I. Objective
|
Original paragraph
|
Paraphrase result
|
|
The aim of
this article is to determine the relationship between learners’ familiarity
with domain knowledge and their
comprehension of specialized texts.
|
The purpose of this article is research
of relationship between learners’ familiarty with level knowledge and their
comprehension of spacialized texts.
|
II. Methodology
a. Participant
|
Original paragraph
|
Paraphrase result
|
|
Given the
difficulties encountered by my students in Benin university colleges or
faculties in understanding the English written teaching materials I used,
especially the English written texts, I was interested in seeing, in the
framework of my PhD dissertation in 2008-2009, how they would respond to
questions on a French written text in a reading comprehension task on the stockmarket,
with a French written text on the “Dow Jones Industrial Average” and some
open ended questions in English.
A few years
later, I decided to submit other students to the same task to see if I would
get the same results as in 2008-2009 so that I could definitely deduce the
impact of literal comprehension, without content familiarity, on inferential
comprehension in learners’ L2, with a text written in learners’ L1 or in the
official language (the education language) of their country. So, with a text
that may be read by them relatively easily, literally speaking, I can assess
their possibility to display a minimum of inferential comprehension in their
productions as a result of their (supposed) literal comprehension
|
Participant in this journal is the researcher’s students in
abomey-calavi university based on methodology: context.
|
b. Data collection
|
Original paragraph
|
Paraphrase result
|
|
In the three
classes assessed in 2013, there were more correct answers than incorrect
ones. This proves that the number of
the students who understood the text inferentially is greater than the
number of the
students who did not. The proportion of students who understood the text
inferentially was much greater than the proportion of students who understood
it inferentially in 2008-2009. However, the respective proportions of correct
answers for incorrect answers, of 60% for 40%, of 53.44% for 46.55% and of
69.04% for 30.95% reveal that a large number of students were unable to
process the text inferentially even though the majority of them did it
somehow.
|
There are three classes evaluated in 2013, more correct answers
than incorrect. This evidence show that the students who understand the text
is more excellent than the students who did not. Part of students who
understand the text likely more excellent than the students who understand
from it in 2008-2009. But, the comparison between part of true and false
answer were, of 60 % for 40 %, of 53.44% for 46.55% and of 69.04% for 30.95% states
that many students were not afford to the result of process the text
even they did it somehow before.
|
III. Main Finding
|
Original paragraph
|
Paraphrase result
|
|
With no stock
exchange in Benin, and only one stock exchange for the whole of West African
Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) of which Benin is a member country, the
students who have no stock exchange culture could not display much
understanding of the concepts relating to the specific domain of the
stock-exchange, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) index, the Dow Jones
Industrial Average, and many of them failed in their inferential
comprehension, even though they may easily have a literal comprehension of
the text.
|
There is no stock exchange in Benin, but only one stock exchange
for the whole of West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) is still
Benin part of the member country, the students who have different culture to
exchange culture can not understand what the consepts relationship
between specific domain and the
stock-exchange, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) index, the Dow Jones
Industrial Average, the big number students are failed in comprehension
reading inferentially, while they have literal comprehension of text.
|
V. Conclusion
|
Original paragraph
|
Paraphrase result
|
|
In
conclusion, literal understanding is not enough to ensure the inferential
comprehension of a text no matter the language it is written in.
|
Finally, literal understanding is not good for measure the
comprehension a text inferentially no problem the language it is written in.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment