| dc.creator |
MONICA REICHENBERG |
|
| dc.date |
2010-05-01T00:00:00Z |
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2015-08-12T11:18:29Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2015-08-12T11:18:29Z |
|
| dc.identifier |
1567-6617 |
|
| dc.identifier |
1573-1731 |
|
| dc.identifier |
https://doaj.org/article/9bec5e3bb2b74059a7f76e89975cb97d |
|
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://evidence.thinkportal.org/handle/123456789/26955 |
|
| dc.description |
The study presents a comparison between deaf participants´ (14-65 years of age) comprehensionof expository texts. Each participant was exposed to 12 texts with regard to the following four differentconditions: 1. Silent reading of an authentic text. 2. Viewing of a videotaped signed authentic text 3.Silent reading of an easy-to-read text 4. Viewing of a videotaped signed easy-to-read- text. The conditionswere counterbalanced in order to control order and passage effects. The good deaf readers had ahigher mean score than the poor deaf readers on all text versions. There was a significant difference inmean scores between good deaf and poor deaf readers on the easy-to-read text version. How then can theresults be explained? All of the easy-to-read texts were much shorter than the authentic texts. However,since there has to be the identical content as in the authentic texts, there was much implicit information inthe easy-to-read texts. Consequently, the reader needs prior knowledge and reading experience to fill inthe missing information in the text. A conclusion is that the easy-to-read texts did not serve their purposethen since the process of simplification itself has given rise to the removal of structures that are relevantto facilitate understanding. |
|
| dc.language |
English |
|
| dc.publisher |
IAIMTE |
|
| dc.relation |
http://l1.publication-archive.com/public?fn=enter&repository=1&article=337 |
|
| dc.relation |
https://doaj.org/toc/1567-6617 |
|
| dc.relation |
https://doaj.org/toc/1573-1731 |
|
| dc.rights |
CC BY-NC-ND |
|
| dc.source |
L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, Vol 10, Iss 2, Pp 19-39 (2010) |
|
| dc.subject |
deaf readers |
|
| dc.subject |
reading comprehension |
|
| dc.subject |
expository texts |
|
| dc.subject |
authentic texts |
|
| dc.subject |
easy-to-read texts |
|
| dc.subject |
Philology. Linguistics |
|
| dc.subject |
P1-1091 |
|
| dc.subject |
Language and Literature |
|
| dc.subject |
P |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Linguistics |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Languages and Literatures |
|
| dc.subject |
Theory and practice of education |
|
| dc.subject |
LB5-3640 |
|
| dc.subject |
Education |
|
| dc.subject |
L |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Education |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Social Sciences |
|
| dc.subject |
Philology. Linguistics |
|
| dc.subject |
P1-1091 |
|
| dc.subject |
Language and Literature |
|
| dc.subject |
P |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Linguistics |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Languages and Literatures |
|
| dc.subject |
Theory and practice of education |
|
| dc.subject |
LB5-3640 |
|
| dc.subject |
Education |
|
| dc.subject |
L |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Education |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Social Sciences |
|
| dc.subject |
Philology. Linguistics |
|
| dc.subject |
P1-1091 |
|
| dc.subject |
Language and Literature |
|
| dc.subject |
P |
|
| dc.subject |
Theory and practice of education |
|
| dc.subject |
LB5-3640 |
|
| dc.subject |
Education |
|
| dc.subject |
L |
|
| dc.subject |
Philology. Linguistics |
|
| dc.subject |
P1-1091 |
|
| dc.subject |
Language and Literature |
|
| dc.subject |
P |
|
| dc.subject |
Theory and practice of education |
|
| dc.subject |
LB5-3640 |
|
| dc.subject |
Education |
|
| dc.subject |
L |
|
| dc.subject |
Philology. Linguistics |
|
| dc.subject |
P1-1091 |
|
| dc.subject |
Language and Literature |
|
| dc.subject |
P |
|
| dc.subject |
Theory and practice of education |
|
| dc.subject |
LB5-3640 |
|
| dc.subject |
Education |
|
| dc.subject |
L |
|
| dc.title |
DEAF ADULTS AND COMPREHENSIONOF EXPOSITORY TEXTS |
|
| dc.type |
article |
|