upcoming text.

3) The teacher gives the students both specific information and general information

about the content of upcoming texts, including “key element of plot, characters, point of

view, tone, setting, and perhaps theme,” as well as “definitions of difficult vocabulary,

translations of foreign phrases, and explanations of potentially difficult concepts” (Grave

et al., 1983, p.264).

The data reported in this study lend support to Graves’ (1983) claim that previews

help students in using or building prior knowledge or schemata, and that using such prior

knowledge aids students in comprehending and remembering what they read. Graves’

preview is designed to provide students with the essential background knowledge they

need to understand new material. Thus, teachers should consider using previews with

native Mandarin-speaking ELLs to help alleviate the anxiety of lower English proficiency,

and build necessary background knowledge of reading texts and improve reading

comprehension.

Since native Mandarin-speaking ELLs often have little or no appropriate adult

support at home, school teachers become their best hope for future success, because

they are ideally placed to help ELLs build up their language and cultural knowledge.

Teachers should recognize that familiar background knowledge could facilitate the

learning of a second language, in this case, English. For example, some of the

91

participants in this study reported that it was interesting to have the chance to read how

things they already knew about were written in the English language. The participants

frequently mentioned that reading the culturally familiar books was a good way to learn

English. The researcher observed that by using familiar background knowledge in

Mandarin as a springboard, native Mandarin-speaking ELL students had a better

opportunity develop their thinking and language skills while reading in English.

Beyond the use of scaffolding strategies in the classroom, multiple solutions should

be sought to address the needs of native Mandarin-speaking ELLs, and in turn, ensure

their success in school. First, the researcher recommends that educational

administrators take responsibility for providing academic environments that support

native Mandarin-speaking ELLs (e.g. obtaining the funding sources and support the

development of curriculum). Second, in-service workshops along with pre-service

professional development are advocated. Both in-service and pre-service teachers are

encouraged to expand their knowledge of second language acquisition, including a

component of Chinese culture, and the use of previewing texts.

Finally, insufficient knowledge and familiarity with American culture makes it more

difficult for native Mandarin-speaking ELLs to adapt themselves to the American schools

and to the curriculum. The researcher therefore suggests that ESL teachers act as

brokers to help mainstream classroom teachers and content area teachers to design

multi-level curriculum according to native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ language proficiency

and knowledge level. This way, without “dumbing down” the lessons, these ELLs could

learn the subjects by reading the materials associated with their particular reading level

and knowledge base.

92

Assumptions

The following assumptions were made when conducting this study:

The researcher assumed that the selected samples were representative of typical

native Mandarin-speaking ELLs.

The tests for reading comprehension accurately measured participants’ reading

comprehension ability.

The texts the researcher selected were representative of texts read in regular

elementary schools.

The researcher assumed that the texts were comparable and only differed by

cultural familiarity.

Given that the findings are similar to previous studies conducted with different target

groups, the researcher assumed that the design and results of this study are valid.

Generalizations

Due to the small sample size used in this study, it is difficult to generalize the

findings for all the native Mandarin-speaking ELLs in the U.S. Even though the sample

used in the study was from an urban elementary school close to an area with high

concentration of Mandarin-speakers, every student’s previous schooling experience was

different, and their home literacy resources were distinct. Therefore, it is not possible to

generalize the outcomes of this study to all native Mandarin-speaking ELLs. Replication

with other native Mandarin-speaking ELLs from different cities and states in the U.S. is

one possible way of validating the findings. Additionally, it is difficult to generalize the

findings to all reading books. Also, further studies from a cross section of ELLs would be

necessary to determine whether the results are generalizable to the entire population of

ELLs in the U.S.

93

Measurement and Statistical Issues

Few studies, if any, have examined the effects of background knowledge and

previewing texts on native Mandarin-speaking elementary ELLs’ reading comprehension.

Other studies have examined the use of strategies such as previewing with ELLs, but

most have been conducted with older students, or adults. None were located that had

been conducted with a sample of native Mandarin-speaking elementary school students.

Although the findings are noteworthy, particularly from a pedagogical point of view, the

findings should be interpreted with caution. This is because there are several

measurement and statistical issues and assumptions associated with this study.

First the sample size was relatively small. This was unavoidable for several reasons.

First, it is extremely difficult to locate native Mandarin-speaking children attending

schools in the U.S. Then, although the native Mandarin-speaking ELL population is one

of the largest group of immigrants in the U.S., most parents of this population do not

have an understanding of why their children have to attend ESL classes and receive

assistance from their ESL teachers and peers. Therefore, many native

Mandarin-speaking children are spread out in regular classes in different schools.

Consequently, it was difficult to locate students who qualified for inclusion in this study,

and therefore, the sample size employed was small. To compensate for the small

sample size, the researcher used a repeated measures design.

The main advantage of the repeated measures design is that it controls for subject

heterogeneity (individual differences).Therefore, since there was only one group of

subjects serving in all levels of the intervention (previewing and culturally familiar texts),

the error component of the model was reduced. Consequently, this reduction in error

variance can lead to increase in economy and power.

94

As far as the reading comprehension tests were concerned, there were no

pre-made standardized tests that were appropriate for this study. Hence, the reading

comprehension tests used in this study were designed by the researcher. While

selecting the materials, designing the previewing texts, and conducting the tests, the

researcher consulted with elementary reading experts as well as experienced ESL

teachers. This approach was used in order to establish acceptable validity and reliability

of the testing materials. The reliability of the tests was assessed several times in the pilot

study; however, the tests had not been used in previous studies.

When examining the validity of student outcomes, it is important to consider that

reading is a complex task that is difficult to measure. The instruments used in this study

only measured children’s reading comprehension related to specific texts and they did

not measure children’s “general” or overall reading comprehension. There are other

aspects of reading that this study did not directly measure such as the vocabulary

knowledge of the students.

Recommendations for Future Studies

This study’s findings suggest that there may be positive impacts of background

knowledge and previewing texts on native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’ reading

comprehension. Given that the exploratory nature of the study, it is recommended that

the study be replicated in order to verify the findings. Ideally, the study should be

replicated with a larger group of participants.

Native Mandarin-speaking ELLs are one of the largest groups of U.S. immigrants,

and as such it is important to study how we can support native Mandarin-speaking ELL

students as they learn to speak and read English in our public schools. To further study

how we can support this population, it is recommended that longitudinal studies be

95

conducted. That is, the same group of students should be studied across several grades.

For example, the use of culturally familiar texts, and previewing could be examined with

a group of ELLs as they progress through the elementary grades. This way, researchers

can get a better idea of how previewing texts might affect the native Mandarin-speaking

ELLs on reading comprehension over time.

In addition, studies should compare different types of previewing that teachers could

use with ELLs. That is, studies should be designed to determine which aspects of

previewing are most effective or more important in different contexts. Further, the similar

intervention should be replicated across different grade levels based on students’

language and knowledge levels.

Since it is the classroom teacher that will use previewing as an instructional strategy

with ELLs, it important also to examine how different teachers use previewing in the

classroom. Understanding the characteristics of effective teachers who can use

previewing and other strategies in the classroom is also relevant and important. Future

studies should examine the influence of teacher knowledge and identify other teaching

characteristics that produce significant gains in ELLs reading comprehension.

Closing Remarks

This study made several contributions to the field of English for Speakers of Other

Languages (ESOL) and reading instruction. The study’s primary purpose was to

examine the effects of the type of books (culturally familiar v.s. culturally unfamiliar) that

native Mandarin-speaking ELLs read on their reading comprehension. A related purpose

was determining the effects of previewing texts on native Mandarin-speaking ELLs’

reading comprehension. Today, native Mandarin-speaking ELL students (including

students from PRC and Taiwan) are one of the largest groups of English Language

96

Learners in the U.S. These children face linguistic, cultural, and academic challenges in

U.S. schools. Teachers recognize that insufficient knowledge of, and familiarity with the

U.S. culture, makes it more difficult for native Mandarin-speaking ELLs to adapt

themselves to their new schools. The findings reported here provide teachers with an

understanding of this population, and some potentially effective strategies for scaffolding

literacy success.

Teachers are critically important in any classroom, and especially when they are

teaching ELLs. Indeed, the extent to which native Mandarin-speaking students can

adjust to their new American culture, and succeed in school, rests almost entirely on the

classroom teachers. It is important therefore that teachers understand the nature of this

population. It is equally important that they have a wealth of tried and tested strategies

that can ensure that these students are successful in school. This study, offers evidence

that providing background knowledge either through culturally familiar texts or through

previewing activities is one effective approach that teachers can use.

The native Mandarin-speaking ELLs participating in this study were not

academically prepared to study in American schools. Their reading ability was, typically,

at least one year behind the grade level to which they had been assigned in their new

American schools. The current study showed that these native Mandarin-speaking ELL

students' reading problems were associated with insufficient background knowledge. It

was also apparent that this background knowledge deficiency was culture-specific. This

study demonstrated that the necessary background knowledge can be taught to ELLs,

and that previewing texts can compensate for a lack of cultural or background

knowledge.

97

The researcher noticed that helping these native Mandarin-speaking ELLs build new

culturally-related background knowledge was as important as helping them activate their

existing background knowledge. The researcher questioned the students and

brainstormed with the students during the previewing tasks. The participants were then

able to generated better ideas about the culturally-unfamiliar stories, based on their own

experience and knowledge. Therefore, the researcher suggests that teachers prepare

native Mandarin-speaking ELLs by helping them build background knowledge prior to

reading, through appropriate previewing activities. Through the previewing skills, the

students can quickly construct background knowledge that can lead to meaningful

exploration of the reading content, even if most words in the text are unfamiliar to them.

A reasonable expectation would be for teachers to employ this teaching strategy

with their ELL students. Teachers, however, should not blindly assume that the expected

effect is actually occurring. Instead, teachers should take the time to verify the

usefulness of the activities they use, and also pay attention to possible culture-specific

background knowledge interference, or non-activation. In addition, teachers should not

assume that teaching reading is just a matter of providing ELLs with the right background

knowledge, and encouraging students to make full use of it. Teachers should also

recognize that language is still a concern in second language reading. That is, basic

bottom-up processing should not be ignored. Native Mandarin-speaking ELLs still

require training in the skill of rapid recognition of a large vocabulary and multiple

structures, so that they can read extensively. With this, the ELL students can build and

improve the relevant background knowledge they need for fuller enjoyment of the texts

they are reading.

98

It is also noteworthy that it is not possible to shorten the process of obtaining

Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) by letting students stay in mainstream

classrooms, where they might not be able to comprehend what is being taught. It is not

hard to imagine that without bilingual education, or ESL instruction, it could take more

time, and it would be more difficult for ELLs to acquire CALP, or to become fluent readers.

Unfortunately, many ELL students do not have access to quality bilingual or ESL

education. However, as noted by Au and Raphael (2000), ESL instruction does not

require that teachers share the same cultural, linguistic, or ethnic background as their

students. Teachers should not feel limited in their ability to work with ELLs, including

native Mandarin-speaking ELLs. Provided that teachers recognize the importance of

scaffolding, such as the strategies examined in this study, then they are in a position to

be able to support their ELL students. All teachers can use strategies that support the

learning of their ELL students. After all, the ELLs cannot be successful without the

support of a skillful and knowledgeable teacher.

In conclusion, this study examined background knowledge as one area that can

potentially help ELLs become more proficient readers. This is an important topic given

the numbers of ELLs in our schools. This is a topic that has yet to be fully explored and

future research should continue to provide valuable insights into how teaching strategies

designed to increase ELL students’ background knowledge can increase students’

outcomes in reading.

99

APPENDIX A

PILOT STUDY

100

PILOT STUDY

An exploratory study was conducted to pilot the procedures and methods that were

to be employed in the proposed study. This pilot study was completed in the Summer of

2007. The purpose of this study was to replicate the main study but using a smaller

sample of subjects. The main goals of the pilot study were: (a) to become familiar with

the procedures, and (b) to trial each of the instruments and materials. A related goal was

to become familiar with the infra-structure personnel at the data collection site. The

following section presents a summary of the procedures and findings of the pilot study.

Method

The sample was drawn from a Chinese church in the State of Georgia because of

the geographical convenience. The sample consisted of four Taiwanese children (three

girls and one boy) whose first language is Mandarin. They were eight to eleven years old.

All of the participants came to the U.S. at the same time, approximately a year ago. The

samples were chosen this way purposely because Cummins (1986) notes it might take

five to seven years for ELLs to master Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency

(CALP). The average of their Mandarin proficiency was at the third-grade level. The

participants had just started to learn English since coming to the U.S. As part of the

schools’ effort to teach the students to speak English, they have to attend an ESL

(English as a second language) class for one hour a day.

Procedure

These four students were required to read four stories. Two expository texts,

Chinese New Year and Bald Eagle, and two narrative stories, Two of Everything (a

Chinese folktale) and Goldilocks and Three Bears (an American well-known fairytale),

were read twice each story. This intervention was presented in a counterbalanced

101

manner. Two of the students read these four stories without reading previews first and

two days later they read the same four stories with previews. The other two students

read previews before reading these four stories and two days later they read the same

stories without reading previews. After reading each text the students were administered

a short comprehension test consisting of 10 multiple choice questions. Students were

given as much time as they needed to complete this task. The researcher administered

all of the procedures of the study to each student individually. Even though the four

Mandarin-speaking students answered different reading comprehension questions, all of

the questions were similar. This was because the tests were designed so that there were

equal numbers of questions for each category Blooms’ taxonomy. The reading

comprehension questions were selected based on a category of Bloom’s Taxonomy

guidelines in order to ensure that the tests were similar. The researcher provided little

assistance to the students when they were reading the stories. However, when the

students were reading the previews, the researcher read the previews with them and

provided needed help in both Mandarin and English.

During the final day of the study, the researcher interviewed each student regarding

how they viewed the English language, what they thought of the stories, and so on.

Results and Implications of Pilot Study

Data analyses entailed computing descriptive statistics including the range, means,

and standard deviations of all of the outcome measures of interest. Given the small

sample size no inferential statistics were computed. The data revealed that the students

had higher scores on the reading comprehension tests when they had been

accompanied by previews. Also, the students had higher scores when they were reading

culturally familiar texts.

102

During the interviews the students reported that they liked the Chinese folktale, Two

of Everything, the most. In addition, they found they could relate their lives to the

Chinese New Year text. Finally, they all reported that they did not like the Bald Eagle text.

They seemed to have no idea what the text was trying to say. This could be because

they had never seen bald eagles in their lives.

The pilot study was judged to have provided the researcher with an opportunity to

establish good working relationships with key infra-structure personnel at the site.

There were no apparent difficulties with administering the intervention or the reading

comprehension tests. Similarly, no specific difficulties were encountered when

administering the previewing lessons.

The researcher noted that the students’ prior knowledge could be activated and/or

developed by reading the previews because all students performed better on the reading

comprehension questions after reading previewing texts. They all answered the

questions of the Chinese folktale, Two of Everything, the best. The rate of reading

comprehension questions of Chinese New Year text answered correctly was next to the

Chinese folktale, Two of Everything. Students performed the worst when answering the

reading comprehension questions of the Bald Eagle text.

The result suggested that the students comprehended better when reading

culturally familiar stories. Moreover, they comprehended better when possessing

culturally related background knowledge.

Conclusions

One of the goals of this pilot study was to become familiar with the procedures of the

main study. Having the chance to work with these four students one on one, the

researcher has experienced what her research design would do to help test the

103

hypotheses in the main study.

The second goal of the pilot study was to trial the instruments and materials. Trying

out the instruments and materials helped the researcher note the narrative sets of stories,

the Chinese folktale—Two of Everything and the fairytale—Goldilocks and the Three

Bears, did not fit this study. The researcher is aware that validity and reliability are

typically viewed as essential elements for determining the quality of any assessment.

Although Two of Everything is a Chinese folktale that has Chinese people illustrations,

the story itself contains only few messages that requires to have some background of

Chinese culture. The researcher noted that this story would not meet the criteria for

validity. Although another narrative text, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, is a well-known

story by American kids, the researcher noted it is more like a universal fairytale. This

story did not address any specific American culturally related plot that requires readers to

have knowledge of American culture in order to be able to comprehend it. Similarly, this

story would not be suitable for the main study.

104

APPENDIX B

READING TEXTS

PREVIEWING TEXTS

READING COMPRREHENSION TESTS

105

READING TEXT

CHINESE NEW YEAR

106

People all over the world celebrate holidays that are full of traditions. Traditions are

the special ways people do something. People celebrate holidays by preparing and

eating food, playing games, singing songs, and telling stories.

Chinese people celebrate Chinese New Year. People celebrate the arrival of spring

and wish for good luck. Chinese New Year lasts for 15 days. At midnight on New Year’s

Eve, every door and window in the house is opened to let the old year leave. Families

like to welcome the Chinese New Year with a clean house. Houses are cleaned from top

to bottom to remove bad luck of the old year, and to bring good luck for the coming year.

On the last day, Chinese people celebrate the Lantern Festival. People carry lanterns in

a parade at night.

During Chinese New Year, people put good luck sayings, chunlian, in their homes.

People like to watch colorful Lion Dance. Two people dance under the bright costume.

This brings good luck. New outfits are made or bought for children and adults. People

wear bright, red clothes to bring a happy future. People take oranges and tangerines if

they visit someone’s home. This is luck, too. Children are given little red envelopes,

hongbao, with “lucky money” inside. Firecrackers have played an important role in

Chinese celebration. Chinese people believe loud noises will drive away evil spirit and

bad luck.

107

READING TEXT

CAT AND RAT

108

In China, A long, long time ago, there lived a cat and a rat. They were best friends. They ate together. They played together. They slept together.

One day, the Emperor decided to hold a race among all the animals in the land. The first twelve animals to cross the finish line would have a year in the Chinese calendar named after them. This would be quite an honor.

“But winning the race will not be easy,” warned the Emperor. “You must run through the thickest part of the forest and then swim across the river at its widest point.”

Cat and Rat each wanted to be the first to cross the finish line. But they knew that they would be two of the smallest animals in the race.

“We will never make it,” Rat complained to Cat. “Oh, I think we will,” replied the resourceful Cat. “We’ll ask the water buffalo to help us,” said the Cat. “He always wakes up before

sunrise. Maybe we could even ride on his back.” So Cat and Rat convinced Buffalo to wake them up early on the day of the race. The

next morning, Buffalo was up long before dawn. “Wake up, lazybones,” he said to the sleeping cat and rat. “We had better get started.”

Cat and Rat climbed on the buffalo’s back. But they were so sleepy that by the time they had fully awakened, they were half way across the river.

Rat woke up first. He saw the Emperor standing at the finish line far, far away. Why should I share the glory of first place with Cat and Buffalo? thought the rat selfishly.

“Wake up, my friend,” he cried to Cat. “Look at all the tasty fish swimming in the water.”

Cat licked her lips. She leaned over for a closer look, and Rat gave her a little push. SPLASH! She tumbled into the water.

Buffalo turned his head to see what had made the splash. He didn’t see the cat, though. What he saw instead were the other animals in the race – and they were close behind him. Without giving Cat or Rat another thought, he sped toward the Emperor.

Just as Buffalo neared the riverbank, the clever rat leaped from behind his ear and crossed the finish line in the first place.

“How did such a small animal win the race?” asked the Emperor in surprise. “I may be small but I am also smart,” replied the rat. He scampered up onto the

winner’s podium. Buffalo knew he had been tricked into second place, but he could only grunt in dismay.

Back in the river, Cat tried to swim along with the other animals. She hated water. But if she had to swim in it to win the race, she would do so.

Far ahead of her, Tiger came roaring across the finish line. “Am I first?” he growled. “No,” said the rat smugly. “You’d have to be awfully clever to bear me.”

109

“And you’d have to get up extra early to beat me,” added the buffalo. Cat scrambled onto a log. She paused to shake herself off and to catch her breath. By then the sky was dark and a great storm was blowing. A dragon appeared in the

clouds above. He was much, much too big to run through woods or swim across a river, so the Emperor had told him he could race through the sky, braving the rains and the wind.

But no sooner had he begun his descent to the earth, than the rabbit darted across the finish line in front of him, taking fourth place. The dragon had to be content with fifth.

In the river, the cat heaved a great sigh, then plunged into the water again. “I can still make it,” she told herself. But Snake slithered across the finish line next and hissed a slivery greeting to the five animals who had arrived before him. Snake was number six.

Cat swam as fast as she could. A few moments later, she heard the sound of galloping hooves in the distance. Horse thundered across the finish line in seventh place.

Goat and Monkey weren’t far behind. They jumped onto the log on which Cat had rested and paddled across the finish line almost at the same time. But Goat beat Monkey by a hair.

While the nine winners waited patiently with the Emperor, Cat watched Rooster struggle toward the finish line. Dog could easily have swum ahead of Rooster, but she couldn’t resist playing in the water for just a few minutes longer.

“Number ten!” called the Emperor as Rooster staggered in. “Number eleven!” he cried when Dog arrived.

“Who will be number twelve?” asked the Emperor. “I need just one more animal.” “Me! I will!” called Cat, and she swam even faster. Unfortunately for Cat, Pig rushed

across the finish line in front of her. “Number twelve!” cried the Emperor, but Cat was still too far away. “Congratulations to all the winners!” said the Emperor. “One of the twelve years will

be named after each of you.” Suddenly, up rushed Cat. She was tired and wet and more than a little unhappy

about swimming across the river on her own. “How did I do?” she asked anxiously. “Am I one of the winners?”

“Sorry, dear Cat.” replied the Emperor. “All twelve places have been filled.” Upon hearing this news, Cat let out a yowl and tried to pounce on Rat. Her claws

scratched the tip of his tail, but Rat squeezed under the Emperor’s chair just in time. And that is why, to this very day, Cat and Rat are enemies.

110

READING TEXT

BALD EAGLE

111

The men who founded the United States had lots of decisions to make. One of them

was that the new country’s national emblem should be. Many people thought the bald

eagle was a good choice. One man, Benjamin Franklin, disagreed. He said that eagles

were already symbols for many other countries. He felt the United States should do

something different. Franklin also thought eagles were bad examples because they stole

food from other birds.

Franklin wanted the turkey to be the national symbol. He called the turkey a

respectable bird. It was also native to America. And, as far as anyone knew, it had never

been the emblem of any nation!

The U.S. Congress argued about the emblem for six years. Finally, in 1782, they

chose the bald eagle. The bald eagle lives only in North America. It also represents

freedom, strength, and courage. These were all qualities that Congress wanted the new

nation to have. Somehow, the turkey just didn’t inspire the same feelings.

During the 20th century, the bald eagle became endangered. Many of the birds were

poisoned by a chemical called DDT. Things are looking up, however, for this mighty bird.

DDT is no longer used in the United States. Today, the bald eagle can once again be

seen flying over the land it represents.

112

READING TEXT

PAUL BUNYAN

113

Paul Bunyan was the largest, smartest, and strongest baby ever born in the state of Maine.

Even before he learned to talk, Paul showed an interest in the family logging business. He took the lumber wagon and wandered through the neighborhood collecting trees.

There were so many complaints about Paul’s visits that his parents anchored his cradle in the harbor.

All was well until Paul started rocking the cradle and stirring up waves. After his parents had paid for the damage, they decided to move to the backwoods

where life would be more peaceful. Paul loved his new wilderness home. He soon grew into a sturdy lad who was so

quick on his feet he could blow out a candle and leap into bed before the room became dark.

Every day he joined his forest friends in their sports. He raced with the deer and wrestled with the grizzlies.

One morning Paul awoke to find the world under a blanket of blue snow. He heard a moan from inside a snowdrift, and there he found a shivering ox calf. Paul adopted him and named him Babe.

Both Paul and Babe began growing at an astonishing rate, but the ox never lost the color of the snow from which he’d been rescued.

As the years passed, the two of them proved to be extremely helpful in the family business.

At seventeen, Paul grew a fine beard, which he combed with the top of a pine tree. By this time other settlers were beginning to crowd into the Maine woods. Paul felt

an urge to move on. He said good-bye to his parents and headed west. Paul wanted to cross the country with the best lumbering crew available. He hired

Ole, a celebrated blacksmith, and two famous cooks, Sourdough Slim and Creampuff Fatty. Then he signed up legendary lumbermen like Big Tim Burr, Hardjaw Murphy, and the seven Hackett brothers.

Paul put the camp buildings on wheels so that Babe could haul them from one forest to another. As soon as he had cleared the land, pioneers moved in to set up farms and villages.

On the far slopes of the Appalachian Mountains, several of Paul’s men were ambushed by a gang of underground ogres called Gumberoos.

Paul grabbed the camp dinner horn and blew a thunderous note into the Gumberoos’ cave, determined to blast the meanness right out of them.

To Paul’s dismay, the Gumberoos responded by snatching the entire crew. A wild,

114

rough-and-tumble rumpus began inside the den. When that historic tussle was over, the Gumberoos needed six weeks to untangle

themselves. They disappeared into the depths of the earth, and they’ve never been heard from

since. Paul’s next job was to clear the heavily forested Midwest. He hired armies of extra

woodsmen and built enormous new bunkhouses. The men sailed up to bed in balloons and parachuted down to breakfast in the morning.

Unfortunately the cooks couldn’t flip flapjacks fast enough to satisfy all newcomers. To solve the muddle, Paul built a colossal flapjack griddle. The surface was greased by kitchen helpers with slabs of bacon laced to their feet. Every time the hot griddle was flooded with batter, it blasted a delicious flapjack high

above the clouds. Usually the flapjacks landed neatly beside the griddle, but sometimes they were a bit off target.

Paul took a few days off to dig the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes so that barges of Vermont maple syrup could be brought to camp.

Fueled by the powerful mixture of flapjacks and syrup, the men leveled the Great Plains and shaved the slopes of the Rocky Mountains.

They probably would have sawed the peaks themselves into logs if a blizzard hadn’t suddenly buried the entire mountain range.

The blizzard continued for several years, snuffing out the springs, summers, and autumns. The crew burrowed into their bunkhouses and hibernated.

Babe became so depressed that Paul asked Ole to make a pair of sunglasses for his friend.

When Babe saw the world colored green, he thought he’d stumbled into a field of clover. He began eating the snow with such gusto that soon the treetops reappeared.

At that point, all those pent-up springtimes simply exploded, dissolving the storm clouds and the remaining snow.

Paul and his friends invited some newly arrived settlers to join them in a celebration of all the holidays that had been missed.

After the festival the lumberjacks continued their journey. But, as they headed southwest, the blistering sun and the giant Texas varmints proved to be more of a problem than they had expected.

Travel became so difficult that some of the men began to speak longingly of being buried by a blizzard of bear hugged by a Gumberoo.

While crossing Arizona the griddle curled up like a burned leaf, and the batter evaporated. Deprived of their flapjacks, the lumbermen became weak and discouraged.

115

Paul’s great ax fell from his shoulder, gouging a jagged trench, which today is known as the Grand Canyon.

Disaster seemed certain until Paul came up with a desperate plan. He headed east and found a family that could sell him a barn filled with corn.

Babe galloped it back across the desert. When the flaming sunrise hit that barn it exploded, and the lumbermen awoke to find

themselves in a raging blizzard of popcorn. Dizzy with joy, they pulled on their mittens and began blasting each other with popcorn balls.

A westerly wind kept the cooling clouds of popcorn swirling around Paul and his crew until they crossed California and reached the Pacific Ocean.

After he had crossed the country, some say that Paul gave up lumbering and rambled north searching for new areas of untouched wilderness.

With the passing years, Paul has been seen less and less frequently. However, along with his unusual size and strength, he seems to possess an extraordinary longevity. Sometimes his great bursts of laughter can be heard rumbling like distant thunder across the wild Alaskan mountain ranges where he and Babe still roam.

116

PREVIEWING TEXT

CHINESE NEW YEAR

117

Lion Dance

118

Firecrackers

Hongbao 紅包

What do you learn from the pictures shown above? Have you ever

played firecrackers? Have you ever seen firework? Do you like Lion

Dance? When is Chinese New Year? What do you usually do during

Chinese New Year? What is your favorite part of Chinese New Year

119

celebration?

The story you will read today is about Chinese New Year. From the

story you will learn how Chinese people celebrate their Chinese New

Year. Before you read the story, there are some words I would like to

define for you.

Vocabulary:

Celebrate: To observe (a day or event) with ceremonies of respect, festivity, or

rejoicing. 慶祝

Tradition: The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to

generation. 傳統；習俗

Lantern: An often portable case with transparent or translucent sides for holding

and protecting a light. 燈籠

Costume: A style of dress. 服裝

Firecracker: A small explosive charge and a fuse in a heavy paper casing, exploded

to make noise, as at celebrations. 爆竹；鞭炮

Now, I am going to hand out the story. Please read it carefully.

Remember there will be a test afterwards. Take your time and try to

read it with understanding. Do you have any questions?

120

PREVIEWING TEXT

CAT AND RAT

121

122

What do the pictures remind you of? Do you know that Chinese use twelve

different animals to name each year on the Chinese calendar? Do you know all

the animals in the Chinese calendar? What animal are you? Do you think you are

like that animal? Which animal among these twelve you think is the smartest?

Which animal do you think runs slowly? Which animal do you like the most?

Which animal do you think should be named after a year in the Chinese calendar?

Do you know who the Jade Emperor is? What does he do?

123

124

What do these two pictures above mean to you? What kind of animal you

think a cat is? What kind of animal you think a rat is? Do you think cats and rats

are friends? Do you have a best friend at school? What do you usually do with

your best friend?

125

The story you will read later is about the legend of the Chinese Zodiac. Cat

and rat were best friends. They played together, they ate together, and they did

everything together. One day, the Emperor announced a contest, a race for all the

animals. The first twelve animals to cross the finish line would have a year named

in their honor. The Cat and the Rat were two of the smallest animals but they both

wanted to win the race. They needed a perfect plan to win. They asked the Buffalo

to wake them up so they can start the race early. However, they fell asleep on the

Buffalo’s back. Rat woke up first, Rat then thought why I should share the glory of

first place with Cat and Buffalo. So Rat woke up Cat and he…

Now, before you read the story, there are some words I would like to define for

you. Vocabulary:

Emperor: The male ruler of an empire. 玉皇大帝

126

Dismay: Feeling of shock and discouragement. 氣餒；灰心

Heave a great sigh: To exhale audibly in a long deep breath. 吸一大口氣

Unfortunate: Characterized by undeserved bad luck; unlucky. 不幸的

Congratulations: The act of expressing joy or acknowledgment, as for the achievement or good fortune of

another. 恭禧

Yowl: To utter a long loud mournful cry 貓咪生氣或受傷發出的叫聲

Pounce: To spring or swoop with intent to seize someone or something. 突然撲向一個人或物；突然抓住；

貓咪會撲向老鼠

Claw: A sharp, curved, horny structure at the end of a toe of a mammal, reptile, or bird. 貓的爪子

Now, I am going to hand out the story. Please read it carefully. Remember

there will be a test afterwards. Take your time and try to read it with understanding.

Do you have any questions?

127

PREVIEWING TEXT

BALD EAGLE

128

The Pictures of a bald eagle

Have you ever seen a bald eagle? What kind of animal do you think a bald eagle is?

What does a bald eagle mean to you? Do you know that a bald eagle means something to

Americans? It seems every animal carries its own characteristic. Some animals are fast,

129

while some move slowly. Some animals give the impression of being lazy, while some

others are hard workers. For example, a leopard is known for its speed. However, a

tortoise walks very slowly. Many people think pigs are lazy and bees are diligent. Can you

think of some characteristics of a bald eagle after seeing the pictures of a bald eagle?

Do you know what an emblem is? What is your country’s emblem? Do you think that

represents your country? Do you know who decided the national emblem for your

country? Do you know who decided it for the United States? What do you think can

represent the U.S.?

130

The story you will read later is about the United State’s national symbol. From this

story you will learn who chose the national symbol for the U.S. and how and why they

chose it as their national symbol. Finally, before you read the story, there are some

words I would like to define for you.

131

Vocabulary:

Emblem: An object or a representation that functions as a symbol. 象徵

Stole (past tense of Steal): To take (the property of another) without right or permission. 偷；竊取

Respectable: worthy of respect/ having a good reputation 值得被尊敬的

Congress: the national legislative body of the U.S., consisting of the Senate, or upper house, and the House of

Representatives, or lower house, as a continuous institution. 美國國會

Argue: to give reasons for or against 辯論；爭論

Represent: to serve as a sign or symbol of 象徵；代表

Freedom: the state of being free 自由：自由權

Strength: the quality or state of being strong 力量；力氣

Courage: greatness of spirit in facing danger or difficulty 膽量；勇氣

Endangered: threatened with extinction 快要絕種的

Poison: to kill or injure with 毒死

132

Now, I am going to hand out the story. Please read it carefully. Remember there will

be a test afterwards. Take your time and try to read it with understanding. Do you have

any questions?

133

PREVIEWING TEXT

PAUL BUNYAN

134

How big is the biggest baby you have ever seen? How big is the biggest and strongest

man you have ever seen? Do you know who the largest baby ever born in the state of Maine

was? Do you know where the state of Maine is? Do you know which state you live? Is your

state on the east or west of the U.S.? Do you know what a lumberman does? Do you know

who American’s fastest and funniest lumberman is? What do you think the best business for

an extremely big and tall guy is?

135

The story you will read today is about the largest, smartest, and strongest baby ever born

in the United States. From the story, you will learn where Baby Paul Bunyan grew up, what

Paul Bunyan’s pet was, and what Paul Bunyan was best at. You will also learn who helped

develop the United States, who dug the Great Lakes, who gouged out the Grand Canyon,

how you could cheer up people when it was extremely hot, how you could make a huge ox

136

happy when it was too cold, and so much more in the story.

Before you read the story, there are some words I would like to define for you.

Vocabulary:

Logging: The work or business of felling and trimming trees and transporting the logs to a mill. 伐木的事業。

Paul Bunyan 喜歡伐木。

137

Grizzlies: The brown bear of northwest North America. 北美洲棕熊

Astonishing: Surprising; amazing. 很驚人的

Lumberman: One who fells trees and transports the timber to a mill. A lumberjack; a logger. 伐木工人

Ambush: A sudden attack made from a concealed position. 突襲

Dismay: Feeling of shock and discouragement. 氣餒；灰心

Tussle: Confused struggle between people who are close together. 扭打；混戰

Unfortunate: Characterized by undeserved bad luck; unlucky. 不幸的

Flapjack: biscuit made from oats, butter and honey or syrup. 鬆餅

Griddle: A flat metal surface, such as a pan, that is used for cooking by dry heat. 烤盤

Blizzard: A violent snowstorm with winds blowing at a high speed. 大風雪

Hibernate: To pass the winter in a dormant or torpid state. 冬眠

St. Lawrence River 聖羅倫思河

Great Lakes 五大湖

138

Great Plains 美國大平原

Rocky Mountains 落磯山脈

Grand Canyon 大峽谷

Now, I am going to hand out the story. Please read it carefully. Remember there will be a test

afterwards. Take your time and try to read it with understanding. Do you have any

questions?

139

READING COMPRREHENSION TEST

CHINESE NEW YEAR

140

1. Chinese people celebrate Chinese New Year because (A) there is a full moon. (B) there is a new born baby. (C) they want to celebrate the arrival of spring. (D) someone is getting married. 2. When is Chinese New Year? (A) Sometime between January and February. (B) The same day as Christmas. (C) February 14th. (D) January 1st. 3. What color do Chinese people usually wear during Chinese New Year? (A) They wear black. (B) They wear bright color, like red. (C) They wear white. (D) They don’t wear anything. 4. Why do Chinese do Lion Dance during Chinese New Year? (A) Lion Dance can scare people. (B) Doing Lion Dance can lose weight. (C) Lion Dance can bring good luck. (D) Lion Dance can make people brave. 5. When Chinese New Year comes, Chinese people usually (A) wear the color black (B) give money to everyone. (C) stop eating oranges and tangerines. (D) clean their houses. 6. What are traditions? (A) Times when presents are given. (B) A special way people do things. (C) Large masks worn during a party. (D) A way to bring good luck to your family.

141

7. Why do people play firecrackers during Chinese New Year? (A) They try to drive away evil spirit and bad luck. (B) They like to scare people. (C) They like to play with fire. (D) They have nothing to do. 8. What do Chinese people do to celebrate Chinese New Year? (A) They wear new and bright clothes. (B) They play firecrackers. (C) Family gathers together. (D) They might do all of the above. 9. What are other traditions you do to celebrate Chinese New Year? 10. What is your favorite Chinese New Year tradition? Why?

142

READING COMPRREHENSION TEST

CAT AND RAT

143

1. Why did Buffalo grunt in dismay at the finish line? (A) Because he woke up too early. (B) Because Cat was on his back. (C) Because the Emperor was surprised. (D) Because Rat tricked him. 2. Why did the Emperor hold a race? (A) The animals could race with each other. (B) The Emperor would know which animals was the smartest. (C) The Emperor could make Cat and Rat enemies. (D) The animals could be named after each year in the Chinese calendar. 3. Which animal was not named in the Chinese calendar? (A) Rat (B) Dog (C) Pig (D) Cat 4. Why are Cat and Rat enemies? (A) Because Rat tricked Cat in the race. (B) Because Cat knew Rat was the smallest animal in the race. (C) Because Rat woke up earlier in the race. (D) Because Cat swam too slowly in the race. 5. Which animal did not run through woods and swim across a river? (A) Buffalo (B) Rabbit (C) Dragon (D) Snake. 6. Why did Cat and Rat have a very small chance to win? (A) They were too small. (B) They liked to sleep. (C) They were enemies. (D) They were best friends. 7. Which item shows the CORRECT order of the LAST four winners? (A) Monkey, Rooster, Dog, Pig (B) Rat, Buffalo, Tiger, Cat (C) Rat, Buffalo, Tiger, Rabbit (D) Monkey, Goat, Horse, Snake

144

8. What kind of animal was Rat? (A) He could swim better than Cat. (B) He could ride on Buffalo’s back. (C) He could be tricky and smart. (D) He could wake up very early.

9. What would you do if you were Buffalo in the story? 10. If you were as small as the Rat, what would you do to win the race?

145

READING COMPREHENSION TEST BALD EAGLE

146

1.What did the men who founded the United Stated need to do? (A) They needed to argue with Benjamin Franklin. (B) They needed to stop the use of DDT. (C) They needed to decide the national emblem. (D) They needed to protect the eagles.

2. Which statement is CORRECT? (A)Turkeys were respectable but were endangered in 20th century. (B)Benjamin Franklin poisoned the bald eagles. (C)Turkeys were already symbols for many other countries. (D)Bald eagles stole food from other birds. 3. Who decided national symbol for the U.S.? (A) Benjamin Franklin. (B) DDT salesmen. (C) U.S. Congress. (D) Bald eagles’ hunters.

4. Why did Franklin think turkeys are a better choice for the emblem? (A) He thought the turkey was a respectable bird. (B) He thought the turkeys were poisoned by DDT. (C) He thought other countries chose the turkey as a symbol as well. (D) He thought the turkey was a strong bird. 5. Why happened to bald eagles during the 20th century? (A) Franklin didn’t like bald eagles. (B) Bald eagles were poisoned by DTT. (C) Bald eagles stop stealing food from other birds. (D) Bald eagles become very respectable. 6. In Franklin’s mind, what kind of bird a bald eagle is? (A) It is a respectable bird. (B) It is a bird which steals. (C) It is a strong bird. (D) It is a courageous bird.

147

7. What would be the best title for this story? (A) DDT-- Killed Bald Eagles. (B) The Bald Eagle, America’s National Emblem. (C) Benjamin Franklin and Bald Eagles. (D) Turkey, the Respectable Bird.

8. Which statement might be WRONG? (A) You could see bald eagles in Asia. (B) The DTT poisoned bald eagles. (C) Franklin thought turkeys were respectable birds. (D) Bald eagles represent freedom and courage. 9. Why do you think many countries choose a bald eagle to be their nations’ emblems? 10. What kind of animal would you choose to be your class’s emblem? Why?

148

READING COMPREHENSION TEST

PAUL BUNYAN

149

1. Where was Paul Bunyan born? He was born in the state of (A) Arizona (B) California (C) Alaska (D) Maine 2. What kind of baby was Paul Bunyan? He was (A) quiet. (B) shy. (C) strong. (D) small. 3. How was the Vermont maple syrup brought to Paul Bunyan’s camp? (A) The cook, Sourdough Slim brought it. (B) The cook, Creampuff Fatty brought it. (C) It was brought through St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes. (D) It was brought through the Grand Canyon. 4. How did Paul Bunyan cheer up his crew when it was too hot to cross the west? (A) He used the blizzard of popcorn to bring the joy to the lumbermen. (B) He told the lumbermen that Gumberoos were dead. (C) He told Babe to eat the snow. (D) He told the lumbermen they could hibernate in their bunkhouses.

5. Where do people think Paul Bunyan and Babe roam after they had crossed the

country? They might head toward (A) Texas (B) Arizona (C) Pacific Ocean (D) Alaska

6. Why were Paul Bunyan and Babe helpful in the family business? (A) They were big and strong. (B) They flipped flapjacks fast. (C) They liked to wrestle with grizzlies. (D) They won the fight with Gumberoos. 7. What do you do when you hibernate? (A) You wrestle with Grizzlies. (B) You take a deep sleep in winter. (C) You fight with Gumberoos in summer. (D) You cook flapjacks in the morning.

150

8. What did Paul Bunyan do when the cooks couldn’t flip flapjacks fast enough to feed all the new lumbermen? (A) He hired more cooks. (B) He built a huge griddle. (C) He popped the popcorn. (D) He killed Gumberoos. 9. What would you do if you were Paul Bunyan when your crew was discouraged by the

hot weather? 10. Besides Paul Bunyan’s family business, what business do you think that Paul

Bunyan might be good at?

151

APPENDIX C

HUMAN SUBJECT COMMITTEE APPROVAL LETTER

PARANTAL CONSENT LETTER FOR MINORS

152

153

154

155

REFRENECES Adams, S. (1982). Scripts and the recognition of unfamiliar vocabulary: Enhancing second language reading skills. The Modern Language Journal, 66, 155-159. Adams, B.C., Bell, L.C., & Perfetti, C.A. (1995). A trading relationship between reading skill and domain knowledge in children's text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 20, 307-323. Afflerbach, P. P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers’ main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25 (1), 31-46. Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 420-436. American Federation of Teachers (1999). Teaching reading is Rocket Science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Retrieved from www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/rocketsci.pdf. American Federation of Teachers (2006). Where we stand: English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/ellwws.pdf. American Federation of Teachers (2008) English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/topics/ells/index.htm. Anderson, B. V., & Gipe, J. P. (1983). Creativity as a mediating variable in inferential reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 4, 313-325. Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 13 (9), 5-10. 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, D.C.: The National Institute of Education., U.S. Department of Education.

156

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.) Handbook of reading research (pp.255-291). New York: Longman. Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for the

representation of information in connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 15 (3), 433-440.

Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B., Applegate, A. J. (2002). Levels of thinking required by comprehension questions in informal reading inventories. The Reading Teacher, 56 (2), 174-180. Armbruster, B. & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Retrieved from http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/reading_first_print.html August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press. Ausubel, D. P. (1962). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning. Journal of General Psychology, 66, 213-224. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology, a cognitive view. New York: NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Barlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. London: Cambridge University Press. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Gromoll, E. W. (1989). Learning from social studies texts.

Cognition and Instruction, 6, 99-158. Birch, B. (2002). English L2 Reading: Getting to the Bottom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates. Boyer, E. L. (1995). The basic school: A community for learning. Princeton, NJ:

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

157

Brandford, J. D. (1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding and remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Braunger, J., & Lewis, J. P. (2006). Building a knowledge base in reading. Newark, DE:

International Reading Association. Carrell, P. L. (1984). Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and

applications. The Modern Language Journal, 68 (4), 332-343. Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy.

TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553-573. Chen, H. C. & Graves, M. F. (1995). Effects of previewing and providing background

knowledge on Taiwanese college students’ comprehension of American short stories. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (4), 663-686.

Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg

(Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp.7-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In R. Mackay, B. Barkman, and R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language (pp. 5-18). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic

purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (4), 617-641. Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a

second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (3), 509-531. Constantino, R. (1994). A study concerning instruction of ESL students computing

all-English classroom teacher knowledge and English-as-a second language teacher knowledge. The Journal of Education Issue of Language Minority Students, 13, 37-57.

Cook, G. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: OUP

158

Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of the Bilingual Education Act. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promotion educational

success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp.16-62). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.

Harvard Educational Review, 56 (1), 18-36. Cummins, J. (1992). Language proficiency, bilingualism, and academic achievement. In

P.A. Richard-Amato & M.A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers, (pp. 16-26). New York, NY: Longman.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation

to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33 (6), 934-945.

Dochy, F. (1994). Prior knowledge and learning. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),

International Encyclopedia of Education (Second edition, pp.4698-4702). Oxford/ New York: Pergamon Press.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment

practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69 (2), 145-186.

Dole, J. A., Valencia, S. W., Greer, E. A., Wardrop, J. L. (1991). Effects of two types of

prereading instruction on the comprehension of narrative and expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 26 (2), 142-159.

Dong, Y. R. (1999). The need to understand ESL students’ native language writing

experiences. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 26(3), 277-285. Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational text in first grade.

Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (2), 202-224.

159

Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ehrlich, M. F., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Loridant, C. (1993). Cognitive and motivational

determinants of reading comprehension in good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 365-381.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, NY: Oxford University

Press. Fincher-Kiefer, R., Post, T. A., Greene, T. R., & Voss, J. F. (1988). On the role of prior

knowledge and task demands in the processing of text. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 416-428.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second language learners’ cognitive reading process:

A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65, 145-190.

Flood, J, & Lapp, D. (1986). Types of texts: The match between what students read in

basals and what they encounter in tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 284-297. Foertsch, M. (1998). A study of reading practices, instruction, and achievement in District

31 schools. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Education Laboratory. Retrieved on September 30th from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/31abs.htm

Fu, D. (1995). My trouble is my English: Asian students and the American dream.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fu, D. (2003). An island of English: Teaching ESL in Chinatown. Portsmouth,

Heinemann. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction.

(Sixth Ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.

Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. The Reading Teacher, 50(1), 14–25

160

Ganske, K., Monroe, J. K., & Strickland, D. S. (2003). Questions teachers ask about struggling readers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 57 (2), 118-128.

Garcia, G. E., Willis, A.I., & Harris, V. J. (1998). Appropriating and creating space for

difference in literacy research. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 181-186. Gipe, J. P., & Arnold, R. D. (1979). Teaching vocabulary through familiar associations

and contexts. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11 (3), 281-285.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

Grant, R. A., &Wong, S. D. (2003). Barriers to literacy for language-minority learners: An

argument for change in the literacy education profession. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(5), 386-394.

Graves, M. F., Cooke, C. L., & LaBerge, M. J. (1983). Effects of previewing short stories.

Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 262-276. Graves, M.F., & Graves, B.B. (1994). Scaffolding reading experiences: Designs for

student success. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Graves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (2001). Teaching reading in the 21st century.

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Graves, M. F., Prenn, M. C., & Cooke, C. L. (1985). The coming attraction: Previewing

short stories. Journal of Reading, 28, 594-598. Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston,

MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—of words and the

world. [Electronic versions] American Educator (Spring) http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2003/AE_SPRNG.pdf

161

Hirsch, Jr., E. D. (2006a). Building knowledge. [Electronic versions] American Educator (Spring). http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring06/hirsch.htm

Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (2006b). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking education gap for

American children. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. Honing, B., Diamond, L., Gutlohn, L., & Mahler, J. (2000). Teaching reading

sourcebook: Sourcebook for kindergarten through eighth grade. Emeryville, CA: CORE.

Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the “short circuit” in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning, 32, 1-31.

Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and

cultural background of a test. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 169-181. Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background

knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 503-516. Kang, H. (1992). The effects of culture-specific knowledge upon ESL reading

comprehension. School of Education Review, 4, 93-105. Kintsch, W., & Greene, E. (1978). The role of culture-specific schemata in the

comprehension and recall of stories. Discourse Processes, 1, 1-12. Klein, S., Bugarin, R., Beitranena, E., & McArthur, E. (2004). Language minority and their

educational and labor market indicators—recent trends. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES 2004-009), Washington, DC.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. English

Language Teaching series. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd. Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under attack. Culver City, CA: Language Education Association.

162

Krashen, S. D., and Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. San Francisco: Alemany Press.

Labov, W. (2003). When ordinary children fail to read. Reading Research Quarterly,

38(1), 128-131. Langer, J. A. (1984). Examining background knowledge and text comprehension.

Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 468-481. Laufer, B., & Sim, D. (1985). Measuring and explaining the reading threshold needed for

English for academic purposes for texts. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 405-411. Lee, S. J. (1996). Unraveling the model minority “stereotype”: Listening to Asian

American youth. New York: Teacher College Press. Levine, M. G., Haus, G. J., Sims, A. L., Ramos, E. A. (1987). Effect of background

knowledge on the reading comprehension for ESL high school students. Reading Improvement, 24, 31-39.

Li, G. (2002). “East is east, west is west?” Home literacy culture, and schooling. New

York: Peter Lang. Li, G. (2003). Literacy, culture, and politics of schooling: Counternarratives of a Chinese

Canadian family. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 34, 184-206. Li, G. (2004). Perspectives on struggling English language learners: Case studies of

two Chinese-Canadian children. Journal of Literacy Research, 36 (1), 31-72.

Marr, M. B., & Gormley, K. (1982). Children’s recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 18 (1), 89-104.

Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychology, 19, 30-42. McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research.

Baltimore: Brookes. McKenzie, G. R., & Danielson, E. (2003). Improving comprehension through mural

lessons. The Reading Teacher, 56 (8), 738-742.

163

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., Loxterman, J.A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27 (1), 79-93.

Melendez, E. J. & Prichard, R. H. (1985). Applying schema theory to foreign language

reading. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 399-403. Moats, L. C. (2001). Overcoming the language gap: Invest generously in teacher

professional development. [Electronic versions] American Educator http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html

Mora, J.K. (2000/2001, December/January). Responding to the demographic challenge:

An Internet classroom for teachers of language-minority students. Reading Online, 4(5). Retrieved May 1st. 2007 from http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/mora/index.html

Moss, B, & Newton, E. (2002). An examination of the informational text genre in basal

readers. Reading Psychology, 23, 1-13. Moss, M., & Puma, M. (1995). Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of

educational growth and opportunity. Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1996). United States Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare. Digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: GPO.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1997). 1993-94 Schools and staffing

survey. A profile of policies and practices for limited English proficient stude Screening methods, programs support, and teacher training. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the

preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Retrieved September 19th, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

164

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2002). Public school student, staff, and graduate counts by state: School year 2000-01. Washington, DC: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics (2004). Report on National Assessment of

Educational Progress. The nation’s report card: Reading highlights 2003. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The national’s report card. Retrieved

September 30, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/viewresults.asp National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2004). On reading learning to read,

and effective reading instruction: An overview of what we know and how we know it (NCTE guideline by the Commission on Reading). Urbana, IL. Retrieved May 30,

2007, from http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/read/118620.htm National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. (2000)

Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups (00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. (2004)

Childhood Bilingualism: Current Status and Future Research Directions (NA). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Nelson, G. L. (1987). Culture’s role in reading comprehension: A schema theoretical

approach. Journal of Reading, 30, 424-429. Nes Ferrara, S. L. (2003). Reading fluency and self-efficacy: A case study. International

Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52 (3), 215-231 Neuman, S. B. (2001) The role of knowledge in early literacy. Reading Research

Quarterly, 36(4), 468-475. Omaggio, A. (1979). Pictures and second language comprehension: Do they help?

Foreign Language Annals, 12, 107-116.

165

Palincsar, A. S., & Duke N. K. (2004). The role of text and text-reader interactions in young children’s reading development and achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 105 (2), 183-197.

Palmer, B. C., Chen, C., Chang, S., & Leclere, J. T. (2006). The impact of biculturalism

on language and literacy development: Teaching Chinese English language learners. Reading Horizons Journal, 46 (4), 239-265.

Pan, Y., Craig, B., & Scollon, S. (2005). Results from Chinese cognitive interviews on the census 2000 long form: Language, literacy, and cultural issues. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Research Division. Washington D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., and Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of reading

strategies. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, and J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research in the English language arts (pp. 609-635). New York: Macmillan.

Pearson, P. D. (1985). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction. The

Reading Teacher, 724-738. Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge

on young children‘s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(3), 201-209.

Pearson, P. D. & Johnson, D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston. Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., and Duffy, G. G. (1990). Developing expertise

in reading comprehension: What should be taught? How should it be taught? Technical Report No. 512. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.

Pearson-Casanave, C. 1984. Communicative pre-reading activities: Schema theory in action. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 2, pp. 334-336. Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2000). English learners reading English: What we know,

what we need to know. Theory Into Practice, 39 (4), 237-247.

166

Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25 (4), 273-295.

Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learner

and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39 (1), 71-93.

Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’

memory of text. Journal of Educational psychology, 80 (1), 16-20. Reynolds, R. E., Taylor M. A., Steffensen, M. S., Shirey, L. L., & Anderson, R. C. (1982).

Cultural schemata and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 7(3), 353-366.

Risko, V. J., Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2007). Tapping students’ cultural funds of knowledge

to address the achievement gap. The Reading Teacher, 61 (1), 98-100. Rothkoph, E.Z. (1972). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Merrill. Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.),

Attention and performance VI (pp.573-603). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B.

C. Bruce, and W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 35-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence E. Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Schank, R. C. (1982). Reading and understanding: Teaching from the perspective of

artificial intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An

inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schirmer, B. R., Casbon, J., & Twiss, L.L. (1996). Innovative literacy practices for ESL

learners. The Reading Teacher, 49, 412-414. Smith, F. (1983). Essays into literacy. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

167

Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15 (1), 10-29.

Stevens, K. C. (1980). The effect of background knowledge on the reading

comprehension of ninth graders. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12 (2), 151-154. Stevens, K. C. (1982). Can we improve reading by teaching background information?

Journal of Reading, 25, 326-329. Stevens, R. J. (1988). Effects of strategy training on the identification of main ideas of

expository passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 21-26. Swaffar, J. K. (1988). Readers, texts, and second languages: The interactive processes.

The Modern Language Journal, 72 (2), 123-149. Sweet, A. P. (1993). State of the art: Transforming ideas for teaching and learning to

read. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Taft, M. L., & Leslie, L. (1985). The effects of prior knowledge and oral reading accuracy

on miscues and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17 (2), 163-179. Thelen, J. (1982). Preparing students for content reading assignments. Journal of

Reading, 25, 544-549. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority

students (NCBE Resource Collection Series, No. 9). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved May 30, 2007, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/resource/effectiveness/index.htm

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1992). 1990 census of population – Social and economi

characteristics: United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vacca, J. L., Vacca, R. T., Gove, M. K., Burkey, L., Lenhart, L. A., McKeon, C. (2003).

Reading and learning to read. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Wong, M. (1995). Chinese Americans. In P. G. Min (Ed.), Asian Americans:

Contemporary trends and issues (pp.58-94). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

168

Wallraff, B. (2000). What global language? Atlantic Monthly, 286 (5), 52-66. Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from

prereaders to readers. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinsion (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp.11-29). New York: The Guilford Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1983) Learning purpose and language use. London: Oxford

University Press. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the

amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420-432.

Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students:

A focus on text structure. Journal of Special Education, 39 (1), 6-18. Willingham, D. T. (2007). How we learn ask the cognitive scientist: The usefulness of

brief instruction in reading comprehension strategies. [Electronic Version] American Educator (Winter).

169

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Chia-I Chen was born in Pingtung, a small city in the southern part of Taiwan. She

received a B.A. in Foreign Languages and Literature from the National Chung Hsing

University, Taichung, Taiwan and M.S. in Multilingual/Multicultural Education at the

Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. After completing her master’s degree,

Chia-I Chen continued her academic studies at the Florida State University and was

awarded a Ph.D. degree in Elementary Education in 2008. Chia-I Chen has co-authored

papers published in educational research journals. She has also presented papers at

regional and national professional conferences. Her research interests include English

for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), the teaching of reading, and multicultural and

multilingual education.