View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

ESAP Students' Comprehension of Multiple Technical Reading Texts: Insights from Personal Epistemological Beliefs

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: ESAP Students' Comprehension of Multiple Technical Reading Texts: Insights from Personal Epistemological Beliefs
Language: English
Authors: Karimi, Mohammad Nabi, Atai, Mohamood Reza
Source: Reading Psychology. 2014 35(8):736-761.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 26
Publication Date: 2014
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: English for Special Purposes, English for Academic Purposes, Reading Comprehension, Scientific and Technical Information, Epistemology, Beliefs, Student Attitudes, Medical Students, Females, Obstetrics, Correlation, Regression (Statistics), Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Iran
DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2013.802753
ISSN: 0270-2711
Abstract: Given the importance associated with multiple-document literacy in the present-day knowledge societies and the dearth of research in English Language Teaching in general and English for Specific/Academic Purposes (ESAP) contexts in particular on multiple-document comprehension and the significance of reader beliefs in this type of comprehension, the present study was carried out with the aim of investigating the relationship between ESAP students' personal epistemological beliefs and their inferential intratextual and intertextual understanding of multiple texts. To this aim, 64 first-semester midwifery students were selected as the participants of the study. They were required to read four passages on multi-fetal pregnancy which discussed different aspects of this phenomenon. Having filled out the Epistemological Beliefs Inventory, they were tested on the inferential intratextual and intertextual comprehension of the texts. Results of the analyses of the data revealed significant associations between epistemological beliefs and the inferential comprehension of multiple texts. The results also indicated the poorer performance of the participants in intertextual inferential understanding of the texts compared with the intratextual understanding of them. The study concludes with tentative implication of the findings for ESAP reading courses.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 65
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1038667
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFI0cQeSEmSJBDAE-2yf0y9AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDI1lAlJlck69GupCIQIBEICBmqZFQXn312X2d6WxXOEISFRkt5J5Eog9bfkRHVwK2JOQeU6c4RU_Z2asZWj3DMmQw7a7NfKDOs7EXNS_E0XhCKC3vmBcfQoQdu7R1PCUaUauFDypTjipgs0oI2i_RFVi5am7_XoGDQqIL0n0jSj8bgR4JMQl6PizHDv7qaoP_P0THFiKWHI7mh4fp8dMGlOj6Y5j2-bs_PIsQ7c=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0098026383;bcw01nov.14;2019Feb15.14:48;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0098026383-1">ESAP Students’ Comprehension of Multiple Technical Reading Texts: Insights from Personal Epistemological Beliefs. </title> <sbt id="AN0098026383-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Given the importance associated with multiple-document literacy in the present-day knowledge societies and the dearth of research in English Language Teaching in general and English for Specific/Academic Purposes (ESAP) contexts in particular on multiple-document comprehension and the significance of reader beliefs in this type of comprehension, the present study was carried out with the aim of investigating the relationship between ESAP students' personal epistemological beliefs and their inferential intratextual and intertextual understanding of multiple texts. To this aim, 64 first-semester midwifery students were selected as the participants of the study. They were required to read four passages on multi-fetal pregnancy which discussed different aspects of this phenomenon. Having filled out the Epistemological Beliefs Inventory, they were tested on the inferential intratextual and intertextual comprehension of the texts. Results of the analyses of the data revealed significant associations between epistemological beliefs and the inferential comprehension of multiple texts. The results also indicated the poorer performance of the participants in intertextual inferential understanding of the texts compared with the intratextual understanding of them. The study concludes with tentative implication of the findings for ESAP reading courses.</p> <p>The value of reading as the most important skill which English for Specific/Academic Purposes (ESAP) students are required to master has been widely recognized in English education (Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>]; Benson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]; Carrell, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>]; Dhieb-Henia, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]; Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref5">65</reflink>]). The rationale behind this recognition is double pronged. First, ESAP students are frequently confronted with a huge amount of reading assignments during their university years and beyond, which requires them to develop and possess effective reading skills (Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref6">65</reflink>]). Second, due to fewer opportunities to speak and listen to language in English as a foreign language (EFL) situations, a vast majority of the input is provided to learners through written texts through which to advance their mastery of the target language (Zhang, 2005).</p> <p>Thus, given this importance, reading researchers have been investigating the various aspects of second language (L2) reading constructs to help them better plan and design reading instruction programs. Part of these researchers' investigative attempts has been focused mainly on identifying the variables likely to affect the performance of learners in this skill. Some of these variables include reading strategies (Dhieb-Henia, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>]; McNeil, 2011; Taillefer & Pugh, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref8">57</reflink>]; Yamashita, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref9">64</reflink>]), reading skills (Pritchard & Nasr, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref10">38</reflink>]), attitude towards reading (Mizokawa, & Hansen-Krening, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref11">36</reflink>]), first language (L1) reading ability (Bernhardt & Kamil, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>]; Brisbois, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref13">13</reflink>]), L2 proficiency (Lee & Schallert, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref14">30</reflink>]), reading anxiety (Saito, Horwitz, & Garza, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref15">45</reflink>]), approaches to reading instruction (Faust & Kandelshine-Waldman, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]), text type (Shin, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref17">54</reflink>]), L2 lexical knowledge (Laufer, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref18">29</reflink>]; Qian, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref19">39</reflink>]), background knowledge (McNeil, 2011), and so on.</p> <p>Besides the aforementioned variables, over the past decade or so, mainly in research on L1 reading, research on the influence of readers' beliefs on their reading comprehension process and achievement has surfaced in the literature (Schraw & Bruning, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref20">52</reflink>]; Schunk & Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref21">53</reflink>]). In particular, readers' motivational beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs, and implicit beliefs about reading have attracted a keen interest. Also, of great interest to studies on L1 reading are the effects of readers' beliefs about knowledge including its nature, speed of acquisition, justification, structure, and so on—collectively referred to as epistemological beliefs—on their reading performance (Mason, Scirica, & Salvi, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref22">34</reflink>]). Interest in conducting research on the link between these two constructs is based principally on two main theoretical assumptions. The first assumption is that learners do possess identifiable conceptions about knowledge and ways of knowing, and a further assumption suggests that these conceptions and beliefs can have profound impacts on the learners' engagement in particular learning activities, reading being no exception. This idea is best expressed in Cunningham and Fitzgerald's (1996) words: "because reading is itself a way of knowing, epistemology is even more central to reading research and instruction than to most other areas of education" (p. 39).</p> <p>Much to the surprise of L2, and in particular ESAP, reading researchers, the effects of these beliefs on L2 reading comprehension have not yet been probed into in English Language Teaching (ELT) contexts. In contrast, there has been and still is a productive line of research on these beliefs documenting their direct implications for learners' performance and achievement in reading. Therefore, the present study aims at exploring the relationship between ESAP students' epistemological beliefs and their inferential understanding across multiple reading passages.</p> <hd id="AN0098026383-3">Epistemological Beliefs</hd> <p>Epistemological beliefs, or less commonly personal epistemology, are defined as a set of beliefs learners hold regarding knowledge and knowing. These beliefs are, indeed, "regarded as the subjective counterpart of epistemology, i.e.the branch of theoretical philosophy that is concerned with characteristics, criteria, and justification conditions of knowledge" (Richter & Schmid, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref23">42</reflink>], p. 48). The study of these beliefs in educational psychology began with the seminal works of William Perry during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Perry pioneered a unidimensional approach to personal epistemology, suggesting that the growth of learners' epistemological beliefs takes place through a series of developmental stages ranging from "naïve" beliefs at the beginning of their educational process to more "sophisticated" ones as they progress through their years of education.</p> <p>While Perry's approach has had some proponents, it has come to be replaced with the more tenable and cohesive approach to conceptualizing epistemological beliefs known as the multidimensional approach. Schommer ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref24">46</reflink>], 1990) was the person who pioneered this reconceptualization of epistemological beliefs, arguing that personal epistemology, due to its complex nature, cannot be portrayed by a stage theory (Ricco, Pierce, & Medinilla, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref25">41</reflink>]). Therefore, she proposed a systemic view of epistemological beliefs emphasizing the multi-dimensional nature of these beliefs—meaning that a series of knowledge beliefs and conceptions compose an individual's epistemology—while accepting the relative independency of these beliefs and arguing that they may or may not develop at synchronous rates or in succession (Boden, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]; March, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref27">33</reflink>]). Schommer's work thus concentrated on conceptualizing epistemological beliefs as separate cognitive dimensions encompassing beliefs about the certainty and simplicity of knowledge, speed of learning, and the role of effort and ability in intelligence (Bell, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>To initiate the study of this system of beliefs, Schommer ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref29">47</reflink>]) constructed a questionnaire, known as Schommer's Epistemological Questionnaire (SEQ), to assess the beliefs along four epistemological dimensions:</p> <p>(a) ability to learn, ranging from the idea that ability to learn is fixed at birth (naïve) to the idea that ability to learn can be changed (sophisticated); (b) structure of knowledge, ranging from the belief that knowledge is best characterized as isolated bits of knowledge (naïve) to <emph>[the belief that]</emph> knowledge is best characterized as highly interrelated networks (sophisticated); (c) speed of learning, which includes beliefs ranging from the belief that learning is quick or all-or-none (naïve) to the belief that learning is gradual (sophisticated); and (d) stability of knowledge, ranging from the belief that knowledge is unchanging (naïve) to the belief of knowledge is evolving (sophisticated). (Bell, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>], pp. 37–38)</p> <p>Following this multidimensional conceptualization of epistemological beliefs, subsequent researchers have tried to either modify the SEQ or develop new measures (e.g., Jehng, Johnson, & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>]; Schraw, Bendixen, & Dunkle, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref32">50</reflink>]; Wood & Kardash, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref33">63</reflink>]). The Epistemological Beliefs Inventory (EBI), developed by Schraw et al, (2002), is one of these new measures which is believed to be shorter, more efficient, and more easily administered relative to the SEQ and also has been described to have a higher construct validity relative to SEQ (Bell, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]). In their study, Bendixen and Hartley ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]) compared these two measures and reported better predictive ability for the EBI; they also reported that the EBI could explain more of the variance than the SEQ. The measure, as described below in detail, includes 28 items measuring five dimensions of epistemological beliefs including simple knowledge, certain knowledge, omniscient authority, innate ability, and quick learning.</p> <p>Since the development of these measures of epistemological beliefs, these beliefs have come to be studied with reference to a wide range of educational variables. Some of these variables include students' strategy use (Paulsen & Feldman, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref36">37</reflink>]; Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref37">48</reflink>]), cognitive processing (Kardash & Howell, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref38">23</reflink>]), attitudes toward schools (Schommer & Walker, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref39">49</reflink>]), motivational states (Buehl & Alexander, 2005), academic goal setting (Bråten & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref40">8</reflink>]), conceptual change learning (Qian, 2000), skills in argumentation (Kitchener & King, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref41">25</reflink>]), study techniques (Hofer & Pintrich, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref42">21</reflink>]), learning approaches (Lonka & Lindblom-Ylänne,1996), and so on. These beliefs have also come to be explored in relation to comprehension and text processing, mostly in L1 contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0098026383-4">Epistemological Beliefs and Reading Comprehension Research</hd> <p>Research on the link between personal epistemological beliefs and reading comprehension has been of two main types: the relationship between these beliefs and reading comprehension in single texts (single-text paradigm) and the link between these beliefs and the understanding of multiple texts (multiple-text paradigm).</p> <p>In the very first studies on epistemological beliefs, in which Schommer ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref43">46</reflink>]; 1990) proposed the multidimensional theory of epistemology, along with the validation of the SEQ, she investigated these beliefs with reference to the text comprehension of undergraduate students. The principal question guiding her study was "Do students' epistemological beliefs affect their comprehension?" Giving the students a passage on either psychology or nutrition, she required them to write a concluding paragraph to the passage. Then she assessed their understanding of the content of the passage, and they were, after that, given a multiple-choice test to assess their mastery of the major concepts in the passage. The results of the regression analyses revealed that dimensions of epistemological beliefs could predict the participants' interpretation of the passage. Those students who believed that knowledge is certain were more likely to consider inconclusive information as certain knowledge. Also, those participants who believed that learning is quick or not-at-all were shown to perform poorly on the measures of comprehension assessment.</p> <p>In another study, Schommer, Crouse, and Rhodes ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref44">48</reflink>]) explored the relationship between freshman and sophomore students' beliefs in simple knowledge, as one of the dimensions of epistemological beliefs, and their comprehension of mathematical passages. There were two groups of participants in this study who were required to read modified excerpts on measures of central tendency as a part of their introductory research methods textbook. The participants were then tested on their comprehension of the content of these passages. The text included both simple recall of specific bits of information from the passages and application of the information covered in the excerpts. The results of the study suggested that belief in complexity of knowledge can predict comprehension test performance and overconfidence in comprehension. In fact, it was revealed that the less learners believe in simple knowledge, the better their performance on reading comprehension tests.</p> <p>However, reading literacy researchers have started to recognize that building a mental representation of the multiple texts on the same topic by comparing, contrasting, synthesizing, and integrating pieces of information across them—which has come to be called multiple-documents literacy—is a far more important undertaking than comprehending a single source and calls for higher-order processes and skills (Bråten & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>], 2010a, 2010b; Karimi & Shabani, 2013; Kobayashi, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref46">27</reflink>]). Owing to this recognition and the fact that the single-text paradigm which still guides and dominates research on text comprehension is believed to be partially out of step with the intertextual requirements encountering most readers in the present knowledge societies (Bråten, Strømsø, & Samuelstuen, 2008), some researchers have focused on exploring the relationship between epistemological beliefs and reading comprehension of multiple texts.</p> <p>As an example, Rukavina and Daneman ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref47">44</reflink>]) had a group of high school and university students read texts presenting conflicting theories about ongoing scientific problems (e.g., theories of dinosaur extinction) under two conditions. One was an integrated-text format, which highlighted the inquiry-like nature of science and presented a theory as a solution to a scientific problem, and another was a separate-text format, which simply presented two theories about a particular scientific problem in succession and made no mention of their competing nature. The results revealed that the learners holding sophisticated beliefs about the complex nature of knowledge showed a higher ability in synthesizing information from separate texts compared with students viewing knowledge as simple.</p> <p>Bråten and Strømsø ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>]) also investigated the effects of personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts among a group of Norwegian first-year teacher students. Classifying them into two groups of naïve epistemology and sophisticated epistemology based on their scores on a Norwegian version of the SEQ, they gave half of the participants in every group seven texts of varying lengths about attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the other half of the participants a single long text on the same topic. A sentence verification task and an inference verification task were used as measures of the participants' understanding of the texts. The results of the study revealed that only readers possessing sophisticated epistemological beliefs showed enough understanding of the multiple, partly competing texts about ADHD, while the participants holding naïve epistemological stances performed better in comprehending a single source with identical content.</p> <p>In another study, Bråten et al. (2008) investigated the role of topic-specific personal epistemological beliefs—simplicity and source of knowledge dimensions—in the deep-level comprehension of multiple expository texts in a sample of 135 Norwegian education undergraduates. The participants received seven texts on different aspects of climate change and the Topic-Specific Epistemic Belief Questionnaire. To assess the participants' understanding of the texts, two types of tasks were designed: an intratextual inference verification task used to tap into the participants' comprehension of single texts and an intertextual inference verification task to assess the participants' ability to draw inferences across texts. Based on analyses of the data, conclusions were drawn suggesting that participants possessing sophisticated simplicity beliefs performed better in multiple-text understanding than participants holding naïve beliefs on simplicity dimensions. In contrast, students enjoying more sophisticated epistemological stances on source of knowledge performed more poorly on the measures of multiple-text comprehension than students holding naïve beliefs about source of knowledge who viewed knowledge about climate change as transmitted from experts.</p> <p>As revealed by the review of literature reported here, the link between epistemological beliefs and reading comprehension has been partially documented but mainly in L1 contexts. No study, to the best of the present researchers' knowledge, has been carried out in ESAP contexts or at least no study of this kind has found its way into well-accredited educational or ELT/ESAP-related journals. This lack is even more profound when it comes to understanding multiple texts, as not only with reference to epistemological beliefs but generally work on comprehension of multiple texts in ELT in general, and ESAP contexts in particular, is essentially lacking. The present study, therefore, recognizes this as an issue worthy of investigation and views the rationale for this recognition, besides the lack of research mentioned previously, as lying in another major reason. In tertiary-level contexts, wherein students are often faced with many competing theories and conflicting discussions in their fields mostly in English, the synthesis and integration of ideas across texts is a prime requirement which ESAP students often have to fulfill. Therefore, to research the variables which may serve to promote or constrain understanding of multiple texts in ESAP contexts finds urgency. This urgency of work on multiple texts is best expressed in Bråten et al.'s (2008) words: "No doubt, further investigation of factors which may enhance or constrain students' ability to reap the potential benefits of reading multiple texts on a topic would be highly relevant for communities interested in advancing both literacy research and practice" (p. 836).</p> <hd id="AN0098026383-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0098026383-6">Participants</hd> <p>The participants of the study were 95 female midwifery students in four major medical sciences universities of Iran, with a mean age of 20.47. They were selected from among 141 students who took a Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL)-like test of language proficiency (40 items on grammar, 40 items on vocabulary, and 20 items on reading comprehension) used mostly in Iranian contexts. The scores of these students fell between ±0.5 SD from the mean of the test scores, so they were known to be homogeneous in terms of language proficiency. They were all newly admitted to university and were in the beginning of their first semester when they took part in the present study. Therefore, the topic of multi-fetal pregnancy, as the subject of the reading texts administered to them as a test (see below for a description), was totally new to them. However, to make sure of the homogeneity of the participants in terms of content familiarity, a prior knowledge measure was given to them. Here again, the participants' scores which fell between ±0.5 SD from the mean of the test knowledge measure scores were selected and the rest were omitted from the experiment. Therefore the actual number of the participants was reduced to 64.</p> <hd id="AN0098026383-7">Instruments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0098026383-8">Epistemic Beliefs Inventory (EBI)</hd> <p>A Persian version of EBI, developed by Schraw et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref49">50</reflink>]), was administered to the students. The measure consists of 28 Likert-format items measuring personal epistemology in five dimensions. Five of the items on the measure are reverse scored.</p> <p>In its original form, higher scores on the measure indicate more naïve beliefs and lower scores represent more sophisticated beliefs. Replicating the factor structure of the Persian version of the measure in a pilot study by one of the present researchers with a forced five-factor solution revealed a factor structure similar to the original instrument. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the measure with the present sample was calculated to be 0.78.</p> <hd id="AN0098026383-9">Prior Knowledge Measure</hd> <p>In order to ascertain the homogeneity of the participants in prior knowledge of the topic of the texts, a prior knowledge measure was given to them. To design the measure, a professor of midwifery experienced in teaching pregnancy-related courses was asked to develop items testing the preliminary concepts, mechanisms, care, major problems, and other issues related to multi-fetal pregnancy. The test was in Persian and included 20 four-choice items. The participants had to select the best choice and their scores were computed based on the number of correct responses given to the 20 items. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the measure with the sample was calculated to be 0.81.</p> <hd id="AN0098026383-10">Texts</hd> <p>The participants received four passages on multi-fetal pregnancy which dealt with different facets of this phenomenon. The first text was a 957-word chapter taken from a textbook of technical English designed for the students of midwifery (Alizadeh, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]). The second text was an 859-word text which discussed zygosity, chorionicity, and the major issues with multiple pregnancies. The third text was an 875-word popular science text which dealt with the types, causes, symptoms, diagnosis, complications associated with multiple pregnancy, and the cares needed to be taken by multi-fetal pregnant women. The fourth text was a 1,255-word popular science text explaining epidemiology, risk factors of the phenomenon, fetus presentation, vaginal and operative modes of delivery of twins, related complications, and prevention of the phenomenon. The texts had a fair amount of informational commonality, but they dealt with the phenomenon employing rather disparate terminologies and from various facets calling for integration and synthesis of the ideas across the texts to come up with responses to the questions. The participants were free to read the texts in any order they preferred.</p> <hd id="AN0098026383-11">Multiple-Texts Comprehension Measures</hd> <p>As explained earlier, the study primarily aimed to measure the participants' comprehension of multiple texts by drawing inferences across them and synthesizing and integrating ideas in the texts. Therefore, following the lead of previous studies carried out on multiple texts comprehension (e.g., Bråten et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref51">12</reflink>]; Bråten & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref52">11</reflink>]), an intertextual inference verification task was used in the present study. This type of task calls for integrating pieces of information across more than one text by drawing inferences across them and using integration to connect them. The task is believed to measure "deeper, situational understanding of the texts" (Bråten & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref53">9</reflink>], p. 470). The type of task developed to be used in the present study was comprised of 20 sentences constructed through integrating ideas across the texts to form an either valid or invalid inference. If the idea expressed in the item could be inferred from combining bits of information across the multiple texts, the sentence formed a valid inference, but if the idea in the item could not be inferred by combining ideas from the texts it was considered an invalid inference. As an example, the sample item <emph>Embryonic disk is formed within two weeks from initial fertilization</emph> forms a valid inference that needs to be answered by integrating bits of information presented in the first and the second text; in contrast, the sample item <emph>Large placenta size and distended uterus can be a cause of maternal pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia, anaemia, and antepartum haemorrhage</emph> forms an invalid inference which has to be answered by synthesizing ideas from the second and the third texts. The participants were required to mark the valid inferences <emph>yes</emph> and the invalid inferences <emph>no</emph>; their score was computed based on the number of correct responses to the items. The measure included 14 valid inferences and 6 invalid inferences. The Cronbach's α reliability of the measure was calculated to be 0.78. Inference verification tasks have been reported to have reasonable construct validity (Royer, Carlo, Dufresne, & Mestre, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref54">43</reflink>]) and intertextual inference verifications tasks have been employed by other researchers for the purpose of measuring comprehension across multiple texts (e.g., Bråten & Strømsø, 2006, 2010b).</p> <p>Also, in order to compare participants' single-text and multiple-texts comprehension, again following earlier researchers (Bråten et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref55">12</reflink>]; Bråten & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref56">11</reflink>]), an intratextual inference verification task was designed. The task included 20 items—five items for each text—constructed by integrating ideas from more than one sentence in every single text to form either valid or invalid inferences. For example, the sample item <emph>When the fertilized zygote is divided in the sixth day after fertilization, it gives rise to a diamnionic monochorionic monozygotic twin pregnancy</emph> is a valid inference which should be responded to by integrating ideas from three sentences in the first text, while the sample item <emph>When two amnionic sacs are covered by a common chorion, cleavage is incomplete and conjoined twins are formed</emph> is an invalid inference which should be answered by synthesis of ideas from sentences in text one. There were 12 valid and 8 invalid inferences in the measure. The reliability (Cronbach's α) for the scores on the measure was calculated to be 0.79.</p> <hd id="AN0098026383-12">Procedure</hd> <p>As the very first step in conducting the study, 141 students took a retired TOEFL-like test of language proficiency. The purpose of administering this test was to control for the possible effects of differential proficiency levels on the comprehension of multiple texts given to the students by homogenizing them in terms of language proficiency. After selecting 95 of the students whose scores fell in between ±0.5 SD from the mean of the test scores, they were given the prior knowledge measure to control for the effects of prior topic familiarity on their multiple text comprehension performance. As explained earlier, here again the participants' scores (N = 64) that fell between ±0.5 SD from the mean of the test knowledge measure scores were selected and the rest were omitted from the experiment. Therefore, the remaining 64 participants were homogenous in terms of both language proficiency and prior knowledge of the topic. These student participants were then given the EBI to fill out in their leisure time and to hand in to their English for Specific Purposes (ESP) instructors. It should be mentioned here that one of the researchers in the present study was teaching an English course to midwifery students in one of the universities and had three research assistants—all ESP instructors in three other universities for medical sciences where the study was performed. These research assistants cooperated with the researcher on a voluntary basis. This contributed to the sound administration of various phases of the study. After collecting the EBI, a time was agreed upon by both the researcher assistants and the participants to appear for the reading comprehension test. The researcher intended to make sure of the homogeneity in administration procedures. All participants appeared for the test at the appointed time and a folder was given to each of them which included (a) a demographic information sheet, (b) the reading passages, (c) the intertextual inference verification task, and (d) intratextual inference verification task. The time allocated to take the test was 90 minutes for all the participants. The participants were allowed to read the texts in any order they preferred when responding to the intertextual and intratextual inference verification tasks. After collecting the participants' exam folders, analysis of the data began.</p> <hd id="AN0098026383-13">Results</hd> <p>The study, as stated earlier, was carried out with the main aim of exploring the relationship between ESP students' personal epistemological beliefs and their understanding of multiple technical texts. As a first step in the analysis of the data, the descriptive statistics for the study's variables (Table 1) were calculated; then, the correlation between personal epistemological beliefs as a composite score and the participants' scores in intratextual and intertextual inferential understanding was calculated (Table 2).</p> <p>TABLE 1 The Descriptive Statistics for the Variables and Their Components (N = 64)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Mean</td><td>Std. deviation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intertextual reading scores</td><td char=".">9.57</td><td char=".">2.96</td></tr><tr><td>Intratextual reading scores</td><td char=".">11.65</td><td char=".">2.76</td></tr><tr><td>Epistemological beliefs (composite)</td><td char=".">77.53</td><td char=".">27.18</td></tr><tr><td>Simple knowledge</td><td char=".">17.90</td><td char=".">6.57</td></tr><tr><td>Certain knowledge</td><td char=".">13.85</td><td char=".">5.43</td></tr><tr><td>Omniscient authority</td><td char=".">12.29</td><td char=".">4.80</td></tr><tr><td>Innate ability</td><td char=".">19.45</td><td char=".">5.93</td></tr><tr><td>Quick learning</td><td char=".">14.01</td><td char=".">5.21</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>TABLE 2 Correlations of the Epistemological Beliefs (Composite Score) with Intertextual and Intratexual Comprehension</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td>Intertexual</td><td>Intratextual</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>comprehension</td><td>comprehension</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pearson correlation</td><td>Epistemological beliefs</td><td>−0.828</td><td>−0.782</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As shown in Table 2, the results show a significant correlation between epistemological beliefs of the student participants and their intertextual (r = −0.828) and intratextual (r = −0.782) inferential comprehension of multiple texts. The reason for the correlation being negative is that higher scores on the epistemological measure represent more naïve beliefs and lower scores indicate more sophisticated beliefs. Therefore, the more sophisticated the epistemological beliefs of the participants, the better their performance in both intertextual and intratextual inferential understanding of the texts. This is in line with the results of studies in L1 on the relationship between epistemological beliefs and students' intertextual inferential understanding of multiple reading passages; however, it falls in contrast to some of the studies, again in L1 settings, that associate naivety in epistemological beliefs with better performance in intratextual understanding of texts.</p> <p>Apart from calculating the correlation between the participants' personal epistemological beliefs as a composite score and their intratextual and intertextual inferential comprehension of multiple texts, the relationship between each of the dimensions of epistemological beliefs (simple knowledge, certain knowledge, omniscient authority, innate ability, and quick learning) and the participants' multiple texts understanding—both intertextul and intratextual—were calculated using regression analysis. The results are presented in Tables 3 and 4.</p> <p>TABLE 3 Model Summary (Intertextual Inferential Understanding)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Model</td><td>R</td><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></td><td>Std. deviation of estimate</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td char=".">0.836<sup>a</sup></td><td char=".">0.700</td><td char=".">0.674</td><td char=".">1.696</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <sups>a</sups>Predictors (Constant): simple knowledge, certain knowledge, omniscient authority, innate ability, and quick learning.</p> <p>TABLE 4 Correlations of the Dimensions and Intertextual Inferential Understanding</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Dimensions</td><td>Beta</td><td>Intertextual inferential understanding</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pearson</td><td>Certain knowledge</td><td char=".">−0.129</td><td char=".">−0.805</td></tr><tr><td>correlation</td><td>Omniscient authority</td><td char=".">0.335</td><td char=".">−0.802</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Quick learning</td><td char=".">0.850</td><td char=".">−0.831</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Innate ability</td><td char=".">−0.122</td><td char=".">−0.787</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Simple knowledge</td><td char=".">−0.076</td><td char=".">−0.803</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As the results (adjusted R square = 0.674) indicate, the dimensions of epistemological beliefs (simple knowledge, certain knowledge, omniscient authority, innate ability, and quick learning) have the potential to predict intertextual understanding of multiple texts. When this type of understanding is assessed against each of the dimensions, robust correlations are found between them.</p> <p>The same statistical procedure was run for investigating the link between dimensions of epistemological beliefs and intratextual understanding of the texts. Again here as shown in Table 5 the results (adjusted R square = 0.584) indicate the dimensions of epistemological beliefs (simple knowledge, certain knowledge, omniscient authority, innate ability, and quick learning) have the potential to predict intratextual understanding of the texts. Also, when this type of understanding is assessed against each of the dimensions, robust correlations are found between them, just like the case of intertextual understanding. The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 6, and the correlations are shown in Table 7.</p> <p>TABLE 5 Model Summary (Intratextual Inferential Understanding)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Model</td><td>R</td><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></td><td>Std. deviation of estimate</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td char=".">0.786<sup>a</sup></td><td char=".">0.617</td><td char=".">0.584</td><td char=".">1.781</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <sups>a</sups>Predictors (Constant): simple knowledge, certain knowledge, omniscient authority, innate ability, and quick learning.</p> <p>TABLE 6 Correlations of the Dimensions and Intertextual Inferential Understanding</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>Intertextual inferential</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Dimensions</td><td>Beta</td><td>understanding</td></tr><tr><td>Pearson</td><td>Certain knowledge</td><td char=".">0.011</td><td char=".">−0.742</td></tr><tr><td> correlation</td><td>Omniscient authority</td><td char=".">−0.078</td><td char=".">−0.770</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Quick learning</td><td char=".">−0.078</td><td char=".">−0.772</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Innate ability</td><td char=".">−0.171</td><td char=".">−0.738</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Simple knowledge</td><td char=".">−0.472</td><td char=".">−0.779</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>TABLE 7 EBI Structure and Sample Items from the Original Version of the Measure</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Dimensions of epistemology</td><td>Definition</td><td>Example items</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Simple knowledge</td><td>Beliefs that knowledge is simply facts as opposed to the belief that knowledge is better represented as complex theories</td><td>Instructors should focus on facts instead of theories.Most things worth knowing are easy to understand.</td></tr><tr><td>Certain knowledge</td><td>A dimension of epistemology which ranges from the personal beliefs that knowledge is static throughout time to the view that knowledge is tentative and changes over time</td><td>What is true today will be true tomorrow.What is true is a matter of opinion.</td></tr><tr><td>Omniscient authority</td><td>Beliefs that knowledge comes from those in authority as opposed to something that can be discovered and learned by anyone</td><td>People should not question authority.When someone in authority tells me what to do, I usually do it.</td></tr><tr><td>Innate ability</td><td>Personal beliefs ranging from the view that ability to learn is fixed at birth or that the ability to learn changes throughout an individual's time</td><td>How well you do in school depends on how smart you are. Some people are  born with special gifts  and talents.</td></tr><tr><td>Quick learning</td><td>The belief in how quickly knowledge can be acquired</td><td>Working on a problem with no quick solution is a waste of time. Students  who learn things quickly are the most successful.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Still at another level of analysis, the researcher intended to find out if there is any significant difference between the participants' intertextual understanding of multiple texts and their intratextual understanding. To this aim, a paired-samples T-test was run, and the results showed that there is a significant difference between the participants' intratextual and intertextual inferential understanding of multiple reading passages (df = 63, t = 7.87, sem = 0.2638, p < 0.0001). In fact, the participants performed significantly better in the intratextual inferential understanding of passages than in intertextual understanding across multiple texts.</p> <hd id="AN0098026383-14">Discussion</hd> <p>The results of the study provide evidence regarding the relationship between sophistication of epistemological beliefs and inferential intertextual and intratextual understanding of multiple technical texts by ESAP students. In particular, the results suggest that students holding more sophisticated overall epistemological beliefs and sophisticated beliefs in each of the dimensions of epistemology construct tend to perform better in the synthesis and integration of information units both within and across multiple texts. This, as pointed out earlier, seems to support findings of studies in L1 contexts which associate epistemological sophistication with better understanding across multiple texts (Bråten & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref57">9</reflink>], 2010b) but falls in contrast to the findings of the same studies which have advanced that naivety in epistemological stance can be associated with better inferential understanding within such documents. Better performance in within-document inferential comprehension associated with epistemological sophistication could be illuminated with reference to the results of studies within the single-text paradigm. These studies often link sophistication of epistemological stance with better performance in reading comprehension.</p> <p>Results of the regression analyses also demonstrated that ESAP students' inferential intratextual and intertextual understanding of multiple texts is strongly correlated with each of the dimensions of epistemological beliefs. This can be best illuminated with reference to the characteristics often associated with each of the dimensions of epistemology construct are concerned, which may serve to enhance or check students' cognitive resources and mold the ways they engage in academic activities (Steiner, 2007). However, the results should be interpreted with a bit of caution as the results are based principally on correlation (even though it is rather high in the present study), which does not show causality.</p> <p>For instance, students who believe in the view that knowledge is simple are often inclined to conceptualize acquisition of knowledge solely as an exercise in memorizing rote and often isolated facts, select study strategies geared toward factual learning and simple recall of facts, and do not try to form a comprehensive whole by integrating the isolated facts they learn (Schommer et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref58">48</reflink>]). Students with such a view toward knowledge are said to be after simple single answers, have a tendency to avoid ambiguity (Lodewyk, 2007), and do not tend to seek information from multiple resources or to synthesize ideas (Tolhurst, 2007). This view can have clear implications for multiple-documents comprehension, which "concerns the ability to locate, evaluate, and use diverse sources of information for the purpose of constructing and communicating an integrated, meaningful representation of a particular issue, subject, or situation" (Bråten & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>], p. 635). Therefore, these students are not likely to have a satisfactory performance in inferential understanding of multiple texts as opposed to students holding the sophisticated view that knowledge is complex and consists of highly interrelated concepts.</p> <p>Also, belief in the tentative, flexible, and constantly changing rather than the certain and unchanging nature of knowledge was highly correlated with multiple-texts comprehension. This is mainly because strong beliefs about the certainty of knowledge tend to keep students from engaging in deep processing of information (Trautwein & Lüdtke, 2007), which is in contrast to the processing demands of multiple-texts comprehension which calls for a higher-level strategic processing of texts and the information in them. Students with sophisticated epistemological beliefs in this dimension of epistemology are said to believe that once knowledge is acquired, it could be reshaped and revised. This might also have implications for multiple-texts literacy, which requires persistent retrospective glances at the texts and likely revisions of text-based hypotheses to build a correct mental representation of the ideas embedded in them.</p> <p>Similarly, the sophisticated belief in the malleable nature of the ability to learn rather than its fixed nature was found to be associated with inferential comprehension of multiple texts. Students with sophistication of epistemological beliefs in this dimension are more willing to invest time and effort in enhancing their learning capacity and are believed to possess more adaptive and flexible academic motivational beliefs and often tend to attribute their academic success or failure to the amount of effort they put forth for academic tasks (Kizilgunes, Tekkaya, & Sungur, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref60">26</reflink>]). These characteristics have the potential to be translated into a better performance in comprehension across multiple reading passages, as they seem to be in line with the requirements of reading comprehension such as extra time expenditure, adequate amount of effort put into the task, and successful self-regulated reading.</p> <p>The inferential understanding of multiple texts was also found to be associated with the fact that knowledge is reasoned and mined by the learner rather than provided by an all-knowing authority or an outside source. Sophistication of readers' epistemological stance on this dimension can modify their conceptions about themselves as the passive receptors of knowledge from an outside source to an active constructor of the knowledge hidden behind the print in interaction with the texts and may discourage them from blindly copying meaning from a text onto their minds. This perception is more congruent with the constructivist approaches to reading comprehension, which can, according to Schraw and Bruning ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref61">51</reflink>]), positively affect readers' personal engagement and understanding.</p> <p>Likewise, sophistication in the dimension of personal epistemological beliefs concerning the speed with which learning occurs was found to be correlated with multiple-documents comprehension in the present study. Students with sophisticated beliefs on this dimension believe that learning follows hard work and extra effort and cannot be come by quickly. This correlation might be due to the fact that people who believe that knowledge acquisition is easy and does not involve effort are less likely, compared with those who subscribe to the gradual and cumulative nature of learning, to display perseverance in their learning, particularly when they are confronted with academic tasks which take a rather long time and extra effort to come to results. These people may be expected to perform well in handling multiple documents, as understanding across such documents is far less quick and far more effortful than understanding of single texts (Wolfe & Goldman, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref62">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results of the study also provide evidence concerning the better performance of the participants in intratextual understanding than intertextual understanding of multiple texts. This could be attributed to the fact that participants are more familiar with intratextual comprehension and its processing demands, as the curricular conditions in which such students have been taught reading is heavily biased toward comprehension of single reading passages. There have been no attempts at introducing them to the multiple-texts literacy, which is in line with intertextual demands of present-day academic societies.</p> <hd id="AN0098026383-15">Conclusions</hd> <p>To date, research on multiple-texts comprehension has been carried out in only particular domains, the most noticeable of which being history (Britt & Sommer, 2004; Britt & Aglinskas, 2002; Kurby, Britt, & Magliano, 2005; Stahl, Hynd, Britton, McNish, & Bosquet, 1996; Wiley & Voss, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref63">60</reflink>]; Wineburg, 1991; Wolfe & Goldman, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref64">62</reflink>], among others). These studies have explored multiple-texts understanding in relation to variables like reasoning ability, text processing, task requirements, and so on. Sparse research has also been carried out on multiple-documents comprehension in some other domains such as educational psychology and law (Bråten & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref65">9</reflink>], 2010b).</p> <p>This foundational body of research speaks to the ever-growing importance attached to multiple-documents literacy in the academic life of the students. Given this increasing importance, the results of the present study take an important initial step toward bringing this type of literacy to the attention of ELT professionals in general and ESAP professionals and researchers in particular. As stated earlier, tertiary-level ESAP students are often faced with an enormous amount of reading in their university years and beyond. A great proportion of this reading in the linguistic target situations of these students, however, would involve building integrated understandings of content across multiple documents in their own disciplinary areas. Therefore, examining the factors likely to influence the way these students could reap the benefits associated with multiple-documents comprehension and literacy development in this area should be a top priority within the research agenda focusing on these students and their needs. The urgency lies in the fact that type of literacy is thought of as a major cognitive undertaking that could represent a serious challenge to any reader if not well aware of its requirements and mechanisms (Bråten & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref66">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present study investigated one of these factors, personal epistemological beliefs, whose importance had been implied in the previous literature in domains other than ELT and mostly in L1 contexts. The results of the study revealed the association between the sophistication of these beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. These results are consistent with the preliminary evidence and theoretical assumptions linking epistemology to multiple-text comprehension. Based on the results and in line with the preliminary evidence, it could be then tentatively argued that in order for ESAP students to profit from synthesizing and integrating information across multiple documents, they may need to develop sophisticated epistemological standpoints involving the beliefs.</p> <p>Given the fact that epistemological beliefs have the potential to influence students' multiple-text understanding, it is thus of prime importance to consider how to promote more sophisticated beliefs about the process of meaning construction across multiple texts in students. ELT, and more specifically ESAP, curricula could consider ways to enhance or revise beliefs that encourage students to step toward viewing knowledge and meaning construction as complex, requiring the integration and synthesis of ideas as well as task perseverance. The reason for investing in efforts to enhance or revise the epistemological standpoints of readers is best reflected in Bråten and Strømsø ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref67">9</reflink>]):</p> <p>...an important aspect of constructing meaning across texts seems to be that people believe that their role as readers and learners authorize them to build new complex knowledge through their own effort to integrate information. Many issues concerning multiple text understanding may thus be issues of personal epistemology as much as they are issues of cognition. (p. 476)</p> <p>The big question could, however, be how to structure reading courses and instructional ESAP reading programs which encourage the development of more sophisticated epistemological beliefs in learners and lead to greater personal involvement in meaning extraction across multiple documents.</p> <p>With regard to the poorer performance of the participants in the intertextual understanding of multiple passages, it is suggested that ESAP policy makers, materials developers, and teachers reflect on the inclusion of multiple-documents literacy, as an indispensable academic necessity in the current knowledge societies, in the ESAP curricula. This type of literacy is going to take on an even greater importance alongside the development of hypermedia technologies which, by nature, encourage the use of hyperlinks within texts, which increases the intertextuality of the texts as opposed to the linear nature of the traditional print-based texts.</p> <ref id="AN0098026383-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref50" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alizadeh, P.S. (2009). English for the students of midwifery. Tehran, Iran: Boshra Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, N. (1999). Exploring second language reading. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref28" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bell, P.D. (2006). Can factors related to self-regulated learning and epistemological beliefs predict learning achievement in undergraduate asynchronous web-based courses? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Greensboro, North Carolina.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bendixen, L., & Hartley, K. (2003). Successful learning with hypermedia: The role of epistemological beliefs and metacognitive awareness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 15–30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Benson, M.J. (1991). University ESL reading: A content analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 75–88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bernhardt, E.B., & Kamil, M.L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistics threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 15–34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boden, C.J. (2005). An exploratory study of the relationship between epistemological beliefs and self-directed learning readiness. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref40" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2004). Epistemological beliefs and implicit theories of intelligence as predictors of achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 371–388.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref45" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2006). Effects of personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts. Reading Psychology, 27, 457–484.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2010a). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2010b). When law students read multiple documents about global warming: Examining the role of topic-specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing. Instructional Science, 38(6), 635–657.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bråten, I., Strømsø, H.I., & Samuelstuen, M.S. (2008). Are sophisticated students always better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 814–840.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brisbois, J.E. (1995). Connections between first and second-language reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(4), 565–584.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Britt, M.A., & Aglinskas, C.(2002). Improving students' ability to identify and use source information. Cognition & Instruction, 20(4), 485–522.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Britt, M.A., & Sommer, J.(2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing task. Reading Psychology, 25, 313–339.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buehl, M.M., & Alexander, P.A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students' domain-specific epistemological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 697–726.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carrell, P.L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? The Language Teacher,. 22(3).. Retrieved from http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp./jalt/pub/tlt/98/mar/carrell.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham, J.W., & Fitzgerald, J. (1996). Epistemology and reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 36–61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dhieb-Henia, N. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy training for reading research articles in an ESP context. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 387–417.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faust, M., & Kandelshine-Waldman, O. (2011). The effects of different approaches to reading instruction on letter detection tasks in normally achieving and low achieving readers. Reading and Writing, 24(5), 545–566.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jehng, J., Johnson, S., & Anderson, R. (1993). Schooling and students' epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 23–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kardash, C.M., & Howell, K.L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates' cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 524–535.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karimi, M.N., & Shabani, M.B. (2013). Comparing the strategic behavior of more successful vs. less successful readers of multiple technical reading texts. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 125–138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kitchener, K.S., & King, P.M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 89–116.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kizilgunes, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2009). Modeling the relations among students' epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 243–255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kobayashi, K. (2010). Strategic use of multiple texts for the evaluation of arguments. Reading Psychology, 31, 121–149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurby, C.A., Britt, M.A., & Magliano, J.P. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 26(4–5), 335–362.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In H. Bejoint & P. Arnaud (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126–132). London, UK: MacMillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J., & Schallert, D.L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance. TESOL Quarterly 31(4), 713–739.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lodewyk, K.R. (2007). Relations among epistemological beliefs, academic achievement, and task performance in secondary school students. Educational Psychology, 27(3), 307–327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, and study practices in medicine and psychology. Higher Education, 31, 5–24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> March, M. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Influence on academic performance in higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason, L., Scirica, F., & Salvi, L. (2006). Effects of beliefs about meaning construction and task instructions on interpretation of narrative text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(4), 411–437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeil, L. (2011). Investigating the contributions of background knowledge and reading comprehension strategies to L2 reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading and Writing, 24, 883–902.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mizokawa, D.T., & Hansen-Krening, N. (2000). The ABCs of attitudes toward reading: Inquiring about the reader's response. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(1), 72–80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paulsen, M.B., & Feldman, K.A. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning. Journal of Staff, Program and Organizational Development, 16(2), 83–91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pritchard, M., & Nasr, A. (2004). Improving reading performance among Egyptian engineering students: Principles and practices. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 425–445.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qian, D.D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282–307.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qian, G. (2000). Relationship between epistemological beliefs and conceptual change learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, 59–74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ricco, R., Pierce, S., & Medinilla, C. (2010). Epistemic beliefs and achievement motivation in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(2), 305–340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richter, T., & Schmid, S. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 47–65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Royer, J.M., Carlo, M.S., Dufresne, R., & Mestre, J. (1996). The assessment of levels of domain expertise while reading. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 373–408.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rukavina, I., & Daneman, M. (1996). Integration and its effect on acquiring knowledge about competing scientific theories from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 272–287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saito, Y., Horwitz, E.K., & Garza, T.J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 202–218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schommer, M. (1989). The effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 24–35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 435–443.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1997). Epistemological beliefs and valuing school: Considerations for college admissions and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 173–188.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schraw, G., Bendixen, L., & Dunkle, M.E. (2002). Development and validation of the epistemic belief inventory. In B.K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261–276). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schraw, G., & Bruning, R. (1996). Readers' implicit models of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 290–305.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schraw, G., & Bruning, R. (1999). How implicit models of reading affect motivation to read and reading engagement. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 281–302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role of social and self-regulatory processes. In J.T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 34–50). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, S. (2002). Effects of subskills and text types on Korean EFL reading scores. Second Language Studies, 20(2), 107–130.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl, S.A., Hynd, C.R., Britton, B.K., McNish, M.M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430–456.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steiner, L.A. (2007). Effects of personal and epistemological beliefs on performance in a college developmental mathematics class. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taillefer, G., & Pugh, T. (1998). Strategies for professional reading in L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading, 21(2), 96–108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolhurst, D. (2007). The influence of learning environments on students' epistemological beliefs and learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 219–233.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2007). Epistemological beliefs, school achievement, and college major: A large-scale longitudinal study on the impact of certainty beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 348–366.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiley, J., & Voss, J.F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73–87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolfe, M.B. W., & Goldman, S.R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467–502.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, P., & Kardash, C. (2002). Critical elements in the design and analysis of studies of epistemology. In B.K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 231–260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamashita, J. (2002). Reading strategies in L1 and L2: Comparison of four groups of readers with different reading ability in L1 and L2. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 135–136, 1–35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, L.J. (2005). Developing students' extensive reading skills through the use of "The Article Explorer." In P.F. Kwah & M. Vallance (Eds.), Teaching English to Chinese Students (pp. 30–36). Singapore: Pearson Education.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mohammad Nabi Karimi and Mohamood Reza Atai</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref63"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1038667
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: ESAP Students' Comprehension of Multiple Technical Reading Texts: Insights from Personal Epistemological Beliefs
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Karimi%2C+Mohammad+Nabi%22">Karimi, Mohammad Nabi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Atai%2C+Mohamood+Reza%22">Atai, Mohamood Reza</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Psychology%22"><i>Reading Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2014 35(8):736-761.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 26
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+for+Special+Purposes%22">English for Special Purposes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+for+Academic+Purposes%22">English for Academic Purposes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+and+Technical+Information%22">Scientific and Technical Information</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Epistemology%22">Epistemology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beliefs%22">Beliefs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+Students%22">Medical Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Females%22">Females</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Obstetrics%22">Obstetrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Regression+%28Statistics%29%22">Regression (Statistics)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Iran%22">Iran</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02702711.2013.802753
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0270-2711
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Given the importance associated with multiple-document literacy in the present-day knowledge societies and the dearth of research in English Language Teaching in general and English for Specific/Academic Purposes (ESAP) contexts in particular on multiple-document comprehension and the significance of reader beliefs in this type of comprehension, the present study was carried out with the aim of investigating the relationship between ESAP students' personal epistemological beliefs and their inferential intratextual and intertextual understanding of multiple texts. To this aim, 64 first-semester midwifery students were selected as the participants of the study. They were required to read four passages on multi-fetal pregnancy which discussed different aspects of this phenomenon. Having filled out the Epistemological Beliefs Inventory, they were tested on the inferential intratextual and intertextual comprehension of the texts. Results of the analyses of the data revealed significant associations between epistemological beliefs and the inferential comprehension of multiple texts. The results also indicated the poorer performance of the participants in intertextual inferential understanding of the texts compared with the intratextual understanding of them. The study concludes with tentative implication of the findings for ESAP reading courses.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 65
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1038667
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1038667
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02702711.2013.802753
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 26
        StartPage: 736
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: English for Special Purposes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English for Academic Purposes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific and Technical Information
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Epistemology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beliefs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Females
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Obstetrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Regression (Statistics)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Iran
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: ESAP Students' Comprehension of Multiple Technical Reading Texts: Insights from Personal Epistemological Beliefs
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Karimi, Mohammad Nabi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Atai, Mohamood Reza
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2014
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0270-2711
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 35
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1