<%BANNER%>

Second Language Reading: The Interrelationships among Text Adjuncts, Students' Proficiency Levels and Reading Strategies

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011351/00001

Material Information

Title: Second Language Reading: The Interrelationships among Text Adjuncts, Students' Proficiency Levels and Reading Strategies
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011351:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011351/00001

Material Information

Title: Second Language Reading: The Interrelationships among Text Adjuncts, Students' Proficiency Levels and Reading Strategies
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011351:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101124_AAAAEH INGEST_TIME 2010-11-25T02:05:42Z PACKAGE UFE0011351_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 19785 DFID F20101124_AADBKE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH park_h_Page_016.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b33fd5f578063704850b0d606ad49b5a
SHA-1
61d8fa4b844e51ab020bc3ef153382c419e2a4d9
25927 F20101124_AADBJQ park_h_Page_006.QC.jpg
425156c0e41a39c1d0c21a28a083e28f
18c3ac8e55e6b7cdeb2561ffaf572c43f4ca42dd
6318 F20101124_AADBKF park_h_Page_021thm.jpg
d132dbe1e08700be668fee1bef91dc94
e30b7f625658f2d6462dd8aaf304bc7573208f99
6610 F20101124_AADBKG park_h_Page_022thm.jpg
fd4179fbf927b1a7273d2d36ee73e0a5
34f94133a5cba0dbb3da2eff0c092f251f115ffe
6325 F20101124_AADBJR park_h_Page_006thm.jpg
ed1de34787dc2f0b9a11002ad32e4294
820c3576176327364d068cd514b2b36733dd32b4
20915 F20101124_AADBJS park_h_Page_007.QC.jpg
6d5ba9052311d7adece8dae800116c2f
6c8607c12a783b4b976c5085c6dda12d49d1ff4b
6587 F20101124_AADBKH park_h_Page_024thm.jpg
dcf3c1e88f0fc7dbe1814699c412c205
e720cfe63210dfb7f95f4ea2c8e5bae5144ebd88
5217 F20101124_AADBJT park_h_Page_007thm.jpg
fd7caec62c573dcdb967474221b27d86
6d95a5c5a440dcfbeac48be2f585ca4270e82002
6535 F20101124_AADBKI park_h_Page_026thm.jpg
581de14c4336123fa4b0585a57e72b1c
de1e326e64e5adf3515ca1e3de83538a48ab6119
1560 F20101124_AADBJU park_h_Page_008thm.jpg
942ca0006fd7521219474825a5e24175
6371c2c9c2d4e7a264b748fa072bbf6b107aea54
6431 F20101124_AADBKJ park_h_Page_027thm.jpg
8c57c997cc2fcf80f8a859ec85baff55
9b6cefa2fc17e70d8ee5c43dc74bf736e42249a2
20377 F20101124_AADBJV park_h_Page_009.QC.jpg
3c8c347935635415b2ab7fcf6c547e55
bf2d373ce174d9bcbaf0d70bf84a2a46538e0c49
22145 F20101124_AADBKK park_h_Page_028.QC.jpg
cbb377d9976c1d0d5bfc794c278f6a0a
3e53ed145df4ce850b19a7acdc29552037d5a535
11374 F20101124_AADBJW park_h_Page_010.QC.jpg
4238951bf9c95f86335571d6307fc3b1
8ee29e15e14f4f66ef969277835279e6a32d09fd
22494 F20101124_AADBKL park_h_Page_029.QC.jpg
0f7b8c0879dc9759416b78bf619db028
0ca5e04edf2f0611561cda5b131733c7c676ff3a
19634 F20101124_AADBJX park_h_Page_011.QC.jpg
bc058bfbd4014ab42ce6513a45939148
3b5d700d9668df41661c0afc94a16437bd1693fa
6429 F20101124_AADBLA park_h_Page_044thm.jpg
2f2769c90b02908cbf67d5b8bc326339
03955f8c9fc889482c055555fef9191ed7f38d31
6374 F20101124_AADBKM park_h_Page_029thm.jpg
19fe1a2ee983ddf01c08f51d13040ca6
bd343fe8923b8794c1dc327fe3a0f3f658d49e5a
5360 F20101124_AADBJY park_h_Page_011thm.jpg
90a11ae851abf648d6bbe1e825fec77f
ec9c8ab6954ef8266b98ee4c3e2e15ce65287967
6511 F20101124_AADBLB park_h_Page_046thm.jpg
9c24bd210d3fcf0d32acfe81081e1e18
1a1b37674cefcef872ad6705925ee01fa117bcf3
25081 F20101124_AADBKN park_h_Page_030.QC.jpg
5cef7de5e9697f8ac27d4a09a9d5600b
846e1a893b995ee5261a69fb2c94645fca3f7330
14582 F20101124_AADBJZ park_h_Page_012.QC.jpg
fbd0d96a1efecec6194d386094a05440
bf264421f07fd4dbd2803d5a3018a58382326246
22008 F20101124_AADBLC park_h_Page_047.QC.jpg
4231d8e5d050f3ce8138d7959edc1013
cd6c89e0b99544508363705148e6196c0872b0ac
6372 F20101124_AADBKO park_h_Page_031thm.jpg
1336eedd991ad9ff78a3d8c410f9af43
3e69198aaa20f6a6acf5b80959b0b0d3fb1b3f0a
6453 F20101124_AADBLD park_h_Page_047thm.jpg
3a45aaa69dfb1ec5c0dee2b076f22aef
f3173dffdb86c7848b98bc89b9fe45447b1db84a
24920 F20101124_AADBKP park_h_Page_033.QC.jpg
72f79f480c527a5981c5bca1af89a87f
494e66d62e231b37f67f829b35d32551ddd1bab3
6261 F20101124_AADBLE park_h_Page_049thm.jpg
40c55eca68b106e0e2601acc9bd15b42
7fc05c041bff18b91c093f466eb99b0ef8fb65ae
6524 F20101124_AADBKQ park_h_Page_034thm.jpg
82dc182b442db066abc9e9b917651f94
e90047ccf142256161e862bcbdc035aa2b1a7d83
6602 F20101124_AADBLF park_h_Page_050thm.jpg
a94297a8eec9c44f3c47547c34e7dbaf
ff0cb84baf037519b776d2346d2815a87ebfd630
24579 F20101124_AADBKR park_h_Page_036.QC.jpg
cab826b83393640e484835e87c9c1ba9
df09e12465d77d1ba06b553cfbaba566f73d1e44
6654 F20101124_AADBLG park_h_Page_051thm.jpg
d9a0a0f7b18660fff1f37d694d9f0177
0724a3a8b2d8df9709a9c4577c7292ded0f2abba
23670 F20101124_AADBLH park_h_Page_052.QC.jpg
b17cf6ba0aca174892afe38171745cd5
70740c9871f615373ae34bb51c22ffc64a55bb0c
6672 F20101124_AADBKS park_h_Page_036thm.jpg
303f98af164e5e24d2cf6d06d60fcc9b
7e166b27bcedcba994ea8ea78b752dbf2a06f4ec
6486 F20101124_AADBLI park_h_Page_052thm.jpg
2389a04403ad561eababcded477a1305
c4cf340de2bcc292dc3fa6a6070d4fa1a68893b1
22737 F20101124_AADBKT park_h_Page_037.QC.jpg
daf5c99e88ef905d509f4be2ad0b4cf9
d3a1c2a173c89e38552b772e902e5ee895370457
6496 F20101124_AADBLJ park_h_Page_053thm.jpg
f5fe205aa54d287a30a74172c3df2f34
01473e35647aa2af35e97daf2dc62fccf3475f01
6498 F20101124_AADBKU park_h_Page_037thm.jpg
307694119d11c562a64b8824b92a97cb
3ba7ab00f074652f6d0fbfb403a8c33de03c2e31
20791 F20101124_AADBLK park_h_Page_054.QC.jpg
3a9dab0f2d63c6441cb0ebfd3e4c7ad9
f7809e19377308adfcca827cf0d1e154a12e9f98
23171 F20101124_AADBKV park_h_Page_038.QC.jpg
508261ca6f40680267c9b54d038b4dc5
0de71b1468153ad22c1a1dc58b70a8b01c1d3d58
6125 F20101124_AADBLL park_h_Page_054thm.jpg
f1b9bac4e9ef54209e5c152605f39b58
7a93712d4924cc258eb56c6ab8aa81a2e989dd74
6510 F20101124_AADBKW park_h_Page_038thm.jpg
9250c9a28d96f30363c1353a9b0ba272
ace72a56f4b2b279034c59da3aef06d52cd0e696
5904 F20101124_AADBMA park_h_Page_069thm.jpg
5fa9f443d9259cbca9b9c5af3ff6269d
a218983e19b41f190911a7a20e1b78ec6b121401
20544 F20101124_AADBLM park_h_Page_056.QC.jpg
3d01c9ef13a36932ff76d87980d4df7f
04e5320dca3555bb3868381c653911d71fa8388c
23652 F20101124_AADBKX park_h_Page_040.QC.jpg
80971b9fddc67407785d07ea12c0d989
e2daa910aa3b8552160f008565a5faf9c565d0bf
18732 F20101124_AADBMB park_h_Page_070.QC.jpg
70bc59a8b9127d443958679decfe9e1d
446ed0e6e88aa59684bf254b3679daf4fcfa20ee
5752 F20101124_AADBLN park_h_Page_056thm.jpg
81bb65d255df6fa8ad49a6d92fa783d2
ac2ea5d6a96a34ee0ff59dc1cb25fdb6f5d0f81b
24331 F20101124_AADBKY park_h_Page_041.QC.jpg
84228d90d579e016d1ce3e711fb01abc
ac6015ffb2f1c4d52865ec314cb7d2f71b45b12e
5313 F20101124_AADBMC park_h_Page_070thm.jpg
45750409df2bf068a0173326977fa1fd
7d78607659e1d1601c70e09a13879914478ea512
6552 F20101124_AADBLO park_h_Page_057thm.jpg
15c541f951a9f7ac23f9676dac08b25d
6ab83fe5085a123e35dc44f07f0696beedec9f13
6392 F20101124_AADBKZ park_h_Page_043thm.jpg
5b8211d6d93df35482b31207227f4cbe
36bbba2f08dd311739c48da85131bfbfb7736861
6645 F20101124_AADBMD park_h_Page_071thm.jpg
526fd31b2dc0e8be2328f8cd3c11a9c0
ed98e2e15ffb2c024513816bedca0ae53bc9de3a
17701 F20101124_AADBLP park_h_Page_058.QC.jpg
7b6374490c698542a7475d03b749515d
2ec06b8f44170c7a4f933d9404a88c077f26d88e
5534 F20101124_AADBME park_h_Page_073thm.jpg
6a716a30ffd908f296ee3f2924fb201a
a960b18a15e33e77e6dc2be3e2a386fa360d9067
5209 F20101124_AADBLQ park_h_Page_058thm.jpg
f9fc335451f155be150c6b8853bd0a31
d86a3d783b2a16e9bc8a21e63bdcff3980429f9f
23796 F20101124_AADBMF park_h_Page_074.QC.jpg
e7fe4a34183bdacc2f5f73ee820eebc5
a857e52b31cbd37c38d21b5fba08d8a677db163e
6658 F20101124_AADBLR park_h_Page_060thm.jpg
58f0ddfd264a7c6e85c553fcc14f5253
3de243a2907ec3190ee4fb8b3af91ffdaabb46a1
23734 F20101124_AADBMG park_h_Page_077.QC.jpg
4e395ff28847c90c8c4782d46c4739c4
e81b11b2006083792f537cdb7a349730f424bf77
21872 F20101124_AADBLS park_h_Page_061.QC.jpg
06c3307ff6543cae51978a15fa33e501
e022f1eed7628c4621109d9f9d244d4d8b5b6f2f
6489 F20101124_AADBMH park_h_Page_077thm.jpg
9f29aceffd6210dc4e50fc59f85bf015
659098a74215b3309cad92f1ad31bec8f30a1bda
22083 F20101124_AADBMI park_h_Page_078.QC.jpg
8bfda74749550e10c085dd6e4a786b02
c21a43fa083551be110bf28a0d84403d36beb221
5805 F20101124_AADBLT park_h_Page_061thm.jpg
2fed0739ee96460e82a0706cc735f851
b420cf020f69b0a53e4b88695c73c43b5e1d4301
6353 F20101124_AADBMJ park_h_Page_078thm.jpg
ea2bfbce00f6d979bde2aacc7bb2567d
36b4f6c61c1d0f27863f546a3769e860aebadad0
22966 F20101124_AADBLU park_h_Page_062.QC.jpg
881624b4cf4e74d5c470190d4e55e289
c6f2fc40092360a1f93b7395077764a802b8af19
23175 F20101124_AADBMK park_h_Page_079.QC.jpg
33a14513466bf12000f3b474b9a22732
2c7e147fdc6569dada3faceeb59b6edf28409d31
6388 F20101124_AADBLV park_h_Page_062thm.jpg
7c14d319f1922fa2958d525f19e2ceb8
d3bff912fa1a9834f7440f5aa10afc02ec94e4e9
6404 F20101124_AADBML park_h_Page_079thm.jpg
8a77e38169304d8ec21ee2fb0fe6555e
8074f1af8a821b185f86fbb429a918582e4687c6
5748 F20101124_AADBLW park_h_Page_066thm.jpg
2778bf07642792c90b3d917306739d3a
49d095adae86a504b6cb061787fe588e9d845194
21246 F20101124_AADBMM park_h_Page_080.QC.jpg
d64c5dc4c38f4c3ec1f44e152b57801d
a80d1f2d2ed29ce52af02f41ab5032ca44898ab4
24264 F20101124_AADBLX park_h_Page_067.QC.jpg
c54965c8550f377a1df3a953c5936991
d4e8e7b455c9d61e2093dc291517c37521a1365c
9780 F20101124_AADBNA park_h_Page_090.QC.jpg
2cc97f198d9792ffbd383911c90e924e
5302ec97cb8dfd606fb2910309f0750698f13906
6056 F20101124_AADBMN park_h_Page_080thm.jpg
a33879fc83fa97fee79291b19275813a
224cbb383eef1abdd606357e46700dd46aa30518
6651 F20101124_AADBLY park_h_Page_067thm.jpg
78cf459f1d5d7e15181dfbfad6ac5f34
127d6669687b3c1b401dc2ae8c74480d74fcf710
3104 F20101124_AADBNB park_h_Page_090thm.jpg
2511f1a1b17b4789236c1a70bcbb0202
ae05f4d09723faa0880c307cc13bc52420569423
22520 F20101124_AADBMO park_h_Page_081.QC.jpg
e35d0e889d43d3eb682c5647b3fc4c5b
bda44d48565aaa61ff3b0fc50ea6e10df544d127
20180 F20101124_AADBLZ park_h_Page_069.QC.jpg
4c0fff52a8c794a81da159e7d832a664
6bd72a5e9bfed074f8c68891ea497493519f91a3
5980 F20101124_AADBNC park_h_Page_091thm.jpg
3c7404841eb5f9622c3751f14b40ede9
f646664b9958bdfa5f851f4de70cb5567341dc3e
6365 F20101124_AADBMP park_h_Page_081thm.jpg
50c6b8b2fa70fbedfc20290bd0045c79
664fbe14b8a1a3da57d49d9a38165d5d9272bf6d
24537 F20101124_AADBND park_h_Page_092.QC.jpg
3182e30102257ed32191f1f6c1ed17a5
65fedfe8416d69298f1c4eda6a421bc2b0310f17
21326 F20101124_AADBMQ park_h_Page_082.QC.jpg
ceb85ebee4516d2add41ea39249dc689
1ba6b94514f33770572d0b5756a93484dafd8ba6
6697 F20101124_AADBNE park_h_Page_092thm.jpg
c5f018384bb947c0e33f36fe8b8424f5
906310907d684086a9c1acca18504c41c341fa82
6019 F20101124_AADBMR park_h_Page_082thm.jpg
44c86ef62d6e86d7327810383a255b09
04e7a984c2769af6dedfb9f2b3d10d9e034b8174
24295 F20101124_AADBNF park_h_Page_093.QC.jpg
f790f74497f4d76a41c6c09f1e50028c
bd10d94ac9a66c39fe18da4b99c50a34efdf327e
5487 F20101124_AADBMS park_h_Page_083thm.jpg
a8c52462ea9a68bea69ee6c1566cb864
441fa0f0f6ead6ced126394b62a7273fc3e1546b
6633 F20101124_AADBNG park_h_Page_093thm.jpg
104194c000b3a502ce77b41035914eff
85138d183ca291b96ae6570d8bc0436f9d478bf1
24493 F20101124_AADBMT park_h_Page_084.QC.jpg
2727820c4defd9e9479c9b9f2d5d735a
e8abab4b24a9d686d54ec5f4a02d1b162a823d70
6418 F20101124_AADBNH park_h_Page_094thm.jpg
3193d9cf1024c2c8a928743894cdde4a
2cf7f5843f249d9d36788143c6031a1700f8e6cf
23379 F20101124_AADBNI park_h_Page_095.QC.jpg
157a50abc4b83ac839b01c2e0c0602c8
bd10016b635f8b5f0d78af96c0e719e834509f7e
21974 F20101124_AADBMU park_h_Page_085.QC.jpg
677761652b0a0323b359ee00366fd9c1
f171bf7e3ba721f1ffab9a71873475d586cb6885
6415 F20101124_AADBNJ park_h_Page_095thm.jpg
f71190e1f37ffb2aa367e3cbb80e3098
844c8025cd46ef30b250a71faa9ffd9230eadc6e
6217 F20101124_AADBMV park_h_Page_085thm.jpg
c270f12ff69a8e6a844037a6c79b3289
e9425e8e286922c8730b8b8b4298c3459033f861
21841 F20101124_AADBNK park_h_Page_096.QC.jpg
8a778d54f24b75d9e8b50cad63878dc2
e5f0763cb56c23ed4fc1f8ffb42d92626a2d2cb0
21543 F20101124_AADBMW park_h_Page_086.QC.jpg
dcc32390cc92f1d6bb08f138594e7662
43b6922687b4e610ac0d5670d33ea04f90286b89
23571 F20101124_AADBNL park_h_Page_097.QC.jpg
0920f10f118d6d6a375a59dbdd102da6
e78be2c28f5c54d6c83fb59bad111f8f335683bb
24973 F20101124_AADBMX park_h_Page_087.QC.jpg
12b2e07c11518814db0bc91ded3cef60
ef15cb85e67a0da60ff6eea7b0125fd95c54b0db
24620 F20101124_AADBOA park_h_Page_111.QC.jpg
e3dd89756566fb83a609be4ec5049e72
82ecb1dbcb324f2012461b536ee63d73753398f1
6311 F20101124_AADBNM park_h_Page_097thm.jpg
112431c2bb62559c60355d8eaf1abbce
a110234affff701aaef682a1f0513c74f4c3eb5f
6829 F20101124_AADBMY park_h_Page_087thm.jpg
7bc01bcbcb4c992e4d96506790d46461
3f78ef286084b3244f1747be2118bf72a9c225c7
6782 F20101124_AADBOB park_h_Page_111thm.jpg
11f4f1554a3341431c7212cd2819261d
d6332d9e7fc31d96b5d08d53e07f7e86b34dc0d2
24014 F20101124_AADBNN park_h_Page_098.QC.jpg
b159c7dd4b65a542d9c0bc2fe2bff018
e10357da1f6dcd46ccb7c70340b6e7db7918dc58
21780 F20101124_AADBMZ park_h_Page_089.QC.jpg
227a771d11aa2a6e88414304b253ac5c
2247e7a82a26f299308ea4854a23a4caf449d0f4
22792 F20101124_AADBOC park_h_Page_112.QC.jpg
cf5d2bc1d5f09c26d0dff73118a44403
864a8e0585c59f17e9587d43f0c10c38ee4afa62
F20101124_AADBNO park_h_Page_098thm.jpg
39dfa4c690b985270dcb74584ba4bd77
59b024faa51c9a371c3098a58c3cd50d1bdbbb3c
3875 F20101124_AADBOD park_h_Page_114thm.jpg
b444d36038eae6c15ce522253eb7ff87
e80bba4f90166c95c4609af9ba9cc587b6b387f2
24395 F20101124_AADBNP park_h_Page_099.QC.jpg
a9d274a94524f919c6fbd403012244ce
abbc5aa006220e4b300036b494f42c49c2f493e1
18513 F20101124_AADBOE park_h_Page_115.QC.jpg
0c10e464261d4fc84a862caf41a66d4f
db761ea3913990c1a5748465dd2f68475f9b2f5b
6670 F20101124_AADBNQ park_h_Page_099thm.jpg
8eae32a5a8e2eecc6830d345bc17b797
58e4e5d6e03c17a15225cb9f91ae7c89fcbc33df
11357 F20101124_AADBOF park_h_Page_116.QC.jpg
7bacf24ece7fd10870235bde07635662
389ba2e83af14060d5905c27ed61653d7ea7a0c9
23832 F20101124_AADBNR park_h_Page_100.QC.jpg
ca14ae8fa006b13e5c6f3a70f9880531
6cd4cfb839a4780a5654f8bd8e411aaa86cca7f8
20963 F20101124_AADBOG park_h_Page_118.QC.jpg
d8b8d8252dc4d694e15875583e2093d1
84071118a55d7140443838c09b0e6fd4c1b01211
24511 F20101124_AADBNS park_h_Page_101.QC.jpg
fde34fa7d2f55b4a34c1696e3a502d41
d8c65fa396ebe71bd0f90df5f06cb222ea738f29
21020 F20101124_AADBOH park_h_Page_119.QC.jpg
715ad334f6495fe3c162df1eadde5972
5aa71b7e0d271b7146782412be531c87c8d4704e
6454 F20101124_AADBNT park_h_Page_103thm.jpg
8f2eed76e97f60bbe1639ca93b3dd5dc
edc3558e70c3f902c1ed6f723baf27889d1321db
21948 F20101124_AADBOI park_h_Page_120.QC.jpg
74e625d9df8c1e6ec757c3a28be73bd8
7bf73914a0ba113da19394b6f3a6d934819a2286
8500 F20101124_AADBNU park_h_Page_104.QC.jpg
d3a3984e41e2b6aee70e843fd6d9c30b
5a8f24680d7ba98436b16b4a6339ba2bb0d60cee
6246 F20101124_AADBOJ park_h_Page_120thm.jpg
5e957ee1cf8692cdc0da8ab65b7ef16a
f5ce8a3c075f3485cb7cb302431eaa7f99561619
6253 F20101124_AADBOK park_h_Page_121thm.jpg
77c07a15771624e1cbadb6ef14115ba0
d26862c69523b171da4dd6059933d642569ffe31
2620 F20101124_AADBNV park_h_Page_104thm.jpg
fd2acbbabccf69d80b574509abc1e4f2
a29b59a3ba083d40bf700378ceec725785fc6f9a
5831 F20101124_AADBOL park_h_Page_122thm.jpg
b580a2545871d219bc81279b8405b1b2
fc38254903889b324d532f1270387ba9bfb27a02
22053 F20101124_AADBNW park_h_Page_106.QC.jpg
9d88c6affd76bb09f797101c9cb76813
bf69a6de2fdc754895f43fa55449d879d5fa3160
21649 F20101124_AADBPA park_h_Page_141.QC.jpg
52c2b8967045c78d41bbe624e4b9b603
761d2016816816a30b8c308cfc14ec9c7ce6efa2
15871 F20101124_AADBOM park_h_Page_124.QC.jpg
a23ec1ff95150bcf414e1630b68c2871
271f0d697e1db01590ac20e9dbe9a25fb55e1ffb
23045 F20101124_AADBNX park_h_Page_107.QC.jpg
ff60ff76fcc97d0ebab3cde650bd25be
299820810ab60bfecca737abfc49c66da32c9662
F20101124_AADBPB park_h_Page_142.QC.jpg
e48d853ed3d43b2d6505db1a09c1243a
f73e3ad67e93b3027dc5aef33535fb18d5d51a36
5213 F20101124_AADBON park_h_Page_124thm.jpg
841a0d3ce8f70fa9ed3da374d02b2a9c
5145d81dac9b8dc48f7ffac79d56e07d8336d88f
22425 F20101124_AADBNY park_h_Page_108.QC.jpg
68c45dcfb61732effea7351f926a5bb4
17dca09f4f3ee6518fb84e81822716dd32fefc0d
25038 F20101124_AADBPC park_h_Page_145.QC.jpg
7abaf582a96580c2d8bdaf748c2a6176
24084911c410c971e7074140983ed17ea0fae27e
7904 F20101124_AADBOO park_h_Page_126.QC.jpg
c19fdd0097ff4422e18e6fad2b99ce22
c48f400aead92a8279f19d6b971907914e6b6d14
F20101124_AADBNZ park_h_Page_109.QC.jpg
75feebee4ddcafe763490ed5915e4338
087b28d4f32eb5c9a2412265560f3a5120ae9873
22350 F20101124_AADBPD park_h_Page_146.QC.jpg
63035c4738c3781aeeb7e1480bc3e53a
231762afe9d7736c8e404c11ad220668a4b2c805
2798 F20101124_AADBOP park_h_Page_126thm.jpg
22c3ad6c0b0dbe026f90b16dc0815250
84d076f0960f13f251d342d05f96dadbf5ce13e4
8524 F20101124_AADBOQ park_h_Page_127.QC.jpg
8fb714a153430c9d26a1c41630909a5f
b788352ec88d7f3c160b3125d3e964b4866d4d67
6218 F20101124_AADBPE park_h_Page_146thm.jpg
2f90601e2b8b504d8c4b66426bae9082
98aed7e07d11dccef02234e9adbbb0db1201b3f4
8797 F20101124_AADBOR park_h_Page_128.QC.jpg
7a37ae09a1563126d150144325e4a5f8
a17d467a58ba0de24f3c472f8a091665421b8193
4056 F20101124_AADBPF park_h_Page_147thm.jpg
9f547d7909e0745fb81e08314a2ae5d1
6c624f7570f7035a1df5ba16b0168f899ed0f36c
2894 F20101124_AADBOS park_h_Page_130thm.jpg
f0e241e5d78536d4ade9a52bd4d741f3
afe703ec95bbff660d1dc1e46ab4f4458cf196f6
107851 F20101124_AADBPG UFE0011351_00001.mets FULL
5a6c9262fb8fc14756b8c251bca33786
dbc427ca529cfeed72c74bdc407c277365b5aa57
2667 F20101124_AADBOT park_h_Page_131thm.jpg
0dba1821d401ed1e20a1b0c80ccfb4e1
f430e025f22cb78af656359e606e0c7e76e8ce58
2937 F20101124_AADBOU park_h_Page_132thm.jpg
b9354896aafdcba7fc8ab499b9352dff
16dc17dcc38b8193b52a9ae4ef85c039911ddda7
8552 F20101124_AADBOV park_h_Page_133.QC.jpg
94aa36d7bec6933fb07d01c13b0ff13a
f846252bf5cba549cd99e424d55b2fe4ddcbcfbc
9584 F20101124_AADBOW park_h_Page_135.QC.jpg
cf9e5e66aefa3b6be47db725ab34786b
682762d3c1182a4bb737793e314d5f59476691dd
9532 F20101124_AADBOX park_h_Page_137.QC.jpg
c8acde471d090400f6e3440e3b89f561
df9151e4733305552022b0bfad123f4c7d2d2b93
3191 F20101124_AADBOY park_h_Page_138thm.jpg
c512ed093dab681bed03a21860271d8c
02f95cea144f6edbb7d0951eb281849fc84b046a
6549 F20101124_AADBOZ park_h_Page_140.QC.jpg
fe27adb8c71d00f21a82d1aa0b2a3221
274eed4f44563a8150e47dd4752540c5303d160c
9665 F20101124_AADANA park_h_Page_138.QC.jpg
f4c262c138ab2abcefcce24e6441a32f
d3fbb21e84b7f19586810a9e33049976a87d22a5
22736 F20101124_AADANB park_h_Page_032.QC.jpg
8f45f0e2cf5b6727f3240fa78dfab63c
b68cbf5a56c8c8cdf54ddc7d68dd896309c18ee7
103691 F20101124_AADANC park_h_Page_106.jp2
23c74920923336325f3db8989a17cbe4
f0b13c6a133d88c6468a4366509656b883d6778d
1053954 F20101124_AADAND park_h_Page_061.tif
16b663c618476377cd2bab18cc85567a
755005eee59691402259818b4c8eb1b3e567eaeb
156032 F20101124_AADANE park_h_Page_008.jp2
247da2b6cf09c1c09df3f1548190d399
cc8247efbabcc4ec0753728f380a78f82c8f03b7
36361 F20101124_AADANF park_h_Page_055.jpg
57e82a82c13d17d1deda87337cfd3e84
c05009ae50f3726b076334272b23ce0ff6009c49
F20101124_AADANG park_h_Page_082.tif
dcc1690640aaeb91a9033a26a2c380c6
f8df183b6086b97f009f40aa22283e190e53da87
F20101124_AADANH park_h_Page_102thm.jpg
16df480897dd27dd74abb17f4e39f8d6
ea8e5bcf35f7168b6a577a7b66ac6320a5179dde
115844 F20101124_AADANI park_h_Page_041.jp2
5590f8f4ba5508736648785b01fe652a
a3e976e136fe565dcb8c82be0488e185b96e0f62
F20101124_AADANJ park_h_Page_090.tif
fbe7f5522622c04ba723f74a8f064fa4
d7349abb65ce2148d1d86b71ad0579d4c4cc9cf2
109140 F20101124_AADANK park_h_Page_095.jp2
a910dc147712501b6a40ef86be5ba169
dca4f922337ded95e4ba18d2bd8d98888dcd996c
116270 F20101124_AADAMV park_h_Page_087.jp2
72b43e4ad2dacd5caa50ae4acedbc554
85ac0f7f58f757b6844a489a19cb358bf7519f40
F20101124_AADANL park_h_Page_147.tif
5e8ebd87c806b5c209dc50653149b098
752993c0a9eee48b2e54cf5c465a7529325b9a50
F20101124_AADAMW park_h_Page_102.tif
176bcc11ec33a9cbf82a9e105a3a9d48
dbd8bc3aee858f078c3b805b909d3b7945681490
23662 F20101124_AADAOA park_h_Page_102.QC.jpg
6c706d8063a06e4d06f9db7a9b1f2e44
3ab63ef680c2090ab8ccce5f13a8555646f67050
1370 F20101124_AADANM park_h_Page_003thm.jpg
e94f503e5ddf68a32e6dcb2f5b5a8722
64971aa5a4d635e2a609e5b5fa77e368f7c23ad1
73765 F20101124_AADAMX park_h_Page_099.jpg
798406f71218ffbcd2b8cc6df951309b
8977e46d5c8df24de665422cc4686f1e82c0be4d
10417 F20101124_AADAOB park_h_Page_117.QC.jpg
f747be4a84884d320f56adeabfca5ef3
cffdcec75449c1eda08519278b702adcf3533854
38714 F20101124_AADANN park_h_Page_010.jpg
687160e6be4e9ab53c1c03be05638377
d91b96cbd1f705b3c97e1023e41244fbec24f6f4
7991 F20101124_AADAMY park_h_Page_004.QC.jpg
5e0156176cffa0c879c6d265b370f421
460cbcc0725a0f446d9e69cfb93a839ac32b1df7
F20101124_AADAOC park_h_Page_013.tif
6d400f29f94b7e9080ea667c951d9e97
560a43875c5e373bb74cf3d250f2618c2bbf0b74
72035 F20101124_AADANO park_h_Page_052.jpg
796c6176f023cbf14d0267d0570a4a77
adc52ff13b4e52aff9ecbd2214d96fb1e31a5852
47739 F20101124_AADAMZ park_h_Page_139.jp2
4625d1b184069b7ad0692bfbbe94751d
bae219e9723d0cc36947ef4111daf23265d67008
23997 F20101124_AADAOD park_h_Page_023.QC.jpg
9ea158e6b5bc29f221527348465f72db
1b0cee892a0859f5e84d6fae3287e40e2050a5ca
18771 F20101124_AADANP park_h_Page_005.QC.jpg
56d1e6330d00572c1d5047b08fa445f7
87e8c647cd533153ee23fb8bbcd6c73694270365
6458 F20101124_AADAOE park_h_Page_074thm.jpg
98fbfb02b22555ada9f2579a29b2bc01
d4d9dad8052a5e0cf8e4febd1b1d864e413b735c
6838 F20101124_AADANQ park_h_Page_030thm.jpg
e38a56e44456db459e8752a082f29500
fb74c86f4ddb56d2a4935c27c4e48bdf2d7c2ce3
3128 F20101124_AADAOF park_h_Page_055thm.jpg
f6764cc6d136b61e4a62981bdf1f5747
fd567ee412abc114be13f1046f5b8e31e1689222
6851 F20101124_AADANR park_h_Page_143thm.jpg
3a8f14f304652bd6df48a4cf06955a6a
b10785a39ed17d272107f0088692bb1717155c84
58000 F20101124_AADAOG park_h_Page_105.jpg
e9e018739fde26cc15406d8a26500e6f
170d6ff2c598eede1d5f4e4d3608505f1f50ce72
39468 F20101124_AADANS park_h_Page_128.jp2
1c5169ac1222e1b291eff832af96f8ad
b5f57a9f55bd5de17ca174e094958eaacd715f57
F20101124_AADAOH park_h_Page_081.tif
fd5cb3ce1f691809071c6a0546317af0
fdda1feda4c816de7f87484e22341b23312ce35e
106305 F20101124_AADANT park_h_Page_032.jp2
ebdce5a9e9bcf8abaa5be01c000bb844
49a72ef83adbedea22f0576a5820ccac6cb32458
109856 F20101124_AADAOI park_h_Page_077.jp2
db2a2480c3ee05b58d91006b720df5b9
09d663928e211a0f994acda030082bccebd7d776
112001 F20101124_AADANU park_h_Page_100.jp2
2dbde06026b3004f8db76d01b2b01fe3
5ddc05dd6a94d4a1048051bc546048371bc90e60
5962 F20101124_AADAOJ park_h_Page_086thm.jpg
3c6f22d59e5cf213d9029c2c0d670401
231bba49b6d97dd7325346f39e2f9a4d9ae78bfe
10079 F20101124_AADANV park_h_Page_129.QC.jpg
09705ae5f32c80dc3c305f315ff39a3d
8f7f6b718579e03e065e132c8d3c644ab5caebd8
F20101124_AADAOK park_h_Page_100.tif
349112845fb469078014d5797dcdb171
a901656bc5dcaa24c121f9f2bd0c490b41d80290
6277 F20101124_AADAOL park_h_Page_112thm.jpg
6eafd5b5aa09870371a49e3e1eb3927c
3e528af70fb5254ec16c8f9308e7a6fde9334a1f
23590 F20101124_AADANW park_h_Page_018.QC.jpg
641d90c2d5cf54245db54f34ae5b8290
9cce6037a90ffe2ee30b268e8b496a1669d4aa12
93887 F20101124_AADAOM park_h_Page_056.jp2
976abfdf45ba680864836103f5d50bfc
301bbce1c1c41a394fc7f72fdabb58075a34cceb
69664 F20101124_AADANX park_h_Page_075.jpg
86be848c21f290552d0c501f4b3dc5cf
33b657ee272176fcccc5de325f1c4156d740bc43
74019 F20101124_AADAPA park_h_Page_045.jpg
a67f862628a50565cea1f23a0171dad4
baeaac41dc974145b39ee7d3491efd90648b2ca2
32529 F20101124_AADAON park_h_Page_129.jpg
ebe854517583b0a68d1d4eca2cad38b4
4c3581afefc12aca3e97c65c5913e86d22de8577
14663 F20101124_AADANY park_h_Page_125.QC.jpg
269cd126fc17b05508a1c3f39bd8e057
e8e571704b38b562b033a481e5b8277777d7a68b
23182 F20101124_AADAPB park_h_Page_059.QC.jpg
36afef4433efab3fd1b975958282482a
ada315100502de2477123dc418df17a24461d098
3957 F20101124_AADAOO park_h_Page_008.QC.jpg
163906e8ce2e526baeb354f5eb0574a5
c7a4bad4a787904d83675d06129cb1e1bed49244
2974 F20101124_AADANZ park_h_Page_133thm.jpg
737ba67cc92424a0d3fc4c092de366d3
b80b417be65b1aced46feef397dc025f7b3bf586
70414 F20101124_AADAPC park_h_Page_112.jpg
c0b403863e78e5c71efea6870342c572
e75c57ad6867cf805d1daade86a6dbba3c38a949
6190 F20101124_AADAOP park_h_Page_118thm.jpg
8d7897658802228adf09e73c0d26caa3
73462d79250235a96647d96fcf7f4cf65c2cf532
23549 F20101124_AADAPD park_h_Page_034.QC.jpg
fdd02974da84d12df94326fbcf6bf322
9791eac99a776815b156dce5738359dfe9110ae4
6200 F20101124_AADAOQ park_h_Page_089thm.jpg
33063d4e009d75d86fb99485f744dec9
2ed0af75a319b44ecaca87f0c910d4ddc0ddfd0d
F20101124_AADAPE park_h_Page_062.tif
6fb9dd00c7ffef7584b018b849df2abd
55df5ddae4aebe19a5548924677b414cb4cfb81c
69822 F20101124_AADAOR park_h_Page_025.jpg
49e5f4add69de045e047e8c223b0d953
8344d4b1d6657bea4f8cd4e33fd986359546c300
5180 F20101124_AADAPF park_h_Page_068thm.jpg
eccdb49de9f7f418470b0c96c4214b47
7484c70690ad1fcb73bdca78e46447230d27c75d
F20101124_AADAPG park_h_Page_054.tif
930a82b57688ce77a7c646ae60094813
948f5aa7d5828909fc9220c94870c8b40f3b9578
118075 F20101124_AADAOS park_h_Page_030.jp2
6ee43d38ed14af931f1f145b55c4f445
5fc92df733056d9bdc4372f4eb0130b4e4bfc62d
25271604 F20101124_AADAPH park_h_Page_005.tif
ac4c70758c9c4f41b007421a09dee3e0
33a9231a8c9dec20f4e7812de464a4b471c4d970
22166 F20101124_AADAOT park_h_Page_031.QC.jpg
b8098ee1cdaaeb830714a8562cc0c0d2
757848a59416d750469927b1b40dcd83d6de062d
6740 F20101124_AADAPI park_h_Page_084thm.jpg
bee2bc6e86dc8ff6fb0e408aa26d655a
9ced9fdfe1a22ba445263f7a4aea4782ecda5787
6607 F20101124_AADAOU park_h_Page_017thm.jpg
e4353bbc863f4a2e3eeaa7b1899a402b
ac2b2d304bee6aa62516d526b6c8e7466c18eac1
24115 F20101124_AADAPJ park_h_Page_024.QC.jpg
be5326ab84fee9100436fe5980362df6
f56716c788e17ed4c61f48478b265a4220b244b4
111097 F20101124_AADAOV park_h_Page_093.jp2
63e81f994dc86016a4aeebc093cfd742
8b845a84dc0b7f746322ba39dc0e4067adbad964
6343 F20101124_AADAPK park_h_Page_032thm.jpg
e715ee4a0d58ad8fc5fdcfa52ba984e6
3fecd9a06498abfceb9318ca778c83024b924786
66199 F20101124_AADAOW park_h_Page_089.jpg
be43c37fe42b4de1720f8453e39110c2
4c971a2e8d96d2c97439a567b5fcc9aa24b824ee
6319 F20101124_AADAPL park_h_Page_107thm.jpg
b24b5bbaa87c100db66b2e8555377d5e
f80164c2e08d3c29561288ad0805826e1c7a9103
19062 F20101124_AADAQA park_h_Page_083.QC.jpg
7bf341bdeb83390ba283b0bc20cac3b5
9e5955218e6d45bb7c2dc918d679e37642c43c70
6360 F20101124_AADAPM park_h_Page_039thm.jpg
8a04d45232c837ed9af31d0e8c81c0fe
3c345d33a5d41e623a45b780dce2bbaee6e58914
F20101124_AADAOX park_h_Page_040.tif
9501812114d1d119012a41e6e13abbb3
5c4c42dc6d7930a86f435018860cdb9ee4fecfc8
23233 F20101124_AADAQB park_h_Page_064.QC.jpg
f812107984940808d69fae2a4d0a008c
7a40199b3c1efc5f093488987ac79b79bc15ef3a
24268 F20101124_AADAPN park_h_Page_022.QC.jpg
6a6ececd9ac66c20d6757e67d3b51b9d
a6676021ede6d5fe497304896e7bd7d9509e306f
F20101124_AADAOY park_h_Page_042.tif
e93ddcda6e5544ed2feb62c5322f0bb4
b2fd3bbcb3ea0fe9d195c013eef5a01e5aa47821
8011 F20101124_AADAQC park_h_Page_134.QC.jpg
2ad60f4bd12bc730536953982bb0eb4c
ad06b93a10402daa669726802dea2ad5eafebf29
22706 F20101124_AADAPO park_h_Page_048.QC.jpg
c2ebb9b613d517ecd26397f1e054e68d
532286b008a5724274380c5a7884372c91ebf336
F20101124_AADAOZ park_h_Page_103.tif
c3d2f134749f00dc3fde32d9a8ba69d7
4ecceffdc7c4c595d2f62dfe7303002cd227988a
38129 F20101124_AADAQD park_h_Page_114.jpg
4e8fa22691928502210ebd4c5a1df637
f1375f4f24bd487c8f7a09d2adeec196472583b9
66647 F20101124_AADAPP park_h_Page_086.jpg
f785a5e98dbce8596dc9e5deba71d773
2a133d776f368968342fc5d969f1b6e22ff88557
63597 F20101124_AADAQE park_h_Page_125.jp2
654b13ac2029dab8d6a0ef582dfc4677
824971926ee8f25450961f92da011d296c70987c
1051979 F20101124_AADAPQ park_h_Page_006.jp2
2ab9a8f32e3e7ddea7504dea00b246a1
24a778a183b42d38d5c2e62b496e92a750a16aaa
74352 F20101124_AADAQF park_h_Page_060.jpg
3b499776eaf876499e6bae2e38138a1c
dc05b76e429b20159677d629efade78bc167ef87
6249 F20101124_AADAPR park_h_Page_075thm.jpg
455211b2a111204a30c7feda578f02c6
f1ff18561fc13cc5c2936578cc9bd978d338a9d9
71907 F20101124_AADAQG park_h_Page_061.jpg
430e4537b8e56431372b8b8d56d08f7f
e00ca0a3b2a8fbd403922dff1183004c8d4d8558
77797 F20101124_AADAPS park_h_Page_142.jpg
55025e8b4eae7f57d9d135eb041260c8
e67f40d703249ea10df567681baa56fea0bc23b7
3111 F20101124_AADAQH park_h_Page_137thm.jpg
4ddb4320ca0592cff3c7904cb537ffec
850682cb0373c1a8d785050b81c04eff92762595
70196 F20101124_AADAPT park_h_Page_009.jpg
3b6e43c64e12908e23e5bffd52b65d86
7b9adc46b1da0d4deed6e9da0d36a826b82d4d6c
6787 F20101124_AADAQI park_h_Page_042thm.jpg
8a7aa6a960250fba283733dd54e579a8
45426b40716ed83b979a55742d4ad1dbf074203b
63214 F20101124_AADAPU park_h_Page_069.jpg
2d2644a8e31fc66a0ad8d3fccd687411
96bae9989eb569901e0f92101fcd297c5ccc5648
6611 F20101124_AADAQJ park_h_Page_045thm.jpg
cbc242ef2b123ad8996bb5fa6f2e5321
e7bdc39f2794f01c4a863c31d3e07aa9e4956d59
70120 F20101124_AADAPV park_h_Page_038.jpg
72b555413dad7e9e18390ee16f3402e7
b3d8553bbcce68adee162fa6563f63ba84e6590b
F20101124_AADAQK park_h_Page_144thm.jpg
b60b0a2722ff35423bd91c1a5a68de4b
917b386618e5602a9b47290c7dfb34509632bb54
71593 F20101124_AADAPW park_h_Page_079.jpg
b9f49da8a74b1185a0cf49a16fb5b2c6
ca02580bb5fd3aba882bbaef05e65af98be3a432
F20101124_AADAQL park_h_Page_095.tif
151188f9a3f8f3b273456e31be4311c1
1f5a78958455296d912ebe99ff7c1d0f6339c6f9
15928 F20101124_AADAPX park_h_Page_123.QC.jpg
c804f4ca2bf2ad1a60e1b9ae3af813d8
802382e50c21b3d4f9f6d2e3b5d184996b2bb271
93530 F20101124_AADAQM park_h_Page_069.jp2
a41fc79d238be60ccc5f69ed5a197462
c5400810243f1c08ee77dc63d69d4256c24de187
F20101124_AADARA park_h_Page_074.tif
f134227f5195b852d4afb3c3c870863e
d9a3a1193b159a2afc2bec1377b5e82cc6c2c7f5
23913 F20101124_AADAQN park_h_Page_046.QC.jpg
79d1b05771e942c5903ed43a9f5175a2
e5a803ad2ac54720b94301d7b6d22da135e9636a
22406 F20101124_AADAPY park_h_Page_071.QC.jpg
fa51f7808c88400d96cd0f457ba2762b
f518f142fa94854a94fe35a1b22915a155c53f53
F20101124_AADARB park_h_Page_023.tif
0dbe747777c4a7014d72212a9b75d6fc
79e5058f2a2e911620aaf7aa6c58ee295c45183b
8366 F20101124_AADAQO park_h_Page_130.QC.jpg
d076511b6c4081b4eb41ed3c17a3a233
3a4a89ea7c0e655aa50b09b2138c689387395460
2709 F20101124_AADAPZ park_h_Page_134thm.jpg
98ad803ea6cf4e0d8828f05d27d14f6c
7f4d933f004a77aea52aa3e46bf9995450c85b04
6901 F20101124_AADARC park_h_Page_033thm.jpg
69f1966dcb659fd22ea6f9281fec6e1b
0f1269e161aaa6869e6a411a92dbeac51270a695
F20101124_AADAQP park_h_Page_113.tif
bd71ceb0338a28f478a45905514aed47
39bcdf1a080ceb6ade5259954d9a4b916c012784
24448 F20101124_AADARD park_h_Page_050.QC.jpg
881f6f5fdcdc2e4548f3d0f844ae0201
6347517846cd108fe67634c571ecf3cdf0306c4f
22913 F20101124_AADAQQ park_h_Page_063.QC.jpg
9503926e4efc853bc3edd9210383f8bf
bb8cb7c3f4b2dc79cbf88eb797fcff83181ca926
76475 F20101124_AADARE park_h_Page_088.jp2
b2dda039e92d04552bd8bcb2f3344672
d728ed9dd6622963865b9a24d507c2852cc21ab7
F20101124_AADAQR park_h_Page_088.tif
73fd7dbc6190b036a898c01a38d8cdb4
c7be4e6910b757bbe97d711319d52506e5d6510a
102662 F20101124_AADARF park_h_Page_120.jp2
bc6914578e828beae183ed1f0a18505d
f544728d78799bdb6b8253132741b4491fc45b1d
93091 F20101124_AADAQS park_h_Page_089.jp2
38e41ed8b72f5ca5f6fd8b3408f07ca1
89a986f84b48451064f3705f6825bb51e00216c2
6258 F20101124_AADARG park_h_Page_014thm.jpg
48ff50c67b791c844b7d66b6840d41f9
dd015e6c7de039d55511d5a5612894704bb62168
23492 F20101124_AADAQT park_h_Page_051.QC.jpg
78554ce43027e2902126d264de160618
1566623a5df8d4b366ef2f84edf92a580e7a5ec1
23785 F20101124_AADARH park_h_Page_019.QC.jpg
3563a4cacd3e81b12b71bacdec602435
781a06b15f2d1d409be2a7e9bebca5c874dc9a3c
84409 F20101124_AADAQU park_h_Page_007.jpg
bdec20b3e4b612b4f076734a0f9e8576
762df32e0bacebcdd35d9ea3bb0133f0964a7cd7
109391 F20101124_AADARI park_h_Page_014.jp2
c468460386b260262833506705b8c068
f3f7df1a659ec9199cc27236ada02e06f8a27430
F20101124_AADAQV park_h_Page_055.tif
3b8d128ff8cc9850ec7aeaab8f6aad0b
60435901a063096d9d04b32068eebde7e127fd3b
74441 F20101124_AADARJ park_h_Page_092.jpg
20d659839ced656f80593050a4ee6837
0e8f3d68639fcd61bd47786ee4bc347b9546eeee
6140 F20101124_AADAQW park_h_Page_096thm.jpg
eef5c9d8fbc4aa96d592578299f690c7
d9cdf5ca761d1353d6cef5faff4dbf90e474d1ab
3674 F20101124_AADARK park_h_Page_116thm.jpg
65e609916d3314dbac9ac359bfc23e2b
8dae4273eb143deb10ec920ce535352c0e0f8d42
12191 F20101124_AADAQX park_h_Page_114.QC.jpg
88b0d5c4a9d8ec02edfecdb3789f3d02
d412ec11d6e94a73b2158c730cf1f695f009cd2a
F20101124_AADARL park_h_Page_018.tif
3a223a89af23093a1031cd1ff551db1d
ee7925d27b711e5fb0b98113697a72b4e7882e5e
F20101124_AADAQY park_h_Page_115.tif
726e407c04a4462366721ec01994fc55
a634b5378b8bcb4b5eeabd1481ea475744efc601
73331 F20101124_AADASA park_h_Page_098.jpg
92c8b4d0d384df75937df27bbce80df2
f77accd3e1ce84fe6c96ce62f68fa6ca41931c58
108808 F20101124_AADARM park_h_Page_048.jp2
2de0cb40003e0a7be3f955391e1fdb6c
ffe8dd69c2a96902fae07b08600457110373fc37
98721 F20101124_AADASB park_h_Page_013.jp2
62146da9b754a83de957933065f7fcb9
85e37a04ecd9868b35791940ac0853f50f5c2a9b
23815 F20101124_AADARN park_h_Page_026.QC.jpg
fafc1178482a98f953d34f5e55bac97d
be70b9e7ab0760c714b40b907a0e9fa275de4856
65114 F20101124_AADAQZ park_h_Page_013.jpg
df5a5759b2ed6baaee3441763d719521
c5df78dd16a4e07f8a3eded2b39ab7e416258b2a
F20101124_AADASC park_h_Page_010.tif
0e7bba5dbc10cba9edba473080a9356c
b33b18a7be1f67dfb2fedc4ee794fab90de332f9
F20101124_AADARO park_h_Page_067.tif
403fedc012a242b9bc5f2db321e88f92
720a238a54531e301cb4cdadd0970250b4264d49
68271 F20101124_AADASD park_h_Page_110.jpg
4a7b48f7eba696a377c5d5cbf19e4e9b
16d31cb38a079422ce2dc094821a9931c86fec0c
70430 F20101124_AADARP park_h_Page_017.jpg
ca6adb6846d5c566c64e42ce2a094295
a879559669590bfe8d2c41404531d752e0bca29d
4565 F20101124_AADASE park_h_Page_123thm.jpg
c4b7e405bc1d47b15d0558d0662887ab
90b54c235d32988047ad93b3e78ecfab807fbf57
99785 F20101124_AADARQ park_h_Page_075.jp2
a39defd83df7728fa76e1a67f52e4a69
1e11817782b95cb9a24a7fef6e803f86ad79b646
23608 F20101124_AADASF park_h_Page_094.QC.jpg
eaf1ea755251e98629b890a8b7d2346f
3b99dded9e53fabfbe0d592cb143dfafac3fb96f
22595 F20101124_AADARR park_h_Page_103.QC.jpg
c668006b62cf9e289a34ba4ff4272289
7531499f1be944acfd95ea826ba1f85bff0bec8f
22919 F20101124_AADASG park_h_Page_049.QC.jpg
354a5d2046a566a0db553426242a2dd1
c25f2c07cf1f856a1b282abef92b5ec87c763d12
102828 F20101124_AADARS park_h_Page_096.jp2
4e95c246ee68286602dcf152a68739f3
9dd41ddd6380b57dba51ef6cdebbd3daf2cb1cb1
104474 F20101124_AADASH park_h_Page_047.jp2
4ea99ec83ced46bd86047a250579a399
1fd99860936b761b2c3ee43e4c16b74e12398a00
106581 F20101124_AADART park_h_Page_020.jp2
e8fa511668e7ed287748f2b91f56ce50
e50fe2358858ef8dc69b4d8659f58fd8ad23a86d
122388 F20101124_AADASI park_h_Page_142.jp2
161666c6ce786e9b8ce1f1f137e6ca79
e3d57c5254f7f39bd1bdc0dd5b0415bbb2280579
9281 F20101124_AADARU park_h_Page_136.QC.jpg
8827389df225d6da7332fa9e00d8e81d
8c73bc2e4ba945b81c2419b7e757ca84b715e082
112405 F20101124_AADASJ park_h_Page_027.jp2
23f5bd7eb41ead5d435128f288b90696
d1cb7395d4edacbcbc6d40d03b4eb63838e654c0
6700 F20101124_AADARV park_h_Page_019thm.jpg
67db0e05e23201596cfe506d5d2df19d
f70d8aec8001708d57d29c487f05bc586867f212
6441 F20101124_AADASK park_h_Page_048thm.jpg
eef63b655bc8fd9ac0adbf24b7d30a64
c6f684240ad60935f6a8582d1a240fce8142d4ea
109014 F20101124_AADARW park_h_Page_017.jp2
3d8156c0b6e6b4826594d75e7b890466
84d7c8858d5717e608369d4393dbca23e93fa881
F20101124_AADASL park_h_Page_001.tif
b682240a618e53396e778d780a16f36c
775be4c922193b0e57dac01eec2380dbfe07d8d6
3200 F20101124_AADARX park_h_Page_139thm.jpg
25fa9109c231a1e84d0eebe605f7be0a
4b2b5dfa71db6a6308216d0b1fdfbbd49de272af
5806 F20101124_AADATA park_h_Page_141thm.jpg
da906ec2146a1b9bf9cfbb4fe3b691d5
94ecac0bb5345d7b84d12ab34d8671ebeda242e0
6156 F20101124_AADASM park_h_Page_028thm.jpg
e082a63cba139702fa72b728271a6696
5cd2bc09fd47464ac0c9068acba8a43845bc8e9a
17600 F20101124_AADARY park_h_Page_068.QC.jpg
c09e61f952828753430ac0cbe85f7009
ea95c4e6fbb4cfdd97f8686e77690a036d0703e1
26045 F20101124_AADATB park_h_Page_144.QC.jpg
9e9009b32b13f93c124def6147b167df
d400e6d33e35930f0f1f133e18825ce9aceb5c5f
F20101124_AADASN park_h_Page_032.tif
96bd1ecd5a29b43f3524ea0c1734b602
d340f1f52d8bafd4c8e505d9a4875388500faf52
32634 F20101124_AADARZ park_h_Page_138.jpg
9c00e44e2e8accc05d48796eafb23a9d
42dc8e9d3de047aff3a9a195f0d2df996651692f
100561 F20101124_AADATC park_h_Page_082.jp2
be995ec13fee0484df1de78ee4d96558
592b0ad228c9c8a08dc0a4995a32de88401c43fc
F20101124_AADASO park_h_Page_121.tif
a9c1f4873b23c72071bfb1ac1930f72b
01527b9ee7028f11896ce77b48c266269dfeb3df
4855 F20101124_AADATD park_h_Page_003.jp2
aa26e86285c0c6bb262c7367f76a821a
375800c3e133a4ad92a92c111afc4a05845d6ee8
28043 F20101124_AADASP park_h_Page_130.jpg
eb1e25911b27a3319353eab40661d940
04bddf163bdabca25a3d12a666f23563d52076ad
6738 F20101124_AADATE park_h_Page_101thm.jpg
6e5e4d41cabd0b269d7c29109f53d4c9
5bae7275dec2b72c0758dad136f66510e9c44561
24191 F20101124_AADASQ park_h_Page_045.QC.jpg
9460651417a84bd1c750a7b7e76a149c
b993c89ddf34b1768ce240e2e7f9b0fa448fb753
65623 F20101124_AADATF park_h_Page_054.jpg
6dcddb6af8b3ded22853a73d2c18889f
e241c0b876da3cf80895e9c8b2e32c5ec14faf28
72671 F20101124_AADASR park_h_Page_093.jpg
c3e174dda9f326ae89f77f03e752b416
545d9b3b17142913274fac8fd1dcf6357bc4708f
F20101124_AADATG park_h_Page_085.tif
03a19eef217fa11649ebcb9d67713897
2223023154e67240fb88b3063cecaea6cf498a90
F20101124_AADASS park_h_Page_033.tif
5f69c4e57d885eabae3958cb22b41b30
53d4d2a289d4b47f7a6e7ef0017602952d7958c6
F20101124_AADATH park_h_Page_028.tif
eb7f5b739fb7653fe533cad6a3d90c77
ea0926be3be586071bc71b124da6bcadc4d62fd9
70788 F20101124_AADAST park_h_Page_049.jpg
43e8ab915404e98f42af711d3d00593a
aae0afdc936ed71e9754f96d15ba4e7a120ba34b
1360 F20101124_AADATI park_h_Page_002thm.jpg
733b2beea259cffef5da497b199b002d
3744e18c7381de33e8b8fce6b661dbbb7341f49c
110247 F20101124_AADASU park_h_Page_051.jp2
e506458c97a9832866a365afff250ee8
ced1a0e62f866dcdf361d5b72b6a170b4063a605
21890 F20101124_AADATJ park_h_Page_121.QC.jpg
35bb97e94d246fa5c80e6e99e2ac49e2
167a8beb406091d8eec65128bee9165a1d7c7d56
6669 F20101124_AADASV park_h_Page_059thm.jpg
ec0535f8c7a0fa8e9156c8245c45bb7f
aed898f86d045349afd2d1df807a8eb5e9b9ec1f
22314 F20101124_AADATK park_h_Page_110.QC.jpg
20e71bf2d8d8e99da28f24a0383a0210
4466e4ea693fbb5bee76b11cb1f14bcaed56afe9
23498 F20101124_AADASW park_h_Page_044.QC.jpg
da96386b8756d2e0330922ea4e35ca0f
7c96470f30ab5389ccce5fa0d9455b80360a3564
6490 F20101124_AADATL park_h_Page_040thm.jpg
266913636f6ab45db2bc9179f3142755
f23c194964c037b11140dc7d70709393aa7c81be
6153 F20101124_AADASX park_h_Page_110thm.jpg
84228afc9166e1b448afb2cfb6ec7354
58179718b730461e54f25f5e3811abe3b4678540
F20101124_AADATM park_h_Page_053.tif
4cbae642b712d04cbdfb9bb3add5be78
27ec5be992be284cf617920404bbd75090f56a77
6262 F20101124_AADASY park_h_Page_142thm.jpg
3b154e41774f36b36834410bfa1e4b2b
9a8787c1959983d883e8037df7b5fbb2fb765478
13384 F20101124_AADAUA park_h_Page_147.QC.jpg
68f659562e1dc7cee934394af7ef1788
5c2111baa470bf0d69f0c137c422f929f2677a4b
49025 F20101124_AADATN park_h_Page_113.jpg
457d8897346c892f918208dbcc0bccb8
1ba9a41e3bbf5bed482114962c5328f778ce7d30
19340 F20101124_AADASZ park_h_Page_066.QC.jpg
afef7637d46fc0743f5d2022439ad8c9
77b6778d381e82ad1a5d9063aafb1d0b6ff58741
40484 F20101124_AADAUB park_h_Page_147.jpg
1cf1d3c5302bec23245475819206011d
468321fa6fa2477e3153757067f1be0331970e95
F20101124_AADATO park_h_Page_076thm.jpg
98ba149acdc766f141eca4cc84f9cc51
dcde05245c04315fc27ca60cd94bd03c83e79451
3112 F20101124_AADAUC park_h_Page_135thm.jpg
7ad185e3d170ef67110391c5fff6572b
4941edccf0176afb4d9ad36c18681549e59d37da
3208 F20101124_AADAUD park_h_Page_010thm.jpg
d612a36193f66b1bd1663e1971f0af26
d03b5ad5b6f66bcd39158b0c675deb22ec9f6cab
34266 F20101124_AADATP park_h_Page_139.jpg
743a11b4f5877f25d44702f5e6ffad39
2ba8f7250f534b650dc3a74ce4302a31c501360c
71432 F20101124_AADAUE park_h_Page_097.jpg
0527b033c2df6b16516f63b63042713c
fb96c1db97fd42357fc7cbfd82c76fb075944598
F20101124_AADATQ park_h_Page_038.tif
5bafe0234da1f7cf150690d2d510c63a
343f78f78eba58beec15d6a04775c0abde689210
74215 F20101124_AADBAA park_h_Page_022.jpg
ac0070fbf3cf8281cf500fb5291748d3
c27a26353b633407c35d7522a1334237d81c7c55
23948 F20101124_AADAUF park_h_Page_027.QC.jpg
0860ab7f44800fd0483024325d11c882
8bc1ff9a6e876e32ac8d1b94411cdd505ccb3915
6625 F20101124_AADATR park_h_Page_100thm.jpg
a451a8a8755e4ecb471237e381b0f43f
cadf2d14c3a37b0a9cb82d5b4378b528c8fa9fc1
73333 F20101124_AADBAB park_h_Page_023.jpg
e702167b09985b32e601cd79a53af339
312da691340dda16268e8dff84fc3e2ffdeab2d6
111313 F20101124_AADAUG park_h_Page_046.jp2
9d1744472ba628735c01c43b0a5c784e
517cf2db48d7f944ba33159b960a529850d2c35e
22652 F20101124_AADATS park_h_Page_075.QC.jpg
ddf89efe7a20fbb4aabd2d033e696ef0
bee2a56ef0de163c0ddf7f72576065fb29884e4d
74004 F20101124_AADBAC park_h_Page_024.jpg
3697741ea39edd0ccd4131dc4adf43c3
3a441544a293edb385083c281c3adde59faf9f5f
69200 F20101124_AADAUH park_h_Page_032.jpg
6deb05c2e42d83b06ace1dfa4d7d9c7b
365812a90a741849cad364970e8b5ae17575e781
20619 F20101124_AADATT park_h_Page_122.QC.jpg
cfc269c942092177a6fc59f6626e652b
2cfbb188aeb1604df90eff6b8eb3597475e841bd
73324 F20101124_AADBAD park_h_Page_026.jpg
6a6dcea7e4ffc95af36f593cc3e19148
4915d3945c2760565c17584913c5d9194e3b39d0
72850 F20101124_AADAUI park_h_Page_113.jp2
891a9d2a356146e2de3d3a939b6224ac
62a66340142cda1754a63d1410f9b308bd65739e
F20101124_AADATU park_h_Page_094.tif
8ccb24cbb502b7df45f120c2023615a0
beb950faf9a6b16c8579ac130d4f12f146dd6e11
73314 F20101124_AADBAE park_h_Page_027.jpg
934730105fd7d59f98d8c9916db7de36
c6798142d95efacb15455336d2d4372a1c9b2327
4769 F20101124_AADAUJ park_h_Page_113thm.jpg
5fe1627d4047dfd1668580a9cd055070
0346e188699222bc2443e1f680c5c2e1aa1034eb
F20101124_AADATV park_h_Page_051.tif
1035d37abedac779a1fe52dcb7064731
e666a0394668d9c1deb0b1bfaf7b774b66856cd8
67485 F20101124_AADBAF park_h_Page_028.jpg
0ade087de18db25e37ab270957426d85
1147a2b6d813bfc470a6f873be116fe31d2fd844
112691 F20101124_AADAUK park_h_Page_111.jp2
cf46e2bb1a86ae8b89eb5bb0f4a7ace4
c99c5c38d517ff8841543bdee1ba876acf731df7
6690 F20101124_AADATW park_h_Page_145thm.jpg
38eebfe4f76ad5ed79180730126259f4
5d3ae14e4e2fec292af49168c3437bf4bc28a4d5
70146 F20101124_AADBAG park_h_Page_029.jpg
8650d01a0e3fb9e1517050704c0a60d0
4e05f2a108ef4c63dc3b5a6e87e9c3f438f0a598
4423 F20101124_AADAUL park_h_Page_125thm.jpg
c19dee9197f9a120ec95c3577a936e01
6b661e3105dcee052a3a93deb91c0e4ccac800f0
10023 F20101124_AADATX park_h_Page_139.QC.jpg
57db618f8b3aa22ae82f54dc498531db
6b930ef8f295a3474ea163599f4925ef084f92d6
77172 F20101124_AADBAH park_h_Page_030.jpg
f6b3e77be2fb828fc64c9392c96bd496
552ba6bdca7bf0c2c433cbee66cd437ccf4be0f0
6337 F20101124_AADAVA park_h_Page_020thm.jpg
98f055a544ca1c7d45e112016e437263
adb7c3b881404fb804b5fb48edb32d7fb2a66f2d
68534 F20101124_AADAUM park_h_Page_047.jpg
3cb1d9cddc4928f91d30c315a4766003
0f6ee23bbf63c6c7f1cc1adefeb57eadef2b382e
6291 F20101124_AADATY park_h_Page_109thm.jpg
3743f4f2e23119b640ba786450b39c3c
5297dbb25b720e6bab24a54798f138e3489a761e
55118 F20101124_AADAVB park_h_Page_068.jpg
6f31eafeb56807b218b3849b5d434f52
3d1f42e287c4da25a4df6697427ab22c497c79ce
16405 F20101124_AADAUN park_h_Page_113.QC.jpg
fe3e335052da252c75494bcc3ffb1e57
6eb19f662f5f1731a0c9a4807253d3ba145713df
F20101124_AADATZ park_h_Page_142.tif
165cc565d9276c7ad44f7d638f72a44f
86b1690fa299dad0102659c2954e10ad63fd3ce9
69760 F20101124_AADBAI park_h_Page_031.jpg
c1f1f2b0e920e3a44e2dc82b81dc9261
a477ca463594a8f9af5efdc36f9c5ca4a27a8a7c
22802 F20101124_AADAVC park_h_Page_020.QC.jpg
b28d5906c8bdde9ed72c610bad66e058
dfb4fcd692878570f3cfe9ed4e1201b476ec71ca
99066 F20101124_AADAUO park_h_Page_109.jp2
454fe48de36c7e9a1291b8cf654192b8
966e2dc11905348c7b24c36a4e58379980197800
76791 F20101124_AADBAJ park_h_Page_033.jpg
fe6f7e26d667ce8bb1bda199c2b9e648
fd272b56912e1753f4891c6358f50071a8fc190a
105651 F20101124_AADAVD park_h_Page_006.jpg
e865e0dc9c99d6883ea5bdcc3db01fd6
b7339fd436eca9a9cd19e512fb53eb4bf26aacd4
2947 F20101124_AADAUP park_h_Page_136thm.jpg
5f21de39e668dad6e4d5880646c40b5c
29f12e4b12070377c7aee6f5a33e4985a36c17ee
72600 F20101124_AADBAK park_h_Page_034.jpg
23cedb647f85ee9be0ab79352906f536
6f9bded4384585b0d8c009eac6015d9507e4ee8c
70819 F20101124_AADAVE park_h_Page_063.jpg
1ec2c178e9f74704b502bb1307452ae3
95426e674eb66560acb44816ce183904a855851f
43555 F20101124_AADAUQ park_h_Page_135.jp2
95986a5b7d4d3da04c235926d335a2e5
1404c88e119da4878b1fb9751f86fb4ff6a6e517
70476 F20101124_AADBAL park_h_Page_035.jpg
fd987e1102478cd05ff237a44da2181b
a3c384cfb116572ea304cc3277329a86bef5c03a
6482 F20101124_AADAVF park_h_Page_064thm.jpg
bd0075a4a37a09e9618f721b480be90b
3b9adf29b8188e6e2e82fc4b3380ed75e06d8b59
22511 F20101124_AADAUR park_h_Page_025.QC.jpg
0b9c7be583e14fe90fc135481e6dd30f
bfd9b12c0c4985bccd99abde2e48fc0dfc7fc9b3
72981 F20101124_AADBBA park_h_Page_065.jpg
bb9fb9e31efcd9b30f19fa310559b475
20e6a17651f4af1e812266e119ab85ef68c86f81
86050 F20101124_AADAVG park_h_Page_105.jp2
2fd12a0298bc83e542ea80e6b4a0f15a
5f9bcd236e116bb2932bf8e85959921d216a8635
110738 F20101124_AADAUS park_h_Page_034.jp2
c29f6bbc7574ab39a3198258ae10c1e0
64f1d733549cb6fe16ed21645f74d0062bec35b6
61040 F20101124_AADBBB park_h_Page_066.jpg
15399ac633db4017f088053cdef91219
0a9a7f5abeed1246470036cd81006c27c181bc20
71060 F20101124_AADBAM park_h_Page_037.jpg
8c01a063137eda49967c15f46535f72a
3a80716cda3b06fc3c82ba4a2bca3a861cdeafcf
74579 F20101124_AADAVH park_h_Page_101.jpg
15c1f7d42025e89bbd8993291187f890
894b82586c4ecb23f00311314e262d6d1afdf9c4
3350 F20101124_AADAUT park_h_Page_117thm.jpg
ffb8d5b4db86ad8a09db6562c5afde3f
42b37ed85260b3010434d7def4c749fdfedaf2f5
71420 F20101124_AADBBC park_h_Page_072.jpg
6aa18d3f6979c39fac1eba29801e5ebb
7e463eb84458357c11f4f76557069c627780a057
72277 F20101124_AADBAN park_h_Page_039.jpg
778c69ff1a25206bf7199489a4e81416
740a67407a2b887c59fee8a906bf952310c7aa99
F20101124_AADAVI park_h_Page_106.tif
c5780b273a6003bb9a53effb8f08e340
2fb8a450462c7957516bbd4c5037d039b0fcba21
65849 F20101124_AADAUU park_h_Page_123.jp2
cdd14a394fe8e79cd429054f754baeee
d299670c2dba6c2d0f6a01295d18388539d1d291
57559 F20101124_AADBBD park_h_Page_073.jpg
31e22de55b626c26d0d35e8f37bff467
2abe48c3c66c2693dd9331488b5a0773badb9a4d
73634 F20101124_AADBAO park_h_Page_040.jpg
50b46393b688a54b74d32736e682ca5e
6187fcb6c76ce9b0d5feee2cc367888a4411c65b
23495 F20101124_AADAVJ park_h_Page_072.QC.jpg
30f15fee87971354509514d1dd03f2ee
1c27d8b3b8b54cd0450becbad3084733b36db669
46373 F20101124_AADAUV park_h_Page_123.jpg
480dd2cb54ad40b81b355866b5103f45
110bb4f608d4ba8f5b02b26a31f43ccc110a5385
73105 F20101124_AADBBE park_h_Page_074.jpg
a42e7ab3b9735dfe010e4d968d2c3d0f
417f07b44a3b5357fe917fd8453be7e9ba0b9a37
75328 F20101124_AADBAP park_h_Page_041.jpg
adc634426d2e7bd74f3a9a52c53ca89c
bc1d9bf07b6a9d9c2c802facd78de1534f5c4869
24355 F20101124_AADAVK park_h_Page_042.QC.jpg
b0b4f242697ed13fc6f09b993dcc7fc4
f418fe0be91b82ceb708f6afdcb2e9edf940f7d2
44278 F20101124_AADAUW park_h_Page_012.jpg
fc6ba897168d52a7ed47237a78c34e46
e54e8f6d821fcbaf497001685ff9d0051f9cff36
68609 F20101124_AADBBF park_h_Page_078.jpg
65a07472225be86045f3deb959770320
ca9bdd1a37822af13ab53beb98c337ce1a0ea750
74812 F20101124_AADBAQ park_h_Page_042.jpg
63d7a9a95a0fde05682edb4675e40dee
c5324e42a3ec3b8b3a66b898e8174f671c41a951
10621 F20101124_AADAVL park_h_Page_055.QC.jpg
02d142a0ca26ef087b7fc8a4515dfb78
08e70e7fc0977c0db84d0529cbfeacfe4da08757
112758 F20101124_AADAUX park_h_Page_026.jp2
2f3e9ef236f49771a1326f798d63c1c2
eb7ba11c3d3a358d7f3a3043b2aa3837773519df
65652 F20101124_AADBBG park_h_Page_080.jpg
c739141cff4855464867b6461bb1d321
60ebb83e6cc1a613132446fd8fb2b17fdce33a56
69227 F20101124_AADBAR park_h_Page_043.jpg
a97c2ad1b23327984beee50173e06538
48ea3481cbf57dae0c80fe238e6377442eff37fa
114274 F20101124_AADAVM park_h_Page_042.jp2
e29c933aafd1c5d34d27a2ec3b9401ab
8d1b01503fe5d226a03d0369dd129cbe89310aaf
F20101124_AADAUY park_h_Page_145.tif
7158cbc8c4963ca0e67280b668bd50c7
f43a284357574865b4d5331f2c7c545eba47186b
65588 F20101124_AADBBH park_h_Page_082.jpg
c0651706f92f8aa3b8266edff1abfb38
e4495c1164ed4ec3f49386f98be24ab2b855ac67
F20101124_AADAWA park_h_Page_139.tif
6917645ea6765a1d9d6e7f61c2078405
fe99f9f55617466692a85198d24a9b65e11c9f20
72774 F20101124_AADBAS park_h_Page_046.jpg
174bca78628c1cff4aed37124415a267
b1d1d7f5b651f37b4f0a968900fa6c5a2573b538
F20101124_AADAVN park_h_Page_048.tif
d6304021dcc40910a119a452333c7949
2bb69fc48fab4a4a300cb29cc31a97573422622b
23513 F20101124_AADAUZ park_h_Page_057.QC.jpg
572f8b72286140b4ef3aca1cd9c294a9
a225b594575738fec96cb171421ff81efd2e64b8
76272 F20101124_AADBBI park_h_Page_084.jpg
0148275209f3b350e2d5fd4a1cd56f1a
5f84590fe597521ba74cf721a3dd8a3a7f514810
6158 F20101124_AADAWB park_h_Page_106thm.jpg
59fce5d85d61480ea1a30485d9b95c9f
a0a3717d81480e5b60729fe2b1787a2ee1559512
69741 F20101124_AADBAT park_h_Page_048.jpg
d6e99961df03ef95b2f5ce63aa7f48ee
00181c1966ec62023ab8ea50ab9e5f98bb11ce39
20924 F20101124_AADAVO park_h_Page_091.QC.jpg
89e7877ed6531eec3960768c39ebdc4e
48243537df16293fc4cf2d5e1f447055ab5babc4
45224 F20101124_AADAWC park_h_Page_138.jp2
09dcfd98a1b12b12ff11c0a1c0ebd74b
c0966df310a88e0b8ded3c3b773f44eac8923ea7
75358 F20101124_AADBAU park_h_Page_050.jpg
61e8889387af6d6437a089aecd3b2521
93f05ab6abdee97cf3e44a6c0e691cb7ae0e029c
F20101124_AADAVP park_h_Page_003.tif
36e6c63d152bfc36bf16dca2dce74728
6263ce28d89410a2db0a0bfb814189e3ddac46f0
75974 F20101124_AADBBJ park_h_Page_087.jpg
22a9d137e6a6f727eec0ca2d4bc87154
57439a568e275657e6aa9240fcb2aa6f6288c179
6422 F20101124_AADAWD park_h_Page_072thm.jpg
33f1575b0a64564bda9f3b54ab79db33
164f7ab1f6ed16fad771fa7b75d2165ae06546e7
71746 F20101124_AADBAV park_h_Page_051.jpg
d7a5f7840bb6df2dd849616cbb909212
2e2082fec8f2fa40bf3142442709053c4e13475c
46958 F20101124_AADAVQ park_h_Page_116.jp2
9358683ad03b377ce1b5664b35713984
bf1c8dbcfa4d7ec54d086b76e0d3e7e44b38cb04
55718 F20101124_AADBBK park_h_Page_088.jpg
dad1477cf85063fa34d3d33144dec7bc
287ef5d5846d36f8bd3024ce07dd08c2d9671d03
71587 F20101124_AADAWE park_h_Page_021.jpg
90e5e704800ba8277b915defd64136ce
201998991a2e2e90e64a493d916496a2d59b4259
64625 F20101124_AADBAW park_h_Page_056.jpg
4e0257ecde6088d5f6c23be173b5f7e0
124fb6a2478880c2f3fedbcc32e958eefbc860fc
F20101124_AADAVR park_h_Page_075.tif
0f41f19607663b118208ee42d4dcec06
6415cf3b4c2cd7aae00ec0a3f669d3d137ffec5d
65414 F20101124_AADBCA park_h_Page_118.jpg
1df08d6b7ae2f4ec90541eaa52323085
c0406bc11111599416ca4a99f9494233b1f648ba
29950 F20101124_AADBBL park_h_Page_090.jpg
335dbe2e1e35298e84c85eac54954dab
f3047a2f9eca83cb721d87493b8233b64be0aabb
88850 F20101124_AADAWF park_h_Page_115.jp2
499617f667e7d45497611f47a91f580e
1044bc3f2966dccff8d5f49812644be43b372db3
69477 F20101124_AADBAX park_h_Page_057.jpg
6e950f7cfb99a0c1f5d9b3667706b09e
b6ca63ff6e58bb43068ec4ee6d2f6fb3e11da963
51468 F20101124_AADAVS park_h_Page_124.jpg
0b552ae0c08cee4adf5a594511d46f24
236b7fc91afe60d5e7af7bc95d1dea447dfa56a3
66857 F20101124_AADBCB park_h_Page_120.jpg
ef123eacdea3b8819db4eef8787c2518
5c3e55a761d29ab5e58bbe5e8a15d02aefb5a39e
64109 F20101124_AADBBM park_h_Page_091.jpg
931f346f8f896fa401866f3cc55e422a
b234a1cc4740a4b4f729118072c68768ae8d341b
F20101124_AADAWG park_h_Page_141.tif
1eaf0cd5738c4f5b0cbd74a49b6f88bf
3cbee2569ece893af347ba05041b87d682e66028
53948 F20101124_AADBAY park_h_Page_058.jpg
b4ce425c112a00a9dc445eac47f0a3fe
e70608e11bae911ddda21a2f292d5d198704e16d
41354 F20101124_AADAVT park_h_Page_136.jp2
bbe018d565bf58f98a0fb11d073e75a7
c3c97967280e4ce9392f56beb02ca3cb80de3b14
67827 F20101124_AADBCC park_h_Page_121.jpg
f10a1fe801210846e87ed3c2dddde32c
05a923f04fee44ac27199a954214a7cf2755bcff
72108 F20101124_AADBBN park_h_Page_094.jpg
2370168f064606940e0c1d6f78ffb0cb
9892777242b3e9c67b33a283952f41f307b7b0c3
70936 F20101124_AADAWH park_h_Page_053.jpg
7e92c5c29b3396b57b9229461fa76240
02f1facdee275a5da36500d6266a2526ac451e29
71090 F20101124_AADBAZ park_h_Page_064.jpg
919e42ef4e7eb73d0238bd42230e6df2
a3101b30f8341f363b71d9b8026e7d4650a9fe05
6598 F20101124_AADAVU park_h_Page_023thm.jpg
8684d365ac793ba80c6126aeaba4be47
f18e24db750bb68af4885b379fe628bdae6d6ecf
63316 F20101124_AADBCD park_h_Page_122.jpg
56ddcb7cac9e271c87b2ae3ebdc07326
2216289601bf45827753f547d1d0f69b1d127ef2
71872 F20101124_AADBBO park_h_Page_095.jpg
57b6b1e936dd41f924814277845e820c
b0c768c10db45f7231e3c1ae63e83c80484eb0c2
5777 F20101124_AADAWI park_h_Page_009thm.jpg
29897456326c133b5de069ca179d983a
8429d03f9a51c63ec4e64949de7a2f7c8e3f1c5a
7921 F20101124_AADAVV park_h_Page_131.QC.jpg
36f772e561a7a13780e6dc478f8f49f7
d579b36f5d032797f3fd8443fefcff2df2953db5
44214 F20101124_AADBCE park_h_Page_125.jpg
2bffcfa72ca3abbc4720d91231a7417e
fd0f99aeec24c4246bf65b15e7a108c82f25fa9f
67584 F20101124_AADBBP park_h_Page_096.jpg
6539b289efb16d8f2eddf6ec058502df
8808dd1feae221992cea3e16860e920d583e6313
F20101124_AADAWJ park_h_Page_133.tif
7b2591d97cf61ccda6c044a6a50d49af
372ad916144bf5c018de88b28dd49e3b169f0c0d
24188 F20101124_AADAVW park_h_Page_060.QC.jpg
a16ebddee44294a71426199460516578
8b71fb45160eb22838633e903f96ef0bf99a7c13
28156 F20101124_AADBCF park_h_Page_127.jpg
3f433e4c29a9f01eb1d03cd840708b4f
cff2ec78c75cdcae18dfd8a704da4c0e88c3bd8f
73596 F20101124_AADBBQ park_h_Page_100.jpg
b88b314d2b96ff17bd205ee1e0f8f12a
041f5a518526e189935ecadcc0a54ac944868f70
95121 F20101124_AADAWK park_h_Page_122.jp2
a3a02a54532664bb460a36e1f1b90929
c2609dca740ef8a28e44154ac33bb6ba8eddad2e
5150 F20101124_AADAVX park_h_Page_088thm.jpg
394067bb966f586a3523197e61311ca2
ffe86ffaf27f71a2b66b3e3185e97a0771de297c
25878 F20101124_AADBCG park_h_Page_131.jpg
e17fecadee138c0f73e637735cd645b8
9243266e2ba6ece1d3979a843b32dc05c3a7dd8d
72406 F20101124_AADBBR park_h_Page_102.jpg
d9bba9031a89804e71e7679ab855a9ac
59904f468f13083e09ff83e55c7de7386f89251a
71569 F20101124_AADAWL park_h_Page_059.jpg
06ddc60b311a139116e8619a52d03ad1
13e2cf752f6dc52bdbf44d97e0941e6fa0a93aee
78251 F20101124_AADAVY park_h_Page_015.jp2
c54d3fe55213677f721c1c479726f667
ee3622b916c71da004a520525345a7be5e6e7b6f
28006 F20101124_AADBCH park_h_Page_133.jpg
567bfa5a8d8c9e09a92bc956e682b204
9c6880d716a78aec19818f727ba6413a88179548
69388 F20101124_AADAXA park_h_Page_103.jpg
7b659be9825072beb0f657356104f25e
d125ab50ab58190dce4122d771f6055282b1ba4d
25399 F20101124_AADBBS park_h_Page_104.jpg
2e123348f5aefe4bf67a35dcbe468488
59baf50424e97ba44d286765d8b4b389a5be4d41
65597 F20101124_AADAWM park_h_Page_119.jpg
5bf646cf56a62bcaff93edb6cdfa726a
2b446d5d6f9aff8a863a1bd346fd0be208383b7a
108897 F20101124_AADAVZ park_h_Page_107.jp2
38dd58cb71f9c4826d9b6820fffe46c9
283e97ddd586eadaeae5d27c00eebac4239e21e3
26684 F20101124_AADBCI park_h_Page_134.jpg
932836b26d54ca8d3ffcd4417912aac9
cb91e6c2390a1b116b166ac896d44e3d78381358
36669 F20101124_AADAXB park_h_Page_127.jp2
e00526bb189d315953ddaa499ec12dad
2d704b546b9db9f0d4d5032be08f08740b27e57f
68120 F20101124_AADBBT park_h_Page_106.jpg
2d5ea8e7e009e0cc2d4d2632b726b4f5
df3530a5924a5a17a9e8dfc8eef77849721979d9
48327 F20101124_AADAWN park_h_Page_114.jp2
2b06259b060ac5ee3f54a3b7fc6cab78
cd960058009a7e2b9ac793cd6de8ff57767fd09b
29742 F20101124_AADBCJ park_h_Page_136.jpg
91cd3459a4d7316c230cfe685d7e9b49
9fecd76995f4402a9ba3995c15fa750b6a4cb5a7
73282 F20101124_AADAXC park_h_Page_019.jpg
b2a714bd777f022238be0e6012d8a4df
0798b40dc422cb23d3ba839df886f30bc393f1ac
70254 F20101124_AADBBU park_h_Page_107.jpg
c2161a6d5703efad775ba49e8adca7b8
fd43ef2db95e8c70eecdd4ad21d3e8f59de65b6b
37233 F20101124_AADAWO park_h_Page_130.jp2
428fad279d12b49ac2bcc5558fcaca97
f75ab4e9aae222b17daddeae455a09d250fe1db8
F20101124_AADAXD park_h_Page_007.jp2
685707022db5badc0d08a27b9a90166b
9d7450f37184c5eaaa24b2b7187158f43a7766fc
69188 F20101124_AADBBV park_h_Page_108.jpg
7e4a97852f878c8b1f1ac5654363ea67
37b09bb4df2a345c2999275a7d5e1d2df433a02b
32553 F20101124_AADAWP park_h_Page_104.jp2
6cca38b26f2fa9410ec6003bf8a6bd55
b203abac1681fa22844d4661e9f850e2ed7ff43c
32150 F20101124_AADBCK park_h_Page_137.jpg
2db3e75045c810b7ceeb7f030e6171fa
6b0c977e0cb59876e5faf164a10e7e7ebb2f57b7
115114 F20101124_AADAXE park_h_Page_036.jp2
ff18c2842f340f9312a7097060ac801a
f8feaa671d1e04d7427ad76cec7702429323b719
64472 F20101124_AADBBW park_h_Page_109.jpg
77fb8db8aeead3b28432f427b723ee73
8bae3164a82d71b989fdec7b5f58e682520fe42a
22092 F20101124_AADAWQ park_h_Page_043.QC.jpg
c4a6076d9995ec98477e426473311265
969dc36688cbda36d4c08c8e3e2c5d00118c01a6
22142 F20101124_AADBCL park_h_Page_140.jpg
7969899a0bbb30bcb5f2d154bbbf211d
9201a52643e7aaa71861feb4df529d9e5748dde5
6006 F20101124_AADAXF park_h_Page_119thm.jpg
6f8902b274f5a2f60134aab1cea71208
c4cdcc8f6c469faea98deec58220b63a74f9e01f
75008 F20101124_AADBBX park_h_Page_111.jpg
0f5f5c92e0c33ccf8bf165aff1cb6339
242e6b207a1994bf660c079fc3627a7753310230
4820 F20101124_AADAWR park_h_Page_015thm.jpg
7d3fd29dc71efb94fea8a2a5f6c20a18
cd2e1217a5812c673fe4640d7a51e8eec14d5cbf
113692 F20101124_AADBDA park_h_Page_019.jp2
5e09e0d350d6fa6ff83ac897b6573221
d1209bb03d2f636fb262664634dce0e905863deb
71706 F20101124_AADBCM park_h_Page_141.jpg
e47391f88b1e0b8b024d67e8280ada97
c00b4696f4c9dc33df04d0624ddf8cdf6336207f
F20101124_AADAXG park_h_Page_030.tif
915ad940ad066c0a80441415370d7dd2
1111b8483a1e7bb44d4d86306262cc87d6d8fdcc
34521 F20101124_AADBBY park_h_Page_116.jpg
565fe52a25dd87cbb3264cee9fee7158
ebe972fb2786ab18b163495c162256008054125a
23105 F20101124_AADAWS park_h_Page_076.QC.jpg
788e56b400055517c8742021299d27fb
58c90a042f0b3abff58dc1b30445a4ab66814659
110912 F20101124_AADBDB park_h_Page_021.jp2
86d969dd5f8cc02f8f231ad990d1dd67
2317a1991a73e05766d418edec84685db1dc808a
87705 F20101124_AADBCN park_h_Page_143.jpg
eff031a6c40504f8b9eb9cd2ebf2b53a
2820530d8b90acba5234947156d819c947d9e955
3027 F20101124_AADAXH park_h_Page_003.QC.jpg
bf118a0a3887cf0b573fda2f81803f15
fe0383ac07b6d80469e75fbac32ea758f9c5748f
32007 F20101124_AADBBZ park_h_Page_117.jpg
a3eff39a78f01a56f1bfbcdab3617474
766dfd2db3fbc4187abd24275781f75938f30fd1
18818 F20101124_AADAWT park_h_Page_073.QC.jpg
e4c15b36ef19ee555162a9acf572428d
c3ff96aa323db4370f3af248e3bc99070457a8ca
114527 F20101124_AADBDC park_h_Page_022.jp2
199401134afac3f4c2b938602fdcb7d2
5eadb413e4561252d305821d06ddf92b35b98dd7
86128 F20101124_AADBCO park_h_Page_144.jpg
11577397e1f5e958395c9b879cc8e73a
78fb41fa78318b01aed76d54eafdc792c0f0d2df
23795 F20101124_AADAXI park_h_Page_065.QC.jpg
6aa518228e8760f7aafd7def102d1254
810d1a5ae0b8f9262b366b51c8b33c3f17ddb5ae
111350 F20101124_AADAWU park_h_Page_141.jp2
be722f8d0abc240871a74531650c49e6
ed6d7b9993df3cfbc7d9e750754285ac0545dd7b
111945 F20101124_AADBDD park_h_Page_023.jp2
ee05bf2e7bc364c2e1fb20fb12a26d92
7fef8725b2fde43bf63f48b63cb955419d683a73
85085 F20101124_AADBCP park_h_Page_145.jpg
3f404e50ebb1bb1b7641b8d08c61b491
1eaf25de1a2b20117262889b8b7fa62b4d8a960f
31134 F20101124_AADAXJ park_h_Page_135.jpg
001abbd57d7e0b2f17b2c304dc172241
3010cadc2c261f4b8a246d64deb3b5776bd1e87e
22807 F20101124_AADAWV park_h_Page_017.QC.jpg
7fba0d0a59f96d036fc9acc7e7ee7e66
4d79e70f0060f9fab2abf39401633450bc4a385a
115287 F20101124_AADBDE park_h_Page_024.jp2
8b88d5b86e14e4f95e83680d949d7a7c
316a5a1683dd56e0e5ce11bc0dd7ef385a2c4abc
72560 F20101124_AADBCQ park_h_Page_146.jpg
0b8e1775451c7382fa3c4a08c3cb42f5
60bfb4486a92c21c72867dbf1a79d4c3c2507dc3
71097 F20101124_AADAXK park_h_Page_071.jpg
83e4068d5d3f9268898d72e3f7e83f1c
c7aa6ce13339fcaa449ff62381ebaeb83637af8a
F20101124_AADAWW park_h_Page_009.tif
44ed639a475421c9f78bdb2a31ccf59b
437523ae60ab8c71aa46d4d35f6012558b894849
105850 F20101124_AADBDF park_h_Page_025.jp2
58f57e72f49356822791797c1b3b1b21
8256794147c2e4eb27d19499136d508800691244
24766 F20101124_AADAYA park_h_Page_126.jpg
a6731fdd94f7c86ff8117dfb9664980b
fc92f12ab8123e87bc129e81ab0014c75608be80
26501 F20101124_AADBCR park_h_Page_001.jp2
032823b146f888548e533ffec8fb8cf9
1cded41cc2b8daedfa7100a69c71e0b198d752c7
72015 F20101124_AADAXL park_h_Page_077.jpg
6ef7ab62bbea1bd9c68889d2180de0a2
d08c92b48db9e2805a6cc091a47c39d1a0fac7d9
29017 F20101124_AADAWX park_h_Page_128.jpg
ebbaf039742af408b746c88c509f7a9e
b1ae99173a185fc71636c1a23788652852d1f424
103388 F20101124_AADBDG park_h_Page_028.jp2
ee27a6479e300d42a3893876b40ea4fb
261960209e92af415ed21ae1378e823b75c6bdfa
5393 F20101124_AADBCS park_h_Page_002.jp2
db10c36fcfc99d74e46207796f7436bb
e2c62302ea6062662d9263ba04821ce96af815df
72198 F20101124_AADAXM park_h_Page_044.jpg
53fb0543871cd66f4c4e2c7b02832f6d
e501e6a7f77b5c10dc9a570056881cebef74540c
18394 F20101124_AADAWY park_h_Page_088.QC.jpg
52b9e03793db2167a32ed4c3dfd18c18
52347eb02f1acdab7d34b3a0caa992ff3d1fc3e2
105958 F20101124_AADBDH park_h_Page_029.jp2
5b03b9f07269532eebb4e63933ca16e0
c567c4991188277724a8c94a6d060cab06715d0e
3422 F20101124_AADAYB park_h_Page_129thm.jpg
74089f664ac5eec92ae6c11cecdd651b
913f5aebd5957e52dc4c8551eabef51289b4ed0e
28951 F20101124_AADBCT park_h_Page_004.jp2
dddf125691a20d15c3691b943c4b7ad1
c115d6b0302c266736ce884948a84c41a74da0b1
68743 F20101124_AADAXN park_h_Page_085.jpg
06264ac6fae6a65a8bf72a99e25292d7
54d2d82a9aa5d88cd4573f0c7ff01e32bc7faa5b
8623 F20101124_AADAWZ park_h_Page_132.QC.jpg
c6e6d24b640bb34130d7d45182ef0d46
a353309e93b11555f078037ddb5ebd09b48f8b07
106323 F20101124_AADBDI park_h_Page_031.jp2
e73270be9c38c70bb96b9f2430488028
60f1efe90dab7857570344af4a514cdf1e460b5d
104742 F20101124_AADAYC park_h_Page_061.jp2
a1175a71c32f8b58e796230efc3bce34
d05a92e23726b38c02c5d4167bae31a65efad99f
1051980 F20101124_AADBCU park_h_Page_009.jp2
12998592a462bde76d2d017e1fda2630
0849634fa5062db24f801cbd4a4349d16a21aba0
23302 F20101124_AADAXO park_h_Page_021.QC.jpg
1b216c963f19c681eea7533c5bd9ffb6
2ae001589921a7509984ff23818df03637f9de35
115311 F20101124_AADBDJ park_h_Page_033.jp2
224ddb533a16dcfd3df12c9165988e3c
f289a2f74d5773aaa2f2e0cd66d8b1b21b27bf8e
18767 F20101124_AADAYD park_h_Page_105.QC.jpg
0038886b6c92f17b58eefc1248a50398
c63afc50ebd90145d6f181942d65c4b293da4ad4
987566 F20101124_AADBCV park_h_Page_010.jp2
f56db2e1cca31231b4a2936e8de27054
8518288f909bc744c2478a4bacd9dfb82ab7653e
F20101124_AADAXP park_h_Page_065thm.jpg
2d536b9977ad58d855cb5507ee43876a
3022a9e4257a2dc5e7622a1d2b5db77241e18477
105766 F20101124_AADBDK park_h_Page_035.jp2
f449e59dd6aa3339f008ac9e4c2b96ef
cdd4ad05e0d2fd1e7141ba245da24775b28bf7d1
28366 F20101124_AADAYE park_h_Page_132.jpg
1236441f983d96e641fe49f532fb4cb8
12d2791df4792e49f9d6aad0267094894efce75c
90949 F20101124_AADBCW park_h_Page_011.jp2
b30d52335437f5887d4c2f6d56f3d73c
8e8cdd37bf75890e45d83c3f6a19fe310b394a11
104097 F20101124_AADAXQ park_h_Page_081.jp2
7ff1030115962cc2cee501dfae02073f
d0c4b753e9a7993c98f6e98864f1693569e8e151
23285 F20101124_AADAYF park_h_Page_053.QC.jpg
a49ed134d4eef330979f906433fc13b6
3ba793b8a5f231be6f0f3ddc9425c9eb2c63b10b
63368 F20101124_AADBCX park_h_Page_012.jp2
b605ada9af917dec0b9e1c5046f4ec57
e3bc79800ce1b12456b9854d048b90a5bb0c0290
9835 F20101124_AADAXR park_h_Page_003.jpg
354b16df91cb9593aef7582b6fc2d779
cb66772dd3255f90f2acb07c44815e60ec21a8fb
107413 F20101124_AADBEA park_h_Page_062.jp2
96c80f6c6b2d70e7ba210360f82e1914
a430604869ccf0f193144d5405c79f687e622a85
109000 F20101124_AADBDL park_h_Page_037.jp2
a333da09f834bf6e9b8ac63607eca898
ae360eff7c47feae33ab0a2e0c295988bd806311
2793 F20101124_AADAYG park_h_Page_127thm.jpg
a747a3688237f5696ce2059a8d0dccf1
d643d2fd777148579a170ad7fb233b3cf9549838
93955 F20101124_AADBCY park_h_Page_016.jp2
30226339e261efe3deb35089f917a84e
29a0f2b887895dc1db6d10510a351c41f671c46c
2976 F20101124_AADAXS park_h_Page_128thm.jpg
87da8a7587f409e3f87c8fe1e18a8711
90479ee0fba8f78d4271420f03ab4e136379a0e9
106754 F20101124_AADBEB park_h_Page_063.jp2
b25940e53ca00eaa56b2937fccb1f059
6e0a0a544df9dd080220a66f1b40892254122649
107906 F20101124_AADBDM park_h_Page_038.jp2
4a0417e59669064c41b385ab45619d56
4fd3419424d935749cac6d080ad6dcd61f6429a9
22872 F20101124_AADAYH park_h_Page_035.QC.jpg
8ba1b4fea975ae3f1a02717ad25bccd0
2f2ed2990211c3b820c23dc2cbbc8328f594f8d3
112556 F20101124_AADBCZ park_h_Page_018.jp2
382ee17658073a7fb8c83b558574ea9f
d6deb5fd4a24c177ede986bff02c8979628c3fea
74838 F20101124_AADAXT park_h_Page_067.jpg
edf4eaa397d0506bd20f5e30aae0ddb5
be73016aeb68d5646e08e0463076b6a706d99528
108777 F20101124_AADBEC park_h_Page_064.jp2
ffdd24195badb0a3f5a7983cd142704b
c17d57211c9925dda3e7311520754473b932da5e
111573 F20101124_AADBDN park_h_Page_039.jp2
8d55c12de0a222f728841326fe0321ec
37d766de561773e0f9d2963702701d8c2a5042f4
F20101124_AADAYI park_h_Page_092.tif
33011c49085db651e32b077684730474
ff421e1761bff25eeade19088676b88e2ee78ac8
2318 F20101124_AADAXU park_h_Page_140thm.jpg
0fde11cd3857c53cbb71559a014d0717
02fda4592244e16eed53ee9b4d62536191e01661
112827 F20101124_AADBED park_h_Page_065.jp2
209ea00e78c96a3a7580947007e2c855
a097ccd056e5edaa7f0988ed0295250269e331e0
106396 F20101124_AADBDO park_h_Page_043.jp2
c45f8055a170cfa88ef3a69990c68423
7b4536b871dbeb417f7be76c66a94adfad11b476
1051969 F20101124_AADAYJ park_h_Page_005.jp2
777e4ed4450ecbe11a0fb146ef466ec9
a1bb1c0cdf4bd5828d64bb8bf7168d948271f12d
F20101124_AADAXV park_h_Page_059.tif
f2839f0211b586539536aff88905581a
14ad47088c459d8e4ed00eb55424a27cb4f09ea2
89198 F20101124_AADBEE park_h_Page_066.jp2
240e8a172a8362aaf40a604eba486349
ce045e9e47b5991ad7a336fc28c8a37d2ecec295
110870 F20101124_AADBDP park_h_Page_044.jp2
b226e4a51036f6ddebc4e336966c2d4b
c33365740c8d09054255a7247e2f336a46d8821f
57208 F20101124_AADAYK park_h_Page_083.jpg
7a59813928b1432f22b38ba14864a703
1845197393c69137869687a5b14ba5c451660237
F20101124_AADAXW park_h_Page_089.tif
37a5a00530d601e92e718e6d04651447
898056ad0fb464261b0f346d7c5dc1e3ade40d86
114773 F20101124_AADBEF park_h_Page_067.jp2
2747b019667c9fa72ea28fe786a373c0
172beb944fb64a2b5577f836329b479d430f2dd6
107373 F20101124_AADBDQ park_h_Page_049.jp2
9fbc8fe0af55305a140a8c464097b8f1
5876f5f80ccac68cec7c7d20d3968c6731d0e2a0
70705 F20101124_AADAYL park_h_Page_062.jpg
73d2258a1a9b4a011c0a59bfdec9aa19
1483b8dc4f2b9fb6a1ea160ad0e9f4848f99a181
61302 F20101124_AADAXX park_h_Page_016.jpg
be6671986894af40fd2d8cb4235744f9
0d6fa495fefc6d7d9bd2ca802904ac636f0deb03
82167 F20101124_AADBEG park_h_Page_068.jp2
ea635d751c32a746d8239e6cc1ebfd39
0734dc5709aec6f009c135fba2cc40fa77aa0347
23550 F20101124_AADAZA park_h_Page_039.QC.jpg
3e5fb067422edf647656630286f028aa
05007938869b92f2d1bc91ba024b3ffd38085fdc
115323 F20101124_AADBDR park_h_Page_050.jp2
b1c1fb70ef9f5ab39642deb25101826e
b5e4a794e41d0c99184d23f73ad3c20043c6b070
F20101124_AADAXY park_h_Page_037.tif
3e7971ea5430086a953b8b63435337da
2b79b18aef3f4c0dac8c87db41b768d9b32141fd
80121 F20101124_AADBEH park_h_Page_070.jp2
cf85eb294f42afec69d3d71b1d43fc22
b0540ea1202ec000df89e723dd574988b36c3577
F20101124_AADAZB park_h_Page_111.tif
c70b24d890e28d3ae05b6b99bafd6ac9
666532e21db0e5587aac2010b4459ec078f18aa6
110489 F20101124_AADBDS park_h_Page_052.jp2
5779c4b9bf5c416300eab3de386c3215
8a69f78c27867a6cd4a94daeff8adf78dcd40d41
F20101124_AADAYM park_h_Page_114.tif
aff7f6e2d63a5317421286435f6a05a7
82f762be85e1b71615c3204e49a28ac14a8a1341
F20101124_AADAXZ park_h_Page_018thm.jpg
3583e904ac701921f9f3428ee6859166
2c2bd1fa6ad02076a8f791cdbf6e6c7435745576
105428 F20101124_AADBEI park_h_Page_071.jp2
176006506c303a488109aa65cef38dfc
0fcff7e4a2d5b3bebe0b452dd0652c248ca16622
109731 F20101124_AADBDT park_h_Page_053.jp2
103ca055316f4a4c7eb416bc1cf60505
4641c4fb6828e1cd0e87884d9682ee175657fee1
6227 F20101124_AADAYN park_h_Page_025thm.jpg
9a0f3869794e7c97aede7e7dae1e7cf7
fa80f55cd8990e063fe13daf7ce68f8f93348a67
110057 F20101124_AADBEJ park_h_Page_072.jp2
3d1d1e13870b760a9826ad10956b67be
a039d715fea94c7512d876eea53e96ea2bbdf9b8
25393 F20101124_AADAZC park_h_Page_143.QC.jpg
92d7b8529cb76a6b6b0412f37498fb0b
54db17e7756437a6a6dd49ad390b0d42659d49d1
98799 F20101124_AADBDU park_h_Page_054.jp2
72282611a350ae94af09e6a502cb5d84
1fb856945b46b3b284be0239bc65c7ff9a780592
6523 F20101124_AADAYO park_h_Page_063thm.jpg
62c0fce4dfea56ef0aebc886b7c3dcac
aea287e952fc059bd9b802c438aeede3a416762a
75191 F20101124_AADBEK park_h_Page_073.jp2
1a0cafbb7be5b1c8a589029a06d2edbc
706b5d1e6998f24c1adb04292d43c13217d60a59
74544 F20101124_AADAZD park_h_Page_036.jpg
4d99c8f5f035a917c0a5fc5e07448e3b
f595099adfe3d375aeef5f7ab019b136aa7e1706
50176 F20101124_AADBDV park_h_Page_055.jp2
59bcb24c96517c1608b0b57b4ace917b
fb9162688e2da3f1968a9da55790afe2c498f29f
5699 F20101124_AADAYP park_h_Page_016thm.jpg
22b7d7f132c1ddeebc9f058a389aead0
c7179a0a5189eb44ca83d5eaa8497f1cd77ea7cb
110165 F20101124_AADBEL park_h_Page_074.jp2
7f2c0ed582e0ccf5c65dac30c5371bf0
739eb998ab5b821a40287689607344288de4526a
71362 F20101124_AADAZE park_h_Page_076.jpg
a2fd975003e8b65bd588f08696128b14
bb011b53444bba1154a50d8241a05b809e0c854c
102359 F20101124_AADBDW park_h_Page_057.jp2
e0271853d30f70943bab08199fee2c78
acf1df9c435bfc8cccdc211d2903376bf80858d4
5639 F20101124_AADAYQ park_h_Page_105thm.jpg
0e8f527760ee81242733af6e4636267d
fcd3f604dce0c6b468ab4cde43d883235cc116b3
114250 F20101124_AADBFA park_h_Page_101.jp2
5f0638d7f85caed71f5e5853f631586d
02f8c0af9ae94bf726a7b722f2f0d33d43ad3c72
6612 F20101124_AADAZF park_h_Page_041thm.jpg
be0d888e118c6208c78e3b6f5357bb76
5b16629b3a571d6aa35c91092eca1c64ca958ec3
78445 F20101124_AADBDX park_h_Page_058.jp2
18420ec599c931d3b199b7a9725185b1
1878a502a66b884cecf045d879f12269682d308d
F20101124_AADAYR park_h_Page_047.tif
762b1de0a3a0565ac51bd90126b2a302
9de244a5295cae3417df30c4c29f0fb720ee3135
108014 F20101124_AADBFB park_h_Page_102.jp2
bae2ecbfaa0bba852d835529c00e30c5
11a91f2f9475bd860ba767e21013e65196fe7373
99199 F20101124_AADBEM park_h_Page_078.jp2
411b7b7f66ca6879dc68716aee229267
9405b49da46f8882363898911daf0052e64c0d91
109464 F20101124_AADAZG park_h_Page_076.jp2
e42d221061f0ae9ae19dc28fe88023f9
61eb7ece9388d258bd2ee87e0f77f02825e24aab
106474 F20101124_AADBDY park_h_Page_059.jp2
3acd8af2b1d3e7b96ddd43743e41bcc4
992c070d51e2b5a47969cd1876945a12dd1ae2d6
6040 F20101124_AADAYS park_h_Page_013thm.jpg
869ea14722d6b22867b23939f5d1b8a6
0e4aef956978b55a51fe06d5b94634ec4bf4f8ef
103809 F20101124_AADBFC park_h_Page_103.jp2
7949e9765ee497553edb198c3c2cdbf9
68d8ae91b706672c115ddd467c640670ab3c7635
106070 F20101124_AADBEN park_h_Page_079.jp2
d51175838ce11b58cdafb809840b7f9a
a6650875d0ec5a25978366bf339968d3e86dcaad
133500 F20101124_AADAZH park_h_Page_145.jp2
90d10d2a4fb49808507b294724fcc109
4de78ea5b9a7b0b72e503c04f589fb647671d733
112557 F20101124_AADBDZ park_h_Page_060.jp2
5e76372a28dab08c3a619a8b36e109df
ce1235131cf29b5db2c4cb3e132cb03308efe9be
113125 F20101124_AADAYT park_h_Page_045.jp2
1f6975c9aad6443f277731190651b966
a4c9b0b4c61169945ad608d1578f18c151d76c83
106312 F20101124_AADBFD park_h_Page_108.jp2
c18bc4181f8c109910efc5626f1f965f
b970e2c255463eff6141dd7122f4eb4e30a566f8
94638 F20101124_AADBEO park_h_Page_080.jp2
337e3ad5a44b8bd535c5cc7ed1416a15
6534e42b92ccccb145939c7ea3fd23bcfec16e3b
5384 F20101124_AADAZI park_h_Page_115thm.jpg
097ce4f919000c47608b08dfe254c16d
b37972c83b9a82afbcaac9c7bac25a84d088612a
F20101124_AADAYU park_h_Page_084.tif
6743d906fd8bbac479bf511ecd286174
c3a6d9b93873ce034f47b21e8f2d9ad049ec7a5d
104104 F20101124_AADBFE park_h_Page_110.jp2
9baf053d9a21dd2de7e33d7d3de61128
f8c709b7faecda1d30b8e1074b8881508288048f
79864 F20101124_AADBEP park_h_Page_083.jp2
e0c80145a1abff164491adb0049ed7ab
81ef8645f5600147be4835ef3f739c9d4c0bc55b
70157 F20101124_AADAZJ park_h_Page_081.jpg
59a25b4721e21d48eb07cd8a6c0b7f07
c7d41337cf269293b6e687fbc84c266303ffb1bd
141473 F20101124_AADAYV park_h_Page_144.jp2
404d2a5b39ea4cbedf716d2dbcd19ec8
548dea8967faaaf11335420711bd05658e51abf2
106133 F20101124_AADBFF park_h_Page_112.jp2
1c246c24e05ad4c3c02b16ecc8877804
c0d4de9c87668ff6a6aec46eb3fd9f519ae2f913
115983 F20101124_AADBEQ park_h_Page_084.jp2
9752c88039a27008d9bf25e0bab7f6cf
57d9f9b494ad330f8e386ee330a2bfc351300b00
F20101124_AADAZK park_h_Page_057.tif
12ba9285490e8408bfcadf35b04db2a0
4d90215f1987f1dbed9b963f583122cad0cd8c90
62849 F20101124_AADAYW park_h_Page_115.jpg
2d7362c888d956b9da2b2fb591308237
6a441085f46715b9a0e37d53b149aadb5f7ecbd3
44610 F20101124_AADBFG park_h_Page_117.jp2
0491138a9dc9043dbe6d0d716ce98576
42610ec4741d8d552e38b368114858e66f815c9b
102353 F20101124_AADBER park_h_Page_085.jp2
89d27f1840c4524c7804d0ba964d19c7
ec138ccf60a2ccd925a543eb2719e152102d58bb
72648 F20101124_AADAZL park_h_Page_005.jpg
a056a828921ddcb26d0d6b8969e2f29b
ad4be31674b6f45bb2d3e614aec81de718845db0
6244 F20101124_AADAYX park_h_Page_035thm.jpg
dec463fd8f00b3cd190274697451e45a
ca69c2bd4fd0352edfc1948a7dce1c3f527d5b22
97952 F20101124_AADBFH park_h_Page_118.jp2
54e7b8c05a9354506197780344e2746c
2cd26a55d603199f95bcd028ad7c3eee224d8660
95878 F20101124_AADBES park_h_Page_086.jp2
7ecb812122ddaf741ef10787950fb296
0c4c07fe7240f67b46243c2b5fce449eb866ff38
F20101124_AADAZM park_h_Page_143.tif
44e88f9ba654bfb9357f7b1f759d907b
ba766b26d96b886c8f54b4a0c46610218043c20c
56641 F20101124_AADAYY park_h_Page_070.jpg
26cb73048f3d96e50f9922b5c04bea3c
1e88cfa2872965583bfc090b5aad89a43ebaa4ef
98090 F20101124_AADBFI park_h_Page_119.jp2
14b4bf2f0a8dec63d6fbc7deee760031
0d2bed677548fa7460a8875c2dd62b3fd90998e7
39324 F20101124_AADBET park_h_Page_090.jp2
eb9e3446f86a5087dce3dbf350bbabe1
5b162ab155ae6812408e5b363d9933253d255970
113521 F20101124_AADAZN park_h_Page_040.jp2
fceaf12823a7f8c85a577edb5118003c
ba5c8dbab301b26e9f2a3044d26af4febae22c5f
6209 F20101124_AADAYZ park_h_Page_108thm.jpg
c42538c593fa4a9449a2bc7f94a0c883
c6c9a615c769c2fb1eb7f9e27e7855d1c941f81f
101558 F20101124_AADBFJ park_h_Page_121.jp2
199b0d190a160f9f8e0828cc65e23e5c
bc701a0c5034d1b8af1437ef56eba0aa4aede87c
97643 F20101124_AADBEU park_h_Page_091.jp2
43e44afb1999744c2f5ffa7e62a31092
9ff65d6181e72d319a7b99d2f12a28f5663d4dd1
157317 F20101124_AADAZO UFE0011351_00001.xml
487a05ffb8ca50d83c80e35f9c404068
ca2a703b1283d6c248d5cb32e5dbe3bd6fef1d1d
112722 F20101124_AADBEV park_h_Page_092.jp2
2b13f6612ec80f7668fedbe485a4d745
85e32c57c5fdeddf4e2eca87473a0d1df7db83ee
75770 F20101124_AADBFK park_h_Page_124.jp2
e623829152821368938648ce2c38f265
82bcf81ad17c82f98a3bf6cd42a60bb12a56daa5
108969 F20101124_AADBEW park_h_Page_094.jp2
3389f7afbc81b674a378bd2c2e49ea94
528cf641a4e06ae1424fe9f60ed0895cb326d75f
31986 F20101124_AADBFL park_h_Page_126.jp2
69971b65ff70eddf0eae4df1d2362b9d
a316bf6766149c1ab1bbd209c48b5cbf3a55c4fd
108473 F20101124_AADBEX park_h_Page_097.jp2
b70aac9698179af92c8a298b9b72546d
69760b2f207722a3a2733363743b23ed82696197
25439 F20101124_AADAZR park_h_Page_001.jpg
f53993b9672cf367716e7535023673c4
9b934e7eb30fe6ac785b2103010a5073041535f9
F20101124_AADBGA park_h_Page_008.tif
e1045455bd0e3813cafc863ad15273a2
5087c5407490f8ee3eff9b26a338e6686093399f
45593 F20101124_AADBFM park_h_Page_129.jp2
db9477c66737b6bc819971ccf37f92a0
452bbd6b030076df5c12cc7ac473bb40b4cb6236
110267 F20101124_AADBEY park_h_Page_098.jp2
dada2260eb721bbd80a675ce374a1c42
092251291bb66dd353cb55221429a84d469abb00
10167 F20101124_AADAZS park_h_Page_002.jpg
97d6ffcb455ec8023e353602620c6b5e
c4f9338605069e5a5a353072a6bc0442093a59bc
F20101124_AADBGB park_h_Page_011.tif
1e566e65f4ca848ca9d7eee6a5dae181
97358ea57d6814a785036fc05a9bfb46217f655d
113465 F20101124_AADBEZ park_h_Page_099.jp2
c83dd78aa883759851422222ffe6695c
e3e27758f47e0b84573037f681664d0129ee1479
24124 F20101124_AADAZT park_h_Page_004.jpg
4785b02fe8f642a937c56174dfa66dc7
d63ddcb77d1741199d7ce284631c85ec47744f32
F20101124_AADBGC park_h_Page_012.tif
ec12134207d3575cd2a929a12d087235
ab816701460b58ef3729cb9f255f84070cdbb84d
34889 F20101124_AADBFN park_h_Page_131.jp2
ca57346dffe6c2cec27662ac3ab74716
26d874fbca835720e903c90de040797c4a2fca1c
13162 F20101124_AADAZU park_h_Page_008.jpg
17e867e7a4cf1edfe9bca4bf11ee4c61
2dd664e8b2a51c3a9d08ddcefc51741adffbff86
F20101124_AADBGD park_h_Page_014.tif
4d5b50e9eb4cf94a296c1581ca6bb1d0
bc407b28f48fff2a3fbf2916e7543f7d481cf6b4
38397 F20101124_AADBFO park_h_Page_132.jp2
2d1225dcf197d0ddfc3f7440095403b2
219bf3f67de207b7c51b6a133a4083fcee2160d1
63551 F20101124_AADAZV park_h_Page_011.jpg
30d14d8fc3c663e62f5c8eb35687a40b
d8436211ca92159ed0512da1008e77c1e4e2752b
F20101124_AADBGE park_h_Page_015.tif
840d9aa6cf7d6022e509bd3c0113e3a4
69651ceeda90de536f6918e9a9e8a4b6e08cbe94
36749 F20101124_AADBFP park_h_Page_133.jp2
5e212a6e7d05980cbbf9c66b0883de88
f1746ae984bbc395f8ac4f1509a0a69d223fc944
71328 F20101124_AADAZW park_h_Page_014.jpg
1876a2cf5c480658e6ce500feafc4da1
9fba67ff935bd4bd99c4ede0b81fc63a71dc591a
F20101124_AADBGF park_h_Page_016.tif
90689f7e04f5b278ffc778dd16115100
90fe7111b2eeb02156673f9ffd457536a9ea55c6
35794 F20101124_AADBFQ park_h_Page_134.jp2
90b57612fcbf6e56036c8982a85f53b3
cf3ce4a5af5c5b18532b236d7278f15ef5de7205
51579 F20101124_AADAZX park_h_Page_015.jpg
c0cf20b6816634ded5c581673e60c1d6
b0ad17d0bfce7c50f75f93660947683ad371980b
F20101124_AADBGG park_h_Page_017.tif
4b6da3b6e81b4a346137ec27f80cf851
d719911cbc7c0d297a515657687f37ba74bf0373
45379 F20101124_AADBFR park_h_Page_137.jp2
9cdd9147cd6a41cf80ee2573dcb85977
5e744786209f4c76b9fa02fbd8266633ee46309b
73505 F20101124_AADAZY park_h_Page_018.jpg
da3243cbb5915736a912f4c1f577def4
de5127c81f8fb4b101823b1095576ea3895ef5cd
F20101124_AADBGH park_h_Page_019.tif
0b19c1ab7e120563da3938cd406d6a24
8bb5a513a8eda3cb6cccb8be3479faf5a7b4c1f6
26129 F20101124_AADBFS park_h_Page_140.jp2
461577444200d23d84b550e67cca7f18
a566eb694050607754c93e8abcccef1cb8a33089
69558 F20101124_AADAZZ park_h_Page_020.jpg
1f24585cd30d19dad022c984eba8aff7
4d9640fcd4a9560e2b9f4bd0bd65a249d1bc6430
F20101124_AADBGI park_h_Page_020.tif
e90f2c842f777c4aff0700a8d530afa7
9e3cafeb858443771983f756698f785120dc1012
132747 F20101124_AADBFT park_h_Page_143.jp2
777e036e56a3d609ce38bd064c443c80
98c0a34308c1fd8a044ae8672828c0b55a63c41a
F20101124_AADBGJ park_h_Page_021.tif
d8bad55fb55058facc4fc154d0380935
960651dc05c9d5ac6a051552123d13f3249a907d
119256 F20101124_AADBFU park_h_Page_146.jp2
498354eadb84a545d71b325cd614957e
ced086e89089110a5a81978921e1cf4fbe23da8c
F20101124_AADBGK park_h_Page_022.tif
317631558e47d2b180ce01d44458bd72
a24366b5ee9cbb5b137a861e47e069bd7215d486
56782 F20101124_AADBFV park_h_Page_147.jp2
bf2f9b50b8697fb57e71f878cfea3e65
06af562cbd50110afef2b5673cbe43ec110d1a91
F20101124_AADBGL park_h_Page_024.tif
adac1b5efd5b994eda54a423f92998a6
2744c3aa24739134397ac02ac04fb5e63a0ffbdb
F20101124_AADBFW park_h_Page_002.tif
f20e820dddb5abbc3e5e9efa2fb67cb9
a5afba7cb408213b1b5004d55c099c10ef37b6d5
F20101124_AADBHA park_h_Page_049.tif
094016828b9bc18ec0ca44e8a1705552
a6ea2b4a5b47bb932d80528b90a4cd22523b42df
F20101124_AADBGM park_h_Page_025.tif
9316d4f875f3689261d2bebc9cdd0ccf
ac05764fb790a73b14bf540fa52eeb3f981cd6c0
F20101124_AADBFX park_h_Page_004.tif
6a8c07a0ebacb36473fcf971fd5ec9bd
60e48797ba1478fd6e622d9e52ea9c5f91ae7f9d
F20101124_AADBHB park_h_Page_050.tif
1c44c91bde4c6a9d7ee3d968d943095c
b90204166db9c2eca6870522456e3dd90d7a7cbb
F20101124_AADBGN park_h_Page_026.tif
5d8ffb9df94e3c84e39ffc91dc94f3e5
22036131fc1516b73f5f646d16426d195fea575a
F20101124_AADBFY park_h_Page_006.tif
1d46a1e9d582065804b9479c0039446c
0965b3c3877beb23ac645c18433b06fea81ba098
F20101124_AADBHC park_h_Page_052.tif
63867ebf57899b684b253c1b13c41dbf
68173ab57130e9dff0da9a3acb51d634aa0be4f9
F20101124_AADBFZ park_h_Page_007.tif
7b7ce9a7f0c8919b175272136dcfc6c3
06f5f04f8638b7478aaa65176c22d51c298a8f6d
F20101124_AADBHD park_h_Page_056.tif
f07b12ef518f84718fffb07d6a0a743a
a09564f9003b903fac59997f5658d9b6ca6c8502
F20101124_AADBGO park_h_Page_027.tif
fab181980b1a762d7bb77ff79b1ccee1
2b117bfea28b867980ddf2da02a0e64f56734d80
F20101124_AADBHE park_h_Page_058.tif
25ca2185c43c2348eed4e1fb4136c7d8
2f14f99e118bf23affebe230e574c77eac16eaaa
F20101124_AADBGP park_h_Page_029.tif
29a1f9a857d4234c4473732f921923ce
0fa57ede67b6ec46e999366ceeabb610aff0b042
F20101124_AADBHF park_h_Page_060.tif
08d6817c68f580a188975662cc0e8616
a060ae82509de19cfbedbc76312290979a1b3336
F20101124_AADBGQ park_h_Page_031.tif
854ef192888abfa30c6b2d3938f35e13
58b40a6b0cdf2517aa921ff173c234321901749a
F20101124_AADBHG park_h_Page_063.tif
ef26d563e9ac22c8322656d7c25a9af2
508bff8b4cc5d3cb84ad6e9b7c9b06efeed21e95
F20101124_AADBGR park_h_Page_034.tif
c587f45ba758ea052824a3475b84da0c
e1158e3e3ef6987756b0f70b6689e89b5815123a
F20101124_AADBHH park_h_Page_064.tif
56b8434382505175f6370740565cc943
81f8c8fcaa687a03d594361238ca8d0ad96e5ca5
F20101124_AADBGS park_h_Page_035.tif
bb6163f1edec538e7b09b519461d10b0
8eac4015f8d9bb45a1cf9cc5a74adcc988bdd5a6
F20101124_AADBHI park_h_Page_065.tif
7b6eccb90c697a55ac35c3b306a73c45
55854df4e677a9f1347f0afe7c55b14db05fc5d0
F20101124_AADBGT park_h_Page_036.tif
9feff679b976354a8e44fa4637e25404
582e6f402f6357bca9c317c7fc280f297558df3a
F20101124_AADBHJ park_h_Page_066.tif
70250f423c5c4a59baf1db00d69f6b56
5a00528a372f1503efde13910b12650c6b355b78
F20101124_AADBGU park_h_Page_039.tif
f09a85d85744d9ee2ac7a46b326d7685
f6f7dcaedfd2dccfdbb27e448bbd876b78ff0f5f
F20101124_AADBHK park_h_Page_068.tif
f40838ac5a46ea27b68d54bdfd23118e
a5fd4ba8ac37ea03327b8b5de1cfa228d5d4175d
F20101124_AADBGV park_h_Page_041.tif
44d45ceb66c08da5e1263d1fab6d4846
556f9b1f93dff09ec812bdc175f012c2b81d2c8d
F20101124_AADBHL park_h_Page_069.tif
8fdd5e08dac1c8b26dc536e9f2ccf1d0
19ae2e9a6aa22dc4237ad4cdbc3414ecb0ce4cbf
F20101124_AADBGW park_h_Page_043.tif
889380803cdaa9178f01b9ef98289889
b25a489f62d5345e8f09b81a851701c730315f60
F20101124_AADBHM park_h_Page_070.tif
ef509a3ffe6cd9d34debcd13e864d00e
3715fc7f730c76cf277366388607a6aa5292674e
F20101124_AADBGX park_h_Page_044.tif
2ef8bae881984a66d8614b91a1cf5971
212b5b6ae3027a36a9f12c5227439dcc9d333bea
F20101124_AADBIA park_h_Page_096.tif
9944e7778e3de336c788bae2a50dd9d4
cea091803198beb35d99c05a22701d0d19c4c9f2
F20101124_AADBHN park_h_Page_071.tif
c3973f94375bc64c1b529ffed4bb09a2
95b61adfb5acbb8b2c2085693dd8ec73822ca957
F20101124_AADBGY park_h_Page_045.tif
4698bbce09049a8a8f3ad9f748e25738
aa49582d6886fdd8103ef91104b5ab523122b6df
F20101124_AADBIB park_h_Page_097.tif
dd84a60917f783e3367a2262d922f623
748d83f32f966638c11eed12d70e25ffe223b7ee
F20101124_AADBHO park_h_Page_072.tif
4790b61375932a0dca75b7981c35e8cf
45826cb6abe07d68d21e94e7530f2f2b022051d4
F20101124_AADBGZ park_h_Page_046.tif
527f3fbeed9656e919cde56371f5600e
d033ef2e33e7fc4840f5ef774ac9d5765a5a0044
F20101124_AADBIC park_h_Page_098.tif
aedaa6114c9e7d76c3d470d37b73a095
a4a9bf315e9dce31ea389cb0bcc3f5feaf1a2650
F20101124_AADBID park_h_Page_099.tif
0d8d4e23eb1c6ba275c30d91f9ebba79
2964a350e8b1ab768cc78ea85a916de0c7be4411
F20101124_AADBHP park_h_Page_073.tif
504e5e7142a2f0017506e00160525d9b
7002807705afd5496b7a9e3028c161cf1dfc43d2
F20101124_AADBIE park_h_Page_101.tif
9790be05a8f02bdd4ba7a73bbf32a7ad
0e1a95c23fc49cd5078259945db3499194ac3f14
F20101124_AADBHQ park_h_Page_076.tif
4d338f884b10cd0edb02a590bc679ccd
29bb072dba86ad07a42c83745c96d763926c5458
F20101124_AADBIF park_h_Page_104.tif
e2fb4511681e8ad542d6e9cb62387986
34da3de22b1c0bf703b6dba818893557d92e9be0
F20101124_AADBHR park_h_Page_077.tif
15842563d47208fa3d92e5de64412946
ca8f6ca65d47f4bd3faff2bdf1fd7f5c47632176
F20101124_AADBIG park_h_Page_105.tif
3aad7fd3448cae44fd9f85a70d08fa31
39a145e15b29a06800b5272b204e90f94016b628
F20101124_AADBHS park_h_Page_078.tif
71501032e9472a2772df5149702916ed
52d9e9803fdb566577375634bcb7fda0ee46cc50
F20101124_AADBIH park_h_Page_107.tif
153f5f8a48ecad16682aefd19ac5edab
5724a5cd9613676c54340bca262e8f77a286a93b
F20101124_AADBHT park_h_Page_079.tif
2acd325a09f06d77a79efabd601f4669
ecf49b5db9801f270cd64b2490622c7e164fb965
F20101124_AADBII park_h_Page_108.tif
bd6f70d365978e60bf467aa5a3410b5f
3e012c0d3d4600e3b6862b9906fbe35cc15c45d4
F20101124_AADBHU park_h_Page_080.tif
bdc7cdfe6826bc7257c2d770d285fa10
d3652a65c5b0a3349237a3c3303a7d21ccc29aba
F20101124_AADBIJ park_h_Page_109.tif
9d4ac2f5332eb894e7225448f88c6d43
1745de2601e06759158b60d01acdea03e515ccf4
F20101124_AADBHV park_h_Page_083.tif
c2b984fb16a2de73e64301612feb29eb
0d5b713e9e055b3d742596a6f442d24a10055a1c
F20101124_AADBIK park_h_Page_110.tif
e560102b665282c8c3936f537c4b51e1
44c023d3efc94215b601ee0725464ad010cd2922
F20101124_AADBHW park_h_Page_086.tif
951427e9edaacdcdd726a50ee8acaa97
2ffc405a457f43802d5a54c5623f2e35ce24e985
F20101124_AADBIL park_h_Page_112.tif
672f57e7a4fad7b9b4bec364c066d807
088071d2ddbd9b01a11c79cf4672cb88b3cbdf9d
F20101124_AADBHX park_h_Page_087.tif
82aa6244e39abc42b30dced6e06f917c
4c209786a28c5e64e5c0145ea5d2a1cecbba1a58
F20101124_AADBJA park_h_Page_131.tif
3c190b784fec8b99a9eb6649ec0cd368
4d6c625dbd26bcd1402de6ed59e2ae7d36ca56f6
F20101124_AADBIM park_h_Page_116.tif
e07315b040a25f0ed19c1cfed3ec03a2
27986b4848dd3ca58a96b2e6b0f2a4cafb772623
F20101124_AADBHY park_h_Page_091.tif
b3f7ea18b2d056242c3cd2211fcb9893
3bddb9584d3b1cbfcb53aa5c5630b835a55df29d
F20101124_AADBJB park_h_Page_132.tif
2b54eacb98362548624abd1524b02716
330e5823e117bb155a454c003d543f0a5cd629c8
F20101124_AADBIN park_h_Page_117.tif
0d671ed37373fdf4c2cf32f3a6606436
10779e956fe166d4bd20328aa9642bd610689a79
F20101124_AADBHZ park_h_Page_093.tif
57616ecb74d96c2e9e54258a92d3ad53
461b694e5d4e5ee46670d7ad64c35a1d9c115057
F20101124_AADBJC park_h_Page_134.tif
1963c65e43953f9d5e01148def8f49a4
1338331200f6fe1f9604d0c93aea6ebaa8aa3df8
F20101124_AADBIO park_h_Page_118.tif
78d6283f4e374b15ef9c285dc7e00255
ede69dc867bcdd759e2e8c63717d7f051e3d4453
F20101124_AADBJD park_h_Page_135.tif
eb0606c73232fba8f393ab3800787584
80dd7093f2a9b2faecb2333ff5d6c9cc2350e2db
F20101124_AADBIP park_h_Page_119.tif
c5c2621ee8d541144f2bbe235e2b5c2c
0ec2925e4a2fea693020c9c731d03ad77958fc4a
F20101124_AADBJE park_h_Page_136.tif
e5e160aa395fbcd7908130e649cbc78c
8cbbe6dc2fdb3248de52ba001fcf9af1c485393a
F20101124_AADBJF park_h_Page_137.tif
d0ca42cbe2d363a8f6e6c08ffba9ab7e
59bf834c1ff47933f79a5947c5570c0ce68913fd
F20101124_AADBIQ park_h_Page_120.tif
29d22bb9187a91f4a35804016336b864
da329fc4a28468510898d7dbdb461d75cde1eb8d
F20101124_AADBJG park_h_Page_138.tif
78131858557932d84e9c1606d04eb5ac
26df0672cd407617aa54270e9c94b78e1da3349a
F20101124_AADBIR park_h_Page_122.tif
74e86c4230c3c8caae901e92e9f78f7c
b9b02381e9678aeb6143fc3666fd7217ccdaac12
F20101124_AADBJH park_h_Page_140.tif
b0312ff879a3d83750bcfa70460c688d
d9769de670add8ca693fa4a4d3dcd70b3a580e32
F20101124_AADBIS park_h_Page_123.tif
0531616b5f74e83b85e2af2d75f7f953
f37155e1b94e2e2700eaad01177d91f2208958ff
F20101124_AADBJI park_h_Page_144.tif
d19480bc53695fb09130083c4f163743
d1056e426d7bcfcb76b14217db97457691499645
F20101124_AADBIT park_h_Page_124.tif
be7ad42c3a0a99dd7b1e6ccc39738613
5cce8a3b1110982f522300b01c89dddcd35ec543
F20101124_AADBJJ park_h_Page_146.tif
0ecda1cff1b9150ace57b8aba29cff28
b6c8cd89bf813c813c979b14b62a1cab85bebb96
F20101124_AADBIU park_h_Page_125.tif
3822b896c984006ffe54f04592e27a83
c993bbda8401c44771f6c3c682fa902c7040df22
2581 F20101124_AADBJK park_h_Page_001thm.jpg
b9e6041ffd48d027092e48d2c3945370
a7c591d574d5156be767cb94e5909a5d2f2933ba
F20101124_AADBIV park_h_Page_126.tif
fdbe896b1aec2ba9559152d81d8649cf
1ce165c9a455f65cc283e28a9dca27065f7f0441
325822 F20101124_AADBJL park_h.pdf
69cc7e4bed421a11afa976f530d9c30b
f53bd6052a65471402fff2e6812fe7ac9bba095e
F20101124_AADBIW park_h_Page_127.tif
ca4603be6231f612827feaa080a1f7e0
bf04fe85361e91fafa7c72ebc674da984fd9fbbb
4121 F20101124_AADBKA park_h_Page_012thm.jpg
16faea2300e3488318bba395cbceceac
10a2f5316dfbd04f846b5d7170630f2b7ec97ca3
7701 F20101124_AADBJM park_h_Page_001.QC.jpg
cc9ca0c251c7d5b3d13456be6a862f2c
731cbf4d4957842865fbee39b4d0c3787fc2787e
F20101124_AADBIX park_h_Page_128.tif
9bb9316e90dcb2e49623d2d757f7a991
28434f9e45accc3576cb34f3b4af062b65399087
21268 F20101124_AADBKB park_h_Page_013.QC.jpg
434f487184197b4ff531f0a4529992a6
0126cf1585e6e82718edd085a92d109cdb8a06bf
3233 F20101124_AADBJN park_h_Page_002.QC.jpg
7d66152fcfc7ce99727fd2078789845c
290c8102b886e77421bf6a7e5857c772cceca209
F20101124_AADBIY park_h_Page_129.tif
ad7a2d5c224b2e7ff1f0c014f1bece84
383b68299aac1da1fffae8909bf2dbbff9407a3e
22958 F20101124_AADBKC park_h_Page_014.QC.jpg
e6f19d59ea6af674fde27718e01a016a
0e7b6256ce1410cb846b27fb095ea7b1f18e240d
2599 F20101124_AADBJO park_h_Page_004thm.jpg
8581d84ed3351239520c3fa57dc6fa3f
b66c4092dc8abf67713ef48f1f2c4a5855d775f2
F20101124_AADBIZ park_h_Page_130.tif
7bc993102123788af3260e6fb67e23d2
89659d66adaf7679734d8eba788aabda2c0a4d53
16497 F20101124_AADBKD park_h_Page_015.QC.jpg
374aea3a7cb49164c988639d1ce2c021
834cf73af9ccb255f140284d5c08a0dc6af660ad
4980 F20101124_AADBJP park_h_Page_005thm.jpg
c8e8ef5242bdb0775f2eeae5240bd0f1
37c53a89fd2e3c515be5ac66cc063daf69914367



PAGE 1

SECOND LANGUAGE READING: THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG TEXT ADJUNCTS, STUDENTS’ PROFICIENCY LEVELS AND READING STRATEGIES By HEENAM PARK A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Heenam Park

PAGE 3

To my mother, Jungrye Yu

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Ratree Wayla nd and Dr. Theresa A. Antes for their insights and comments, which contributed imme asurably to this study. I would also like to thank the students who participated in th is study and the instructors at the English Language Institute who allowed me to come to their classes to recruit participants. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Caroline Wiltshire and Dr. Joaquim Camps for their comments.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..............................................................................4 Effects of Text Adjuncts...............................................................................................4 Types of Reading Processes..................................................................................4 Discussion of Schema Theory...............................................................................7 Different Types of Text Adjuncts........................................................................12 Reading Comprehension Measurements.............................................................17 Interaction of Text Adjuncts, Text Types and L2 Learners................................18 Learners’ Proficiency in L2 Reading..................................................................21 Reading Strategy Studies.....................................................................................24 Foreign Language Reading Anxiety...........................................................................26 Types of Anxiety.................................................................................................27 General Discussion of L2 Reading A nxiety versus General L2 Anxiety............30 Anxiety Measures................................................................................................36 Types of measures and limits of these measures..........................................36 Foreign Language Classroom Anxiet y Scale (FLCAS)/Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (FLRAS)...........................................................39 Summary.....................................................................................................................41 Significance of Current Study....................................................................................41 Statement of Purpose..................................................................................................42 Research Questions and Hypotheses..........................................................................42 Research Questions.............................................................................................42 Hypotheses..........................................................................................................43 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................44 Participants.................................................................................................................44 Materials.....................................................................................................................4 6

PAGE 6

vi English Proficiency Test......................................................................................45 Background Questionnaire..................................................................................47 Reading Texts......................................................................................................50 Procedure....................................................................................................................50 Scoring........................................................................................................................ 53 Statistical Analyses.....................................................................................................56 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................57 Results of Test of Adolescent and Adult Language (TOAL-3)..................................57 Standard Score for TOAL-3................................................................................58 Standard Scores for TOAL-3 by Subgroups.......................................................60 Recall Protocols..........................................................................................................62 Effects of Text Structures according to Proficiency Level.................................66 Relationship between Proficiency and Recall Scores.........................................67 Varying Effects of Text Adjuncts according to Text Structure...........................68 Relationship between Reading Prof iciency and Reading Ability.......................71 Summary.....................................................................................................................72 Background Information Questionnaire.....................................................................73 Relationship between FLRAS and Other Factors...............................................73 Relationship between Reading Strategy Questionnaire (RSQ) and Proficiency Level................................................................................................................75 Correlation between L1 reading abilit y and L2 reading score on TOAL-3.77 Correlation between L1 reading ability and L2 recall score........................77 Correlation between Length of Resi dence (LOR) and Other Factors.................78 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................79 Interrelationship between L2 Pr oficiency and Text Adjunct......................................80 Interaction between Text Type and Text Adjunct within Each Proficiency Level....81 Role of English Proficiency in L2 Reading................................................................85 Relationship between ESL Learners’ Anxiet y Levels and their Proficiency Levels..86 Relationship between Students’ An xiety Level and Reading Ability........................87 Relationship between ESL Learners’ R eading Strategies and their Reading Comprehension Ability..........................................................................................88 Relationship between Reading St rategies and Proficiency........................................89 Correlation between LOR and Other Factors.............................................................90 Relationship between LOR and Students’ Anxiety Level...................................90 Relationship between LOR and St udents’ Proficiency Level.............................90 Relationship between LOR and Reading Ability................................................91 Interviews with Participants.......................................................................................91 6 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................93 Principal Findings.......................................................................................................93 Pedagogical Implications............................................................................................97

PAGE 7

vii Research Implications.................................................................................................98 Limitations of Current Study......................................................................................99 APPENIX A BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE.....................................................................102 Part I Language Background....................................................................................102 Part II........................................................................................................................ 103 Part III....................................................................................................................... 103 B SUMMARY OF TEXTS..........................................................................................105 The Olympic Games.................................................................................................106 On Being Fat in America..........................................................................................107 Supertankers.............................................................................................................108 Closing Down Nuclear Power Plants.......................................................................109 Nuclear Energy versus Solar Energy........................................................................110 C TEXT ADJUNCTS...................................................................................................111 The Olympic Games (High and Low)......................................................................111 Vocabulary Group.............................................................................................111 Expanded Framework Group............................................................................111 On Being Fat in America (Low)...............................................................................111 Vocabulary Group.............................................................................................111 Expanded Framework Group............................................................................112 Supertankers (High)..................................................................................................112 Vocabulary Group.............................................................................................112 Expanded Framework Group............................................................................112 Closing Down Nuclear Power Plants (High)............................................................112 Vocabulary Group.............................................................................................112 Expanded Framework Group............................................................................113 Nuclear Energy versus Solar Energy (Low).............................................................113 Vocabulary Group.............................................................................................113 Expanded Framework Group............................................................................113 D RECALL...................................................................................................................114 E SCORING TEMPLATE...........................................................................................115 The Olympic Games (Idea Units: 100).....................................................................115 On Being Fat in America (Idea Units: 142)..............................................................117 Supertankers (Idea Units: 104).................................................................................121 Closing Down Nuclear Powe r Plants (Idea Units: 98).............................................123 Nuclear Energy versus Sola r Energy (Idea Units: 91)..............................................126

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................129 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................135

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Participants’ average length of re sidence in the U.S. and average age....................45 3-2 Characteristics of participants..................................................................................46 3-3 Types of FLRAS and sp ecific questions asked........................................................49 3-4 Types of reading strategies and specific questions asked........................................49 3-5 Examples of subtests................................................................................................54 4-1 Guidelines for descri bing standard score.................................................................58 4-2 Total standard score and Mean standard score.........................................................58 4-3 TOAL-3 total standard score by subtest for H group...............................................58 4-4 TOAL-3 total standard score by subtest for L group...............................................59 4-5 Mean and SD of total standard score in H group.....................................................61 4-6 Mean and SD of total standard score in L group......................................................61 4-7 Standard score in H group (ANOVA)......................................................................61 4-8 Standard score in L group (ANOVA)......................................................................61 4-9 Reading text and number of idea units.....................................................................63 4-10 Mean (%) of subgroups fo r “tightly-structured” passa ges and for “all passages” (H group)..................................................................................................................63 4-11 Mean (%) of subgroups fo r “tightly-structured” passa ges and for “all passages” (L group)..................................................................................................................63 4-12 Mean (%) for “tightly-structured” pa ssages and for “all passages” (H group)........66 4-13 Mean (%) for “tightly-structured” pa ssages and for “all passages” (L group)........66 4-14 Correlations between TOAL-3 and readings...........................................................68

PAGE 10

x 4-15 Mean number and percentage of idea un its recalled correctly per passage and per text adjunct in H group.............................................................................................68 4-16 Mean number and percentage of idea un its recalled correctly per passage and per text adjunct in L group.............................................................................................69 4-17 ANOVAs on the readings in H group......................................................................71 4-18 ANOVA on the readings in L group........................................................................71 4-19 Average score by item in the FLRAS for H group..................................................73 4-20 Average score by item in the FLRAS for L group...................................................74 4-21 Average score by item in the RSQ for H group.......................................................76 4-22 Average score by item in the RSQ for L group........................................................76 4-23 Average score of item 9 on the RSQ for both groups..............................................77

PAGE 11

xi Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy SECOND LANGUAGE READING: THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG TEXT ADJUNCTS, STUDENTS’ PROFICIENC Y LEVELS AND READING STRATEGIES By Heenam Park August 2005 Chair: Ratree Wayland Cochair: Theresa A. Antes Major Department: Linguistics According to the psycholinguistic view of reading, readers use their background knowledge to interpret texts. This backgr ound knowledge has been termed “schemata”. Distinct from the notion of schema is research on the role of text adjuncts in secondlanguage (L2) reading. Text ad juncts are pre-reading info rmation such as pictures, definition lists, or text struct ure information regarding the te xt provided to help students understand the reading passage. Several research ers found that the facilitative effects of different text adjuncts on L2 reading may va ry as a function of l earners’ proficiency and of text types. The primary goal of my study was to investigate the effects of different types of text adjuncts on L2 reading co mprehension. Specifically, my study examined whether L2 learners from various proficiency levels benefit from different types of text adjuncts. I also examined the relationship between English as a Second Language (ESL) learners’ anxiety levels and th eir proficiency levels. Finall y, I examined the relationship between ESL learners’ readi ng strategies and their read ing comprehension ability. I

PAGE 12

xii hypothesized that Low-Level ESL learners will benefit more from a text adjunct that provides a definition list than from one that provides information on the text type, while the opposite would be true for High-Level ESL learners. Research participants were 61 heterogeneous ESL students. Participants we re divided into a hi gh proficiency group and a low proficiency group based on the class pl acement. Participants in each proficiency level were further divided into two treat ment groups (vocabul ary group and expanded framework group) and a control group. After reading a passage, students were asked to write down as much as they could remember from the passage for their recall protocol, without referring back to it. Results show ed that the high-proficiency ESL students benefited most, as hypothesized, from the expa nded framework text adjunct when they read in an L2. Results also showed that, c ontrary to expectations, the low-proficiency ESL students benefited from both the e xpanded framework text adjunct and the vocabulary text adjunct.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Most research on reading, whether first language (L1) or second language (L2), is centered around the issue of whether reading is a decoding process or a psycholinguistic synthesizing process. In a d ecoding process, readers constr uct the meaning of the text being read by merely decoding the graphi c forms in the text. A psycholinguistic synthesizing process of reading, on the othe r hand, involves an interaction between the text and the readers. In the psycholinguist ic view, readers are believed to use their background knowledge (both linguistic knowledg e and knowledge of the world) when interpreting the text. This background knowledge has been called “schemata.” According to schema theory (Carrell, 1984a), reading comprehension is a result of the reader activating the appropriate schemata when inte racting with a text. Two types of schema have been identified in the literature: conten t schema and formal schema. Content schema refers to the readers’ background knowledge of the topic or the content of the passage being read. Formal schema refers to the readers’ background knowledge of the overall organization or discourse structur e of the text (for example, whether it is a narrative or an expository text). Both types of schema have been shown to positively affect reading comprehension in L2. Distinct from (but related to) the notion of schema, is research on the role of text adjuncts (i.e., pictures, prefatory statements titles) in L2 reading. Several researchers (Hudson, 1982; Johnson, 1982; Lee & Riley, 1990; Taglieber et al., 1988, among others) found that the facilitative effects of text adjuncts on L2 reading may vary as a function of

PAGE 14

2 learners’ proficiency and of text types (e.g., na rrative or expository). However, there have been inconsistent results on th e effects of text adjuncts in relation to the learners’ proficiency levels and the type s of text adjuncts used. Johns on (1982) and Taglieber et al. (1988) argue that giving learners vocabulary words before they read is not as effective as giving them background knowledge about a par ticular reading passage. In contrast, Laufer (1992) claims that vocabulary knowledge is essential, particularly for low-level ESL students. Another factor shown to aff ect reading comprehension is reading anxiety. Previous research shows that language anxiety is re lated to learners’ be liefs; and, as Horwitz (1987, 1988) notes, learners’ beliefs are related to the strategies they actually use. In this sense, language anxiety research should be a ssociated with learners ’ beliefs or strategy studies. Many researchers (Horwitz et al., 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989, 1994a) have shown that anxiety often has a ne gative effect on langu age learning. Horwitz (1986), for example, found that higher scores on the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) were significantly corr elated with lower actual final grades as well as expected grades. Much research has been done on the role of anxiety in language learning with native speakers of English l earning other languages. However, there has been little research on the effect of anxiety in langua ge learning among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students. Another important factor in L2 reading is the reading strategies used by L2 learners. In the past, reading strategies were known as skills Much reading research has empirically investigated reading strategies actually used by successful and unsuccessful L2 readers. When reading English, ESL learne rs’ proficiency is rela ted to their reading

PAGE 15

3 strategies. Unfortunately, many researchers do not measure le arners’ proficiency levels reliably. My study included 61 heterogeneous ESL stude nts. The participants were divided into a high-proficiency group and a low-pr oficiency group, based on their composite scores on the Test of Adoles cent and Adult Language (TOAL). Participants in each proficiency level were further divided into two treatment groups (a vocabulary group and an expanded framework group) and a control group. The vocabulary groups received a definition list before they read each passa ge. Participants in the expanded framework groups received information on text types befo re they read each pa ssage. Control groups had no treatment. After reading each passage, a ll participants were asked to complete a recall protocol. The main purpose of my study was to invest igate the effects of different types of text adjuncts on L2 reading comprehension. Specifically, my study aimed to determine whether L2 learners from various profic iency levels benefit from vocabulary or framework text adjuncts. I also examined the interaction between anxiety level and degree of proficiency. Moreover, I examined the difference in reading strategies used by low and high proficiency L2 learners, and their interactions with text adjuncts.

PAGE 16

4 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Effects of Text Adjuncts In traditional views of se cond-language (L2) reading comprehension, “meaning is conceived to be ‘in’ the text to have a separate, independe nt existence from the reader” (Carrell, 1984c, p. 332). However, many recent L2 reading researchers advocate schema theory (Bernhardt, 1984; Brantmeier, 2005; Carrell, 1984a, 1984b, 1984c; Lee & Riley, 1990; Meyer & Freedle, 1984; Rudell & Speaker 1985). Schema theory research argues for the importance of background knowledge in (a psycholinguistic model of) the reading process. Second-language reading can be diffi cult for various reasons, including readers’ failure to access appropriate schemata (e.g., co ntent and formal schema). Text adjuncts are, therefore important because they may help L2 readers activate the appropriate schemata and, thus, enhance L2 reading. Text adjuncts are mostly used as pre-reading activities in L2 reading. The ne xt sections discuss text adj uncts and related factors. Types of Reading Processes There are three major read ing processes: Bottom-up, t op-down, and interactive. This section discusses each of the three reading processes and the differences between text adjuncts and reading pro cesses. In my study, processes and adjuncts are the central components that were observed. A bottom-up (or text-driven) approach starts with letters, words, and then sentences (Urquhart & Cyril, 1998). According to this approach, a word should take longer to recognize than a single letter. However, one criticism of a bottom-up approach is that

PAGE 17

5 recognizing a word often takes less time than recognizing each of its individual letters. Moreover, there have been no definite findi ngs to indicate whet her one stage of the process is over before the next stage begins. In contrast, in a top-down (or reader-dri ven) approach, reader s start with their background knowledge (whole text) and make pred ictions about the text, and then verify their predictions by using text data (words ) in the text (Urquhart & Cyril, 1998). The main shortcoming of a top-down approach is th at it is impossible to see how a reader can begin by engaging the text as a whole, then proceed to paragraphs, then to individual sentences, ending with single letters. In other words, this process (background knowledge, then paragraphs, then sentences, th en single letters) may not represent what really happens. The shortcomings of mutually exclusive bottom-up and top-down explanations lend support to a more interactive approach. From a psycholinguistic viewpoint, the interactive process is the most effective becau se reading represents decoding a text while using a reader’s background knowledge. Research in schema theory shows that reading comprehension is an interactive process between the reader and the te xt, because the text provides the reader with a framework for co mprehending the ideas that are held within the discrete word, sentence, and paragraph le vel linguistic units, but the reader must recognize the rhetorical structur e of the text in order for the ideas to have any coherence (Brantmeier, 2005; Carrell, 1983, 1984a; Carr ell & Eisterhold, 1988; Eskey, 1988; Meyer & Freedle, 1984; Young, 1993). According to Es key (1988), the interactive model does not assume the primacy of top-down proces sing skills, but rather posits a constant interaction between bottom-up and top-down pr ocessing in reading. In this view, good

PAGE 18

6 readers are both good decoders and good interpre ters of texts: “To properly achieve both fluency and accuracy, developing readers must, therefore, work at perfecting both their bottom-up recognition skills and their top-down interpretation strategies” (Eskey, 1988, p. 95). Eskey (1988) suggests that good r eading can result only from a constant interaction between information achieve d by bottom-up decoding and information provided by top-down analysis. According to Eskey (1988), a major virtue of the interactive model is that it directs our atte ntion to both the top-down and bottom-up skills that fluent and accurate reading demands. Although Eskey believes that an interactive appro ach is the most effective, he also emphasizes the importance of bottom-up decoding and criticizes some researchers for overemphasizing higher-level strategies (predi cting from context or using schemata and other kinds of background knowledge). In his opinion, language is a major problem in second language reading; even educated guessing at meaning is no substitute for accurate decoding. He also adds that language is a ki nd of schema too, although one that for fluent native users may be activated automaticall y. Eskey admits, however, that successful comprehension is much more than simple decoding, nonetheless he suggests that decoding is also a cognitive process, invol ving bottom-up as well as top-down skills, and successful reading cannot be achieved without it. Fluent reading involves both skillful decoding and relating the information so obtaine d to the reader’s pr ior knowledge of the subject and the world. In Eskey’s view, such lower-level skills as the rapid an d accurate identification of lexical and grammatical forms are not merely obstacles to be cleared on the way to higherlevel “guessing game” strategies, but skills to be mastered as a necessary means of taking much of the guesswork out of reading comprehension (p. 98).

PAGE 19

7 He concludes that an interactive model of reading provides the most persuasive account of this reciprocal per ceptual/cognitive process. On the other hand, Goodman (1971) emphasi zes “the act of the construction of meaning as being an on-going, cyclical pr ocess of sampling from the input text, predicting, testing and confirmi ng or revising those predicti ons, and sampling further” (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1988, p. 74). In th is model, the efficient reader does not use all of the textual cues. However, Eskey (1 986, 1988) questions Goodman’s position and cautions that we risk converting r eading into a real guessing game. Discussion of Schema Theory Many reading researchers believe that read ing is an interactiv e process, requiring text-based features and a reader’s background knowledge. In other wo rds, in reading, the reader interacts with the text. Bernhardt (1984 ) believes that the interpretation of the text does not depend on text-based features alone but rather on the information that the readers bring with them to the text. The ps ycholinguistic view of reading advocated by Clark (1980) agrees with Bernhardt (1984) that readers use their background knowledge (both linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world) in interpreting the text. The role of background knowledge in language comprehension has been formalized as schema theory. Schema theory holds that any pa rticular text does not have meaning by itself; rather, a text only provi des directions for listeners or readers as to how they should retrieve or construct meaning from thei r own, previously acquired knowledge. Such knowledge is called the readers’ back ground knowledge; the previously acquired knowledge structures are known as schemata Thus, according to schema theory, readers activate appropriate background knowledge agai nst which they try to give a text a consistent interpretation (Carre ll, 1984c). Carrell suggests that what is understood from a

PAGE 20

8 text is a function of the part icular schema activated at th e time of processing the text.L2 readers often do not succeed in comprehending a text because of their failure to access the appropriate schema. There are two main types of schemata: content schemata and formal schemata. Content schemata comprise background knowle dge of the content area of a text. For example, a teacher can give students a pictur e of a cell for an expository text about cell biology. Formal schemata comprise background knowledge of the formal rhetorical organizational structures of different types of text. For example, a teacher can give students a rhetorically oriented framework through text adjuncts. L2 readers often do not process a text the same way the L1 readers do. In general, L2 readers tend to be linguistically bound to a text. That is, L2 readers may process the literal language of the text, but they may not make the nece ssary connections between the text and the appropriate background informati on needed to comprehe nd the text (Carrell, 1983). Neither advanced nor high-intermediate ESL readers seem to use context or textual clues frequently. As Carrell (1983, p. 199) states, “T hey are not efficient topdown processors, making appropriate predictions based on context, no r are they efficient bottom-up processors, building up a mental repr esentation of the text based on the lexical information in the text.” Moreover, fluent readers of a passage in their native language recover quickly from wrong guesses about textual meaning. Smith (1994) argues that any reader can be a fluent reader or a poor reader based on his/her background knowledge of a text. However, ESL readers may not recover as native spea kers do, because ESL readers may extract inaccurate information from the text and this may lead to inaccurate predictions for

PAGE 21

9 meaning. Also, ESL readers lack background knowledge compared to native speakers (Johnson, 1982). From a schema theory viewpoi nt, activation of inappropriate schemata can also impede reading comprehension (R udell & Speaker, 1985). Hen ce, the successful activation of an appropriate schema is very important. Thus, to ac tivate the appropriate content schema and formal schema, text adjunc ts may be useful in L2 reading, as they could enhance reading comprehension. Text adjuncts are pre-reading information (s uch as pictures, defi nition lists, or text structure information regarding the text) prov ided to help students understand the reading passage. Text adjuncts serve to activate schemata in several ways. First, text adjuncts help to activate content schemata. For example, vocabulary text adjuncts enable advanced learners to make bridging in ferences. Furthermore, backgr ound text adjuncts help to activate content schemata regarding tw o different types of background knowledge: cultural and topic. According to Carrell and Ei sterhold (1988), L2 r eading can be difficult due to many culturally loaded concepts pr esupposed by a text. To overcome this problem, a teacher can give students a preview involvi ng a key concept that is culturally loaded. Second, text adjuncts can help to activate formal schemata. For example, rhetorically oriented text adjuncts may help activate L2 readers’ prior knowledge of the rhetorical structure of the text to be read. Hudson’s (1982) study showed an interacti on between overall linguistic proficiency in ESL and content-induced schematic effect s in ESL reading comprehension. As such, Hudson’s study suggests the faci litating effects on comprehens ion of explicitly inducing content schemata through pre-r eading activities, as compared to two other methods of inducing schemata (vocabulary activities a nd read-reread activiti es) especially at

PAGE 22

10 beginning and intermediate proficiency leve ls. Hudson argues that this activation of appropriate schemata should be a purpose of pr e-reading activities, and that text adjuncts could enhance reading comprehension when give n as pre-reading activities to L2 readers. Additionally, Carrell and Eisterhold (1988) s uggest that previewing (e.g., definition lists) is an important activity in the reading cl assroom, which sometimes involves teaching a culturally loaded key concept. They conclude that EFL/ESL readers should become more aware that reading is a highly interactive process between themselves and their prior background knowledge, on the one hand; and the te xt itself, on the othe r. Carrell argues that an instructor should teach L2 readers to process texts interactively. That is to read texts using appropriate knowledge but cons tantly checking and restructuring that knowledge to fit the details encounter ed during reading (Carrell, 1984c). When a reader interprets a text, s/he may fi nd a certain type of text adjunct helpful. There is a difference between “reading pro cesses” and “text adjuncts.” The reader processes a text in a bottom-up, top-down, or interactive way. We need to distinguish text adjuncts from processing t ypes in order not to confuse them with other terms such as the bottom-up processing or top-down processi ng modes, or content or formal schemata. Carrell (1984c) argues that vocabulary text adjuncts should be considered a type of background knowledge, because they can lead a reader to connect the vocabulary with pre-existing concepts and know ledge. According to Carrell a nd Eisterhold (1988), lessproficient students tend to use a bottomup processing mode, and more-proficient students tend to use a top-down processing mode In other words, less-proficient students tend to use more textual items when they read, and more-profici ent students tend to depend on their background knowledge when tr ying to understand a passage. So, it seems

PAGE 23

11 that for Carrell and Eisterhold, certain types of text adjuncts tend to facilitate certain types of processing for L2 read ers of certain proficiency level. For example, a vocabulary text adjunct will faci litate bottom-up processing among less proficient readers, but topdown processing among more proficient readers. Carrell and Eisterhold’s implications mi ght not be entirely correct, though. The processing of a certain type of text adjunct doe s not necessarily facilitate a certain type of processing. For example, a vocabulary list te xt adjunct, describing various food items appearing in the passage, may activate some r eaders’ prior experiences in a restaurant, and, thus, activating their background knowledge and tri ggering top-down processing. While, other readers of equal proficiency leve l who lack such prior experiences may use the vocabulary as a key for further decodi ng the text (i.e., bo ttom-up processing). In determining processing type, the reader ’s background is a more important factor than the type of text adjunct used (Bernhardt, 1984). For a text adj unct to be effective it must be integrated into the reader’s pre-existing knowledge a nd other pre-reading activities meant to build b ackground knowledge (Carrell, 1984c ). That is to say, any given text adjunct may trigger different types of processing. In summation, text adjuncts most affect readers’ comprehension by helping them to activate appropriate schemata. Several studies give evidence that text adjuncts aid comprehension through the activation of appropr iate schemata. Proficiency level affects text adjuncts inconsistently. Hudson (1982) states that certai n types of text adjuncts are best suited to certain proficiency levels In Hudson’s study, usi ng a vocabulary list was more effective for advanced learners than fo r beginning and intermediate learners. On the other hand, Taglieber et al.’s (1988) result s showed that vocabulary pre-teaching was

PAGE 24

12 significantly less effective than the other tw o strategies for average-ability learners. Moreover, in Johnson’s (1982) study, exposure to meanings of the target vocabulary words did not significantly affect advanced students’ reading comprehension. A text adjunct can also affect comprehension with regards to the rhetori cal organization of a text. A fluent reader may recognize a text’s rhetorical structure before s/he reads. Therefore, the explicit teaching of text’s rhet orical structure as a type of formal text adjunct can aid reading comprehension. Before the reader decodes and interprets a text, text adjuncts help to activate appropria te schemata, allowing the reader to better comprehend a text. For example, the reader given a text adjunct such as background knowledge can better understand the text because the reader already has an appropriate schema activated before reading the passage, and this schema lets the reader comprehend the text more correctly. Moreover, this schema helps the reader to guess accurately, when guessing meanings in the text. Different Types of Text Adjuncts Several reading-research studi es provide evidence of the effects of text adjuncts on reading comprehension (Carrell, 1983; Hudson, 1982; Lee, 1986a, 1986b; Lee & Riley, 1990; Taglieber, Johnson & Yarbrough, 1988). H udson (1982) investigated the effects of three different types of text adjuncts in L2 reading comprehension on beginning, intermediate, and advanced ESL students who we re proficient readers in their L1. Each group was given three graded reading passages. The first type of text adjunct that Hudson tested was pictorial text adjunc t. In this condition, subjects were given a set of pictures about the general topic of the passage and then were asked a set of questions about each of the pictures. The pictures represented a type of background text adjunct. After that, each subject wrote self-generated predictions of what s/he expected to find in the reading

PAGE 25

13 passage. The second type of text adjunct wa s vocabulary instructi on. In this condition, subjects were given a list of vocabulary items which would appear in the reading passage. The third method was read-test/read-test. In this condition, subjects read the passage silently, and then took the same reading co mprehension test. The procedure was then repeated one more time. Hudson’s results showed that beginning and intermediate students scored higher in the pre-reading condition (pictures) than in the other two conditions. In his study, advanced readers had less trouble processing visual information and changing schemata than did lower-level r eaders, and advanced readers were able to bring more non-visual “behind the eye-ball” knowledge when reading in the L2 than beginning and intermediate readers were. H udson concluded that a schema can override language proficiency as a factor in L2 read ing comprehension; th e linguistic ceiling is only one determinant of reading comprehens ion. In other words, Hudson suggests that text adjuncts help readers override their lingui stic limitations, particularly at the lower levels of proficiency. Like Hudson, Taglieber et al (1988) investigated the effects on Brazilian EFL students’ reading comprehension of three di fferent types of text adjuncts: pictorial context, vocabulary pre-teaching, and pre-quest ioning. The subjects were enrolled in the sixth semester of EFL at the college level. Ta glieber et al. stated that the subjects had average levels of English proficiency. Thei r results showed that vocabulary pre-teaching was significantly less effective than the othe r two strategies. They argued that although knowledge of words’ meanings was nece ssary for comprehension, heightened background knowledge from the other preread ing activities enabled students to use

PAGE 26

14 context to construct meaning successfully for the passages even when all of the words were unknown. Vocabulary pre-teaching is a widely used type of text adjunct. However, the results of vocabulary pre-teaching are inconsiste nt. As mentioned above, Hudson (1982) found that the use of a vocabulary list was found to be more effectiv e for advanced learners than for beginning and intermediate learners Johnson (1982), on the other hand, found no facilitative effect of voca bulary pre-teaching among her subj ects. Specifically, Johnson’s results suggest that ESL students’ comprehens ion of a passage on th e topic of Halloween was affected more by prior experience in th e American culture than by knowledge of the vocabulary in the text. In this study, the s ubjects were advanced ESL students at the university level. There were divided into four groups Group 1 read the passage without a vocabulary list (to study before reading or to refer to whil e reading). Group 2 studied the definitions of the target words before reading but was not able to refer to the list while reading. Group 3 read the passage with the ta rget words glossed in the passage. Group 4 studied the target vocabulary words before r eading, with the definitions of the target words glossed in the passage. Written recall was significantly better for the familiar than for the unfamiliar information in the passage. Moreover, subjects of all four groups more accurately recognized information from the familiar section of the passage compared with the unfamiliar section. However, exposur e to the meaning of difficult vocabulary words in the passage did not seem to affect the comprehension of ESL readers. In other words, the effects of vocabulary difficulty on reading comprehension were not as obvious as the effects of background knowledge. Johnson argues that familia rity with the topic of the passage, combined with background knowle dge of the idea allows the reader to

PAGE 27

15 construct meaning successfully for unfamiliar vo cabulary words. She explains that, “the normal redundancy in a text may enable read ers to cope with unfamiliar words without too much disruption in their understanding. Reader s seem to be able to construct a text from memory based on inferences made while reading” (p. 514). Based on these findings, Johnson concludes that “knowledge obtained from real experien ces in the foreign culture is effective for reading comprehension of a passage on that topic” (p. 514), and is more important than knowledge of vocabulary. When an instructor in an L2 classroom teaches, s/he must be concerned with the following aspects regarding vocabulary pre-te aching. First, as Taglieber et al. (1988) note, the instructor should teach the voca bulary important to th e text, not vocabulary important to the lesson (p. 457). Second, accord ing to Carrell (1984c), merely presenting new or unfamiliar vocabulary items does not gua rantee the induction of new schemata. Lee and Riley (1990) investigated the eff ect of giving novice French L2 learners information about the rhetorical structure of an expository pros e passage as a text adjunct. They considered two types of rhetorical or ganization: problem-solution and a collection of descriptions. Subjects were divided into three treatment gr oups based on the type of formal schema text adjunct they rece ived: no framework, minimal framework, and expanded framework. The minimal-framework gr oup was told either that their passage presented “a collection of descriptions” or “a problem and two solutions.” For the “collection of descript ions” passage, the expanded framew ork group was told that their passage presented “a collection of descriptions of some activit ies that the French engage in during their leisure time th at demonstrate an interest in both personal enrichment and communication with others”. For the problem-s olution passage, the expanded-framework

PAGE 28

16 group was told that their passage presented th e problem of “amateur prospectors pillaging archeological treasures in France and that two possible solutions would be discussed.” Both minimal and expanded frameworks were presented in the s ubjects’ native language (English). To determine rhetorical structure, Lee and Riley used Meyer’s (1975) contentstructure analysis, which provi des a hierarchical descripti on of the text. The top-level idea units represent the main idea being collect ively described (collect ion of descriptions text) or presenting the problem and its solution(s) (problem-solution text). Lee and Riley found that only the expanded framework impr oved recall of the ove rall content of the collection of descriptions passage; however, the expanded framework had less effect on the problem-solution passage, improving recall sc ores of only the top-level ideas of that passage. Lee and Riley concluded that an e xpanded framework helps improve readers’ comprehension of a loosely-structured passa ge (collection descri ption), but not of a tightly-structured one (problem-solution). From a review of previous research it beco mes apparent that the facilitative effect of different types of text adj uncts (vocabulary list and framework) may vary as a function of learners’ proficiency levels. In this re gard, Carrell (1984c) argued that pre-reading activities should differ accordi ng to proficiency levels. Carrell and Eisterhold (1988) also suggest a relationship between proficiency level and the use of adjuncts. Specifically, they asse rt that illustrations may be particularly appropriate for students with minimal language skills. Background information and previewing, on the other hand, are particularly important for less-proficient language students.

PAGE 29

17 Reading Comprehension Measurements There are several reading-comprehension measurements in L2 reading research: cloze tests, multiple-choice questions, true-false questions, open-ended questions, and recall. The cloze test may not be a reliable measurement of reading comprehension because the processes involved do not reflect actual reading-comprehension processes. Moreover, the type of reading task may infl uence how readers interact with the passage (Wolf, 1993). Bernhardt (1991) suggests that for scores on a cloze test to make high correlations with scores on other measures, exact word scoring must be used (pp. 196197). Multiple-choice questions are often used for reading comprehension because the task is familiar to subjects and easy to admi nister and score. However, with multiplechoice questions, test items can sometimes be answered without reading the passage. Another critique of multiple-choice tests is th at learners do not always need to carefully read all of the readi ng passage to answer the questions Instead, test-takers can often depend on “the recognition of a few key words in the passage or on clues from the other questions, and on syntactic or semantic relati onships between the stem and the choices to perform better than they would merely by chance” (Wolf, 1993, pp. 474-475). Wolf suggests in her study that multiple-choice items in Spanish may assess students’ ability to guess rather than their abili ty to construct meaning. Wolf (1993) states that test-takers approach open-ended questions by paying attention to a few surface features of the passage. Furthermore, Bernhardt (1991) says that open-ended questions limit the range or t ype of responses possi ble; and can affect test-takers’ comprehension of the passage by providing more information about the content.

PAGE 30

18 In regards to a recall prot ocol, Bernhardt (1991) argues that “a free recall measure provides a purer measure of comprehensi on, uncomplicated by linguistic performance and tester interference” (p. 200). She also asserts that the recall protocol is a more reliable and valid measurement of comprehension because it does not delimit the response or influence comprehension. As Wolf (1993) said, no “perfect” test of comprehension exists because comprehension varies according to a variety of interactions among reader-based components (such as students’ background knowledge or linguistic prof iciency) and textbased components (such as difficulty level of a text). Interaction of Text Adjuncts, Text Types and L2 Learners Text types also play a role in L2 reading. For expository texts, Meyer and Freedle (1984) recognize five different t ypes of rhetorical organization: collection of descriptions, causation, problem/solution, and comparison. Acco rding to Meyer and Freedle, each of these types represents a different abstract sc hema of ways in which writers organize and readers understand topics. Certain types of rhetorical organiza tion of expository text are recalled differently from ot her types (Carrell, 1984b; Me yer, Brandt & Bluth, 1980; Meyer & Freedle, 1984). For example, Carre ll (1984b) investigates the effects of rhetorical organization of di fferent types of expository text on ESL readers. Results showed that recall was better for the texts with the three more tightly organized discourse structures (comparison, causation, and problem/s olution) than for those that were more loosely organized. Carrell found that the more highly organized types of discourse are generally more facilitative of recall than the less organize d collection of descriptions. Similarly, Meyer and Freedle’s (1984) study show ed that the different “top-level” overall organizational types affect reading comprehe nsion in English as a native language as well. Meyer and Freedle found be tter recall of discourse when it was organized with the

PAGE 31

19 comparison, causation, and problem/solution st ructures than with the collection of descriptions structures. Research on discourse or text comprehe nsion has shown that comprehension is determined by the rhetorical organization of a text as well as by the local effects of sentences or paragraphs (Carre ll, 1984a). Carrell’s study inves tigates the effects of story structure or narrative rhetorical organizati on on reading recall in ESL. According to Carrell, a story schema may be considered as the rhetorical structur e or the grammar of a story. In this study, Carrell divi des stories into two types: st andard and interleaved. In the standard version, three simple two-episode st ories were constructed. Each standard story was then rearranged to create an interleaved version. In th e interleaved version, following the Setting, the five basic nodes of each episode were presented in interleaved fashion: two Beginnings, two Reactions, two Attempts two Outcomes, and two Endings. Carrell notes that “It has even been characterized as a grammar which generates a tree structure consisting of labeled nodes, the constituents of a story” (p. 90). The results indicate that a greater number of nodes were remembered for the standard stories than for the interleaved stories. According to Carrell, whereas native speaking a dults do not have to devote more effort to encoding, nonnative reader s must dedicate more effort to linguistic encoding, and, therefore, have le ss effort to dedicate to the sorting of interleaved input into ideal schematic form. Carrell concl udes that in schema theory, reading comprehension is a role of the readers’ pr ocessing and activati on of the appropriate formal and content schemata in interaction wi th a text (along with the linguistic cues provided in the text by the author). She suggests that L2 reading can be regarded partly as

PAGE 32

20 the process of acquiring appropria te new formal and content sc hemata and of learning to activate the appropriate sche mata during comprehension. Carrell (1984a) pointed out th at empirical research has shown the effects of story schema in L1 comprehension, but that no co mparable research has been conducted to investigate the role of story schema in L2 comprehension. The reason for this lack of studies might be because literary text is cu lturally embedded. Frequently, L2 learners have problems related to the absence of a ppropriate generalized information assumed by the writer and possessed by a reader sharing that writer’s cultural background (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1988). Research on training with expository text structure shows that reading comprehension can be significantly facilita ted by explicitly te aching readers about expository text structure and by teaching divers e strategies for iden tifying and employing that structure during the readi ng process. Carrell’s (1985) st udy found that training on the top-level rhetorical organizati on of expository texts significa ntly increased the amount of information that ESL students could recall. In the area of narrative pr ose, Carrell (1984a) has demonstrated the effects of a simple na rrative schema in ESL. In a study comparing L1 and L2 reading comprehension of literary texts, Fecteau (1999) found that for all students, literal comprehension was superior in the L1, but amount of recall may also have been affected by factors such as succe ssful activation of a ppropriate schema and processing of key details. Relationship between proficiency and text adjuncts. Previous research also shows that low and high proficiency learners be nefit from different types of text adjuncts. Specifically, decoding is more frequently us ed among low-proficiency learners. This is

PAGE 33

21 due, perhaps, to the fact that for them, word -by-word decoding is not automatic, and that is why their reading is not fa st. Therefore, for these lear ners, linguistic knowledge, e.g., syntactic knowledge, may be more important be cause they have not reached the threshold level of competence in L2. Laufer and Sim ( 1985) observe that “L2 reading is a function of both reading strategies and foreign language competence, since below a certain proficiency level the strategies are not likel y to be applied” (p. 406). Even if they do transfer their L1 reading stra tegies, low-proficiency learners may not use them due to factors such as inadequate knowledge of syntact ic features of the L2. On the other hand, for high-proficiency learners, construction of meaning is more frequently used than decoding. These learners can decode automatical ly because of their L2 proficiency levels. Learners’ Proficiency in L2 Reading In ESL reading studies, learne rs’ English proficiency levels their strategy use, and their reading comprehension have been show n to be interconnected. As noted by Clarke (1980), the role of language pr oficiency is greater than had previously been assumed. Kern (1989) concurs, noting that language pr oficiency factors are ce rtainly an important element in determining L2 reading compre hension. More importantly, a relationship between learners’ overall L2 proficiency has been shown to relate to their reading comprehension (e.g., Block, 1986; Carre ll, 1991; Clark, 1979, 1980; Kern, 1989; Taillefer, 1996). In a study by Carrell (1991), L2 proficiency level was found to be more important than L1 reading skills on L2 r eading comprehension. Al so, Clarke’s (1979) ‘short circuit hypothesis’ emphasizes L2 prof iciency. In his hypothesis, Clarke argues that learners cannot transfer their L1 r eading strategies until they reach a certain proficiency level of L2. He e xplains that learner’s low pr oficiency short-circuits L2 reading comprehension. One of the major clai ms of the present study is that it is

PAGE 34

22 necessary to measure L2 learners’ proficienc y before generalizing any results to the ESL population as a whole. The techniques for a ssessing L2 proficiency in L2 reading research are discussed in the next section. Problems with assessing L2 proficiency. Thomas (1994) reviews advantages and disadvantages of the four major techniques fo r assessing the proficie ncy of L2 learners: impressionistic judgments, inst itutional status, use of inhouse assessment instruments, and standardized tests. Additionally, he addresses the question of why target language proficiency is sometimes a poorly controlled factor in research on SLA. First, when researchers use impressionistic judgments for assessing the pr oficiency of L2 learners, they typically measure how long a learner ha s lived in an L2-speaking environment. However, this information may not be revealing, because having residency in an L2speaking environment does not necessarily mean th at the learner will at tain any particular level of proficiency. Wolf (1993) also point s out that the problem with many subject pools is the inconsistent manner in which s ubjects are categorized into L2 experience levels. As Wolf notes, L2 learners’ profic iency cannot always be categorized by amount of classroom instruction since learners are often placed into interm ediate and advanced courses according to their scores on L2 entrance and proficiency exams. Naiman, Frohlich, and Todesco (1975) did not give a prof iciency test to students; they explained that they either knew the students persona lly or depended on tr usted recommendations. However, personal impressions about student s may not provide an accurate measure of learners’ proficiency. In light of this, this study has a lack of generalizability. A second traditional way of determining L2 proficiency is to rely on learner’s institutional status. An example of L2 prof iciency defined by inst itutional status is

PAGE 35

23 provided by Lee and Riley (1990): “[All participants] were enro lled in the third semester of the French language program at the University of Illinois” (p. 28). However, as pointed out by Thomas (1994), “[i]nstitutions differ greatly in the standards by which they assign a given status to individuals, and in the rigid ity with which those standards are maintained” (p. 317). Such practice, thus, threatens the external validity (generalizability) of th e research results. A third method used to determine learners’ pr oficiency in L2 research is by relying on locally developed and administered test s. Thomas (1994) commented on this method that researchers rarely provi ded clear information about th e form of either in-house placement tests or in-house resear ch-internal tests. He also crit icized the fact that in many instances, researchers did not report the content of their te sts with enough detail for readers to understand. A fourth method is the use of standardized tests. The advantage of this method is that it enhances the generalizability of the re search results. For example, Thomas (1994) observes that “a score of 90 on the Michigan test or 500 on the TOEFL serves as a recognizable benchmark, enhancing the generaliz ability of the research results” (p. 324). However, according to Thomas (1994), some researchers reported only the minimum or maximum scores achieved by the total sample. Additionally, it has been noted that “the content of st andardized tests is available for public scrutiny, and their validity is subject to ongoing investigation” (Thomas, 1994, p. 324). However, a researcher needs to be cau tious when he/she chooses subsections of a standardized test. For L2 proficiency, Yano, Long, and Ro ss (1994) chose the Structure Subtest Form A of the CELT (Comprehensive English Language Test ). It consists of

PAGE 36

24 items that assess grammatical knowledge and th at deal with choice of verbs and verb forms. Moreover, the reason for the use of th e CELT Structure Test in their study was to provide a covariate for the reading comp rehension measures. However, the CELT subtests that were used in this study may not be appropriate for m easuring students’ L2 overall proficiency. Indeed, many researcher s use L2 proficiency tests in their SLA research, but sometimes they underestimate the importance of those test s. For this reason, their results may not be generalizable or accurate. Reading Strategy Studies Research on metacognition has shown that readers’ metacognitive awareness of strategies is related to their reading proficiency (Bar nett, 1988; Carrell, 1989; Carrell, Pharis & Liberto, 1989). Carrell (1989) inves tigated the relationship between L1 and L2 readers’ metacognitive awareness and read ing ability. The results showed that the “global,” top-down types of reading strategies (e.g., te xt-gist, background knowledge, and text organization) were not significantly related to L1 reading performance for either the Spanish L1 group or the English L1 group. Interestingly, “local” reading strategies (e.g., focusing on grammar structures, sound-le tter, word-meaning, and text details) tended to be negatively correlated with L1 reading performance. The ESL group of more advanced proficiency levels tended to use more “global” or top-down strategies in their perceptions of effective a nd difficulty-causing reading st rategies (Carrell, 1989). Several researchers have identified appare nt relationships betw een certain types of reading strategies and successful or unsu ccessful foreign or se cond language reading. Young (1993) investigated foreign language read ers’ cognitive processes (strategy use, i.e., top-down and bottom-up) when they read authentic and edited texts. Young pointed out that much research on strategy use in L2 reading explores the basis for successful and

PAGE 37

25 unsuccessful reading comprehe nsion. Most L1 and L2 stra tegy research suggests that readers who focus on reading as a decodi ng process rather than as a meaningconstruction process tend to be less successful readers. The results of Clarke’s (1980) study also showed that successful readers fo cused on the meaning of the text. Anderson (1991), on the other hand, investigated indivi dual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. In this study, relati ng sentences from one part of the text to another and monitoring affective feelings about the text are strategies that participants reported frequently. Anderson suggested that strategic reading is not only a matter of knowing what strategy to use, but also knowi ng how to use a strategy successfully and how to orchestrate it with other strategies. In the next section, research methodologies used for examining reading strategy use are discussed. Ways to examine reading strategies. There are several methods used for examining reading strategy use. First, resear chers can interview students directly about their use of strategies. An a dvantage of this method is that a researcher can ask students directly about the strategies and techniques that they might have used in learning an L2. However, there are several disadvantages to simply conducting interviews. Interviews between the language learners and their teacher s as well as observation of overt learning behavior may lead to the identification of only the conscious aspects of learning, although the language learning process involves bot h conscious and unconscious components. Also, as noted by Naiman, Frohlich and Todesc o (1975), “there are i nherent difficulties involved in asking people about their language learning expe riences and techniques when they are not directly involved in the proce ss of language learning at the time” (p. 69).

PAGE 38

26 Questionnaires are easy and convenient to ad minister and do not require students to verbalize the strategies that they use. Furthermore, the questionnaire such as the one employed in Padron and Waxman’s (1988) st udy can help students develop greater awareness of the strategies they em ploy during reading. However, there are disadvantages and limitations to this method. Since stude nts answers are based on the questionnaire, we really do not know about other techniques. A dditionally, as Carrell (1989) notes, Barnett’s (1988) questionnaire was developed and scored in terms of predetermined “correct” responses. That is to say, the predetermined opinions by the researcher about the effectiveness of different reading strategies affected the students’ responses. The questionnaire used in Ruscio lelli’s (1995) study, how ever, also includes “good” and “bad” re ading techniques. Verbal reports, another method for gene rating student feedback, are used to examine the strategies that learners use when reading and when completing comprehension tests. An advantage of verbal reports is that verbal reports provide a detailed description of the comprehension strategies used by students (Block, 1986). However, the verbal reports’ item type can a ffect how learners interact with a text, “in that to answer some items, test-takers had to reread portions of the passage, while for others, test-takers only had to match surface features from the question to the item” (Wolf, 1993, p. 474). For these reasons, ve rbal reports can produce misleading, or inaccurate information. Foreign Language Reading Anxiety There has been much research on FL read ing anxiety. Connected with FL anxiety, reading anxiety is worth inve stigating due to the relati onship between ESL learners’ language anxiety and multiple factors, such as their proficiency le vel and their reading

PAGE 39

27 comprehension ability. It is also meaningful to examine the relationship between their anxiety and their background. This section star ts with subtypes of anxiety in the L2 literature. It is followed by a discussion of the effect of a nxiety on L2 reading. Then, the ways in which anxiety affects the L2 read ing process are discussed. Specifically, the effect of anxiety on different reading processes, such as i nput, processing, and output is discussed. Finally, this section e nds with anxiety measurements. Types of Anxiety There are two broad perspectives on the nature of anxiety, which can be categorized as trait and s ituation-specific anxiety (M acIntyre, 1999; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989, 1991c). Trait anxiety is “a f eature of an individual’s personality and therefore is both stable over time and a pplicable to a wide range of situations” (MacIntyre, 1999, p. 28). Trait anxiety is a pe rmanent predisposition to be anxious. For example, if a student feels anxious genera lly, he has trait anxi ety. Situation-specific anxiety is similar to trait anxiet y, except that it applies only to specific types of situations. According to MacIntyre (1999), examples of si tuation-specific anxiet ies are stage fright, test anxiety, math anxiety, a nd language anxiety. Each situat ion is different, so a person may be nervous in a test, but not on a stag e, or while learning math or a language. Language anxiety is a type of situation-spec ific anxiety and include s the categories of oral, written, and reading anxiety. Speaking in an L2 has been cited as the most anxiety-provoking experience for language learners (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope 1986; Koch & Terrell, 1991; Price, 1991). Specifically, in Koch and Terrell (1991), stude nts reported oral pres entations, skits, roleplaying, defining words in Spanish, dealing with situations, and charades to be the most anxiety-producing activities. The research on la nguage anxiety suggest s the existence of a

PAGE 40

28 relationship between anxiety a nd language learning performan ce. In a study investigating the relationship between L2 classroom anxi ety and L2 writing anxiety, Cheng, Horwitz and Schallert (1999) found that L2 writing anxiety is a language-skill-specific anxiety, whereas classroom anxiety is a more general type of anxiety about learning an L2 in general. Additionally, Saito, Garza, and Horw itz (1999) found that reading in an L2 can also be anxiety-provoking to some students. The interpretation of anxiety (i.e., trait and situation-sp ecific anxiety) has to be conducted using an appropriate measure for the appropriate type of anxiety. For example, to measure language anxiety, we must use a scale that measures situation-specific language anxiety rather than one measuri ng trait anxiety. Using an inappropriate measurement can lead to contradictory re sults. Scovel’s (1978) review of anxiety research showed contradictory results, bot h within and across studies. Young (1991) also pointed out that the relationship between anxiet y and L2 performance is not consistent (p. 426). However, among the sixteen studies de scribed by Young, only three used a scale just for language anxiety. M acIntyre (1999) argues that the results of Young’s survey are inconsistent because she mixed all the different types of anxiety together. In other words, the inconsistency may be due to the fact th at only three of the st udies she produced had distinguished language anxiety as a separate t ype of anxiety. In orde r to be understood as a variable in this study, it is important to define language anxiety separately from other types of anxiety before we can describe its effects (i.e., its relationships to performance). For example, Horwitz (1986) focused her research only on classroom anxiety and used the FLCAS (Foreign Language Classroom Anxiet y Scale) and a Test Anxiety scale to measure the effects of such anxiety on students’ test-taking performance.

PAGE 41

29 As MacIntyre (1999) notes, language anxiety is a type of situation-specific anxiety, and, therefore, research on language anxi ety should utilize measures of anxiety experienced in L2 contexts ( p. 29). MacIntyre and Gardner (1 991c) argue that L2 anxiety is best studied with situati on-specific measures. Using the s ituation-specific approach, the process through which a given situation produc es anxiety can be investigated. These researchers suggest that more meaningful and consistent results have emerged from situation-specific measures (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991c). MacIntyre and Gardner (1994b) define language anxiety as “the feeling of tension a nd apprehension specifically associated with second language contexts, in cluding speaking, listening, and learning” (p. 284). Horwitz et al. (1986) add that L2 anxiety is not simp ly the combination of fears such as communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation transferred to L2 learning. According to Horw itz et al., L2 anxiety is unique because it involves learners’ self-concepts of being able to communicate competently and to present themselves genuinely. They define anxiety as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language lear ning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning proce ss” (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986, p. 128). Several studies support the claim that L2 a nxiety does indeed exist and is prevalent (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1989, 1991b). MacIntyr e and Gardner (1989) found in a study of 104 native English-speaking students that th ey reported significantly more anxiety in their French class than in math or English class. MacI ntyre and Gardner (1991b) used factor analysis to investigat e the relationships among various anxiety scales. There were three scales of anxiety. The first factor wa s general anxiety. This general anxiety was found to include most of th e anxiety scales, such as trait anxiety, communication

PAGE 42

30 apprehension, interpersonal a nxiety, and others. The second f actor was state anxiety. The third factor was language a nxiety. The results suggest that language anxiety can be distinguished from other kinds of anxiety, and these results are consistent with studies by Horwitz (1986) and MacIntyre and Gardner ( 1989). Notably, in thes e studies, general anxiety had no correlation with learning. Therefore, MacIntyre and Gardner (1989, 1991b) claimed that language anxiety was distin ct from more genera l types of anxiety and that performance in the L2 was negativ ely correlated with la nguage anxiety but not with more general types of anxiety. According to MacI ntyre(1999) and Saito et al. (1999), language anxiety deve lops from negative experiences particularly early in language learning. General Discussion of L2 Reading Anxiety versus General L2 Anxiety General L2 anxiety has also been shown to be different from L2 reading anxiety. Specifically, whereas general L2 anxiety has been found to be independent of target language, levels of reading anxiety were found to be different according to target language and were related to the specific wr iting systems. Sellers (2000) argued that the Reading Anxiety Scale (RAS) in her study meas ured reading anxiety validly and reliably. She claimed that the RAS identif ies reading anxiety as a distinct variable in L2 learning which correlates positively w ith the scores on the FLCAS fo r her subjects. This suggests that learners with higher leve ls of L2 anxiety also tended to have higher levels of L2 reading anxiety and vice versa. However, in her study, the positive correlation between RAS and FLCAS does not mean that RAS affects FLCAS. Reading anxiety has a correlation with lo wer reading scores. One finding in the correlational study by Saito et al. (1999) indicated that students with higher levels of L2 anxiety tended to also have higher levels of L2 reading a nxiety and vice versa. In their

PAGE 43

31 study, students with higher levels of reading anxiety received significantly lower grades than students with lower anxiety levels. Th is relationship was also obtained for general L2 anxiety. Saito et al. (1999), thus, suggested that L2 readin g anxiety, like other types of L2 anxiety, has a negative co rrelation to final grades. St udents who perceived reading their target language as rela tively difficult had significantl y higher levels of reading anxiety than those who perceived it as somewhat difficult, followed by those who perceived reading as relatively easy. However, one criticism of fi nal grade measurement is that the final grade may not be the best measure of a student’s performance because it is a student’s total score in a class; therefore, it would be better to use multiple measurements, as Sellers (2000) did. Although each meas ure of comprehension (e.g., multiple-choice questions or written recall) has disadvantages, using two different comprehension assessment measures may allow for a more accurate assessment of students’ comprehension. Sellers also used tw o different proficiency levels in her study. This is useful for looking at the differences between proficiency levels in terms of anxiety levels. There are several classroom situations wher e reading anxiety might be present, and effect L2 reading performance. For exampl e, reading aloud may also cause anxiety. A substantial number of students feel partic ularly anxious when asked to read aloud. Several researchers argue that language anxiety takes up processing capacity (e.g., Lee, 1999; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994a, 1994b; Sellers, 2000; Tobias, 1986); for example, Lee (1999) states that “[l]anguage anxiety takes up processing capacity, thereby diminishing language learners’ reading perfor mance” (p. 50). According to Lee (1999),

PAGE 44

32 when less processing capacity is availabl e, reading processes will not take place automatically, and, hence, reading is slowed down. As a result, comprehension suffers. MacIntyre and Gardner (1994a, 1994b) inve stigated the effects of anxiety on cognitive processing and found that such eff ects may be quite far-reaching. For example, highly anxious readers may expend part of thei r mental energy thinki ng about things that are completely irrelevant to the reading activ ity. As a result, the r eading process cannot take place automatically or efficiently. In c ontrast, a less anxious reader does not expend energy on these task-irrelevant thoughts, and therefore, has more mental energy to contribute to the reading pr ocess itself (Sellers, 2000). Tobias (1986) claims that anxiety in gene ral may affect learning in all three stages. At the input stage, anxiety can take aw ay from attending to new information and encoding it. At the processing stage, it can interfere with the organization and assimilation of this new information. Finally, at the output stage, anxiety can interfere with the retrieval and production of previously learned material. MacIntyre and Gardner (1994b) develope d three different language anxiety measures: input anxiety, processing anxiety, and output anxiety. Specifically, the input stage is meant to illustrate th e learner’s first experiences with a given stimulus at a given time. The processing stage involves the cogni tive operations performed on the subject matter: organization, storage, and assimilati on of the material. Output involves the production of previously learne d material. Their findings showed that anxious students seem to have difficulty holding distinct verb al items in short-term memory. This may explain why anxious students have trouble comprehending long sentences (Horwitz et al., 1986). These students may also recall less in formation on a reading comprehension test.

PAGE 45

33 MacIntyre and Gardner’s (1994b) findings also suggest that, with anxious students, only a small number of verbal statements ente r the processing stage. For example, in MacIntyre and Gardner’s (1994b) study, the Pa ragraph Translation test score in the processing stage demonstrated that anxious st udents were not able to translate a passage as well as their more relaxed counterparts di d. In fact, the poetic na ture of the passage used in this study required students to gue ss at the meanings of some terms, and it appears that the more anxious students did not guess as often as the more relaxed ones. This may reflect anxious students’ unwillingn ess to risk an incorrect or incomplete translation; that is, they ma y avoid responding in order to avoid guessing. The result of this study clearly showed that anxiety affects language learning at each of the three stages, and that the effects appear cumulative. In particular, anxious students tended to take more time for processing. Therefore, when time was limited, performance was hindered at the output stage. Consequently, an xiety occurring at an earlier stage in the reading process may limit the learner’s ability to store relevant information in his/her memory. Thus, he/she may recall less info rmation on a reading comprehension test. An additional aspect of anxiety that ha s been studied in terms of the reader’s “affective state” has to do w ith the reader’s L2 cultural knowledge. In the interactive reading process advocated by Rudell and Sp eaker (1985), a reader’s affective state (including the reader’s interests, attitudes, and values that de cide goals for the reading of a passage) may be altered by text variables such as content and form. These variables might influence the affective state of the re ader. Additionally, in hi s affective model of reading, Mathewson (1985) argues, that if c ontent is culturally unfamiliar, rather than neutral or familiar, reading materials take long er to read, are more difficult to recall, and

PAGE 46

34 the readers’ comprehension decreased. He furt her observes that “[c]ulturally compatible reading materials resulted in greater amounts and accuracy of recall than did culturally incompatible materials” (Mathewson, 1985, p. 851). This observation is supported by a study by Saito et al. (1999), which found that students were nervous when they had to read about cultural topics with which they were unfamiliar. According to the study, students felt that the cultural topics should be explained be fore being presented in the target language. These results imply that stude nts are less anxious if they have cultural background knowledge about wh at they are reading. Concerning comprehension, reading anxi ety correlates to the amount of information that readers recall as well as to specific information they recall. Sellers (2000), for example, found that more hi ghly anxious students tended to recall less passage content than did participants w ho experienced minimal anxiety. Not only did highly anxious learners recall less passage conten t, they also recalled fewer ‘high’ pausal units. In her study, a pausal unit is one th at has a pause at each end, during normally paced oral reading. High-level units represen t central ideas, and contribute significantly to the main idea of the passage. Sellers argues that remembering important information is more demanding and requires more mental capacity, because in the processing of important information, readers must organize, interpret, and interrelate the information. Connected with comprehension, anxiety a ffects readers’ ability to focus on a reading task. Sellers (2000) used an instrument called the Cognitive Interference Questionnaire to assess the number of off-task thoughts of each student while reading. Results from the Cognitive Interference Qu estionnaire indicated that highly anxious students tended to experience more off-task, interfering thoughts than their less-anxious

PAGE 47

35 counterparts. In other words, highly anxious readers were mo re distracted by interfering thoughts and were less able to concentrate on the task at hand, wh ich affected their comprehension of the reading passage. Students’ beliefs about readi ng are also related to readi ng anxiety. For example, if a student believes that reading is a linear proces s, he believes that every word has the same importance and feels that he must look up ever y new word. Approaching a text linearly is not helpful to comprehension, and therefore, his reading is not efficient (fluent). This lack of efficiency and comprehension may lead him to be anxious (Lee, 1999). Additionally, in the area of L2 learning, Young (1991) cl aims that learner beliefs about language learning are one major source of foreign langu age anxiety. She states that unrealistic beliefs and expectations can lead to frustrat ion and anxiety. Horwitz et al. (1986) mention examples of learners’ beliefs concerni ng the importance of correctness and the unacceptability of guessing, which may also tend to lead to anxiety. Consequently, anxiety affects fluency in terms of speed and particular types of in formation that readers recall and comprehend. Text factors may also affect anxiety levels in reading. For example, inappropriate level of text difficulty may in crease students’ reading anxiet y level. Teachers should pay careful attention to the selec tion of texts, and should choose authentic materials that have an appropriate level of diffi culty; if they choose material s that are too difficult, the anxiety level of some students may increase and they may avoid r eading. Consideration of the reading passage’s level is important, because if the level of the passage is too high for readers, a researcher cannot measure re aders’ comprehension accurately. In other

PAGE 48

36 words, anxiety levels of readers may change according to the level of a reading passage or the topic of a text. Readers’ motivation and purpos e also affect anxiety leve ls in reading. Anxieties about language learning may be related to students’ previ ous language learning experiences, their motivations, and thei r self-concepts abou t language learning. Experience in language learning is especially helpful in developing re alistic expectations for and approaches to reading in a second la nguage. Therefore, Saito et al. (1999) argue that teachers should pay partic ular attention to reading strategy instruction with beginners. The knowledge that a nxiety and difficulties are possi ble is often reassuring for many students who feel al one in their reactions. Anxiety Measures Types of measures and limits of these measures There have been several methods used to measure anxiety (e.g., diary, interview, essay, observation, and questionnaire). Since af fective variables are usually not directly observable, data are often based on “inferen ces made by an observe r concerning how the person really feels or thinks or would beha ve under certain circum stances” (Oller, 1979, p. 11). Bailey (1983), in a study investigati ng the relationship between competitiveness and anxiety in adult L2 learning, discusses some advantages of the di ary studies. First, he states that a diary study may re veal hidden affective variables. For example, in a diary of a student in his study, the student saw her inability to compet e with her more proficient classmates as causing her a great deal of anxiety. Second, the diar y studies can provide developmental data. Third, diaries can give researchers insights on many students even within a uniform classroom. Fina lly, he states that “the diar y studies allow us to see the classroom experience as a dynamic and co mplex process through the eyes of the

PAGE 49

37 language learner” (p. 98). However, the major criticism of Bailey’s study is that diaries are subjective. The researcher interprets an xiety based only on what students wrote. Price (1991) used student interviews to examine the question of L2 anxiety from the perspective of the anxi ous learner. This method has several disadvantages. For example, if the interview is conducted in the L2 and an interviewee has low language proficiency, he/she may not understand exactly wh at the researcher’s questions are. Also, the questions asked are usually specific questions of inte rest to the researcher, and, therefore, the students’ responses are limited to these types of questions. Because of this, an interview measure can be biased. However, this method has some advantages. The interaction between the resear cher and interviewee can po ssibly elicit more detailed information about the learner’s feelings and thoughts than is availa ble from a diary or essay. MacIntyre and Gardner (1991a) used an e ssay, along with other instruments, to measure anxiety. Each student was asked to re call an experience that required the use of their French skills, in which they felt either very relaxed and conf ident or very nervous and apprehensive. However, this essay method can also be biased, because judges’ subjective opinions are involved in the analysis of the essays. Accord ing to Patten (2000), human judgments are subject to bi ases and other sources of erro rs. This is especially true of qualitative measures like those described above. Zbornik and Wallbrown (1991) conducted re search with children reading in their L1. Zbornik and Wallbrown used the Read ing Anxiety Scale (RAS) questionnaire to measure three domains of reading anxiety: the fears of curiosity, aggression, and independence. However, as Oller (1979) poi nted out, questionnaires have much built-in

PAGE 50

38 bias. Bias can also include not giving all possible ideas, cau ses, or outcomes equal chance of being examined or realized. The questionnaire is biased because it limits the number of possible responses a subject can provide. In addition, items on the questionnaire can influence subjects’ choice, due to how an ite m is worded. For example, if the items are only positively worded, the subjects may pos itively respond to the items automatically. Therefore, a researcher should be very car eful with positive and negative wordings in his/her design of questions to avoid subj ects choosing all one scale. Furthermore, respondents may be trying to say what they th ink a questioner or interviewer wants them to say, so that the questione r or interviewer does not get true responses (Oller, 1979). Specifically, Oller (1979) argues that high pr oficiency learners may anticipate how the researcher wants them to respond and thus respond in that way. Oller suggests that students’ proficiency might also bias the resu lts of the questionnaire. According to Oller, students’ responses may be more closely rela ted to the ability to determine intelligently what the “correct” answer is than with thei r actual behavior and feelings. For example, high proficiency learners may have low a nxiety scores because they know what an investigator wants (Oller, 1979; Oller & Perk ins, 1978). In other words, high achievers tend to acquire positive affective tendencies as a result of doing well, whereas low achievers might acquire negativ e attitudes. Additionally, que stionnaires generally use a Likert scale. One of the disadva ntages of using a Li kert scale is that the steps on the scale may not be equal and may miss options that subjects want. However, as Oller (1979) notes, the necessary relia nce of affective measures on self-re ports is an entirely inevitable weakness: “With affective variables the m easurement problem is considerably more complex and is necessarily inferential and indirect ” (p. 18). Oller states that while many

PAGE 51

39 sorts of behaviors can be directly observed, attitudes can only be inferred from behaviors and statements of the person in question. Despite the above-mentioned weaknesses, questionnaires are commonly used in correlational studies. The use of correlationa l studies to measure reading anxiety is subject to many limitations and problems. Correlational studies cannot demonstrate a causal relationship, and therefore, lack inte rnal validity. However, correlational studies are used to measure anxiety because it is very difficult to quantify something as abstract as anxiety. Kleinmann’s (1977) study emphasized that anxi ety itself is not a simple, unitary construct that can be comfortably quantified into eith er “high” or “low” amounts. There are some suggestions for partially compensating for the disadvantages of correlational studies. As s uggested by Bailey (1983), one way of minimizing the problems of inference in research on affectiv e variables is to ask readers directly how they feel or think, either in carefully word ed questionnaires or in terviews, instead of relying only on observation. By doing so, resear chers can better get data on students’ attitudes and feelings. Additionally, Scove l (1978) explained the advantage of questionnaires and self-reports in that they are much more precise in focusing in on anxiety than physical measures lik e perspiration, heart rate etc. Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Sc ale (FLCAS)/Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (FLRAS) In L2 research, the FLRAS, a questionnaire, is the central instrument that has been used for measuring reading anxiety. The FLRAS was developed to measure anxiety related to L2 reading. It contains 20 Likert scale items scored on a 5-point scale. The theoretical range of the FL RAS scale is from 20 to 100. The FLRAS items include various aspects of reading, students’ percepti ons of reading difficulties in their target

PAGE 52

40 language, and their perceptions of the relative difficulty of reading as compared to the difficulty of other language skil ls (Saito et al., 1999). In th is sense, the FLRAS is valid because the items are the ones which readi ng anxiety is supposed to be measured. Additionally, the FLCAS, a nother questionnaire commonl y used in correlational studies, also holds some value as a measur ement of classroom anxiety. It contains 33 Likert scale items also scored on a 5-point scale. The items reflect communication apprehension, test-anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation in the L2 classroom (Horwitz et al., 1986). Horwitz (1986) reported that internal consis tency using Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93, based on a sample of 108 subjects. Test -retest reliability ove r a period of eight weeks was r = 0.83 ( p = 0.001), for 78 subjects. In addi tion, higher scores on the FLCAS were associated with lower expected gr ades in the foreign language class ( r = -0.52, p = 0.001), and lower actual final grades ( r = -0.49, p = 0.003 in Spanish class; r = -0.54, p = 0.001 in French class). Although Sellers (2000) attempted to invest igate the relationship between students’ L2 reading anxiety and their reading comp rehension, and the relationship between the students’ reading anxiety and th e reading process itself, there are several criticisms of and limitations to her study. First, her level divisi on was based on semester or course levels, rather than a standardized test. Conse quently, results of Sellers’ study lacks generalizability. Another critic ism centers on the author’s se lection of text material. Sellers did not consider the leve l of text although she mentione d this as a limitation of her study. The consideration of the reading passage’s level might be important because if the level of the passage is too high for stude nts, a researcher cannot measure their comprehension accurately. Even though traine d native speakers of Spanish divided the

PAGE 53

41 reading passage into pausal units, the selection of text based only on general and familiar topics to university students is not suffici ent. In other words, anxiety levels of participants may vary according to the level of reading passages or the topic of the text. The limitation of this study is also related to the limitation of co rrelational studies in general. In other words, si nce correlational stud ies cannot identify a causal factor, she cannot interpret her findings that the RAS (Reading Anxiety Scale) affects the FLCAS and her study therefore also lacks internal validity. Summary In summary, previous research has shown that L2 learners differing in their degree of proficiency may employ different modes of processing while reading. L2 learners with relatively lower levels of pr oficiency tend to use a bottom-up mode of processing, while high proficiency L2 learners prefer a top-down mode of pr ocessing. Moreover, results of previous research on the effect of text adjuncts on L2 read ing comprehension suggest that the facilitative effect of a text adjunct varies as a function of readers’ proficiency level, as well as of text type. Recent studies also show ed that anxiety level may affect L2 reading comprehension. That is, highly anxious student s tend to recall less passage content than do participants who experience minimal anxiety. Significance of Current Study Lee and Riley (1990) examined the effect of text adjuncts for the comprehension of expository prose. They found that the expanded framework helped improve novice foreign language readers’ comprehension of a loosely-structured type of passage (collection of descriptions), but not of a tig htly-structured type (problem-solution). One of the purposes of the present study is to re plicate the results of Lee and Riley (1990). Specifically, the present study examines whethe r the use of an expanded framework helps

PAGE 54

42 improve ESL learners’ comprehension of a loos ely-structured text more than that of a tightly-structured text. The present study employs three te xts that have different structures in order to compare the effects of text adjuncts according to text structure. There have been contradictory results on th e effects of text adjuncts depending on ESL learners’ proficiency levels. Therefore, the present study also inves tigates the effects on L2 reading comprehension of two different type s of text adjuncts (i .e., definition lists and frameworks) in different proficiency le vels (Low and High). By measuring the participants’ English proficiency reliably, a relationship between pr oficiency levels and reading anxiety levels can be examined. Statement of Purpose The main purpose of the present study is to investig ate the effects of differing types of text adjuncts on L2 reading compre hension. Specifically, this research seeks to answer the question of whether L2 learners fr om various proficiency levels benefit from the provision of vocabulary and framework text adjuncts. The interaction between anxiety level and degree of proficiency level is explore d. Moreover, the difference in reading strategies used by low and high pr oficiency L2 learners is also examined. Research Questions and Hypotheses Research Questions The following research questi ons guided this study: 1. Do high and low proficiency ESL learners benefit from different types of text adjuncts (definition list, framework)? 2. Is there an interaction between text type and text adjunct within each proficiency level? 3. Is there any relationship between ESL learne rs’ anxiety levels a nd their proficiency levels?

PAGE 55

43 4. Is there any relationship between ESL learners’ reading strategies at each proficiency level and their r eading comprehens ion ability? Hypotheses 1. It is hypothesized that the ‘expanded fr amework’ sub-group will have lower recall scores than the ‘vocabulary’ sub-group in the Low proficiency (L) group, because the expanded framework sub-group will lack the vocabulary from the passage they need to understand the passage. 2. It is also hypothesized th at the ‘expanded framework’ sub-group that receives information on the text types will do better than the ‘vocabulary’ sub-group that receives a vocabulary list in the High proficiency (H) group. Because of their proficiency level, they will not need passage vocabulary, but they will need information about the rhetori cal structure of an expository text to fully understand the passage like a native speaker would.

PAGE 56

44 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Participants The subjects who participated in my st udy consisted of a heterogeneous group of 61 University of Florida ESL (English as a Second Language) student s, representing 15 different languages (Table 3-2). They were recruited from the English Language Institute (ELI), the Academic Spoken English (ASE ) program and the Scholarly Writing (SW) program at the University of Florida in th e spring semester of 2003. Students at the ELI are international students with variou s language backgrounds, and their English proficiency level is generally lower than th e students in the ASE and SW programs. In addition, students at the ELI are divided in to several levels based on a standardized placement test, which is administered at th e beginning of the semester. Most of the students at the ELI have lived in the U.S. for only a short time, and have not taken the TOEFL or the GRE prior to thei r admission to this program. Students in the ASE program, however, are international students who are attending graduate school at th e University of Florida. Typica lly, they are older, and have stayed in the United States for a longer period of time, and are taking ASE classes because their graduate student assistan tships depend on successful completion ASE examinations. ASE classes are divided into three levels (I, II, and III), based on proficiency. English proficiency levels of students in the ASE program are generally higher than ELI students and Un like ELI students, all of the ASE students have taken the TOEFL and GRE before they matriculated in to the University of Florida. Like ASE

PAGE 57

45 students, students in the Sc holarly Writing Program are in ternational grad uate students who need to take English writi ng classes as a result of scor ing the written component of their entrance examination. For the purposes of my study I recruited students from high intermediate and advanced classes at the ELI as well as all ASE and Scholarly Writing Program competency levels. Students who volunteer ed from the ASE and Scholarly Writing Program were instructed to individually co me to my office. In the case of the ELI students, I was granted permission by their inst ructors to use their class time to collect data. Due to variations in proficiency, the pa rticipants were divided into two groups Higher, and Lower where all of the participants in the Lower group were part of the ELI. The average length of residence in the U.S. for the Higher group was 2 years, 2 months; and that for the Lower group was only 4 months (Table 3-1). The length of residency has a strong correlation to profic iency, and is, therefore, a key variable in this study. Table 3-1. Participants’ average length of residence in the U.S. and average age Group Av. length of residence in the U.S. (m) Av. age (y) High (N = 31) 26.55 29 Low (N = 30) 4.67 25 English Proficiency Test In order to divide students into higher and lower proficiency levels, I used the Test of Adolescent and Adult Language (TOAL). For measuring overall proficiency, it is beneficial to use a test that includes the four language sk ills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). As Alderson, Krahnke and Stansf ield state, “Proficiency tests measure the test taker’s overall ability in English along a broad scale” (1987, p. iv). A standardized test is a more reliable assessment of L2 proficiency than more subjective assessments,

PAGE 58

46 such as impressionistic judgments, in-house te sts, or institutional status. It was assumed that the students in the ELI were Lower pr oficiency students and that those in the ASE and Scholarly Writing programs were Higher prof iciency students. I originally based the placement of students into Higher and Lower groups based on their program affiliation. To ensure that these groupings matched actual student proficiency I measured the Table 3-2. Characterist ics of participants Characteristic Number of participants Language background Arabic 1 Chinese 9 Chinese/Taiwanese 1 Farsi 1 Hebrew 1 Japanese 5 Korean 24 Mandarin 1 Punjabi/Hindi 1 Russian 1 Spanish 9 Thai 3 Tigrinya 1 Turkish 2 Vietnamese 1 Gender Male 36 Female 25 Age range 19 to 42 years Materials students’ overall English pr oficiency in a reliable way using the TOAL to ensure the accuracy of this assumption. The TOAL-3 (Test of Adolescent and Adult Language-Third Edition) is a standardized test that measures a student’s ove rall English proficiency level. The test has an internal consistency, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability, and the reliability coefficients exceeded 0.80 indicating that te st error was minimal The TOAL-3 is not biased with regard to race or genderand is designed for student s between the ages of 18 to

PAGE 59

47 24 (Hammill, Brown, Larsen & Wiederholt, 1994 ). This standardized test has been created to test language skill s of both native speakers of English and ESL students, making it one of the most difficult standardiz ed exams for ESL students. The TOAL is extremely thorough, in that it includes te n different subsections : listening, speaking, reading, writing, spoken language, written language, vocabulary, grammar, receptive language, and expressive language in this st udy. For this study, four subtests of the TOAL-3 were used: listening/vocabulary, r eading/vocabulary, reading/grammar, and writing/grammar. I administered these subtests of the TOAL-3 to all participants. I included only the students who finished all four subsections of th e TOAL and the three reading sections. For my study, I chose the TOAL-3 over the TOEFL exam. Even though the TOEFL exam is a rigorous and reliable inst rument for testing stude nt proficiency, there are several reasons why I did not choose th e TOEFL as a proficiency test. First, many ESL students have taken a TOEFL-type test be fore they entered the U.S. Even though a test itself may be known to be reliable, it may not be reliable enough because many students are accustomed to merely memorizing th e test format, and, as a result, the test score may not correlate to a student’s Eng lish proficiency. To avoid this problem, a researcher could use the st udent’s past TOEFL score. This, however, may not be indicative of the student’s Eng lish proficiency at the time of the experiment. Therefore, for the reason of consistency and immediacy, the TOAL was chosen as a test of the ESL students’ overall English proficiency. Background Questionnaire In addition to the standardized test, a background questionnaire, which consisted of the following parts: (1) participants’ L1 and L2 backgrounds, as well as their English

PAGE 60

48 learning experiences; (2) some items on readi ng anxiety when readi ng English; and (3) some items on reading strategies that they employ when reading English (Appendix A) was administered to all participants. The pur pose of part I (participants’ L1 and L2 background) was to create a correlation be tween the participants’ backgrounds with factors, such as proficiency levels, anxiety levels, and r eading ability. In order to accurately evaluate a subject’s ‘reading anxi ety’ items, I employed the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scales (FLRAS), which is developed by Saito, Garza, and Horwitz (1999). Likewise for the purpose of identifyi ng a subject’s ‘reading strategies’ items, I used the Reading Strategy Questionnaire (RSQ) (Carrell, 198 9; Pritchard, 1990; Rusciolelli, 1995).The FLRAS reveals the subjec t’s preferred reading strategies within a field of three catagories: t op-down reading strategies, botto m-up reading strategies, and one reading belief (Table 3-3). Item 9 on th e RSQ was “Rate your reading skill in your native language,” and was scored on a fivepoint Likert scale, ranging from (1) very good, to (2) fairly good, (3) average, (4) be low average, and (5) bad. This kind of questioning provides a useful function of dete rmining the reader’s L1 proficiency, which registers as a key f actor in this study. Since FLRAS was designed for native speake r-participants, it has to be modified for ESL participants for use in this study. Th e FLRAS consisted of six items and the RSQ consisted of nine items. The two questionnaires were scored on a five -point Likert scale, ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘s trongly agree.’ To insure the clarity and comprehensiveness of the FLRAS, the items on the questionnaire were pilot-tested with 18 ESL students at the English Language Inst itute at the University of Florida (Park, 2001). For the five items (items 1-5) in th e FLRAS, a higher score signifies a higher

PAGE 61

49 degree of anxiety. Through the evaluation of anxiety, I am able to examine the relationship between learners’ proficiency levels and their anxiety levels. I can also investigate possible relationships between learners’ anxiety level and their reading comprehension ability. Through the RSQ, I am ab le to identify which reading strategies are used by fluent readers and which read ing strategies are em ployed by non-fluent readers. Table 3-3. Types of FLRAS and specific questions asked Types of FLRAS Item Reading anxiety (Items 1-5) 1. When reading English, I often understand the words but I don’t always understand what the author is saying. 2. When I’m reading, I am nervous if I don’t know the topic. 3. I get upset when I don’t understand the grammar in a sentence when reading English. 4. When reading English, if I don’t understand every word, I get nervous and confused. 5. I feel very uncomfortable when a teacher asks me to read aloud in class. Classroom activity (Item 6) 6. I like to do group work in English class. Table 3-4. Types of reading strate gies and specific questions asked Types of reading strategies Item Top-down reading strategies 1. When reading in English, I skip the words I don’t know and continue reading. (Items 1, 2, 3, 7) 2. I read the title and imagin e what the article might be about. 3. I start reading and try to figure out the meaning as I go along. 7. I think it's helpful if a teacher gives me information about a text before I read Bottom-up reading strategies 4. I usually translate into my native language when I read an English passage. (Items 4, 5, 6) 5. I read every wo rd and look up the ones I don’t know. 6. I usually pronounce words silently, and when I don't know how to pronounce a word, I think I won't get the right meaning. Reading belief (Item 8) 8. I think readi ng out loud to myself is helpful.

PAGE 62

50 Reading Texts For the main experiment, all participants were asked to read three ‘expository’ texts written by native speakers of English that were not simplified or edited in any way. In general, an expository text does not contain as much culturally embedded background knowledge as a literary text. Therefore, it is ea sier to control for the text effect with an expository text than with a narrative text. The texts used by previous researchers we re used in this present study (Carrell, 1985, 1992; Connor, 1984; Meyer, Brandt & Bl uth, 1980; Oh, 1990). First, by using the same texts, results of this study can be direc tly compared with previ ous results. As such, I am able to interpret the reading results according to students’ proficiency levels. All participants from both groups were asked to read a loosely-st ructured text, titled “The Olympic Games” (a collection of descript ions). Since both groups read the passage, I could compare the effect of text adjuncts in each group for this type of passage. Next, I selected a set of texts specific to the partic ipants’ proficiency leve l. I chose the texts “Supertankers” and “Closing down nuclear pow er plants for the group with the higher proficiency. These readings em ploy tightly-structured heuris tics, consisting of problem and solution, and comparison/contrast format s, respectively. For th e lower proficiency group, I chose “On being fat in America” and “Nuclear energy versus solar energy.” These texts also are written with tightly-s tructured heuristic or ganization, problem and solution, and comparison, respectively (Appendix B). Therefore, each student read a total of three passages, two of whic h were proficiency specific. Procedure At the outset of this study, I divided each proficiency level into three sub-groups: two treatment groups and a cont rol group. I pilot-tested the te xts with 6 students (3 ELI

PAGE 63

51 students and 3 international gr aduate students) in March 2003. The purpose of the pilot study was to test the feas ibility of my procedure, as well as to check the difficulty of the texts. The pilot study did not reveal a ny major flaws in the overall methodology; therefore, all students who participat ed underwent the same procedure. The testing of the participants took pl ace over four meetings. As I mentioned before, the ELI instructors allowed me to us e their classrooms to conduct the study for the Lower group. Members of the Higher group me t with me four times individually in my office. On the first day of treatment, I gave the participants informed consent forms and the background questionnaire. On the sec ond day of treatment, I administered the TOAL-3. Due to the unique conditions of the ELI cl assroom modifications had to be made to the TOAL-3 testing. For example, ELI readi ng/writing classes are scheduled in two-hour blocks, and it is difficult to continue the test for more than two hours. Additionally, the speaking subtest is supposed to be measured with each student, so it is not best to administer the test with a group of part icipants. Therefore, for feasibility and methodological reasons, I chose four subt ests of which included writing. On the third day, I gave the students th e “The Olympic Games” passage. Students were asked to read and reread the passage for 20 minutes. After all the participants finished with their reading, they were allowe d to write the recall pr otocol for 20 minutes. Accordingly, they had 40 minutes total. The ‘vocabulary’ groups received a definition list before they read the passage. I selected vo cabulary words that I considered essential to comprehending the reading. Participants in the ‘expanded framework’ sub-groups received written information on the text type s (collection of desc riptions, problem and

PAGE 64

52 solution, and comparison/contrast) before they read the passage (Appendix C). For example, if the rhetorical st ructure of the text employed a problem/solution heuristic, the expanded framework explained that the text presented a problem and suggested a solution for the problem at the end. I modeled the expa nded framework in this study after Lee and Riley (1990); i.e., information about the rhetorical structur e of an expository text was used as a text adjunct. After the participants finished reading the passage, for the recall protocol I read the instructi ons, explaining that they should write down as much as they could remember from the passage without refe rring back to the passage. The participants were encouraged to use complete sentences a nd to use the words in the passage or their own words (Appendix D). On the fourth day, I tested the Lower group using the passage “On being fat in American” and the Higher group using the passa ge “Nuclear energy ve rsus solar energy.” The procedure was repeated exactly the same as that used on the third day. The students were asked to write in Englis h for all recall protocols, which is an important factor in my study. Lee (1986a, 1986b) found that reporti ng of recall in the native language produced a more accurate asse ssment of subjects’ true understanding than did recall reported in the foreign la nguage. His suggestion, however, works only for a homogeneous group when I understand the L1. In the present study, learners had many different language backgrounds, and, therefor e, were asked to recall in English, which would have had an effect on their performance. Another important factor in my procedure was that before the participants began reading, they were told that they would be as ked to immediately recal l the text after they were finished. By using the immediate recall protocol, I was able to control for memory

PAGE 65

53 effects. Some concern may be raised with re gard to the short-term memory issue when students recall. However, if a student does not comprehend a text, it is likely that he/she will have difficulty remembering its content. Th erefore, the recall protocol is not greatly affected by short-term memory (Smith, 1994) (Note that the memory effect was not tested in this study.) Scoring All questions in the subtests of the TOAL that were used in the present study were scored as 0 or 1. The listen ing/vocabulary, reading/vocabul ary, and reading/grammar are multiple-choice question-type tests. There are two correct answers for each item in all of the three tests, and to receive a score of 1, bot h answers had to be correct. Because of this fact, it is not easy to answer correctly if a subject simply guesses. Also, if a subject has one right answer and one wrong answer for a question, he or she receives a score of 0. For example, in the listening/vocabulary test participants were asked to choose two pictures which were representative of two m eanings of a homophone (i.e., palm) that was produced (Table 3-5). In the listening/vocabul ary test, students were supposed to choose two pictures which were most representative of the word spoken. This section could be difficult if the students knew only one meani ng of the word. In the reading/vocabulary test, they were supposed to choose two answ ers which were most like the words in the example. In the reading/grammar test, they were supposed to choos e two sentences that had the most similar meaning. Unlike the first three sections, the f ourth section focused on writing/grammar where participants were aske d to combine a set of sentences into one sentence. Guidelines for the writing/grammar section included examples of permissible and impermissible answers for each item. For in stance, item 5 consisted of the sentences, “The girl looked frightened” and “She wasn’t frightened.” Permissi ble answers included

PAGE 66

54 “The girl (She) looked scared (frightened) but she wasn’t,” or “Even though she looked frightened, she wasn’t.” An example of an im permissible answer is: “She was frightened but didn’t look it.” Each student ’s overall English proficienc y score was the sum of the four subtests’ raw score. Table 3-5. Examples of subtests Subtest Example 1 (Listening/Vocabulary) [palm] 5 (Reading/Vocabulary) [red, green, blue] A. yellow B. circle C. orange D. light 6 (Reading/Grammar) A. Sam plays. B. Sam will not play. C. Sam has played. D. Sam is playing. E. Sam is going to play. 8 (Writing/Grammar) We ate lunch. It was an hour ago. Since the writing/grammar subtest was an open-ended question, the answers were varied. For the scoring of this subtest, I di scussed students’ answer s with a native speaker of English to ensure that they would be scor ed fairly. The native speaker was 24 years old at the time of the study and had worked as a teaching assistant in the Academic Spoken English program at the University of Florid a for 2.5 years. After I listed all of the students’ answers that were not in the guidelines, the native speaker and I went over the responses item by item. A student’s score repr esents the sum of co rrect answers on these four subtests. For scoring of the recalls, I followed Carre ll’s (1992) study by di viding the text into “idea units,” because it is important to have a small idea unit in th is study. Having small idea units prevents cases of participants producing half-correct and half-incorrect

PAGE 67

55 responses in one idea unit. I did not weigh th e idea units by level of importance, because the purpose of the reading comprehension test was to observe total number of idea units recalled, not type of idea un its recalled. Basically, each idea unit consisted of a single clause (main or subordinate, including adverbial and relativ e clauses). Each infinitive, gerund, and conjunction was cons idered a separate idea un it. Moreover, prepositional phrases were identified as separate idea uni ts. If an idea was complex, it was broken into smaller idea units. Students’ scores consisted of the total number of idea units that they successfully recalled. The following are the num ber of idea units for each of the five texts: “The Olympic Games” (100); “Supertanke rs” (104); “Closing down nuclear power plants” (98); “On being fat in America” (142); “N uclear energy versus solar energy” (91). For my study I did not choose to employ Meyer’s (1985) recall protocol scoring system, which has been used frequently in previous research. Meyer’s system identifies the structural characteristics as well as the lexi cal units of a passage, and for this reason is important for researchers. Moreover, the pr ocedure helps to meas ure the relationship between passage type and level of performa nce. Because the system arranges the idea units hierarchically, its use provides a dem onstration of not only which lexical and relational units are recalled, but also from which portion of the structure those units are remembered. However, there are disadvantag es to the Meyer recall protocol system. First, the Meyer recall protocol requires a c onsiderable amount of time, and hence is not efficient. Also, it requires sufficient expert ise to develop instruments (Bernhardt, 1991, pp. 201-203). For these reasons, Carrell’s system had better applica tions to my study. After the scoring templates were finalized for each text, I graded a total of 183 recall protocols. The scoring template of each reading passage was determined based on

PAGE 68

56 the same rules. Generally, I chose flexible scoring. If a subject paraphrased and the meaning of the idea unit was the same as in the original idea unit, it was considered correct. More importantly I was concerned w ith ideas, not grammar. Hence, a different usage of an auxiliary verb or unimportant gr ammatical mistakes were considered correct idea units. I decided that rephrasing of an idea unit was acceptable response before grading, because the central c oncern is having a subject and a verb together in an idea unit. I checked with a native speaker in order to obtain native speaker intuition on the accuracy of the participants’ responses. When there was a conflict, we discussed the issue and came to an agreement on an analysis. Statistical Analyses A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine statistical significance of the two proficiency groups, (H igher and Lower), in terms of the TOAL. An ANOVA was also performed to determin e statistical signifi cance of the subgroups, (“control”, “vocabulary” and “expanded fram ework”) in each proficiency group. In order to examine the relationship between students’ anxiety levels and recall scores, TOAL scores and recall, and LOR and recall, a Pe arson product-moment correlation coefficient was performed. Descriptive statistics were used to describe each subgroup’s responses on the FLRAS and the RSQ.

PAGE 69

57 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter includes the results of th e TOAL-3, the recall protocols, and the participants’ background information. For th e TOAL-3, descriptive statistics and the results of a one-way analysis of varian ce (ANOVA) of the results are presented. The relationship between the students’ English pr oficiency, as measured by the TOAL-3 and their reading ability, as measured by the recall is examined. Also, the relationship between the students’ reading proficiency in English, as measured by the subtest 6 (Reading/Grammar) and their reading ability, as measured by the recall is examined. Finally, this chapter includes the results of the questionnaires, i.e., the FLRAS, the Reading Strategy Questionnaire (RSQ), and the relationship between the results of these questionnaires and other factors. Information concerning the st udents’ length of residence is also discussed. Results of Test of Adolescent and Adult Language (TOAL-3) The purpose of administering the TOAL-3 was to systematically measure the students’ proficiency levels. Four subtests were administered in the study: Subtest 1 (Listening/Vocabulary), subtest 5 (Reading/ Vocabulary), subtest 6 (Reading/Grammar) and subtest 8 (Writing/Grammar). A total raw sc ore (120) is the sum of the four subtests’ raw scores. The mean percentage of accura te responses of the Higher (H) group was 65.65% and that of the Lower (L) group was 48.25%. In order to determine if there is a statis tically significant difference between the H and the L groups in terms of the TOAL-3 ra w score, a one-way analysis of variance

PAGE 70

58 (ANOVA) was performed. As expected, the re sults were statistically significant ([ F (1, 59) = 47.473, p = 0.000]). This result confirmed that participants in the H group are significantly more pr oficient than those in the L group. Standard Score for TOAL-3 The TOAL-3 standard scores provide an indication of a person’s subtest performance. The mean of the TOAL-3subtes t standard scores is always 10 and the standard deviation is 3. A signifi cant aspect of this system is that a standard score on one subtest may be compared with a standard sc ore on any other subt est (Hammill et al, 1994, p. 36). Table 4-1 gives the guide lines for describing standard scores and the guidelines apply to each subtest. Table 4-1. Guidelines for describing standard score Standard score Description 17-20 Very superior 15-16 Superior 13-14 Above average 8-12 Average 6-7 Below average 4-5 Poor 1-3 Very poor Table 4-2. Total standard score and Mean standard score Group Total standard score (61) Mean standard scoreMean percentage High (N = 31) 1096/1891 35.35 57.96 Low (N = 30) 762/1830 25.40 41.64 Table 4-3. TOAL-3 total standa rd score by subtest for H group Subtest (# of total standard score) Lowest Highest Mean SD 1 (16) 3 12 7.52 1.75 5 (15) 4 12 7.71 1.62 6 (14) 7 14 10.65 1.87 8 (16) 6 12 9.48 1.61

PAGE 71

59 Table 4-4. TOAL-3 total standard score by subtest for L group Subtest (# of total standard score) Lowest Highest Mean SD 1 (16) 1 9 5.07 2.20 5 (15) 3 10 5.77 1.59 6 (14) 3 12 7.70 2.32 8 (16) 2 11 6.87 2.62 The total standard score (61) is the sum of the four s ubtests’ standard scores. The total maximum score is 16 for subtest 1, 15 for subtest 5, 14 for subtest 6, and 16 for subtest 8. As shown in Table 4-2, the mean pe rcentage for the standard score of the H group was 57.96% and 41.64% for the L group. An ANOVA showed that there was no significant difference among the subgroups (control, vocabulary, and expanded framework group) on the total standard score in either the H or the L group. However, there was a significant difference between the two proficiency groups, on the total standard score ([ F (1, 59) = 47.559, p = 0.000]). For example, an ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference between the proficiency groups on subtest 1’s standard score ([ F (1, 59) = 23.302, p = 0.000]), on subtest 5’s standard score ([ F (1, 59) = 22.378, p = 0.000]), on subtest 6’s standard score ([ F (1, 59) = 28.849, p = 0.000]), and on subtest 8’s standard score ([ F (1, 59) = 22.227, p = 0.000]). The lowest score for the TOAL-3 total standard score for the H group was 27 and the highest score was 46 out of 61. The lowest score for the TOAL-3 total score for the L group was 9 and the highest score was 36 out of 61 (H group, M: 35.35, SD: 4.52; L group, M: 25.40, SD: 6.59). The TOAL-3 presented normative tables for subtests for scoring based on the standard scores and percentiles. Both H and L groups had the highest mean standard score of 10.65 and 7.70, respectively, for subtes t 6 (reading/grammar). Also, both groups had the lowest mean standard score of 7.52 and 5.07, respectively, for subtest 1

PAGE 72

60 (listening/vocabulary). The H group had a mu ch higher mean score (9.48) than the L group (6.87) in subtest 8 writing/grammar (Tables 4-3 and 4-4). The results show the average standard scores for both groups. Fo r the H group, the mean standard score was 8.84 (SD: 1.13), which is in the range of 8–12 ‘average’ according to Table 4-1. For the L group, the mean standard score was 6.35 (SD: 1.65), which is in the range of 6–7 ‘below average’. Standard Scores for TOAL-3 by Subgroups Within each group, the mean and standard deviation of each subgroup was evaluated based on standard scores. Of the H subgroups, the control group had the highest score, followed by the expanded fr amework group, which in turn was followed by the vocabulary group (Table 4-5). The mean and standard deviation of subgroups in the L proficiency group were also calculated in Table 4-6. The expanded framework group had the highest score, followed by the vocabulary group, and the control group had the lowest score. In order to investigate statistical significance among the subgroups at each proficiency level, a one-way ANOVA wa s performed. There was no statistically significant difference among the subgroups in either the H or L proficiency group ( p = 0.282 and p = 0.082, respectively). Therefore, I assu me that the subgroups’ proficiency levels are the same. I discuss the interrelations hip of students’ profic iency level and text adjuncts in detail in the discussion chapter. Tables 4-7 and 4-8 give the ANOVAs fo r the H and L subgroups on each of the TOAL-3’s subtests. There were no statis tically significant differences among the subgroups for each subtest in the H group. In the L group, there were no statistically significant differences among the subgroups for any subtest except for subtest 6 (Reading/Grammar) ([ F (2, 27) = 5.145, p = 0.013]). A post-hoc Bonferroni test revealed

PAGE 73

61 that both the vocabulary group and th e expanded framework group performed significantly better than the control group ( p = 0.018 and p = 0.046, respectively). Table 4-5. Mean and SD of total standard score in H group Subgroup Mean SD Control 36.55 5.07 Expanded framework 35.90 4.31 Vocabulary 33.50 3.89 Table 4-6. Mean and SD of total standard score in L group Subgroup Mean SD Expanded framework 27.27 6.34 Vocabulary 27.00 6.20 Control 21.33 6.12 Table 4-7. Standard sc ore in H group (ANOVA) Subtest df MS F p 1 Between groups 2 2.62 0.85 0.439 Within groups 28 3.09 Total 30 5 Between groups 2 4.73 1.92 0.165 Within groups 28 2.46 Total 30 6 Between groups 2 0.99 0.27 0.765 Within groups 28 3.68 Total 30 8 Between groups 2 6.40 2.76 0.080 Within groups 28 2.32 Total 30 Table 4-8. Standard score in L group (ANOVA) Subtest df MS F p 1 Between groups 2 2.12 0.42 0.660 Within groups 27 5.02 Total 29 5 Between groups 2 2.00 0.78 0.469 Within groups 27 2.57 Total 29 6 Between groups 2 21.57 5.15 0.013 Within groups 27 4.19 Total 29 8 Between groups 2 11.47 1.75 0.192 Within groups 27 6.54 Total 29

PAGE 74

62 Recall Protocols This section examines raw scores and mean percentages of recalls for all texts, which are listed in Table 4-9 along with the number of idea units in each. The first text, “The Olympic Games,” read by both profic iency groups, yields crucial comparable results. Table 4-10 presents mean percenta ge of subgroups for the H group and Table 411 presents mean percentage of subgroups for the L group. An ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant difference in recall scores between the two proficiency groups for this passage ([ F (1, 59) = 58.857, p = 0.000]), suggesting that the reading ability of the H group is significantly higher than the reading ability of the L group. For this loosely-structured text, the expanded framework subgroups for both H and L groups benefited most from the text adjunct. The expanded framework group for H had the highest score, while the ot her treatment group, the voca bulary group, had the lowest score. However, an ANOVA showed that th ere was no significant difference among the three groups in the H group ([ F (2, 28) = 3.126, p = 0.060]). In contrast, the two treatment groups for the L group had a better sc ore than the control group (Table 4-11). An ANOVA showed that there was a signifi cant difference among the three groups in the L group ([ F (2, 27) = 6.040, p = 0.007]). A post-hoc Bonferroni test revealed that the vocabulary group recalled significantly more than the control group ( p = 0.024), and that the expanded framework group also recalled sign ificantly better than the control group ( p = 0.010). Therefore, for the loosely-structur ed text, both the expanded framework text adjunct and the vocabulary list text adjunc t were helpful for the L group students. For the ‘problem and solution’ passage, each proficiency group read a text chosen to match students’ proficiency level. The hi gher proficiency student s read “Supertankers”

PAGE 75

63 Table 4-9. Reading text and number of idea units Group Reading text Text type Number of idea units Both groups The Olympic games Collection of descriptions 100 High Supertankers Problem/solution 104 Closing down nuclear power plants Comparison/contrast 98 Low On being fat in America Problem/solution 142 Nuclear versus solar en ergyComparison/contrast 91 Table 4-10. Mean (%) of subgroups for “ti ghtly-structured” passages and for “all passages” (H group) Group Subgroup P/S C/C Mean of tightlystructured passages C/D Mean of all passages H C 41.52 28.57 35.05 43.36 37.82 V 47.21 33.98 40.60 37.80 39.66 E 63.08 54.39 58.74 59.90 59.12 P/S: problem/solution text, C/C: comparison/contrast text, C/D: collection of descriptions text; C: control group, V: vocabular y group, E: expanded framework group Table 4-11. Mean (%) of subgroups for “ti ghtly-structured” passages and for “all passages” (L group) Group Subgroup P/S C/C Mean of tightlystructured passages C/D Mean of all passages L C 11.03 10.26 10.65 6.56 9.28 V 16.76 20.44 18.60 16.40 17.87 E 20.49 17.08 18.79 17.36 18.31 and the lower proficiency st udents read “On being fat in America.” For the tightlystructured text read by the H group, “Supe rtankers,” the expanded framework group again had the highest reading score, follo wed by the vocabulary group, and the control group with the lowest score. However, th ere was no significant difference among the three groups. For the tightly-structured text read by the L group, “On being fat in America,” the expanded framework group also had the highest reading score, followed by

PAGE 76

64 the vocabulary group, and the control group had the lower score. However, again, there was no significant difference among the three groups. For the “comparison/contrast” passage, each group of students again read a text chosen according to their proficiency leve ls. The H group students read ‘Closing down nuclear power plants’ and the L group students read “Nuclear versus solar energy.” For the tightly-structured text, “Closing down nuclear power plants,” the expanded framework group once again had the highest reading score, followed by the vocabulary group, followed by the control group. In this case, there was a signi ficant difference among the three groups ([ F (2, 28) = 5.662, p = 0.009]). A post-hoc Bonferroni test revealed that the expanded framework group re called significantly more than the control group ( p = 0.010), but not more than the vocabulary group. For the tightly-structured text, “Nuclear versus solar energy,” the vocabulary group had the highest recall score, followed by the expanded framework group, followed by the control group. There was a significant difference among the three groups ([ F (2, 27) = 4.207, p = 0.026]). A post-hoc Bonferroni test rev ealed that the vocabulary group recalled significantly more than the control group ( p = 0.024). For the H group, the expanded framework group scored the highest average in both tightly-structured passages: th e problem/solution and compar ison/contrast passages. For the L group, the expanded framework group be nefited most for the problem/solution passage but the vocabulary group benefited most for the comparison/contrast passage. In the H group, an ANOVA showed that ther e was a significant difference among the subgroups ([ F (2, 59) = 7.185, p = 0.002]). A post-hoc Bonferroni test revealed that the expanded framework group did better than the control group ( p = 0.002), and the

PAGE 77

65 vocabulary group ( p = 0.025). In other words, for the tightly-structured passages, the expanded framework text adjunct was more help ful than the vocabulary list text adjunct in the H group. In the L group, an ANOVA show ed that there was also a significant difference among the subgroups on the tightly-structured texts ([ F (2, 57) = 4.038, p = 0.023]). A post-hoc Bonferroni test reveal ed that the expanded framework group did better than the control group ( p = 0.031), but not better th an the vocabulary group. Within the H group, the expanded framework group achieved the highest percentage score for all passages. For th e tightly-structured texts, the expanded framework group scored the highest with th e vocabulary group placing second. However, for the loosely-structured text, the contro l group recalled more than the vocabulary group. When all texts are considered together, the expanded framework groups showed the highest mean percentage score among three groups. In the H group, an ANOVA showed that there was significance between th e subgroups on all texts together ([ F (2, 90) = 10.005, p = 0.000]). A post-hoc Bonferroni test revealed that the expanded framework group did better than the control group ( p = 0.000), and better than the vocabulary group ( p = 0.001). Within the L group, the expanded framework groups showed the highest percentage score for both the collection of de scriptions passage and the problem/solution passage. For the comparison/contrast text however, the vocabulary group achieved the highest percentage score. When all text s are considered together, the expanded framework groups showed the highest perc entage score, although there was not a significant difference between the vocabular y group and the expanded framework group. An ANOVA showed that there was a signi ficant difference among the subgroups on all

PAGE 78

66 texts together ([ F (2, 87) = 7.856, p = 0.001]). A post-hoc Bonferr oni test revealed that the expanded framework group did better than the control group ( p = 0.001), and that the vocabulary group also did bett er than the control group ( p = 0.005). Effects of Text Structures according to Proficiency Level Table 4-12 presents the mean recall percen tage of all passages for the H group and Table 4-13 presents the mean recall percen tage of all passages for the L group. The students in both groups recalled the most for the problem/solution text. Table 4-12. Mean (%) for “tigh tly-structured” passages and for “all passages” (H group) Group P/S C/C Mean percentage of tightlystructured passages C/D Mean percentage of all passages H 50.60 38.98 44.79 47.02 45.53 Table 4-13. Mean (%) for “tightly-structured” passages and for “all passages” (L group) Group P/S C/C Mean percentage of tightlystructured passages C/D Mean percentage of all passages L 16.09 15.93 16.01 13.44 15.15 In order to determine a statistically si gnificant difference among the three text types, the collections of descriptions, problem/solution, or comparison/contrast in each proficiency group, a one-way ANOVA was pe rformed. There was a statistically significant difference among the text types in the H group ([ F (2, 90) = 3.376, p = 0.039]). A post-hoc Bonferroni test rev ealed that the mean recall score of problem/solution text was significantly higher than that of the comp arison/contrast text (Mean: 52.32, 37.87, respectively) ( p = 0.035). Moreover, there was also a statistically significant difference among the text types in the L group ([ F (2, 87) = 7.215, p =

PAGE 79

67 0.001]). A post-hoc Bonferroni test revealed th at the mean recall of problem/solution text was significantly higher than that of the collection of descript ions text (Mean: 23.30, 13.80, respectively) ( p = 0.003), and that the mean recall of problem/solution text was significantly higher than th at of the comparison/contrast text (Mean: 23.30, 14.70, respectively) ( p = 0.007). The overall results reveal that ther e was no difference between the looselystructured text and the tightly -structured texts in the H gr oup. However, participants in the Lower proficiency group recalled signifi cantly more idea units from the tightlystructured text than from the loosel y-structured text type (Mean: 13.80, 19.00, respectively) ([ F (1, 88) = 4.303, p = 0.041]). Relationship between Proficiency and Recall Scores In order to examine a relationship between the students’ proficiency levels and their recall scores, a Pearson product-moment correl ation coefficient was performed. Table 414 gives the summary of the co rrelations between the TOAL-3 and all readings. Overall, a moderate correlation was found between participants’ raw TOAL-3 scores and the number of ideas units they recalled from th e collection of description passage. However, this correlation was significant only among partic ipants in the higher proficiency group ( r = 0.443, p = 0.013) but not among those in the lower proficiency group ( r = 0.618, p = 0.000). There was no relationship between the st udents’ English proficiency, as shown by the TOAL-3, and the recall scores of the problem/solution passages for either group. However, there were correlations for the comparison/contrast pa ssages for both groups ( r = 0.398, p = 0.027 for the H group, and r = 0.472, p = 0.009 for the L group). Since there were significant correlations between the TOAL -3 scores and only some of the reading

PAGE 80

68 scores, as shown in Table 4-14, a student’s English proficiency doe s not always affect reading in a second language. Table 4-14. Correlations between TOAL-3 and readings Group C/D (%) P/S (%) C/C (%) H 44 22 40 p = 0.013 p = 0.027 L 13 29 47 p = 0.009 Both groups 62 p = 0.000 Tables 4-15 and Table 4-16 are summary tabl es of the mean number and percentage of idea units recalled per passage and per treatme nt type. Standard deviations are given in parentheses. Since there were no statistica lly significant differences among subgroups for either H or L group, the mean percentage of each subgroup per passage in the following tables informs the text adjunct effect. Table 4-15. Mean number and percentage of idea units recalled correctly per passage and per text adjunct in H group Control Vocabulary Expanded framework Row mean # % # % # % # % C/D (N = 100) 43.36 43.36 37.80 37.8059.90 59.90 47.02 47.02 (22.92) (15.01) (22.64) (22.02) P/S (N = 104) 43.18 41.52 49.10 47.2165.60 63.08 52.63 50.60 (22.35) (15.91) (27.35) (23.66) C/C (N = 98) 28.00 28.57 33.30 33.9853.30 54.39 38.2 38.98 (14.16) (13.75) (24.37) (20.59) Column mean 38.18 37.82 40.07 39.6659.6 59.12 (19.81) (14.89) (24.79) Varying Effects of Text Adjuncts according to Text Structure In the H group, an ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant difference among the subgroups for th e comparison/contrast text ( p = 0.009). For the collections of descriptions text, the differe nce among the subgroups was not significant

PAGE 81

69 Table 4-16. Mean number and percentage of idea units recalled correctly per passage and per text adjunct in L group Control Vocabulary Expanded framework Row mean # % # % # % # % C/D (N = 100) 6.56 6.56 16.40 16.4017.36 17.36 13.44 13.44 (2.35) (8.04) (9.45) (8.71) P/S (N = 142) 15.67 11.03 23.80 16.7629.09 20.49 22.85 16.09 (11.80) (11.67) (16.59) (14.37) C/C (N = 91) 9.33 10.26 18.60 20.4415.55 17.08 14.49 15.93 (3.87) (9.96) (5.77) (7.80) Column mean 10.52 9.28 19.6 17.8720.67 18.31 (6.01) (9.89) (10.60) but neared significance ( p = 0.060). For the problem/solution text, the difference of the subgroups was not significant bu t again neared significance ( p = 0.079). In the L group, an ANOVA showed that there was a statis tically significant difference between the subgroups for the collections of descripti ons and the comparison/contrast texts, p = 0.007 and p = 0.026, respectively. However, there was no significant difference between the subgroups for the ‘problem/solution’ text ( p = 0.112). These results s uggest that the text adjuncts help the lower-level proficiency ESL students to read in an L2 more than the higher-level proficie ncy ESL students. In the H group, the expanded framew ork group recalled the highest mean percentage of idea units per text adjunct fo r all texts together (Table 4-15). An ANOVA showed that the expanded framework group re called significantly more than both the vocabulary and the control groups for all texts together. Therefore, the expanded framework text adjunct was more helpful th an the vocabulary text adjunct. The mean difference between the vocabulary group and the control group was not significant. Individually, the text adjunct effect was only significant for the comparison/contrast text.

PAGE 82

70 For this text, there was a significant mean difference between the expanded framework group and the control group (Means: 53.30, 28.00, respectively). In the L group, although the expanded fr amework group recalled the highest mean percentage of idea units per text adjunct for all texts together, the mean difference between the expanded framework group and the vocabulary group was not significant (Table 4-16). An ANOVA showed that the expanded framework group recalled significantly more than did th e control group, as did the voc abulary group, for all texts together. Therefore, I claim that both text adjuncts provide a benefit for the lower proficiency ESL students. The mean diffe rence between the expanded framework group and the vocabulary group was not significant. Furthermore, in the L group, the text adjunct effect was significant for the ‘collections of de scriptions’ and the ‘comparison/contrast’ texts. For the ‘colle ctions of descriptions’ text, there was a significant mean difference be tween the vocabulary group an d the control group (Means: 16.40, 6.56, respectively), and between the expa nded framework group and the control group (Means: 17.36, 6.56, respectivel y). For the ‘comparison/contrast’ text, there was a significant mean difference be tween the vocabulary group an d the control group (Mean: 18.60, 9.33, respectively). Tables 4-17 and 418 are ANOVA tables on the readings in each proficiency group. This section was intended to examine wh ether there is a re lationship between reading proficiency, as determined by the T OAL-3, and L2 reading ability, as measured by recalls. For the reading profic iency, the scores of subtest 6 scores of the TOAL-3 were used.

PAGE 83

71 Table 4-17. ANOVAs on the readings in H group df MS F p C/D Between groups 2 1327.83 3.13 0.060 Within groups 28 424.75 Total 30 P/S Between groups 2 1392.92 2.79 0.079 Within groups 28 500.11 Total 30 C/C Between groups 2 1830.64 5.66 0.009 Within groups 28 323.29 Total 30 Table 4-18. ANOVA on the readings in L group df MS F p C/D Between groups 2 339.82 6.04 0.007 Within groups 27 56.27 Total 29 P/S Between groups 2 447.90 2.38 0.112 Within groups 27 188.54 Total 29 C/C Between groups 2 209.59 4.21 0.026 Within groups 27 49.82 Total 29 Relationship between Reading Proficiency and Reading Ability There was a moderately strong correlation between the reading proficiency and the recall score for “The Olympic games” passage that was given to all participants ( r = 0.590, p = 0.000). In other words, if a student had a high reading proficiency score on the TOAL-3, s/he also recalled more of this passage than a student with a low reading proficiency score, and vice versa. Looki ng at the groups indi vidually, a significant correlation was found between th e reading proficiency and th e recall score in the H group ( r = 0.497, p = 0.004). However, there was no such correlation between the reading proficiency and the recall score in the L group.

PAGE 84

72 Summary There were no statistically significant differences in scores on the TOAL-3 among the subgroups in each proficiency group. Ther efore, we are able to claim that the subgroups in the H group all have the same hi gher English proficiency and those in the L group all have the same lower English prof iciency. The H group’s expanded framework subgroup performed at the highest level of proficiency for all pa ssages, receiving the highest mean percentage across all passages. For the L group, the expanded framework group performed at the highest le vel of proficiency only for th e collection of descriptions and the problem/solution texts. However, if we look at the column mean in Table 4-16, the expanded framework group received the high est mean percentage across all passages. For the tightly-structured texts, the two types of text adjuncts, (i.e ., expanded framework and vocabulary) both worked well. For exampl e, in the H group, the expanded framework groups received the best score, followed by the vocabulary groups. In the L group, the expanded framework group received the best score for the problem/solution passage, while the vocabulary group received the best score for the comparison/contrast passage. For the loosely-structured text, the control group in H recalled more idea units than the vocabulary group. If we look at the column mean closely, only the expanded framework text adjunct was very helpful for the higher proficiency ESL student s, since there was a significant difference between the mean per centage of the vocabulary group and the expanded framework group (39.66% and 59.12%, respectively). However, both expanded framework and vocabulary text adjuncts we re helpful for the lower proficiency ESL students, and there was not a significant difference between the mean percentage of the vocabulary group and the expanded framework group (17.87% and 18.31%, respectively). Because of this correlation, I will discuss the effect of text adjuncts

PAGE 85

73 thoroughly in the discussion chapter. Additi onally, students at both proficiency levels received the best recall score fo r the problem/solution passage. In terms of the relationship between the TOAL-3 scores and recall scores, we do not have consistent results. In other words, there were correlations for the collection of descriptions text and the comparison/contra st text. However, there was no relationship between the problem/solution passages and the TOAL-3 for either proficiency group. This would imply that students’ English prof iciency did not always correlate with their reading ability. Background Information Questionnaire Relationship between FLRAS and Other Factors Some second language researchers have ex amined the notion that ESL students’ background information plays a role in L2 (s econd language) reading. In this section, I examine three factors from the background questionnaire employed in the study: the foreign language reading a nxiety scale (FLRAS), the R eading strategy questionnaire (RSQ), and Length of Residence (LOR). Th e FLRAS was administered to determine whether there is a relationship between a student ’s anxiety level and proficiency level, as measured by the TOAL-3, and a student’s anxiet y level and reading ability, as measured by the recalls. Tables 4-19 and 4-20 give th e average score by item of the FLRAS. A Likert scale was used in the FLRAS questionn aire with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’. Table 4-19. Average score by item in the FLRAS for H group 1 2 3 4 5 6 E 2.9 2.1 2.8 2.1 3.3 3.6 V 2.8 2.9 2.2 2.1 3 4 C 2.82 2.64 2.18 2.73 2.64 3.27 Av. 2.84 2.55 2.39 2.31 2.98 3.62 E: Expanded framework group, V: Vo cabulary group, C: Control group

PAGE 86

74 Table 4-20. Average score by item in the FLRAS for L group 1 2 3 4 5 6 E 2.91 2.91 2.82 3.45 2.27 3.36 V 3.5 3.1 2.4 3.3 1.9 3.1 C 3.56 3 2.78 3.22 2.89 3.56 Av. 3.32 3.00 2.67 3.32 2.35 3.34 For items 1 to 5, a higher score signifies th at a student has more anxiety in foreign language reading. The results showed that th e H group students were less anxious than the L group on these five items. The average score of all subgroups in the H group was around 2 ‘strongly disagree’ on items 1 to 5. However, the subgroups in the L group answered 2 ‘strongly disagree’ only on item 3, “I get upset when I don’t understand the grammar in a sentence when reading English,” and item 5, “I feel very uncomfortable when a teacher asks me to read aloud in cl ass.” A moderate negativ e correlation between the TOAL-3 raw score and the average scor e of FLRAS items 1-5 for both groups was found ( r = -0.402, p = 0.001). This means that if a st udent is highly anxious, her/his English proficiency is low, and vice versa. A moderate negative correlation between the FLRAS score and the collection of descri ptions passage for both groups was found ( r = 0.351, p = 0.006). This suggests that if a student is highly anxious, his reading score for this passage will be low, and vice versa. Pearson product correlations indicate that there were relationships between the students’ anxiety levels and th eir reading scores for the H group. Specifically, there was a moderate negative correlation between FLRAS and the ‘problem /solution’ passage in the H group ( r = -0.423, p = 0.018) as well as for the ‘com parison/contrast’ passage ( r = 0.444, p = 0.012).

PAGE 87

75 Unlike the H group, there were no signifi cant relationships between FLRAS and the recall scores on the ‘pr oblem/solution’ passage and the ‘comparison/contrast’ passages in the L group. Relationship between Reading Strategy Qu estionnaire (RSQ) and Proficiency Level It is meaningful to compare the read ing strategy tendencies between the two groups. Within the H group, the average score on the top-down reading strategies was 4.03 (agree) and on the bottom-up reading strate gies was 2.52 (disagree). Therefore, topdown reading strategies were used more by the higher proficiency students than bottomup reading strategies. By contrast, within th e L group, the average score on the top-down reading strategies was 3.83 (neither agree nor disagree) and on the bottom-up reading strategies and it was 3.08 (n either agree nor disagree). Two ANOVAs showed that the difference between the top-down reading strate gies and the bottom-up reading strategies in the H group was significant ( p = 0.000), and that the di fference between the two strategies in the L group was also significant ( p = 0.000). Additionally, separate ANOVAs revealed that the difference be tween H group and the L group on the bottomup reading strategies was significant ( p = 0.005) as well as the di fference between the H group and the L group on the top-down read ing strategies was not significant ( p = 0.135). The reading strategies that were queried ranged from the student’s translation practice to focused reading exercises. For exam ple, on item 4, “I usually translate into my native language when I read an English passa ge,” the H group show ed a lower average score than the L group, which means that the H group students admit to translating less into their native languages when they read an English passage than the L group students. An ANOVA showed that the difference be tween the H group and the L group on item 4 was significant ([ F (1, 59) = 4.113, p = 0.047]). There was a significant difference

PAGE 88

76 between the two groups on item 6, “I usually pronounce words silently, and when I don’t know how to pronounce a word, I think I won’t get the right meaning.” ([ F (1, 59) = 7.841, p = 0.007]). The average score for this question by the H group was 2.13 and for the L group, it was 2.91. On item 7 “I think it’s helpful if a teacher gives me information about a text before I read ,” both groups answered 4 ‘agree .’ On item 8 “I think reading out loud to myself is helpful,” the average scores for both groups showed they thought reading out loud was helpful (Tables 4-21 and 4-22). Table 4-21. Average score by item in the RSQ for H group Item E V C Av. 1 4.2 4 4.18 4.13 2 4 4.2 3.73 3.98 3 3.9 4 4 3.97 4 2.3 3.1 2.73 2.71 5 2.8 2.4 2.91 2.70 6 2 2.3 2.09 2.13 7 4 4.2 4 4.07 8 3.4 3.8 3.55 3.58 Table 4-22. Average score by item in the RSQ for L group Item E V C Av. 1 3.91 3.6 3.78 3.76 2 4.09 3.8 3.89 3.93 3 4.18 3.9 3.22 3.77 4 3.36 3.4 3.22 3.33 5 2.82 3.6 2.56 2.99 6 2.82 2.7 3.22 2.91 7 3.91 3.9 3.67 3.83 8 4.36 3.5 3.56 3.81 Item 9, “Rate your reading skill in your na tive language,” was intended to compare the students’ reading ability in the L2 with their self-rated reading ability in their native languages. Table 4-23 gives the average scores of item 9 on the RSQ.

PAGE 89

77 Correlation between L1 reading ability and L2 reading score on TOAL-3 To test for correlations between students’ self-rated L1 readin g ability and their reading score on the TOAL-3, item 9 on pa rt III of the background information questionnaire and subtest 6 (reading/gram mar) of the TOAL-3 were employed. The results showed that there was no relationshi p between the students’ self-rated first language reading skill and L2 reading profic iency for all groups together. Also, while there was no relationship between the students’ self-rated first langua ge reading skill and reading proficiency for the L group, there was a moderate relationshi p between these two factors for the H group ( r = 0.356, p = 0.049). Table 4-23. Average score of item 9 on the RSQ for both groups Group Subgroup H E 1.7 V 2 C 2.36 Av. 2.02 L E 2 V 2.3 C 2.78 Av. 2.36 Correlation between L1 reading ability and L2 recall score To further examine the correlations between students’ self-rated L1 reading ability and their L2 reading ability, I examined item 9 on part III of the background information questionnaire, and the students’ recall scores The results suggested that there was a relationship between L1 readi ng ability and the recall scor e on “The Olympic games” passage for neither all participants nor the pa rticipants in the H group alone. Furthermore, there were no relationships between L1 r eading ability and the recall scores on other passages for the H group. However, there was a relationship between L1 reading ability and the recall score on “The Olympic games” passage for participants in the L group ( r =

PAGE 90

78 -0.424, p = 0.020) and between L1 reading ability and the recall score on the “On being fat in America” passage ( r = -0.366, p = 0.046). Correlation between Length of Residence (LOR) and Other Factors Overall, it was found that there was no re lationship between the students’ anxiety level and LOR. This was true for both th e higher and lower proficiency groups. On the other hand, there was a strong relationshi p between the TOAL-3 score and LOR ( r = 0.625, p = 0.000). However, further analysis re vealed that this relationship was significant only among participants in the higher proficiency group ( r = 0.582, p = 0.001).

PAGE 91

79 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The results of this study indicate seve ral key connections between the role of proficiency, the effects of text adjuncts, a nd the interrelationship between L2 learners’ proficiency and reading in an L2. To unders tand the importance of the findings, I will first recapitulate the main results from th e previous chapter as a foundation for the following discussion. To begin with, there was a significant difference between the H group and the L group in terms of the TOAL score. Second, there was no significant difference among the subgroups within each proficiency group on the TOAL score. Third, the expanded framework group’s recall score for the H group was significantly higher than either the vocabular y or the control group for all texts considered together. In the L group, for all texts considered toge ther, the vocabulary group’s and the expanded framework group’s recall score were both si gnificantly higher th an the control group. However, there was no significant differen ce between the expanded framework group and the vocabulary group in the L group. Four th, there was a str ong correlation between the students’ English proficiency and the ‘colle ction of descriptions’ passage. Fifth, there was a moderate negative correlation between the TOAL raw score and the average score of the five FL reading anxiety items (anxi ety score). Finally, there was a moderate negative correlation between the anxiety sc ore and the ‘collecti on of descriptions’ passage for all participants. The most important conclusion that I will dr aw in this discussion is the effects of text adjuncts, the relationsh ip between English proficienc y and second language reading

PAGE 92

80 ability, the relationship between FL readi ng anxiety and reading in an L2, and the relationship between students’ r eading strategies and reading ab ility. It also discusses this study’s contribution to previous research in L2 reading. Interrelationship between L2 Proficiency and Text Adjunct Since there was no significant differen ce on the TOAL score among the subgroups in each proficiency group, it was assumed that those subgroups had a similar if not the same proficiency level. However, the two t ypes of text adjuncts provided differential benefits according to proficiency level. Although the expanded framework proved most beneficial for the H group, both the expa nded framework and the vocabulary list benefited the L group equally. As expected, the L group students did not have enough vocabulary knowledge for reading a passage. As such, the vocabulary text adjunct was helpful to the lower level proficiency students. By contrast, the data indicates that it is possible that the H group students did not need additional vocabulary knowledge to read the texts, suggesting that the expanded framew ork is a much more important textual aid. The results of the present st udy support the theory that inefficient readers tend to use low-level text processing skills. As me ntioned previously, supplemental vocabulary information was helpful for low-level stude nts. Although high prof iciency students can use information from outside the text to understand the text when they meet unknown words, low proficiency students may not be ab le to use other information if they do not have sufficient vocabulary knowledge. The interrelationship between a student’s proficiency and the effect of text adjuncts provides an interesting correlation, but it cannot be used to predict successful reading. Within the H group, the control group received the highest pr oficiency score in terms of mean percentage on the TOAL but did not receive the highest recall score.

PAGE 93

81 Instead, the expanded framework group received the highest recall score for all texts. Within the L group, the vocabulary group received the highest proficie ncy score in terms of mean percentage on the TOAL but receiv ed the highest recall score only for the comparison/contrast text. This finding suggests that L2 proficiency may help the students understand a text but it does not alwa ys guarantee successful L2 reading. Recall that the subgroups’ differences were only statistically significant for the comparison/contrast text for the H group a nd were statistically significant for the collection of descriptions a nd the comparison/contrast texts in the L group. In other words, although the expanded framework group in the H group benefited most for each text, the results were only meaningful for th e comparison/contrast passage. For this text, the expanded framework group benefited most from text adjuncts, followed by the vocabulary group. These results suggest that text adjuncts facilitate L2 reading depending on the text. For the comparison/contrast text for the H group and for the collection of descriptions and the comparison/contrast text s for the L group, the control groups at each proficiency level received the lowest scores Hence, students who receive supplemental text adjuncts can possibly improve their reading performance. Interaction between Text Type and Text Adjunct within Each Proficiency Level This study supports the claim that a text adjunct enhances reading comprehension. In the H group, the text adjunct effect was significant only for th e comparison/contrast text. It is noted that the text adjunct eff ect neared significance for the collections of descriptions passage. In the L group, the te xt adjunct effect was significant for the ‘collections of descriptions’ and the ‘comparison/contrast’ te xts. Since the text adjunct effect was significant for two texts in th e L group, unlike the H group, these results

PAGE 94

82 suggest that the text adjuncts help the low-le vel proficiency ESL student s to read in an L2 more than they help the high-le vel proficiency ESL students. Although the expanded framework group student s recalled significantly more than either the control group students or the vo cabulary group students for all three texts together in the H group, the difference be tween the expanded framework group and the vocabulary group was not significant for all three texts together in the L group. The general explanation that I posit is that both text adjuncts be nefited the lowe r proficiency ESL students. I argue that the expanded fram ework text adjunct was the most helpful to the higher proficiency ESL students when they read the comparison/contra st text. Although the expanded framework text adjunct was the most helpful when the lower proficiency ESL students read the collections of descrip tions (loosely-struc tured type) and the problem/solution (tightly-structured type) pass ages, the vocabulary text adjunct was also very helpful. These results are different from Lee and Riley’s (1990) study. They concluded that an expanded framewor k helped improve their novice readers’ comprehension of a loosely-structured type of passage (description co llection), but not of a tightly-structured type (problem-solution). Since Lee and Riley’s re sults were different from the present study’s results, I discuss se veral possible reasons of the differences. For, example, in Lee and Riley’s st udy, the participants were inex perienced native speakers of English learning French. Since they used cl ass enrollment in order to determine their participants as novice foreign la nguage readers, we really do not know the proficiency of the students, or the effect of their proficie ncy. In my study, the prof iciency of students in the L group is significantly lowe r than that of students in the H group. However, this does

PAGE 95

83 not mean that the students in the L group are really low-proficiency students. Similarly, the proficiency of students in the H group is si gnificantly higher than that of students in the L group but this does not mean that the students in the H group are really highproficiency students. Therefore, when th e “lower” level students were given the expanded framework text adjunct before they re ad a text in my study, they may not really be real novice ESL learners. The results from the present study provide many suggestions for researchers/teachers of a second language. Firs t, giving information about a text structure to ESL students was very helpful for both le vels of the ESL students in comprehending the text. Second, vocabulary knowledge was as im portant as the information about a text structure for the lower-proficiency student s. ESL teachers should be aware of this characteristic in particular when they teach L2 reading to low-proficiency students. As several previous researchers have noted, teaching vocabulary items related to the passage is much more important than teaching vocabulary items randomly. In other words, building vocabulary without cons idering a reading passage is almost not useful to a student’s reading ability. This can explain the limitations of short-term memory when an ESL student tries to recall a reading passa ge without understanding what was read. Since there was no main difference be tween the vocabulary subgroup and the expanded framework subgroup for all texts, I cl aim that both text adjuncts were helpful for the lower proficiency student s in reading L2 texts. It is known that low proficiency students tend to use bottom-up reading strategies when reading an L2 text. Hence, it is assumed that the low proficiency students n eed a vocabulary text adjunct to comprehend an L2 text. However, as the results of th e present study showed, bot h the vocabulary list

PAGE 96

84 text adjunct and the expanded framework te xt adjunct were helpful for the lowerproficiency ESL students when they read some texts. Yet, when the lower-proficiency students read the comparison/contrast text, only the vocabulary group among the subgroups recalled significantly more than th e control subgroup. This suggests that the vocabulary list text adjunct was helpful for th e low-proficiency student s to read a tightlyorganized L2 text. The purpose of giving a text adjunct before the students read the L2 text is to activate the students’ backgr ound knowledge, and, therefore, the text adjunct helps the students’ L2 reading comprehe nsion. As I discussed before, it is not necessary that the vocabulary list text adjunct activate the botto m-up reading process and that the expanded framework text adjunct activate the top-down reading process. As most recent reading researchers agree, the most successful L2 reading comprehension depends on an interactive process (Fender, 2001; Nassaji, 2002 ). It is assumed that low proficiency students do not have enough vocabulary knowledge to read fluently. It is also assumed that the low proficiency students tend to use bottom-up reading st rategies. The present study results suggest that both te xt adjuncts helped the lowe r proficiency students activate their background knowledge, and, thereby, help ed them comprehend an L2 text. On the other hand, high-level ESL students or native speakers might use other textual or extra-textual information when th ey are not quite sure of the meaning of unknown words. This is related to Hudson’s (1982) notion of ‘behind the eyeball’ knowledge of efficient readers. Therefore, efficient reader s keep using an interaction between bottom-up and top-down reading processes.

PAGE 97

85 Among the three passages, the students in both groups recalled most for the ‘problem/solution’ passage. This suggests th at a passage which has a tight structure is easier for ESL students to read than a passage which has a loose struct ure. If we compare the recall scores of the loosel y-structured text with those of the two tightly-structured texts together, students in the H group recalled more of the loos ely-structured text than of the tightly-structured texts, 47.02% and 44.79%, respectively. This suggests that a wellorganized text structure ma y not be important for the high-proficiency students. However, the L group students recalled more of the tightly-structured texts than the loosely-structured text, 16.01% and 13.44%, resp ectively. Because of their relatively low proficiency level, the low-prof iciency students find a tightly-str uctured L2 text easier to comprehend. The results imply that a well-organi zed text structure is more important to low level ESL students. Role of English Proficiency in L2 Reading Another important factor which has been di scussed in L2 reading is L2 proficiency. Taillefer (1996) found that as the reading ta sk became more cognitively difficult, the role of linguistic ability became more important. Al so, several researcher s, such as Clarke (1980) and Kern (1989), claimed that a learne r’s L2 proficiency le vel is an important factor in determining L2 reading comprehens ion. Clarke (1980) argue d that if a student did not achieve some minimal level of profic iency in the L2, (i.e., a threshold), he/she could not comprehend a text successfully or r ead the way native speakers read. It is noted that one can determine whether there is a correlation between English proficiency and reading ability, but one cannot determine cau sation. However in accord with previous research, I claim that my study shows that higher proficiency ES L students’ reading

PAGE 98

86 ability was better than the lower proficiency ESL students’ reading ability when they read the same text. The results of the relationshi ps between the students’ proficiency and their reading scores from the present study were not consis tent. Recall that all st udents read a looselystructured text, the ‘collec tions of descriptions’ passage There was a statistically significant relationship between L2 proficiency, as measured by the TOAL-3, and recall of the ‘collection of descriptions’ passage for all participants. Each proficiency group read two tightly-structured texts, which differe d to match their profic iency level. In the H group, there was no significant relationship between students’ proficiency and the “Supertankers” passage. However, there was a relationship between their proficiency and the “Closing down the nuclear power plan ts” passage. In the L group, there was no significant relationship between their profic iency and the “On being fat in America” passage. However, there was a relationship be tween their proficiency and the “Nuclear versus solar energy” passage. These results might be related to the role of the text. Both texts which did not have a corr elation with students’ profic iency in both the H and the L groups were problem/solution passages. This is probably because the text difficulty level was too high for the students, or the stude nts did not have enough background knowledge about the text. These inconsiste nt results could be interpre ted as showing that an L2 learners’ English proficiency itself is not sufficient for successful reading in an L2. Relationship between ESL Learners’ Anxiet y Levels and their Proficiency Levels Individual differences such as anxiety have played a role in L2 reading. Reading in an L2 requires many factors such as t opic knowledge, vocabulary knowledge, and L2 proficiency. Other than these factors, anxiety might be a nother important aspect which

PAGE 99

87 some highly anxious L2 learners must cope w ith when reading in an L2. Reading anxiety could prevent ESL readers from reading successfully. The results show that there was a negativ e correlation between the TOAL raw score and the average score of the ‘reading anxiet y’ items. The negative correlation suggests that ESL students’ anxiety impedes their L2 proficiency. While this was only a moderate relationship, it was statistically significant. Since we used a standardized test, we can generalize the results from the pr esent study to the ESL population. Relationship between Students’ Anxiety Level and Reading Ability Several researchers have attempted to examine whether ther e is a relationship between ESL students’ anxiety le vels and their readi ng ability (Saito et al. 1999; Sellers, 2000). The results of this study show that there was a negative relationship between reading anxiety and the collecti on of descriptions passage for all participants. The results confirmed that ESL students’ reading a nxiety played a role in their reading comprehension. As previous studies have shown, anxious students had a difficult time recalling information from a text. In th e H group, there was a relationship between reading anxiety and both the problem/solu tion passage and the comparison/contrast passage. The results imply that highly anxious students tend to have low recall scores in the H group. However, there were no such re lationships between reading anxiety and the reading passages in the L group. This result contradicts previous research, in the sense that lower proficiency students’ reading anxiety level did not really correlate with their reading ability. The L group st udents might have a topic knowledge on the passages, which explains that there was no correlation between their reading anxiety and the recall scores. It is noted that I measured the ES L students’ reading comp rehension ability by using recall protocols, maki ng the results generalizable.

PAGE 100

88 Relationship between ESL Learners’ Re ading Strategies and their Reading Comprehension Ability It has been claimed that there is a re lationship between reading process, (i.e., bottom-up, top-down or interactive) and r eading ability. Many researchers have attempted to show that successful readers us e specific types of reading strategies and unsuccessful readers use other types of r eading strategies. In the present study, the reading strategies on the RSQ were intended to represent students’ preferred reading processes. For example, the item on the reading strategy questionnaire (RSQ), “When reading in English, I skip the words I don’t kno w and continue reading,” was intended to show evidence of a top-down reading process. On the RSQ, items 1, 2, 3 and 7 were topdown reading strategies; items 4, 5 and 6 were bottom-up reading strategies; and item 8 was a reading belief. Results of this study indicat ed that top-down reading strategies were employed more frequently by all students. Within th e H group, the average score on the top-down reading strategies was 4.03 (agree) and on the bottom-up reading strategies was 2.52 (disagree). Therefore, top-down reading stra tegies were preferred more by the higher proficiency students than bottom-up reading st rategies. By contrast, within the L group, the average score on the topdown reading strategies wa s 3.83 (neither agree nor disagree) and on the bottom-up reading st rategies, it was 3.08 (n either agree nor disagree). Separate ANOVAs showed that the difference between the two strategies in the L group was significant, and that the di fference between the H group and the L group on the bottom-up reading strategies was signifi cant. However, the difference between the H group and the L group on the top-down r eading strategies was not significant. Although the average difference between the top-down and bottom-up reading strategies

PAGE 101

89 in the L group was not as big as the H group, I claim that the lower proficiency students also used more top-down strategies than botto m-up strategies when they read in an L2, which challenges the notion th at unsuccessful ESL readers tend to use bottom-up reading strategies more when they read an L2 text. Another implication of my study is that the data permits an investigati on to determine the relationship between self-rated reading skills in students’ na tive languages and their L2 reading ability. The averages of item 9 on the RSQ, “Rate your reading skill in your native language,” for the H group and for the L group were 2.02 and 2.36, respectively, with ‘2’ meaning ‘fairly good.’ The correlation between the self-rated reading skill and the “Olympic games” passage was significant only for the L group. This means th at L1 literacy transfers to L2 literacy especially for low-proficiency students. Sin ce the correlation was si gnificant only for the L group, second language researchers should pay attention to the low-proficiency students’ assessment of their L1 r eading skill for better L2 reading. Relationship between Reading Strategies and Proficiency To understand the relationship between read ing strategies and proficiency it is necessary to look at the aver age score by item. For the H gr oup, Item 1 had the highest average score, followed by Item 7. In other words, the higher-pro ficiency ESL students employed these top-down reading strategies most when they read in an L2. Item 6 had the lowest average score. For the L group, Item 2 had the highest average score, followed by Item 7. The result of my study suggested that even the low-proficiency students used topdown reading strategies more than bottomup reading strategies. ESL researchers and teachers should be aware of this and try not to focus only on bottom-up reading strategies when they instruct reading strategies to low-proficiency students. As for the L group, Item 6 had the lowest average score.

PAGE 102

90 Students in both groups thought that receiving information about a text before they read would be helpful. Since Item 6 had the lowest average score for both groups, the students in this study thought there woul d be no relationship between knowing the pronunciation of a word and gett ing the right meaning. For Item 8, there was an average score of 3.58 and 3.31 for the H group and the L group, respectively. Hence, the students neither agreed nor disagreed about the benef its of reading out loud. These results suggest that the tendency between th e high proficiency students and the low proficiency students on the reading strategies is si milar, which contradicts many of the previous studies. Such a contradiction suggests that fu rther research needs to invest igate how reading strategies and proficiency relate. Correlation between LOR and Other Factors Relationship between LOR a nd Students’ Anxiety Level Several researchers in anxiet y studies have been interest ed in the fact that ESL students’ backgrounds, including their native languages and th e length of residency in a target country, play a role in the students’ anxiety levels. In the present study, there was no relationship between the stud ents’ anxiety level, as meas ured by the ‘reading anxiety,’ and the LOR, for both proficiency groups cons idered together or for each proficiency group individually. The small number of items on L2 reading anxiety might be the reason for the lack of a clear rela tionship between these items. Relationship between LOR and Students’ Proficiency Level There was a strong relationship between the students’ TOAL score and LOR for both groups together. Furthermore, there was a relationship between the students’ TOAL scores and LOR in the H group. This would imply that ESL students’ L2 proficiency depends on how long they have lived in the target language country.

PAGE 103

91 In contrast, there was no re lationship between LOR and the students’ TOAL score in the L group. In terms of LOR, there we re some important differences between the proficiency levels. First, the average LOR for the H group was 26.55 months and that for the L group was 4.67 months. Second, while the lengths of residency varied for the H group, such as 2, 3, or 4 years, one student in the L group who had lived in the U.S. for more than a year. In other words, it is ha rd to examine the relationship between the students’ proficiency and LOR among those who have lived in the targ et country for such a short time. Relationship between LOR and Reading Ability LOR was an important fact or, among many, in determining a student’s reading ability. There was a significant relationship between the students’ LOR and all participants’ recall scores on the ‘Olympic ga mes’ passage. Since successful L2 reading mostly depends on students’ background knowle dge on a text, experience in a target culture is helpful to L2 reading. Interviews with Participants After I finished the experiment with the higher proficiency students, I interviewed them. Regarding the reading comprehension te st, many students said that the recall test was much more difficult than traditional me thods of measuring reading comprehension, such as multiple choice questions or fill-in-the-blank type questions. On the question I asked the participants, “Do you think short te rm memory would affect your recall?” to which they answered that short term memory was not very helpful if they did not understand the passage and tried to recall from the passage. As Nassaji (2003) notes, when L2 reader s have prior knowledge about a passage they read, they should recall that passage better than when they do not have as much prior

PAGE 104

92 knowledge about that passage (p. 460). Seve ral students mentione d the importance of topic familiarity. They said if they were not familiar with the topic of a passage before they read the text, comprehendi ng the text would be difficult fo r them. In fact, there were many graduate students whose majors were en gineering. They told me that the topics such as “Supertankers” or “Nuclear power pl ants” were quite familiar to them, suggesting that the scientific topics gave an advantage to engineering students.

PAGE 105

93 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION In this section I will summarize the principal findings from the present study and provide an analysis of the pedagogical and research implications. Additionally, I will discuss the limitations of the present study. Principal Findings To determine a statistical significance be tween the H and the L groups in terms of the TOAL-3 score, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. As expected, the results were signi ficant. This means that we can claim that the students in the H group are significantly more proficient than those in the L group. In addition, a correlation between the TOAL raw score a nd the groups (Higher and Lower) was found. This means that the Higher group students achieved a higher English proficiency score than the Lower group students and the rela tionship is statistically significant. To look for statistical significance among th e subgroups of each proficiency level, a one-way ANOVA was performed. There was no statistical significance among the subgroups in the H group. Likewise, there was no statistical significance among the subgroups in the L group. Therefore, we assume that subgroups’ proficiency levels within each group are same. For the data generated from the loosely st ructured “The Olympic games” passage that was used for both groups an ANOVA sh owed that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups, (Hig her and Lower). This suggests that the

PAGE 106

94 reading ability of the H group is significantly higher than the reading ability of the L group. In the H group, an ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the subgroups, control, vocabulary and expanded framework groups, for the comparison/contrast text. For the collec tions of descriptions text, the difference of the subgroups was not significant but near ed significant. Furthermore, for the problem/solution text, the difference of the subgroups was not significant. In the L group, an ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the subgroups, control, vocabulary and expanded framework groups, for the collections of descriptions and the co mparison/contrast texts. However, there was no significant difference between the s ubgroups for the problem/solution text. In order to determine a statistical significan ce of the text types, (the collections of descriptions, problem/solution, or comparison/contrast) in each proficiency group, a oneway ANOVA was performed. There was a statis tically significant difference on the three different text types in the H group. Yet, ther e was a statistical si gnificance between the three different text types in the L group. According to the results, there was no si gnificant difference on the two text types, the loosely-structured text a nd the tightly-structured texts in the H group. However, there was a significant difference between the two text types, the looselystructured text and the tightly-structured texts in the L group. There was a statistically significant re lationship between the TOAL and the loosely-structured text for H. Since both groups read the same passage, e.g., a collection of descriptions passage, a co rrelation test for all participants for the passage was

PAGE 107

95 performed and the correlation was significant. There were no relationships between the students’ English proficiency, as shown by th e TOAL, and the problem/solution passages for both groups. However, there were correl ations for the comparison/contrast passages for both groups. In addition, a correlation betw een the ‘collection of descriptions’ passage raw score and the groups (Higher and Lower) wa s found. This means that there is a very high negative relationship between the two groups and their reading scores. In the H group, an ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the subgroups for ‘all texts together.’ This result suggests that the expanded framework group recalled significantly more than the others for all texts. Moreover, in the L group, an ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the subgroups for ‘all texts together,’ w ith both the expanded framework group and the vocabulary group recalling significantly more than the control group. The higher proficiency students recalled si gnificantly more of the problem/solution passage than for the comparison/contrast passage. On the other hand, the lower proficiency students recalled significantly mo re of the problem/solution passage than both the comparison/contrast passage and the collection of descriptions passage. This suggests that a passage which has a structure that is easi er for lower proficiency ESL students to read than a passage which has a loose structure. There was a correlation between the reading proficiency as determined by subtest 6 (reading/grammar) of the TOAL, and the recal l score for “The Olympic games” passage among all participants. In other words, if a student has a high readi ng proficiency score, s/he is better at reading in a second language than a student with low reading proficiency

PAGE 108

96 score, and vice versa. A significant co rrelation was found between the reading proficiency and the readi ng score in the H group. The results showed that the H group stude nts were less anxious than the L group on the ‘reading anxiety’ items. A correlation be tween the TOAL raw score and the average reading anxiety items for both groups was f ound. This means that ESL students’ anxiety level might affect their English proficienc y. A correlation between the reading anxiety score and the ‘collection of descriptions’ passage for both groups was found. If a student is highly anxious, her/his read ing score for this passage is lower, and vice versa. Pearson product correlations found that there were relationships between the students’ anxiety levels and th eir reading scores for the H group. Specifically, there was a correlation between the reading anxiety score and the problem/solution passage in the H group. Also, there was a correlation between the reading anxiety score and the comparison/contrast passage in the H group. Within the H group, the average score on the top-down reading strategies was 4.03 (agree) and on the bottom-up read ing strategies was 2.52 (disag ree). Therefore, top-down reading strategies were preferred more by th e higher proficiency students than bottom-up reading strategies. As a cont rast, within the L group, the average score on the top-down reading strategies was 3.83 (neither agree nor disagree) and on the bottom-up reading strategies and it was 3.08 (nei ther agree nor disagree). The results show that there was no relati onship between the students’ self-rated L1 reading skill and reading proficiency, as measured by subtest 6 (reading/grammar) for groups together. There was a relationship be tween the students’ self-rated L1 reading skill and reading proficiency for the H group.

PAGE 109

97 For the correlation tests, item 9 on pa rt III of the background information questionnaire and the students’ reading scor es on “The Olympic Games” passage were employed. There was a relationship between L1 reading skill and the reading scores for the L group. There was a strong relationship between the students’ TOAL score and LOR for both groups. The relationship between the stud ents’ TOAL scores and the LOR was most significant within the H group. Pedagogical Implications The results of this study provide SL teacher s and researchers with insight into some possible practical applications for the clas sroom. Generally, for the higher proficiency students, giving expanded framework info rmation was helpful and for the lower proficient students, giving both expanded framework and vocabulary information was helpful. Of these text adjuncts that assist in L2 reading, the most important for language instructors who mostly deal with lower leve l students is providing accurate vocabulary information. It goes without saying that vocabulary is an essential factor for L2 learners, not only in reading but also in other areas, such as speaking and listening. In many cases, not knowing a word causes L2 learners to lose tr ack of the main idea in spoken or written communication. Also, in order to use a word in speech or in writing, they must know what it means. Therefore, vocabulary is an essential component to all aspects of L2 performance. Regarding vocabulary teaching, the resear cher has some suggestions for L2 classroom teachers. First, when they inst ruct lower level ESL students, the teachers should teach vocabulary important to unde rstanding a passage but unknown to the

PAGE 110

98 students, before they read the passage. After reading, it might be useful to tell them to make sentences using the words as a test Second, the teachers could group all the vocabulary words related to the passage fo r the students so that they build their vocabulary according to a topic. Furthermore, the lower proficiency students recalled significantly more in the problem /solution passage, which has a tight structure than in the collection of descriptions passage, which has a loose structure. Therefore, ESL teachers should examine the rhetorical structure of thei r reading materials, and instruct lower level ESL students with tightly-structu red texts in a reading class. The lower proficiency students’ reading anxiety level was higher than that of the higher proficiency students. However, the di fference was not significant. Recall that for the five items on the FLRAS, a higher score signifies higher anxiet y. L2 teachers should pay attention especially to lower level ESL st udents, because their re latively high anxiety level could hinder their learning in classroom. Research Implications There are several strengths in the present study. First, I measured the participants’ English proficiency using a standardized te st, the TOAL-3. I did not measure only the students’ reading proficiency, for example, as evidence of their overall English proficiency. Since there was a significant difference between the proficiency groups, Higher and Lower, the results from the pr esent study can be generalized to the ESL population. Second, I chose three different t ypes of reading text s to examine the interrelationship between the text types and th e effects of text adjuncts. Third, I used a single scoring template to grade the participants’ recall protocols. This makes the present study’s results easier to generalize.

PAGE 111

99 The study revealed that there was a corre lation between students’ L2 proficiency and their reading ability. Moreover, ther e was a correlation between their reading proficiency in the L2, as measured by the subtest 6 (reading/gram mar) of the TOAL and their reading comprehension of these texts, as measured by recall protocols. This provides evidence that ESL students’ proficienc y should not be neglected in L2 reading. Prior to this study there was al most no research on ESL learners’ L2 proficiency and their reading ability, so this factor shou ld be explored more in future There was a negative correlation between the TOAL raw score and the reading anxiety score in the L group. However, ther e was no correlation between the TOAL raw score and the ‘reading anxiety’ score in the H group. This im plies that reading anxiety and lower proficiency ESL students’ proficie ncy are linked. The results show that there was a negative relationship between the read ing anxiety score and the collection of descriptions passage for all pa rticipants. In the H group, there were relationships between the reading anxiety score and the problem/s olution passage and between the reading anxiety score and the comparison/contrast pa ssage. The results imply that highly anxious students tend to have low recall scores in the H group. However, there were no relationships between the read ing anxiety score and the read ing passages in the L group. In addition, reading in a classroom for a test is different from reading for pleasure. If a student has test anxiety it is possible for him/her to receive a low score on a reading test because of test anxiety. In order to distinguish forei gn language reading anxiety from test anxiety, future resear chers should administer bot h scales to ESL students. Limitations of Current Study Sixty-one students participated in the pres ent study and there we re two proficiency groups. Since the study had a relatively sma ll sample, it was hard to divide the

PAGE 112

100 participants into high, inte rmediate, and low proficie ncy groups. Including an intermediate proficiency group, could have re sulted in having all students from the same language background in any one group, becau se the heterogeneous sample of ESL students contained many Chinese and Korean students. It is recommended that researchers in the future use a larger sample size so that they study the results that include an intermediate proficiency group also. To compare students’ language backgrounds and other factors, such as their proficiency scores in each area, it is ideal to have sufficient numbers of other language backgrounds as we ll. Also, the present study used a ‘balanced random’ sample where I divided the student s into subgroups. This was to avoid the situation of having students from the same language background in one group. If researchers have enough diffe rent language backgrounds, it w ould be better to divide students randomly into subgroups. Another challenge to this study is evaluating the degr ee of proficiency. Although I measured the students’ English proficiency leve l systematically, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of the H group’s high proficienc y, and, likewise, the extent of the L group’s low proficiency students. Since I did not have an intermediate group, some of the students in the present study could be consider ed as an intermediate threshold between the two groups. The texts that I chose might have an effect on the pa rticipants’ performance. I chose the texts according to general matches between the students’ proficiency and the text level; however, the text level might be too high for some students or too low for other students. Furthermore, I did not m easure the students’ background knowledge on the texts they read, which could potentia lly affect anxiety, and proficiency.

PAGE 113

101 The study employed a six-item FLRAS. Th e purpose of administering the FLRAS was to pilot test how the students felt when th ey read in an L2. Since we only had five ‘reading anxiety’ items, it is recommended th at future researchers add more reading anxiety items and examine any relationship between ESL students’ reading and their anxiety. Also, the correlation we found was based only on the students’ answers on the FLRAS. As a part of researching the correlat ions in this study, I have only limited information that would sufficiently explain how one factor affects the other. In other words, I can not claim that the students’ prof iciency affected their reading ability even though there was a relationship between the prof iciency and the reading score. However, I still claim that ESL learners’ proficie ncy cannot be overlooked because it has a relationship with other f actors in SL areas. In that sense, it is important to measure ESL students’ proficiency reliably. Also, when measuring overall proficiency, comprehensiveness should matter. Hence, SL researchers should consider including adequate areas to measure students’ pr oficiency, over and above simply judging proficiency through separate r eading and grammar tests.

PAGE 114

102 APPENDIX A BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE Part I Language Background The questions below are for research pur poses only, and your answers will not be made available to anyone. Please answer the following questions or check the appropriate answers. 1. Name: _______________________________________________ First Last 2. DOB: _________________________ 3. Sex: ____________ Male ____________ Female 4. Native language(s): ______________________________________ 5. Do you speak any language(s) other th an your native language and English? ________________________________________ 6. How long ago did you come to the U.S? ____________________________ 7. How old were you when you first came to the U.S.? ____________________________ 8. What percentage do you speak English in these situations? Your native language ? English Native languages other than English Please specify: ________________________ __________ % at school? ____________ % __________ % at home? ____________ % __________ % with friends? ____________ % __________ % other? ____________ %

PAGE 115

103 9. Places you have lived for more than 6 months: ____________________________ from ___________ to _____________ ____________________________ from ___________ to _____________ ____________________________ from ___________ to _____________ ____________________________ from ___________ to _____________ Part II Directions: Statements 1 through 6 refer to how you feel about learning English. For each statement, please tell me whether you (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor disagree, (4) agree, or (5) strongly agree, by circling the appropriate number on the line following each statement. Please give your first reaction to each statement and circle an answer for every statement. 1. When reading English, I often understand the words but I don’t always understand what the author is saying. 1 2 3 4 5 2. When I’m reading, I am ner vous if I don’t know the topic. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I get upset when I don’t understand the grammar in a sentence when reading English. 1 2 3 4 5 4. When reading English, if I don’t understa nd every word, I get nervous and confused. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I feel very uncomfortable when a teach er asks me to read aloud in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I like to do group work in English class. 1 2 3 4 5 Part III Directions: Statements 1 through 8 are about reading in English. For each statement, please tell me whether you (1) str ongly disagree, (2) disagr ee, (3) neither agree nor disagree, (4) agree, or (5) strongly ag ree, by circling the appr opriate number on the line following each statement. Please choose the number that best describes your actions to each statement when reading in a forei gn language and circle an answer for every statement. For item 9, please use this s cale (1-very good, 2-fairly good, 3-average, 4below average, 5-bad).

PAGE 116

104 1. When reading in English, I skip the words I don’t know and continue reading. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I read the title and imagine wh at the article might be about. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I start reading and try to figur e out the meaning as I go along. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I usually translate into my native langua ge when I read an English passage. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I read every word and look up the ones I don’t know. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I usually pronounce words silently, and wh en I don’t know how to pronounce a word, I think I won’t get the right meaning. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I think it’s helpful if a teacher gives me information about a text before I read 1 2 3 4 5 8. I think reading out loud to myself is helpful. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Rate your reading skill in your native language. very good fairly good average below average bad

PAGE 117

105 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF TEXTS For High and Low levels: The Olympic Games (268 words) -source: Oh, J. (1990). Diss. University of Texas at Austin. -a collection of descriptions For High level: Supertankers (240 words) -source: Meyer, Brandt, and Bluth (1 980). Reading Research Quarterly, 16 -problem and solution Closing down nuclear power plants (265 words) -source: Carrell (1992). Language Learning, 42. -comparison/contrast For Low level: On being fat in America (325 words) -source: Connor (1984) TESOL Quarterly, 18. -problem and solution Nuclear energy versus solar energy (254 words) -source: Carrell (1985). TESOL Quarterly, 19. -comparison

PAGE 118

106 The Olympic Games In ancient Greece, athletic festivals were very important, and strongly related to religion. The Olympian athletic festival was held every four years in honor of Zeus. The festival lost its local character, and became first a national event. Then, after the rules against foreign competitors had been removed, it became international. No one knows exactly when the Olympic Games began, but some records date from as early as 776 B.C. The Olympic Games took place in Augus t on the field by the mountain called Olympus. Thousands of people gathered from all parts of Greece. The exact order of events is not certain, but the Olympic Games included events such as gymnastics, horseracing, javelin throwing, and foot races. On the sixth and last day, all the winners were crowned with holy garlands of wild olive. Olympic winners received no prize m oney. However, they were in fact richly rewarded by their provincial authorities. Th e public honor also made worthwhile the tenmonth training the athletes went through. How their results would compare with modern standards, we have no means of telling. After an uninterrupted history of almo st 1,200 years, the Olympic Games were abolished in A.D. 394. The reason was that th e Games were held in honor of Zeus, not the Christian God. It was over 1,500 years befo re there was another such international athletics gathering. The Olympic Games we re revived in 1896, and the first small meeting took place in Athens, Greece. Af ter the 1908 London Olympics, success was reestablished, and nations sent their best repres entatives. In times of peace ever since, the Olympic Games have taken place every four years.

PAGE 119

107 On Being Fat in America Fat people in American society are often discriminated against in their jobs and forced to degrade themselves publicly, sociologists find. Two sociologists, Dr. Ardyth Stimson of New Jersey’s Kean College and Dr. Jack Kamerman, are currently studying fat people and their role in society. According to Dr. Stimson, “We treat peopl e who are fat as handicapped people but we don’t give them the sympathy that we gi ve to other handicapped people. Instead, they’re completely rejected and blamed for their handicap. In addition, they’re expected to participate in what we sociologists call degradation ceremonies. In other words, you’re supposed to stand there and say, “Hee, hee, hee, don’t I look awful? Hee, hee, hee, isn’t it funny I can’t move around?” “Some cities,” Kamerman said, “set overw eight limits for teachers, and if you exceed that limit-25 percent above what the insurance tables define as healthy-you are fired.” He also said that there have been other studies that found fat people do not get promoted as easily and do not advance in a company. Stimson recently completed a study of 40 women, and while none was even remotely medically overweight, she said 39 felt th ey were fat, and it caused some of them trouble in their everyday relationships. “America has become so weight conscious ,” she said, “that 40 percent of all Americans are now considered overweight.” She said there is something wrong in a society when that percentage of people are considered to be abnormal. “The problem is so great,” she said, “if you are overweight, pe ople no longer think of you as a doctor, a lawyer, or a teacher but as that fat person.”

PAGE 120

108 In some instances, the mental pain of fat pe ople is so severe that the effect it has on their lives far surpasses the medical complications that could arise as a result of being fat. If fat men and women were treated as equals, their self-esteem would rise and they would probably lose weight. Supertankers A problem of vital concern is the preven tion of oil spills from supertankers. A typical supertanker carries a half-million tons of oil and is the size of five football fields. A wrecked supertanker spills oil in the o cean; this oil kills animals, birds, and microscopic plant life. For example, when a tanker crashed off the coast of England, more than 200,000 dead seabirds washed ashore. Oil spills also kill microscopic plant life which provides food for sea life and produces 70 percent of the wo rld’s oxygen supply. Most wrecks result from the lack of power and steering equipment to handle emergency situations, such as storms. Supertankers ha ve only one boiler to provide power and one propeller to drive the ship. The solution to the problem is not to im mediately halt the use of tankers on the ocean since about 80 percent of the world’s oi l supply is carried by supertankers. Instead, the solution lies in the training of officers of supertankers, be tter building of tankers, and installing ground control stations to guide tankers near shore. First, officers of supertankers must get top tr aining in how to run and maneuver their ships. Second, tankers should be built with several propeller s for extra control and backup boilers for emergency power. Third, ground control stations should be installed at places where supertankers come close to shore. These sta tions would act like airplane control towers, guiding tankers along busy shipping la nes and through dangerous channels.

PAGE 121

109 Closing Down Nuclear Power Plants There are two different views on the best approach to shutting down nuclear power plants once their usefulness has been se rved. The first approach is immediate dismantlement. Shortly after a plant shutdown, workers would take out highly radioactive fuel parts, clean the internal machinery and then take away all remains of the plant to special nuclear dumps. The second approach to the problem of dismantlement is mothballing. This contrasting approach also calls for the removal of fuel parts and decontamination, but then the plant shell woul d simply wait behind a fence for thirty to a hundred years while its radi ation decays, after which final dismantlement would presumably take place. There are advantages and disadvantages involved with each of the two approaches to the problem of nuclear dismantlement. According to many experts immediate disman tlement is the most effective and least expensive of the approaches. The high cost of maintenance and security as well as the possibility of radioactive leaks are concer ns that weigh against mothballing. Supporters of the mothball approach to dismantlement cite immediate dismantlement as the most dangerous option to undertake. They suggest that immediate disman tlement could release the deadliest amounts of radioactivity onto workers and the public. Extreme precautions would have to be taken and workers would still be exposed to at least four times as much radiation as they would be if dismantlement were delayed th irty years. Another problem with immediate dismantlement is that at th is time there is an absence of permanent disposal sites. Plans have been made to create adequate disposal sites, but it will be years before they are completed.

PAGE 122

110 Nuclear Energy versus Solar Energy Two of the most promising sources of en ergy for the future are nuclear power and solar power. Both sources of energy have num erous advantages and disadvantages which must be considered in the development of energy programs. For several decades, many governments ha ve attached great hopes to nuclear energy as a less expensive alternative to oil and other fossil fuels. However, opposition to nuclear energy has increased in recent years. One of the main concer ns of the critics of nuclear energy is the damage that the releas e of radioactive materi als could inflict upon communities surrounding nuclear power stations Harmful materials could cause serious health problems for individuals and could ha ve disastrous effects on the environment. Another issue concerning nuclear energy involves using nuclear plants for the manufacture of nuclear weapons This is especially a point of concern about countries with unstable governments, where nuclear mate rials could easily be used for nonpeaceful ends by terrorist groups. Solar power is th e other energy source over which there are differing opinions. One of the main advantages of solar energy is that the primary required resource-the sun-is a bundantly available over most pa rts of the earth. Also, if a country’s main source of energy were to come from solar power, it would not have to depend upon other countries in order to main tain its energy supply. The main negative feature of solar power is that the technology is still being developed in this field and is not yet sufficiently reliable or cheap enough to compete with other sources of energy.

PAGE 123

111 APPENDIX C TEXT ADJUNCTS The Olympic Games (High and Low) Vocabulary Group javelin (noun): a long stick with a pointed end, thro wn as a sport garland (noun): a ring of flowers or leaves, wo rn for decoration or in special ceremonies provincial (adj.): rela ting to a province the authorities: the people or organizations that are in charge of a particular place abolish (verb): to officially end a law, system etc. revive (verb): to come back into use or exis tence, or bring something back into use or existence Expanded Framework Group This passage presents a collectio n of descriptions of the Olym pic Games. It explains their origin and details their history. On Being Fat in America (Low) Vocabulary Group discriminate (verb): to treat a person or gr oup differently from another in an unfair way degrade (verb): to treat someone without respect or to make people lose their respect for someone sociology (noun): the scientific study of societies and the be havior of people in groups look awful (verb): to look bad exceed (verb): to go beyond an official or legal limit

PAGE 124

112 promote (verb): to give someone a bette r, more responsible position at work advance (verb): to move forward to a new position surpass (verb): to be better or great er than someone or something else self-esteem (noun): the feeling that you are someone who deserves to be liked, respected, and admired Expanded Framework Group This passage presents a problem and solution of being fat in America. It demonstrates various problems or disadvantages of being fa t in American society and gives a solution. Supertankers (High) Vocabulary Group wrecked (adj.): destroyed, ruined or damaged microscopic (adj.): extremely small crash (verb): to have an accident in which a car, plane etc. hits something and is badly damaged halt (verb): to stop or make something stop backup (noun): someone or something that pr ovides help or support when it is needed Expanded Framework Group This passage presents the problem of oil spills from supertankers and several solutions to the problem. Closing Down Nuclear Power Plants (High) Vocabulary Group dismantle (verb): to gr adually get rid of a sy stem or organization mothball (verb): to close a fact ory or operation, and keep all its equipment or plans for a long time without using them

PAGE 125

113 decay (verb): to be slowly destroyed by natural chemical processes disposal (noun): the act of getting rid of something Expanded Framework Group This passage presents a comparison and contra st of two different approaches to shutting down nuclear power plants. Then, it presents a dvantages and disadvantages of each of the two approaches to the concer n of nuclear dismantlement. Nuclear Energy versus Solar Energy (Low) Vocabulary Group alternative (noun): something you can choose to do or use instead of something else fossil fuel (noun): a fuel such as gas or oil th at has been formed from plants and animals that lived millions of years ago release (verb): to stop holding something inflict (verb): to make someone suffer something unpleasant disastrous (adj.): very bad or ending in failure manufacture (noun): the pr ocess of making goods usually in large numbers Expanded Framework Group This passage presents a comparison of nucl ear energy and solar en ergy. Then, it discusses each energy respectively.

PAGE 126

114 APPENDIX D RECALL -When you have finished reading the passage turn the page and write in English everything that you remember despite whether or not you understand the material or concepts. Do not refer to th e passage during this activity. -If you have any questions about procedures of if you are unclear on any matter, please ask now. -Please try to write as much as you can. -Please try to use complete sentences. If you can’t, you can use the words in the passage or your own words.

PAGE 127

115 APPENDIX E SCORING TEMPLATE The Olympic Games (Idea Units: 100) In ancient Greece, athletic festivals were … important, very and strongly related to religion The Olympian athletic festival was held every four years in honor of Zeus The festival lost its local character, and became… a national event first Then, after the rules…had been removed against foreign competitors it became international No one knows exactly when the Olympic Games began, but some records date from...776 B.C. as early as The Olympic Games took place in August on the field

PAGE 128

116 by the mountain called Olympus Thousands of people gathered from all parts of Greece The exact order…is not certain, of events but the Olympic Games included events such as gymnastics, horse-racing, javelin throwing, and foot races On the sixth (and) last day, all the winners were crowned with holy garlands of wild olive Olympic winners received no prize money However, they were …rewarded in fact richly by their provincial authorities The public honor…made worthwhile also the ten-month training the athletes went through How their results would compare with modern standards, we have no means of telling

PAGE 129

117 After an uninterrupted history of … 1,200 years, almost the Olympic Games were abolished in A.D. 394 The reason was that the Games were held in honor of Zeus, not the Christian God It was over 1,500 years before there was another such international athletics gathering The Olympic Games were revived in 1896, and the first small meeting took place in Athens, Greece After the 1908 London Olympics, success was re-established, and nations sent their best representatives In times of peace ever since, the Olympic Games have taken place every four years On Being Fat in America (Idea Units: 142) Fat people …are …discriminated against in American society often in their jobs and forced to degrade themselves

PAGE 130

118 publicly, sociologists find Two sociologists,…are…studying Dr. Ardyth Stimson of New Jersey’s Kean College and Dr. Jack Kamerman currently fat people and their role in society According to Dr. Stimson, We treat people who are fat as handicapped people but we don’t give them the sympathy that we give to other handicapped people Instead, they ’re… rejected completely and blamed for their handicap In addition, they ’re expected to participate in…degradation ceremonies what we sociologists call In other words, you’re supposed to stand there and say Hee, hee, hee,

PAGE 131

119 don’t I look awful Hee, hee, hee, isn’t it funny I can’t move around Some cities…set Kamerman said overweight limits for teachers and if you exceed that limit 25 percent above what the insurance tables define as healthy you are fired He … said also (that) there have b een other studies that found fat people do not get promoted as easily and do not advance in a company Stimson…completed recently a study of 40 women and while none was…overweight even remotely medically she said 39 felt they were fat, and it caused some of them

PAGE 132

120 trouble in their everyday relationships. America has become…weight conscious so she said (that) 40 percent…are…considered of all Americans now overweight She said there is something wrong in a society when that percentage…are considered of people to be abnormal The problem is ...great so she said if you are overweight people no longer think of you as a doctor a lawyer or a teacher but as that fat person In some instances the mental pain…is…severe of fat people so that the effect…surpasses it has on their lives far the medical complications that could arise as a result of being fat

PAGE 133

121 If fat men…were treated and women as equals their self-esteem would rise and they would … lose probably weight Supertankers (Idea Units: 104) A problem…is the prevention of vital concern of oil spills from supertankers A typical supertanker carries a half-million tons of oil and is the size of five football fields A wrecked supertanker spills oil in the ocean this oil kills animals birds and microscopic plant life For example, when a tanker crashed off the coast of England more than 200,000 dead seabirds washed ashore Oil spills…kill also microscopic plant life

PAGE 134

122 which provides food for sea life and produces 70 percent of the world’s oxygen supply Most wrecks result from the lack of power and steering equipment to handle emergency situations, such as storms Supertankers have only one boiler to provide power and one propeller to drive the ship The solution…is not to…halt to the problem immediately the use of tankers on the ocean since about 80 percent… is carried of the world’s oil supply by supertankers Instead, the solution lies in the training of officers of supertankers, better building of tankers, and

PAGE 135

123 installing ground control stations to guide tankers near shore First, Officers… must get of supertankers top training in how to run and maneuver their ships Second, tankers should be built with several propellers for extra control and backup boilers for emergency power Third, ground control stations should be installed at places and/or where supertankers come close to shore These stations would act like airplane control towers, guiding tankers along busy shipping lanes and through dangerous channels Closing Down Nuclear Power Plants (Idea Units: 98) There are two different views on the best approach to shutting down nuclear power plants once their usefulness has been served

PAGE 136

124 The first approach is immediate dismantlement Shortly after a plant shutdown, workers would take out highly radioactive fuel parts, clean the internal machinery and then take away all remains of the plant to special nuclear dumps The second approach…is mothballing to the problem of dismantlement This contrasting approach…calls also for the removal of fuel parts and decontamination, but then the plant shell would … wait simply behind a fence for thirty to a hundred years while its radiation decays, after which final dismantlement would …take place presumably There are advantages and disadvantages involved with each of the two approaches

PAGE 137

125 to the problem of nuclear dismantlement According to many experts immediate dismantlement is the most effective and least expensive of the approaches The high cost…are concerns of maintenance and security as well as the possibility of radioactive leaks that weigh against mothballing Supporters…cite of the mothball approach to dismantlement immediate dismantlement as the most dangerous option to undertake They suggest (that) immediate dismantlement could release the deadliest amounts of radioactivity onto workers and the public Extreme precautions would have to be taken and workers would … be exposed still to … four times at least as much radiation as they would be if dismantlement were delayed thirty years

PAGE 138

126 Another problem with immediate dismantlement is (that)… there is an absence at this time of permanent disposal sites Plans have been made to create adequate disposal sites but it will be years before they are completed Nuclear Energy versus Solar Energy (Idea Units: 91) Two…are nuclear power of the most promising sources of energy for the future and solar power Both sources…have of energy numerous advantages and disadvantages which must be considered in the development of energy programs For several decades many governments have attached great hopes to nuclear energy as a less expensive alternative to oil and other fossil fuels However, Opposition…has increased to nuclear energy in recent years

PAGE 139

127 One…is the damage of the main concerns of the critics of nuclear energy that the release…could inflict of radioactive materials upon communities surrounding nuclear power stations Harmful materials could cause serious health problems for individuals and could have disastrous effects on the environment Another issue…involves concerning nuclear energy using nuclear plants for the manufacture of nuclear weapons This is…a point especially of concern about countries with unstable governments, where nuclear materials could … be used easily for nonpeaceful ends by terrorist groups Solar power is the other energy source over which there are differing opinions One…is of the main advantages of solar energy (that) the primary require d resource…is…available the sun abundantly

PAGE 140

128 over most parts of the earth Also, if a country’s main source…were to come of energy from solar power it would not have to depend upon other countries (in order) to maintain its energy supply The main negative feature…is of solar power (that) the technology is … being developed still in this field and is not…reliable yet sufficiently or cheap enough to compete with other sources of energy

PAGE 141

129 LIST OF REFERENCES Alderson, J. C., Krahnke, K. J., & Stansfield, C. W. (Eds.). (1987). Reviews of English language proficiency tests Washington, DC: TESOL. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in s econd language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal 75 460-472. Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxi ety in adult second language learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 67-102). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Barnett, M. A. (1988). Reading through cont ext: How real and pe rceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. Modern Language Journal 72 150-162. Bernhardt, E. (1984). Toward an informati on processing perspectiv e in foreign language reading. Modern Language Journal 68 322-331. Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading Development in a S econd Language: Theoretical, Empirical & Classroom Perspectives Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Block, E. (1986). The comprehension stra tegies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly 20 463-494. Brantmeier, C. (2005). Effects of reader’s know ledge, text type, and test type on L1 and L2 reading comprehension in Spanish. Modern Language Journal 89 37-53. Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning 33 183-207. Carrell, P. L. (1984a). Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language Learning 34 87-112. Carrell, P. L. (1984b). The effects of rh etorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly 18 441-469. Carrell, P. L. (1984c). Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applications. Modern Language Journal 68 332-334. Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly 19 727-752.

PAGE 142

130 Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive aw areness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal 73, 121-134. Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 12 159-179. Carrell, P. L. (1992). Awareness of te xt structure: Effects on recall. Language Learning 42 1-20. Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1988) Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 73-92). Cambridge, MA: Ca mbridge University Press. Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J, C. (1989). Metacognative strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly 23 647-678. Cheng, Y. S., Horwitz, E. K., & Schalle rt, D. L. (1999). La nguage anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning 49 417446. Clarke, M. A. (1979). Reading in Spanis h and English: Evidence from adult ESL students. Language Learning 29 121-150. Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypot hesis of ESL readingor when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal 64 203-209. Connor, U. (1984). Recall of text: Differences between first and second language readers. TESOL Quarterly 18 239-256. Eskey, D. E. (1986). Theoretical foundations. In F. Dubin, D. E. Eskey and W. Grabe (Eds.), Teaching second language reading for academic purposes (pp. 1-23). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Eskey, D. E. (1988). Holding in the bottom: An interactive appro ach to the language problems of second language readers. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 93-100). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Fecteau, M. L. (1999). Firstand second-la nguage reading comprehension of literary texts. Modern Language Journal 83 475-493. Fender, M. (2001). A review of L1 and L2/ESL word integration skills and the nature of L2/ESL word integration development i nvolved in lower-level text processing. Language Learning 51 319-396.

PAGE 143

131 Goodman, K. S. (1971). Psycholinguistic universal s in the reading proces s. In P. Pimsleur & T. Quinn (Eds.), The psychology of second language learning (pp. 135-142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hammill, D. D., Brown, V. L., Larsen, S. C., & Wiederholt, J. L. (1994). Test of Adolescent and Adult Language (3rd ed.). Aust TX: Pro-Ed. Horwitz, E. K. (1986). Some language acquisiti on principles and their implications for second language teaching. Hispania 69 684-689. Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student be liefs about language learning. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119-129). London: Prentice-Hall. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal 72 283-294. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal 70 125-132. Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schema ta on the “short circu it” in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning 32 1-31. Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly 16 503-516. Kern, R. G. (1989). Second language readi ng strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal 73 135149. Kleinmann, H. H. (1977). Avoidance behavi or in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 27 93-107. Koch, A. S., & Terrell, T. D. (1991). Affec tive reactions of forei gn language students to natural approach activities and teaching techniques. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 109-126). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Laufer, B. (1992). Reading in a foreign language: How does L2 lexical knowledge interact with the reader’s general academic ability? Journal of Research in Reading 15 95-103. Laufer, B., & Sim, D. D. (1985). Measuring and explaining the read ing threshold needed for English for academic purposes texts. Foreign Language Annals 18 405-411. Lee, J. F. (1986a). The effects of thr ee components of background knowledge on second language reading. Modern Language Journal 70 350-354.

PAGE 144

132 Lee, J. F. (1986b). On the us e of the recall task to meas ure L2 reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8 201-212. Lee, J. F. (1999). Clashes in L2 reading: Research versus practice and readers’ misconceptions. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp.49-63). New York: McGraw-Hill. Lee, J. F., & Riley, G. L. (1990). The e ffects of prereading rh etorically-oriented frameworks on the recall of two struct urally different expository texts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12 25-41. MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). La nguage anxiety: A review of the research for language teachers. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign la nguage and second language learning: A practical guide to creati ng a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 24-45). New York: McGraw-Hill. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. ( 1989). Anxiety and second-language learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning 39 251-275. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991a). Investigating language class anxiety using the focused essay technique. Modern Language Journal 75 296-304. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991b) Language anxiety: Its relation to other anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Language Learning 41 513-534. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991c). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language learning: A re view of the literature. Language Learning 41 85-117. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994a ). The effects of induced anxiety on three stages of cognitive processing in computerized vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16 1-17. MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1994b). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning 44 283-305. Mathewson, G. C. (1985). Toward a compre hensive model of affect in the reading process. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed.), (pp. 841-856). Newark, DE: In ternational Reading Association. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). Identification of stru cture of prose and its implications for study of reading and memory. Journal of Reading Behavior 7 7-47. Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. (1980). Use of top-level structure in a text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly 16 72-103.

PAGE 145

133 Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984) Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal 21, 121-143. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., & Todesco, A. (1975). The good second language learner. TESL Talk 6, 58-76. Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and know ledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning 52 439-481. Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal 87 261-276. Oh, J. (1990). On the relationship between anxiety and reading in English as a Foreign Language among Korean university students in Korea Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas at Austin. Oller, J. (1979). Research on the measurement of af fective variables: Some remaining questions Paper presented at the Colloquium on Second Language Acquisition and Use Under Different Circumstances 1979 TESOL Convention. Boston, Mass. Oller, J., & Perkins, K. ( 1978). Intelligence and language proficiency as sources of variance in self-reported affective variables. Language Learning 28 85-97. Padron, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1988). The effects of ESL student s’ perceptions of their cognitive strategies on reading achievement. TESOL Quarterly 22 146-150. Park, H. (2001). Foreign language reading anxiety in EFL students Unpublished manuscript. University of Florida at Gainesville. Patten, M. L. (2000). Understanding research methods (2nd ed.). Pyrczak Publishing. Price, M. L. (1991). The subj ective experience of foreign la nguage anxiety: Interviews with anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 101-108). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata of reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly 25 273-295. Ruddell, R. B., & Speaker, R. B. (1985). The in teractive reading process: A model. In H. Singer & R. B Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed), (pp. 751-793). Newark, DE: In ternational Reading Association. Rusciolelli, J. (1995). Student response s to reading strategies instruction. Foreign Language Annals 28 262-273.

PAGE 146

134 Saito, Y, Garza, T. J., & Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Foreign Language Reading Anxiety. Modern Language Journal 83 202-218. Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learni ng: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning 28 129-142. Sellers, V. (2000). Anxiety and reading compre hension in Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals 33 512-521. Smith, F. (1994). Understanding Reading: A Psycholingu istic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read (5th ed). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Taglieber, L. K., Johnson, L. L., & Yarb rough, D. B. (1988). Effects of prereading activities on EFL reading by Brazilian college students. TESOL Quarterly 22 455472. Taillefer, G. (1996). L2 reading ability: Furthe r insights into the short-circuit hypothesis. Modern Language Journal 80 461-477. Thomas. M. (1994). Assessment of L2 pr oficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning 44 307-336. Tobias, S. (1986). Anxiety and cognitive pr ocessing of instruction. In R. Schwarqer (Ed.), Self-related cognition in anxiety and motivation (pp. 35-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Urquhart, A. H., & Cyril, W. (1998). Reading in a Second Language: Process, Product and Practice pp. 37-51. London: Addison Wesley Longman. Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1994). The e ffects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning 44 189-219. Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom enviro nment: What does language anxiety research suggest ? Modern Language Journal 75 426-436. Young, D. J. (1993). Processing strategies of foreign language readers: Authentic and edited input. Foreign Language Annals 26 451-468. Wolf, D. F. (1993). A comparison of assessm ent tasks used to measure FL reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal 77 473-489. Zbornik, J., & Wallbrown, F. H. (1991). The development and validation of a scale to measure reading anxiety, Reading Improvement 28 2-13.

PAGE 147

135 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Heenam Park began her university educati on at the Semyung University in Korea as a student of English Language and Litera ture. She completed her BA in Spring 1995, and was admitted to the master’s program at the Sungkyunkwan University in Korea. She completed her MA in English Language and Lite rature with a concentration in linguistics in Spring 1997. After her master’s degree, she taught English classes at universities in Korea for 2 years. She was admitted to the doctoral program in linguistics at the University of Florida in Fall 1999. During her te rm as a doctoral candidate, she served as a teaching assistant for Introduc tion to Linguistics. Her primar y research interests are in the areas of second-langua ge reading, foreign-language anxiety, second languageacquisition, and Teaching English to Speaker s of Other Languages (TESOL). She was awarded a PhD in linguistics in August 2005.