The Impact of Two Types of Input Modification on EFL Reading Comprehension: Linguistic Versus Interactiona
This study investigates the relative effects of two types of input modification – linguistic and interactional – on Iranian EFL students' reading comprehension. Eight English reading passages were presented to 248 students in one of the three forms: unmodified (U), linguistically modified (LM),...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI)
2007-03-01
|
| Series: | Teaching English Language |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.teljournal.org/article_113220_dd0eee5e7b6acb4f98036d9047fca662.pdf |
| _version_ | 1818006800006381568 |
|---|---|
| author | Sasan Baleghizadeh Davood Borzabadi Farahani |
| author_facet | Sasan Baleghizadeh Davood Borzabadi Farahani |
| author_sort | Sasan Baleghizadeh |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study investigates the relative effects of two types of input modification – linguistic and interactional – on Iranian EFL students' reading comprehension. Eight English reading passages were presented to 248 students in one of the three forms: unmodified (U), linguistically modified (LM), mostly in the direction of elaboration, and interactionally modified (IM). The students were also divided into two proficiency-level groups, i.e. more proficient (MP) and less proficient (LP) groups. Students' comprehension of the passages was measured through a 50-item multiple-choice test which was the same for all the six groups. The data were analyzed by a 2-by-3 analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results show that interactional modifications improve students' reading comprehension scores better than linguistic modifications at both proficiency levels. This suggests that linguistic modifications – even if they are made in the direction of elaboration as suggested by recent studies (Oh, 2001; Urano, 2002; Yano et al., 1994) – do not facilitate reading comprehension as effectively as interactional modifications do. Therefore, it is recommended that instead of making texts comprehensible through commonly-practiced techniques of simplification or elaboration, teachers employ authentic texts, but make them comprehensible through creating interactional modifications. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T05:07:13Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-207fe284dec0416d90e2ae04267241bd |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2538-5488 2538-547X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T05:07:13Z |
| publishDate | 2007-03-01 |
| publisher | Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Teaching English Language |
| spelling | doaj.art-207fe284dec0416d90e2ae04267241bd2022-12-22T02:10:40ZengTeaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI)Teaching English Language2538-54882538-547X2007-03-011Special Issue 1719410.22132/tel.2006.113220113220The Impact of Two Types of Input Modification on EFL Reading Comprehension: Linguistic Versus InteractionaSasan Baleghizadeh0Davood Borzabadi Farahani1Shahid Beheshti UniversityTehran UniversityThis study investigates the relative effects of two types of input modification – linguistic and interactional – on Iranian EFL students' reading comprehension. Eight English reading passages were presented to 248 students in one of the three forms: unmodified (U), linguistically modified (LM), mostly in the direction of elaboration, and interactionally modified (IM). The students were also divided into two proficiency-level groups, i.e. more proficient (MP) and less proficient (LP) groups. Students' comprehension of the passages was measured through a 50-item multiple-choice test which was the same for all the six groups. The data were analyzed by a 2-by-3 analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results show that interactional modifications improve students' reading comprehension scores better than linguistic modifications at both proficiency levels. This suggests that linguistic modifications – even if they are made in the direction of elaboration as suggested by recent studies (Oh, 2001; Urano, 2002; Yano et al., 1994) – do not facilitate reading comprehension as effectively as interactional modifications do. Therefore, it is recommended that instead of making texts comprehensible through commonly-practiced techniques of simplification or elaboration, teachers employ authentic texts, but make them comprehensible through creating interactional modifications.http://www.teljournal.org/article_113220_dd0eee5e7b6acb4f98036d9047fca662.pdfelaborationsimplificationinteractional modificationslinguistic modifications |
| spellingShingle | Sasan Baleghizadeh Davood Borzabadi Farahani The Impact of Two Types of Input Modification on EFL Reading Comprehension: Linguistic Versus Interactiona Teaching English Language elaboration simplification interactional modifications linguistic modifications |
| title | The Impact of Two Types of Input Modification on EFL Reading Comprehension: Linguistic Versus Interactiona |
| title_full | The Impact of Two Types of Input Modification on EFL Reading Comprehension: Linguistic Versus Interactiona |
| title_fullStr | The Impact of Two Types of Input Modification on EFL Reading Comprehension: Linguistic Versus Interactiona |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Impact of Two Types of Input Modification on EFL Reading Comprehension: Linguistic Versus Interactiona |
| title_short | The Impact of Two Types of Input Modification on EFL Reading Comprehension: Linguistic Versus Interactiona |
| title_sort | impact of two types of input modification on efl reading comprehension linguistic versus interactiona |
| topic | elaboration simplification interactional modifications linguistic modifications |
| url | http://www.teljournal.org/article_113220_dd0eee5e7b6acb4f98036d9047fca662.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sasanbaleghizadeh theimpactoftwotypesofinputmodificationoneflreadingcomprehensionlinguisticversusinteractiona AT davoodborzabadifarahani theimpactoftwotypesofinputmodificationoneflreadingcomprehensionlinguisticversusinteractiona AT sasanbaleghizadeh impactoftwotypesofinputmodificationoneflreadingcomprehensionlinguisticversusinteractiona AT davoodborzabadifarahani impactoftwotypesofinputmodificationoneflreadingcomprehensionlinguisticversusinteractiona |