Printer Friendly

Investigating the relationship between connectives and readers' reading comprehension level.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between connectives in Turkish texts and readers' reading comprehension. Research was conducted with a total of 50 teachers. In the study group, readers' reading comprehension was determined through 10 descriptive texts by using open-ended questions. The results of the analysis revealed that, while there is no statistically significant correlation between the reading comprehension scores of the good readers and the numbers of the connectives such as temporal, causal, adversative and additive in the texts forming the study database, a negative correlation was found between the reading comprehension scores of the poor readers and concession connectives at the level of r = -0.805 (p>0.05) and the connectives expressing expansion at the level of r = -0.647 (p>0.05).

Keywords: Coherence, Language education, Discourse markers, Cohesive markers, Conjunctions

Introduction

In order for the reading process to continue without interruption and result in comprehension, it is a prerequisite to provide readers a text that is well-formed based on certain criteria. Ebrahimpourtaher (2011) states that the act of reading is an interactive process ensuring the communication between the reader and the writer discursively through a written text. When propositions come together, they form their unique pattern, and a structure having distinguishing characteristics from other texts emerges. "Cohesion" is achieved through cohesive devices that help to ensure semantic fluency, and these devices have an important role in the reading process. Halliday and Hassan (1976:3-4) define cohesion as "distinguishing a text from other statements that are not texts, enabling the parts of a text to stick together, and organizing the meaning relationships in a text (cited in Coskun 2007:240). Connecting elements are described as "the elements that connect related words, groups of words, and particularly sentences, and link these in terms of meaning and sometimes structure (Atabay et al. 1983:49). Connectives such as "because," "but" and "after" are means of making connections and help skilled readers in their reading process by emphasizing the relationship between events (Sanders and Noordman 2000). Connectives point to the existence of a relationship between certain events and thus, provide opportunities for different formations on how to integrate the information (Gemsbacher 1997; cited in Cain and Nash 2011). In the literature, they are also named as connecting elements, conjunctions, linking element, discourse markers and connectors.

In the Penn Discourse TreeBank (PDTB) and METU Turkish Corpus projects, discourse connectives are categorized based on both their syntactic and functional characteristics. In terms of syntax, there are three categories including (1) coordinating conjunctions, (2) subordinating conjunctions, and (3) discourse adverbials (Forbes-Riley et al. 2006; Zeyrek and Webber 2008; Kurtul 2011).

Halliday and Hasan (1976) categorized connective elements functionally as follows:

a. Temporal connective elements

b. Causal connective elements

c. Adversative connective elements

d. Additive connective elements

Coordinating conjunctions are divided as simple and correlative coordinating conjunctions. Examples of simple coordinating conjunctions include but, because, and, so. As for correlative conjunctions, the examples include both ... and, either ... or, neither ... nor (Kurtul 2011:60-62).

Subordinating conjunctions are divided as simple and compound subordinating conjunctions. Simple subordinating conjunctions function as connecting the main clause with sub-clauses. Compound subordinating conjunctions are formed with the combination of a suffixal lexical item and nominalizer affix or case affix. While examples of simple subordinating conjunctions include gerund affixes, compound subordinating conjunctions in Turkish can be as ..., as much as, when ..., since ..., like ..., because of ..., after ..., before ..., until ..., if ..., despite ... and so on (Kurtul 2011:63-64).

According to Chaudron and Richers (1986), discourse markers are divided into two groups. Macro Discourse Markers determine the direction of a text by emphasizing the important information and listing it or pointing its importance. Micro Discourse Markers are the words showing the relationship between the sentences or filling the gaps in a text. For example, some discourse markers in Turkish include: for this reason, otherwise, unlike, in spite of this, other than this, moreover, firstly, as a result, for instance.

Temporal connectives construct a time and order relationship by showing the events in a text happen before, after or simultaneously with each other (Coskun 2005:83). Considering various classifications, it is clear that they do not differ to a large extent. Researchers making these classifications agree that temporal connectives show order and simultaneity in time (Issever 1995; Balyemez 2010; Kurtul 2011). Halliday and Hasan (1976) exemplify such connectives as follows: after that, at the same time, before this, finally, at first, later, at last, initially, shortly, next time, another time, in the meantime, until ..., so far, briefly etc.

Causal connectives point out the situations where events or cases mentioned in the 1st and 2nd members are causally affected by each other (Kurtul 2011:69). Such connectives make a connection among the units in the regional or holistic level of a text based on causality (Issever 1995:101). Halliday and Hasan (1976) exemplify such causal connectives as follows: for this reason, thus, accordingly, because, therefore, as a result, in this case, under these circumstances, otherwise etc. There are several ways of classifying such connective elements.

Kurtul (2011:69-73) examines causal connective elements as four categories including cause, pragmatic cause, condition and conditional cause. On the other hand, Issever (1995:101) categorizes this type of connective elements based on cause-effect, effect-cause and purpose relationships.

Adversative connectives are used to emphasize the difference between two elements, present the cases where one of the two elements is valid, and connect two opposite elements to each other. Halliday and Hasan (1976) exemplify such adversative connectives as follows: but, however, if only, still, in spite of this, in fact, yet, on the other hand, at the same time, instead of, at least etc.

Kurtul (2011) describes such connectives in four categories including adverseness, pragmatic adverseness, dissimilarity and pragmatic adverseness.

Additive connective elements are used to expand the discourse, take the topic further (Kurtul 2011), list words, groups of words or sentences with the same function or provide new information (Coskun 2005) and show that two propositions that are linked to each other are in an additive relationship (Issever 1995). In the literature, it can be seen that additive connectives are also named as expansion connectives (Issever 1995; Coskun 2005).

Halliday and Hasan (1976) exemplify such additive connectives as follows: and, also, either ... or, or, with, other than this, moreover, for instance, thus, similarly, on the other hand.

Finally, examining the studies revealing the relationship between connectives and readers' level of reading comprehension, different findings have been reported. While some studies (Sanders and Noordman 2000; Degand and Sanders 2002; Innajih 2006; Wifield and Tomitch 2012) found that connective elements had a facilitative effect on reading comprehension, these elements did not have any effect in other studies (Irwin 1982; Geva 1986; Murray 1995).

Significance and Aim of the Study

Reading has an importance place in human life. Comprehension is the prerequisite of reading, ff there is no comprehension, it means that reading is not successful (Ciftci and Temizyurek 2008). Considering that text is in the centre of reading education, the importance of the text becomes more clear. In order for the reading comprehension process to be effective and successful, the text should have certain characteristics. One of these characteristics is the role of connectives enabling the cohesion and coherence of the text in the reading comprehension process. This is where the significance of this study emerges.

Considering the studies in the literature, it is clear that connectives are important variables in predicting reading comprehension (Irwin 1982; Geva 1986; Murray 1995). It can be seen that the studies on connectives in Turkish have been very limited in number and focused mostly on students' use of connectives in their writings. Moreover, no studies on the relationship between connectives and reading comprehension regarding Turkish have been conducted. From this perspective, the significance of this study increases in the sense that it would fill a gap in the literature and provide data regarding the issue.

The findings of this study are expected to point out some characteristics for both authors in producing texts for a certain audience and teachers in selecting texts to use in their classrooms.

The primary aim of this study was to examine the relationship between connectives in Turkish texts and readers' level of reading comprehension.

In this regard, the following research questions guided this study:

1. Is there a relationship between Temporal, Causal, Adversative and Additive connectives and good readers' level of reading comprehension?

2. Is there a relationship between Temporal, Causal, Adversative and Additive connectives and poor readers' level of reading comprehension?

3. Is there a relationship between Subordinating conjunctions, coordinative conjunctions and discourse markers and good readers' level of reading comprehension?

4. Is there a relationship between Subordinating conjunctions, coordinative conjunctions and discourse markers and poor readers' level of reading comprehension?

Methodology

This section presents information regarding the research design, participants, data gathering tool and data analysis.

Research Design

This study aiming to examine the relationship between the connectives in Turkish texts and good and poor readers' level of reading comprehension separately employed correlational survey design. Since it was aimed to describe a case and tried to define the research topic in its own conditions, correlational survey designed seemed suitable for the study.

Correlational survey models are the research designs aiming to determine the existence of variance between two or more variables and/or its extent (Karasar 1994).

Participants

The participants of the study were the teacher candidates studying at the Turkish Language Teaching Department of Nigde University Education Faculty in the spring term of 2012-2013 academic year. Based on the aim of the study, the participants were divided into two groups as "good readers" and "poor readers" after a reading comprehension test was administered. Those who got 55 or less points in the test were defined as poor, and those who got 56 or more as good readers. The study was conducted with 50 teacher candidates, 25 in the poor readers group and 25 in the good readers group

Data Gathering Tool

To determine good and poor readers in the first phase of the study, a descriptive text titled as "Lion" from the Britannica Basic Education and Culture Encyclopedia (1992) which was suitable for the level of readers in the sample in terms of readability. Readability level and information density were considered in the text selection. In determining the readability level of the text, "Cetinkaya-Uzun Readability Formula" (Cetinkaya 2010) that is a valid evaluation tool in defining and categorizing Turkish texts in terms of readability was used.

In the second phase of the study, 10 descriptive texts were employed. These 10 texts whose names are given in Table (3) were taken from the Britannica Basic Education and Culture Encyclopedia (1992). In the selection of texts that would be used as data gathering tool, two criteria were considered. One of these is the step of identifying the readability level using Cetinkaya-Uzun readability formula as mentioned above. Texts which were close to each other in terms of readability were selected. Table 1 presents the "average word length," "average sentence length" and "readability scores" of the texts used in the study.

As can be seen in Table 1, the average word length was between 2.56-2.89, the average sentence length was between 11.1816.74 and the readability scores were between 31-38.

The second criteria considered in the text selection was that there should not be perfect linear relationship between the independent variables. In this sense, the connectives in the texts were analyzed semantically and structurally (see the section on identifying the variables, Table 2 and Table 3), and the texts having different linear relationship in terms of variables were included in the study. The reason is that the "b" value would be the same between the variables having a perfect linear relationship statistically. In other words, we cannot say which variable is important (Field 2005; cited in Cetinkaya 2010).

Briefly, in this study, two latent variables were identified based on definition and classification of connectives structurally and semantically, and the relationship between the variables and the good and poor readers' level of reading comprehension was investigated. There are also observable variables under the two variables identified. To ensure the reliability of the coding, randomly selected two texts out of the 10 texts used were analyzed by two other researchers. The consistency between the researchers was reliable as it was calculated for the semantic analysis of connectives (96%) and the structural analysis of the connectives (100%).

At this step, the following formula was used (Tavsancil and Aslan 2001):

Reliability = Agreement rate/

Agreement + Disagreement rate

The data were analyzed in accordance with the conceptual framework formed beforehand. The structural analysis of connectives was based on the structural categorization mentioned above, and as for the semantic analysis, the semantic categorization of connectives was used.

The number of connectives structurally and semantically with regard to the 10 texts used as the data gathering tool is presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

As can be seen in Table 2, the number of connectives structurally was between 15-26 in subordinating conjunctions, 21-48 in coordinating conjunctions, and 1-9 in discourse markers.

As shown in Table 3, the number of connectives semantically was distributed as between 10-25 in temporal connectives, 2542 in causal connectives, 5-13 in adversative connectives, and 3-13 in additive connectives.

Data Gathering and Analysis

The process of reading each text and answering questions related to it was completed in approximately 30 minutes. The implementation was conducted as one text per week and the study was completed in 10 weeks. An instruction on the application was presented before proceeding to the reading comprehension test. This instruction is as follows:

a) Please read the whole text before answering the questions.

b) Please answer all the questions. If you encounter a difficult question, proceed to the next one, come back to it later and try to answer it.

c) Spelling mistakes will not be evaluated, so do your best.

d) Please write in a readable form.

e) Do you have any questions?

f) Please start.

The answers of the participants were gathered through the answer evaluation form and evaluated based on this form.

The question number column (#) in Table 4 gives the order of each question. The second column indicates the category of questions. The other three columns are related to scoring procedure and evaluation. Finally, the last row is for writing the total score.

In addition, the correlation between the scoring of the researcher and two field experts was also calculated. The findings of this analysis are presented in Table 5.

As seen in Table 5, the correlation between the scoring of the researcher and the other two raters was positive and high. This finding shows that the scoring reliability is high (Turgut 1977).

The statistical technique used in the analysis of the answers is presented below, and the significance level used for rejecting or accepting the hypotheses for the research questions was 0.05.

The relationships between the selected variables and the reading comprehension scores were calculated using Pearson Correlation Coefficient, and the calculated correlation coefficients were tested against the hypothesis that "the correlation coefficient of the universe is equal to zero."

Results

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between connectives in Turkish texts and readers' level of reading comprehension. In line with this aim, the findings revealed in the analysis of the data gathered through the tools described in the method section are presented based on the research questions using tables and interpretations.

First Research Question

The first research question of the study was "Is there a relationship between Temporal, Causal, Adversative and Additive connectives and good readers' level of reading comprehension?.'" The findings are presented in Table 6.

As can be seen in Table 6, there was no significant relationship between the good readers' level of reading comprehension and "temporal connectives" r= -0.271 (p>0.05), "causal connectives" r= -0.337 (p>0.05), "adversative connectives" r= -0.523 (p>0.05) and "additive connectives" r= -0.337 (p>0.05).

The findings revealed that there is no significant relationship between good readers' level of reading comprehension and temporal, causal, adversative and additive connectives. However, there was a weak, negative relationship between the temporal connectives such as but and while "used in situations where events or cases mentioned in the 1st and 2nd members are followed by each other or overlapped' (Kurtul 2011), causal connectives such as because, for this reason and since "indicating that events or cases mentioned in the 1st and 2nd members are causally affected by each other" (Kurtul 2011), and additive connectives such as for instance, thus, either ... or and otherwise which expands the discourse and takes the topic further. On the other hand, there was a moderate, negative correlation between the good readers' level of reading comprehension and adversative connectives such as but and although "making a discourse relationship to emphasize the differences between the situations pointed by the first and the second members" (Kurtul 2011). Since the relationships are not statistically significant, interpretations cannot be made regarding these relationships.

Second Research Question

The second research question of the study was "Is there a relationship between Temporal, Causal, Adversative and Additive connectives and poor readers' level of reading comprehension?." The findings are presented in Table 7.

As can be seen in Table 7, there was no significant relationship between the poor readers' level of reading comprehension and "temporal connectives" r= 0.075 (p>0.05), "causal connectives" r= -0.525 (p>0.05), but a negative, moderate and significant relationship with regard to "adversative connectives" r= -0.805 (p>0.05) and "additive connectives" r= -0.647 (p<0.05).

The findings above show that there is no relationship between the poor readers' level of reading comprehension and temporal and causal connectives, but there is a negative and significant relationship in terms of adversative and additive connectives. In other words, as the number of adversative connectives such as but and although and additive connectives such as for example, thus, either .... or and otherwise increases, the poor readers' level of reading comprehension decreases.

Third Research Question

The third research question of the study was "Is there a relationship between Subordinating conjunctions, coordinative conjunctions and discourse markers and good readers' level of reading comprehension?." The findings are presented in Table (8) below.

As shown in Table 8, there was no significant relationship between the good readers' level of reading comprehension and "subordinating conjunctions" r= -0.187 (p>0.05), "coordinative conjunctions" r= -0.368 (p>0.05), but a negative, strong and significant relationship with regard to "discourse markers" r= -0.760 (p<0.05).

The findings revealed that there is no significant relationship between good readers' level of reading comprehension and subordinating and coordinative conjunctions. However, there seems to be a strong, negative relationship between the discourse markers such as otherwise, for this reason, for example, and for instance and the good readers' level of reading comprehension.

Fourth Research Question

The forth research question of the study was "Is there a relationship between Subordinating conjunctions, coordinative conjunctions and discourse markers and poor readers' level of reading comprehension?." The findings are presented in Table 9.

As shown in Table 9, there was no significant relationship between the poor readers' level of reading comprehension and "subordinating conjunctions" r= 0.096 (p>0.05), "discourse markers" r= -0.600 (p>0.05), but a negative, strong and significant relationship with regard to "coordinative conjunctions" r= -0.740 (p<0.05).

The findings revealed that there is no significant relationship between poor readers' level of reading comprehension and subordinating and coordinative conjunctions. However, there is a moderate, negative relationship between the discourse markers such as also, in fact, before, after and both .... and and the poor readers' level of reading comprehension.

Discussion

The finding that there is no significant relationship between the connective elements categorized semantically and the good readers' level of reading comprehension can be interpreted as that the readers were able to make the connection between propositions through the connective elements. When compared with the findings of other studies in the literature, this case seems to be parallel with Haberlandt's view (1982) that conjunctions makes it faster to comprehend sentences by meeting the readers' expectations regarding the relationship between two sentences. On the other hand, the findings regarding the relationship between the poor readers' level of reading comprehension and adversative and additive connectives do not support this view of Haberlandt's. In the study of Meyer et al. (1980), those having poor reading skills are defined as students lacking the knowledge of high level text structures that could be used to comprehend and remember a text. At the same time, based on the findings of their study, these researchers stated that students with poor reading skills did not have text knowledge that would lead them to identify and use conjunctions (cited in Ben-Anath 2005).

Examining the findings regarding the relationship between the connective elements categorized structurally and good and poor readers' levels of reading comprehension, discourse markers such as in addition, firstly, as a result decreased the good readers' level of comprehension significantly, and coordinative conjunctions such as on the other hand, and, or, or, both ... and and neither .... nor decreased the poor readers' level of comprehension significantly. The fact that the coordinative conjunctions used in Turkish are borrowed from foreign languages and the relationships between propositions in Turkish are originally achieved through gerunds can be seen as a reason that such connective elements negatively affected reading comprehension. As for the subordinating conjunctions, they positively affected the poor readers' comprehension, but were observed not to be effective in the good readers' comprehension. This case can be due to the fact that a sub-clause is an element of a main clause through a set of affixes added to a verb, and consequently, the processing becomes easier as a result of the simplification of the syntactic structure of the main clause. Arya et al. (2011) stated that in their study, the syntactic structure did not affect the students' reading comprehension either negatively or positively. On the other hand, the findings of Cain and Nash (2011) showed that the connective elements helped developing readers to process the text, but did not have any positive effects on developed readers.

As a result, it was found that there was a negative, significant relationship between adversative connectives, additive connectives and discourse markers and the poor readers' level of reading comprehension while there was a negative, significant relationship between discourse markers and the good readers' level of reading comprehension.

According Cetinkaya's etc. (2014) research findings; ; the students' connectives knowledge test points average who never or rarely read is lower than the students who read more frequently. Similarly, the students' average with low writing frequency was found lower than students with more frequent writing.

Conclusion

In this study aiming to investigate the relationship between the connective elements in Turkish texts and readers' level of reading comprehension, the relationship between both the good readers' and the poor readers' levels of reading comprehension was examined. The level of reading comprehension was determined by means of 10 descriptive texts and open-ended questions. On the other hand, the connective elements in the texts used for determining the readers' level of reading comprehension were identified, and analyzed structurally and semantically. At this step, based on the syntactic criteria, the connectives in the Turkish texts were categorized as "subordinating conjunctions," "coordinative conjunctions" and "discourse markers." Moreover, in terms of semantics, the connective elements were categorized based on being "temporal," "causal," "adversative" and "additive."

The analysis revealed that while there was no significant relationship between the good readers' level of reading comprehension and temporal connectives, causal connectives, adversative connectives and additive connectives, there was a negative, moderate and significant relationship with regard to adversative connectives, r= -0.805 (p>0.05) and additive connectives, r= -0.647 (p<0.05).

Furthermore, based on the structural variables, there was a negative, significant relationship between the good readers' level of reading comprehension and discourse markers, r= -0.760, as there was also a negative, significant relationship between the poor readers' level of reading comprehension and subordinating conjunctions, r= -0.740.

Recommendations

In accordance with the results of the research, it would be reasonable for the teachers or text writers that would choose a reading text for a certain reader group to choose the texts that would be suitable for the levels of reading skills of readers in terms of structural features of the text because the texts with high reading-difficulty levels, or outside of the area of interest of readers not only would not improve the reading motivation and reading habit of students, but also would cause students to have a negative attitude towards reading.

Author's Note

This study is complied from master thesis titled as "Investigating The Relationship Between Connectives In Turkish Texts and Readers Reading Comprehension Level" Which was defended at the Institude of Educational Sciences of Nigde University, 2013 by the supervision of Assist. Prof. Dr. Gokhan Cetinkaya.

References

Ana Yayincilik (1992). Temel Britannica Temel Egitim ve Kultur Ansiklopedisi. Istanbul: Ana Yayincilik.

Arya, D. J., Hicbcrt, E. H. & Pearson, P. D. (2011). The effects of syntactic and lexical complexity on the comprehension of elementary science texts. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1): 107-125.

Atabay, N., Ozel, S. & Kutluk, 1. (2003). Baglac. In: Dogan Aksan (Ed.): Sozcuk Turleri. Istanbul: Papatya Yayincilik, pp. 125-154.

Balyemez, S. (2010). Bagdasiklik ve dede korkut hikayeleri'nde bagdasiklik gorunumleri. Turkish Studies, 5 (4): 133-173.

Ben-Anath, D. (2005). The role of connectives in text comprehension. Columbia University Working Papers in Tesol and Applied Linguistics, 5 (2): 1-27.

Cain, K.& Nash, H. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103: 429-441.

Cetinkaya, G., Ulper, H. & Bayat, N. (2014). Baglayici testinin gelistirilmesi ve ogrencilerin baglayici bilgisinin cesitli degiskenlere gore incelenmesi. International Journal of Language Academy, 2(3): 88-98.

Cetinkaya, G. (2010). Turkce Metinlerin Okunabilirlik Duzeylerinin Tanimlanmasi ve Siniflandirilmasi. (Ph. D. Thesis, Unpublished). Ankara: Ankara University.

Chaudron, C., Richards J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse marker on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7: 113-127.

Ciftci, O., Temizyurek, F. (2008). Ilkogretim 5. sinif ogrencilerinin okudugunu anlama beccrilcrinin olculmesi. Mustafa Kemal Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 5: 109-129.

Coskun, E. (2007). Turkce Ogretiminde Metin Bilgisi. In: Ahmet Kirkkilic, Hayati Akyol (Eds.): Ilkogretimde Turkce Ogretimi. Ankara: Pegem Yayincilik, pp. 233-279.

Coskun, E. (2005). Ilkogretim Ogrencilerinin Oykuleyici Anlatimlarinda Bagdasiklik, Tutarlilik ve Metin Elementleri. (Ph. D. Thesis, Unpublished). Gazi University, Ankara.

Degand, L., Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in LI and L2. Reading and Writing, 15 (7-8): 739-758.

Ebrahimpourtaher, A. (2011). Awareness of Referential Devices in Text and Reading Comprehension. Paper presented in 1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Sarajevo, 2011.

Forbes-Riley, K., Webber, B. & Joshi, A. (2006). Computing discourse semantics: The predicate-argument semantics of discourse connectives in D-LTAG. Journal of Semantics, 23: 55-106.

Geva, E. (1986). Reading comprehension in a second language; The role of conjunctions. TESOL Canada Journal, Special Issue1 (NOV): 85-96.

Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader Expectations In Text Comprehension. In. J-F Le Ny, W Kintsch (Eds.): Language and Comprehension. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 239-249.

Halliday, M., Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. New York: Longman Group UK. Limited.

Innajih, A. (2006). The impact of textual cohesive conjunctions on the reading comprehension of foreign language students. ARECLS e-journal, 3: 1-20.

Irwin, J. R. (1982). The effect of coherence explicitness on college readers' prose comprehension. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 14 (3): 275-284.

Issever, S. (1995). Turkce Metinlerdeki Baglanti Ogelerinin Metinbilim ve Kullanimbilim Acisindan Islevleri. (Master Thesis, Unpublished). Ankara University, Ankara.

Karasar, N. (1994). Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemi: Kavramlar, Ilkeler, Teknikler. Ankara: 3A Arastirma Egitim Danismanlik Ltd.

Kurtul, K. (2011). Turkce ve Ingilizce' deki Baglaclarin Yazili Metinlerde Kullanimi. (Ph. D. Thesis, Unpublished). Ankara University, Ankara.

Murray, J. D. (1995). Logical Connectives and Local Coherence. In: RF Lorch Jr, EJ O'Brien (Eds.): Sources of Coherence in Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 107-125.

Sanders, T. J. M., Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse processes, 29 (1): 37-60.

Tavsancil, E., Aslan, A. E. (2001). Sozel Yazili ve Diger Materyalter Icin Icerik Analizi ve Uygulama Ornekleri. Istanbul: Yeni Cizgi Yayin Dagitim.

The Rand Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding. Toward an R and D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Turgut, M. F. (1977). Egitimde Olcme ve Degerlendirme Metotlari. Ankara: Nuve Matbaasi.

Wifield, C. M., Tomitch, L. M. B. (2012). Revising the influence of conjunctions in L2 reading comprehension. Revista Intercambio, 26: 16-41.

Zeyrek, D., Webber, B. (2008). A Discourse Resource for Turkish: Annotating Discourse Connectives in the METU Corpus. The 6th Workshop on Asian Language Resources, The Third International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, (IJN-LP). 65-71.

Yusuf Gender

Nigde University, Turkey

Gokhan Cetiinkaya

Nigde University, Turkey
Table 1. Readability Levels of the Texts
Used in the Study

Title               AWL     ASL    RS

Hawk                2.6    15.05   38
The Mediterranean   2.72   14.14   34
Bicycle             2.78   15.81   31
Shoes               2.68   14.57   35
Slang               2.76   14.89   33
Barometer           2.8    15.44   31
The Atlantic        2.71   16.74   32
Ice Age             2.56   15.23   38
Ahi Community       2.78   13.58   33
Bullfighting        2.89   11.18   32

Table 2. Type and Number of Connectives Structurally

Title               Subordinating   Coordinating   Discourse Marker

Hawk                     24              44               9
The Mediterranean        16              42               6
Bicycle                  22              29               8
Shoes                    20              48               3
Slang                    26              41               4
Barometer                20              21               4
The Atlantic             15              30               1
Ice Age                  25              36               3
Community                20              34               5
Bullfighting             24              39               1

Table 3. Type and Number of Connectives Semantically

Title               Temporal   Causal   Adversative   Additive

Hawk                   18        38         13           8
The Mediterranean      10        33         13           8
Bicycle                13        34          6           6
Shoes                  10        36         12           13
Slang                  17        34          9           11
Barometer              10        25          5           5
The Atlantic           12        25          5           4
Ice Age                25        29          7           3
Ahi Community          14        33          5           7
Bullfighting           11        42          5           6

Table 4. Answer Evaluation Form

#                      Name of Reader         Text Title

1      Level of        Definition not  Definition      Definition
       Knowledge       written         written         written
                                       partially       completely

2      Level of        0 point         12 points       25 points
       interpretation
                       No              Partial         Full
                       interpretation  interpretation  interpretation

                       0 points        12 points       25 points

3      Level of Using  Not related     Partially       Successfully
       Knowledge and   their           related their   related their
       Experiences     knowledge and   knowledge and   knowledge and
                       experiences     experiences     experiences
                       with the text   with the text   with the text

                       0 points        12 points       25 points

4      Level of        No evaluation   Partial         Successful
       Evaluation                      evaluation      evaluation

                       0 points        12 points       25 points

Total                  100 points
score

Table 5. Correlation between the Scoring of the Researcher and the
Raters

#    Text Title          Researcher   First Rater   Second Rater

l    Hawk                                .748           .803
2    The Mediterranean                   .920           .901
3    Bicycle                             .808           .836
4    Shoes                               .792           .790
5    Slang                               .933           .842
6    Barometer                           .896           .809
7    The Atlantic                        .702           .746
8    Ice Age                             .902           .811
9    Ahi Community                       .742           .703
10   Bullfighting                        .752           .749

Table 6. The Relationship between Temporal, Causal, Adversative and
Additive Connectives and Good Readers' Level of Reading
Comprehension (GRLRC)

                                1       2      3        4       5

1    GRLRC         N=25   r     1
2    Temporal      N=25   r   -.271     1
3    Causal        N=25   r   -.337   -.056    1
4    Adversative   N=25   r   -.523    .033   .363    1
5    Additive      N=25   r   -.252   -.286   .491   .647 (*)   1

(*) The significance level is .05.

Table 7. The Relationship between Temporal, Causal, Adversative and
Additive Connectives and Poor Readers' Level of Reading Comprehension
(PRLRC)

                                1         2      3        4      5

l   PRLRC         N=25   r     1
2   Temporal      N=25   r    .075        1
3   Causal        N=25   r   -.525      -.056    1
4   Adversative   N=25   r   -.805(*)    .033   .363    1
5   Additive      N=25   r   -.647(*)   -.286   .491   .647(*)   1

(*) The significance level is .0 5.

Table 8. The Relationship between Subordinating Conjunctions,
Coordinative Conjunctions and Discourse Markers and Good Readers'
Level of Reading Comprehension (GRLRC)

                                     1       2      3     4

l   GRLRC              N=25   r     1
2   Subordinating      N=25   r   -.187      1
3   Coordinating       N=25   r   -.368     .227    1
4   Discourse Marker   N=25   r   -.760(*)  .148   .089   1

(*) The significance level is .05.

Table 9. The Relationship between Subordinating Conjunctions,
Coordinative Conjunctions and Discourse Markers and Poor Readers'
Level of Reading Comprehension (PRLRC)

                                     1       2      3     4
l   PRLRC              N=25   r     1
2   Subordinating      N=25   r    .096      1
3   Coordinating       N=25   r   -.740 *   .227    1
4   Discourse Marker   N=25   r   -.600     .148   .089   1

* The significance level is .05.
COPYRIGHT 2015 Project Innovation (Alabama)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Gender, Yusuf; Cetiinkaya, Gokhan
Publication:Reading Improvement
Article Type:Report
Date:Jun 22, 2015
Words:5458
Previous Article:Reading acquisition through phonics method in a Turkish Public Elementary School: a case study.
Next Article:"Do I have to leave?" Beyond linear text: struggling readers' motivation with an innovative musical program.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters