COPYING AND SUMMARIZING: POSSIBLE TOOLS TO DEVELOP

ENGLISH READING AND WRITING FOR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT

PROFICIENCY LEVELS IN KOREA

Yoo-Jean Lee

Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Literacy, Culture, and Language Education
Indiana University
December, 2010
 UMI Number: 3439579

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3439579
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Doctoral Committee

____________________________________
Martha Nyikos, Chairperson, Ph.D.

___________________________________
Larry Mikulecky, Ph.D.

___________________________________
Serafin Coronel-Molina, Ph.D.

___________________________________
Lara Lackey, Ph.D.

Date of Dissertation Defense – November 11, 2010

ii
 © 2010
Yoo-Jean Lee
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iii
Dedicated to my dearest family

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to first express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Nyikos, my advisor and

committee chair, who had helped pursue my doctoral study in the Department of Literacy,

Culture, and Language Education. When I was in her learning strategy class at the very last

semester of my master’s degree in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, all of the activities,

discussions, and her words in class thrilled me and consequently led me to have a particular

interest in reading and writing strategies for language learning and to desire for more in-depth

study in that area. Dr. Nyikos has since provided me a lot of support and advice to develop

ideas in designing and teaching courses particularly for English as a Foreign or Second (EFL or

ESL) students and teachers. Without her guidance, it would have never been possible for me to

think about continuing and completing my doctoral degree.

There is another to whom I would like to send my deepest appreciation, Dr. Mikulecky,

one of my dissertation committee members for guiding me to become a good researcher as well

as instructor. He very often said ‘Where is evidence?” and “Show me your evidence!”

whenever my arguments or explanations were not clear enough, and this has helped me critically

think about myself and my research work. He provided me a great opportunity to successfully

manage classes and lead discussions as an online course instructor. Also, he allowed me a good

chance to design, conduct, and evaluate research helping me learn both how to work on my own

research as an individual and how to cooperate with others in developing ideas as a team.

Thanks to his guidance, support, and belief in me, I was able to make progress in my study and

successfully complete my dissertation.

v
 Dr. Coronel-Molina and Dr. Lackey who were my dissertation committee members also

helped me understand and learn differences and difficulties of learning a foreign or second

language and culture for those with various linguistic and cultural backgrounds. They showed

great understanding and interests in my study participants who were learning English as a

Foreign Language as well as in the ways of their developing English reading and writing ability.

They have been lavish with encouragement and advice throughout my dissertation study process.

I also would like to thank my parents. Both of them have always been wonderful

advisors and colleagues for me. My mother who was an instructor of my study participants

kindly gave me permission to conduct the study with her students. She has always been willing

to spend her extra time and efforts to help me get the best study results and to provide

opportunity for her students to develop their reading and writing ability at the same time. My

father has also been very supportive providing advice in selecting data analysis methods as well

as in analyzing and interpreting the data.

There are still many others to be thankful. Dr. Shin Jae Jang helped me gather data

from his students to test the reliability of a survey which I had created before actually using it.

Dr. Sang-Don Lee and Dr. Dong Jun Shin have given me great support in analyzing the data and

getting precise results. Ms. Karen Ryder and Ms. Spring Ryding have been greatly helpful in

organizing ideas and developing my writing styles for the dissertation.

Finally, I would like to thank the rest of my family members, friends, and others—

grandmother, Sue Jean, Kwon Cheol, Young Su, Hyo Jin, Dr. Hee Jun Byun, and Dr. Ho Jung

Kim—for providing me encouragement, certainty, and love during my long journey of study at

IU.

vi
 Yoo-Jean Lee

COPYING AND SUMMARIZING: POSSIBLE TOOLS TO DEVELOP

ENGLISH READING AND WRITING FOR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT
PROFICIENCY LEVELS IN KOREA

In English as a second language teaching, reading and writing were considered

independent skills and taught separately in class. Currently, they are now thought of as flip

sides of the same coin (Tompkins, 1997), and the importance of teaching them in integrated

manner is emphasized.

As a way to develop reading and writing skills in English, ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’

are commonly used strategies in Korea. Although ‘copying’ alludes to plagiarism in the West,

the researcher wanted to ascertain if it has certain linguistic benefits when used only as a tool for

language learning. Since ‘copying’ has usually been assigned for low proficiency level students,

and ‘summarizing’ for higher levels, the researcher wanted to ascertain possible advantages of

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ for various proficiency levels. By employing a metacognitive

perspective of the reading-writing relationships as a theoretical framework, this study

investigated ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ processes of different proficiency level students, their

awareness of their own learning and strategy use, and effective ways to improve their reading

and writing ability through ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing.’

Sixty Korean university students with English or other foreign language related majors

were engaged in either a ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ task with high-interest texts. Thereafter,

eight students participated in think-aloud interviews. Although the degrees of improvement in

different areas of reading and writing (e.g. ‘making inferences from texts,’ ‘organizing content

and ideas,’ ‘using correct grammar,’ ‘applying new vocabulary appropriately in writing,’ etc.)

varied depending on the task and proficiency level, all students showed statistically significant

vii
improvement with higher proficiency students demonstrating more effective use of strategies

linked to heightened metacognitive awareness.

This study revealed that ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ significantly contributed to both

higher and lower level students in improving specific areas of reading and writing by raising

their metacognitive consciousness. It was, therefore, concluded that ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ could be used effectively for language learning and teaching, at least for Korean

university students. Limitations of the study, teaching implications, and further research

suggestions were presented.

____________________________________
Dr. Martha Nyikos

___________________________________
Dr. Larry Mikulecky

___________________________________
Dr. Serafin Coronel-Molina

___________________________________
Dr. Lara Lackey

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………...............….… 1

Introduction……………………………………..…………….…………………...…..... 1
Problem Statement ……………………………………………………..……................. 2
Significance of the Study ………………………………………………..………..……. 9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………….……..………………………...… 11

Origin of ‘Copying’ – Verbal Imitation …………………….……….……..………..... 11
Perceptions and Development of ‘Copying’ in English as a Second Language (ESL)
and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Contexts …….……………..…………...... 12
Uses of ‘Copying’ as a Language Development in English as a Second Language (ESL)
and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Contexts ..…………………..……………. 14
Definition of ‘Summarizing’ and its Roles, Perceptions, and Use in
English in First, Second, and Foreign Language Contexts .………………..…………. 21
Theoretical Framework: Metacognitive Perspective of the Reading-Writing
Relationships ……..…………………………………..……………………………….. 30

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………….... 35

English Education in Korea …………………………………………………………… 35
Pre-Service Teacher Education in Korea ……………………………………………... 36
Participants …………………………………………………………..……………...… 37
Instructor’s and Researcher’s Roles …………………………………………………... 40
Data Collection Procedures …………………………………………………...…….… 42
Pre-test and Post-test…………………………….……………..…………..…. 42
Background Information Questions ..……………………………………..….. 47
Survey of Reading and Writing Strategies (SORWS) ……………………….. 48
‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ Tasks …………...………………………….… 53
Think-aloud Protocol and Follow-up Questions ……………………….…….. 64
Reflection Questionnaire …………………………………………………..…. 67
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………………..… 68
Research Question 1………………………………..…………………………. 68

ix
 Research Question 2 ………………………………………………………….. 69
Research Question 3 …………………………………………………….…..... 70
Research Question 4 …………………………………………..…………….... 70

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ………….……………...……...……..... 73

The Participants’ Past Experiences of ‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ ……………...… 73
Research Question One ...………………………………………..……………………. 79

The overall reading and writing proficiency changes between the pre-test
and post-test of the students in the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing groups …..... 79

The nine areas of reading and writing proficiency changes between the
pre-test and post-test of the students in the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’
groups …………………………………………………………………….….. 88

1) Comparison of the pre-test and post-test results between

the two higher level groups ………….………………………….. 90
2) Comparison of the pre-test and post-test results between
the two lower level groups …..…………………………………. 103

Research Question Two ………………...…………………..…………..……………. 115

Research Question Three ……………...……………….…………………………..… 131

Reading and writing process of the ‘copying’ group of students and

comparisons between their reported and actual use of strategies ………...… 135

1) Da-Young in the higher level ‘copying’ group ……………….... 135

2) Ji-Hee in the higher level ‘copying’ group …………………….. 142
3) Jun-Su in the lower level ‘copying’ group ……………………... 147
4) Yoon-Ju in the lower level ‘copying’ group ………………….... 153

Reading and writing strategy use of the students with different proficiency
levels in the ‘copying’ group ……………………………………………..…. 158

Reading and writing process of the ‘summarizing’ group of students and

comparisons between their reported and actual use of strategies …………… 164

1) Sang-Woo in the higher level ‘summarizing’ group …………… 164

2) Yuna in the higher level ‘summarizing’ group ………………… 171
3) Su-Eun in the lower level ‘summarizing’ group ……………….. 177
4) Young-Jae in the lower level ‘summarizing’ group ……………. 184

x
 Reading and writing strategy use of the students with different proficiency
levels in the ‘summarizing’ group ………………………………………...… 190

Reading and writing strategy use, different tasks, and different proficiency
levels ………………………………………………………………………… 196

Research Question Four ……………….……………………………………...……… 203

Students’ perception of changes in their English reading and writing

proficiency and the comparison between their actual proficiency changes
and perception of them ……………………………………………………… 204

1) Students’ reported perception of changes in the nine areas of

English reading and writing proficiency …………………….…. 204
2) Students’ actual reading and writing proficiency changes and
their reported perception of them ………………………………. 212
3) Eight think-aloud participants’ actual reading and writing
proficiency changes and their reported perception of them ……. 229

3-1) Da-Young in the higher level ‘copying’ group ……………. 229

3-2) Ji-Hee in the higher level ‘copying’ group ………………... 234
3-3) Jun-Su in the lower level ‘copying’ group ……..…………. 238
3-4) Yoon-Ju in the lower level ‘copying’ group …….…...……. 241
3-5) Sang-Woo in the higher level ‘summarizing’ group ………. 245
3-6) Yuna in the higher level ‘summarizing’ group ……….….... 249
3-7) Su-Eun in the lower level ‘summarizing’ group ………….. 252
3-8) Young-Jae in the lower level ‘summarizing’ group ……….. 256

Students’ perception of the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities ……...… 264

1) Students’ familiarity with the topics of the texts and motivation

to read them – Relationship between students’ familiarity and
motivation, and their task performance and strategy use ………. 264
2) Advantages and disadvantages of the ‘copying’ and
‘summarizing’ activities – Students’ responses to the reflection
questionnaire …………………………………………………… 270

CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS …………………………………..…….. 282

Summary of the Study and Conclusion …………………………………………...…. 300
Pedagogical Implications …………………………………………………………….. 311
Suggestions for Future Studies ………………………………………………………. 316

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………..… 318

xi
APPENDICES …………………………………………………..……………………………. 327
Appendix 1: Background Information Questions ……………………………………. 327
Appendix 2: Pre-test and Post-test ……….…………………………………………... 330
Appendix 3: Rubric for the Writing Section of the Pre-test and Post-test …………… 338
Appendix 4: Survey of Reading and Writing Strategies (SORWS) ..…….…….……. 339
Appendix 5: Self-scoring Guidelines for the SORWS .………………………...……. 342
Appendix 6: Warm-up Session Text for the Think-aloud Protocol ………………….. 343
Appendix 7: Actual Text for the Think-aloud Protocol ……………………………… 346
Appendix 8: Reflection Questionnaire ………………………………………………. 349

CURRICULUM VITAE

xii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: The Students’ Demographic Information ………………………………………..…… 38

Table 2: The Students’ Reasons for Learning English …………………………….……...…… 38
Table 3: The Relationship Between Grades and Lexile Rankings ……..……………………… 43
Table 4: Timetable of Data Collection Methods and Procedures …………………………..….. 46
Table 5: Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for the Three Subsections of the SORWS ..………….. 50
Table 6: Test-retest Reliability for the SORWS between the First and Second Responses ..….. 52
Table 7: What the Students Read the Most in English ………………………...………………. 54
Table 8: What the Students Write the Most in English ……..…………………………………. 55
Table 9: What the Students Want to Read the Most in English ………....……………………... 56
Table 10: Topics and Difficulty Levels of Texts Chosen for ‘Copying’ and
‘Summarizing’ Tasks ……………..………………………………………………….. 59
Table 11: A Summary of the Students’ Past Experiences of ‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ …... 74
Table 12: Pre-test Results for the Nine Areas of Reading and Writing ……………...………… 80
Table 13: T-test for the Pre-test Mean Difference between the Two Higher Level Groups and
between the Two Lower Level Groups …………………..………………….……... 81
Table 14: T-test for the Pre-test Mean Difference between the ‘Copying’ Groups and
the ‘Summarizing’ Groups …………………………………………………………. 82
Table 15: Post-test Results for the Nine Areas of Reading and Writing ..………...…………… 83
Table 16: T-test for the Post-test Mean Difference between the Two Higher Level Groups and
between the Two Lower Level Groups ……….……………………………………... 84
Table 17: T-test for the Post-test Mean Difference between the ‘Copying’ Groups and the
‘Summarizing’ Groups ……..……………………..…...…………………………… 84
Table 18: Overall Pre-test and Post-test Results among the Four Groups of the Students ..…… 85
Table 19: ANOVA Table for the Mean Scores of the Pre-test and Post-test, and the
Mean Difference between the Pre- and Post-tests among the Four Groups of
the Students …………………………………………………………………………. 86
Table 20: T-test for the Mean Difference between the Pre- and Post-tests for the Four
Groups of the Students ……..…………..………………………...………………… 86
Table 21: T-test for the Pre-test and Post-test Mean Difference between the Two
Higher Level Groups and Between the Two Lower Level Groups ...………………. 87
Table 22: T-test for the Pre-test and Post-test Mean Difference between the ‘Copying’
Groups and the Summarizing’ Groups ………..……………….…………………… 88

xiii
Table 23: Pre-test and Post-test Results for the Nine Areas of Reading and Writing
– Percentage Gains between the Pre- and Post-tests ……………………..………… 89
Table 24: Comparisons between the Students in the Higher Level Groups’ Pre-test and
Post-test Scores for the Overall Reading and Writing Areas ………………..…..…. 92
Table 25: Pre- and Post-tests Mean Scores for Overall Reading and Writing of the Higher
Level Groups Excluding Topped Out Students ………...…………………………... 93
Table 26: T-test for the Mean Difference in Overall Reading and Writing Areas between the
Pre- and Post-tests for the Higher Level Groups Excluding Topped Out Students ... 93
Table 27: Two Higher Proficiency Level Students’ Pre-test Scores and Post-test Scores
in the Nine Areas of English Reading and Writing ……..………………………..… 97
Table 28: Two Lower Proficiency Level Students’ Pre-test Scores and Post-test Scores
in the Nine Areas of English Reading and Writing ...………………………….….. 107
Table 29: The Students’ Response to the SORWS – Their Use of Metacognitvie
Reading and Writing Strategies ……………………….……………………………116
Table 30: T-test Table for the Mean Difference among the Students’ Planning, Monitoring,
and Evaluating Strategy Use within the Four Groups ……………………..…….... 117
Table 31: ANOVA Table for the Mean Difference among the Four Groups in their
Use of Strategies …………………………………………………………………... 118
Table 32: The Top Two and Bottom Two Strategies that the Four Groups of the
Students Use ..……………………………………………………………………... 120
Table 33: Background Information of the Think-aloud Task Participants ………...…………. 132
Table 34: A Summary of the Think-aloud Participants’ Past Experiences of
‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ …………………..……………………………….... 133
Table 35: The Percentages of Match between the Think-aloud Participants’ Reported and
Actual Use of Strategies …………………………………………………………... 138
Table 36: The Percentages of Match between the Think-aloud Participants’ Top Two and
Bottom Two Reported Strategies and their Actual Use of Strategies …………….. 138
Table 37: Means and Standard Deviations of Students’ Reported Perception of Changes
in the Nine Areas of English Reading and Writing Proficiency …………………... 205
Table 38: ANOVA Table for the Mean Differences among the Four Groups in
their Reported Perception of Changes in the Nine Areas of English Reading and
Writing Proficiency ……………………….………………………………………. 206
Table 39: ANOVA Table for the Total Mean Score Difference among the Four Groups in
their Reported Perception of Changes in English Reading and
Writing Proficiency ……………………………………………………………..… 211
Table 40: Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘R_Main/Supp’ Proficiency Changes and
their Perception of them …..………………………………………………………. 213

xiv
Table 41: Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘R_Detail’ Proficiency Changes and
their Perception of them ………………………………………………………....... 215
Table 42: Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘R_Infer’ Proficiency Changes and
their Perception of them ……..…………………………………………………..... 216
Table 43: Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘R_Vocab’ Proficiency Changes and
their Perception of them ………………………………………………………....... 218
Table 44: Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘W_Org’ Proficiency Changes and
their Perception of them ……………………………………………………...….... 220
Table 45: Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘W_Struc’ Proficiency Changes and
their Perception of them ………………………………………………………....... 222
Table 46: Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘W_Gram’ Proficiency Changes and
their Perception of them ………………………………………………………....... 223
Table 47: Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘W_Vocab’ Proficiency Changes and
their Perception of them ……………………………………………………...….... 225
Table 48: Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘W_Mecha’ Proficiency Changes and
their Perception of them ……………………………………………………..…..... 226
Table 49: Think-aloud Participants’ Pre-test Scores and Post-test Scores in the Nine Areas
of English Reading and Writing ……………………………………..……………. 230
Table 50: Think-aloud Participants’ Actual Proficiency Changes and their Perception of
them for the Nine Areas of English Reading and Writing ……………………….... 232
Table 51: Means and Standard Deviations for Students’ Familiarity with Topics of the Texts
and Motivation to Read them …………………………………………………....... 265
Table 52: ANOVA Table for Mean Differences among the Four Groups of Students for
Their Familiarity with Topics of the Texts and Motivation to Read them ………... 266
Table 53: Students’ Comments on the ‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ Activities …………...... 271
Table 54: A Sample of a ‘K-W-L’ Chart ……………………………………………...………. 303
Table 55: Questions that Students could Ask themselves for the Use of
Metacognitive Strategies ……………………………………………………..…… 308
Table 56: Sample Metacognitive Reading and Writing Strategies that Students could Use …. 309

xv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: A Line of ‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ Continuum ……………………….………… 7

Figure 2: A Line of ‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ Continuums ………...……………………. 30
Figure 3: Metacognitive Processes in Reading and Writing ……………….…..………………. 34
Figure 4: ‘Copying’ Task Guidelines ………..………………………….……………………... 60
Figure 5: ‘Summarizing’ Task Guidelines ………..……………………..…………………....... 61
Figure 6: A Sample of a Copied Text ……………...………….……………………………….. 63
Figure 7: A Sample of Summarized Text ………………...………………….………………… 63
Figure 8: A Sample of a Vocabulary Tree ……………………………………………………. 306

xvi
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In the contexts of English as a first, second, and foreign language, reading and writing

were taught separately for a long time (Tsai, 2006; Kim, 2007). Particularly in English as a

second or foreign language contexts, the focus of the instruction was primarily on reading which

included new vocabulary, grammar explanations, and translation from English into the native

language (Shin & Ahn, 2006; Song, 2000; Lee, 2001). Writing played only a subsidiary role in

that simple controlled or guided writing exercises were used in English reading textbooks for

comprehension checks (Jwa, 2007). However, recent research in second language learning and

teaching has emphasized the importance of integrating reading and writing “which [share] the

common [process] of meaning making” (Kim, 2007, p. 60). Moreover, research emphasizes the

reading-writing connection in fostering writing proficiency. Researchers note that reading plays

an important role in writing, and information from the source text is inevitably incorporated into

students’ writing process (Lightbown, Halter, & Horst, 2002; Prowse, 2003; Kim, 2007).

In Korea, the seventh national curriculum of English education initiated in 1997, the

government emphasized that the four language skills—listening, speaking, reading, and

writing—should be taught equally and comprehensively beginning at the elementary level (Jwa,

2007). In addition, since many students face English writing situations in both academic and

professional settings, the need to develop writing and reading simultaneously is becoming an

important issue. Two of the most popular standardized tests in Korea, the Test of English for

International Communication (TOEIC) and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL),

changed their formats in 2006 to measure integrated language skills. Obtaining high scores on

1
these tests increases the chances for senior high school students to gain admission into

universities, and for university students to study abroad or gain employment. For these reasons,

post secondary and university students are beginning to recognize the importance of not only

understanding what they read but also of writing discourse-level compositions based on what

was read. As a result, English teachers are now focusing on finding effective ways to integrate

reading and writing as a pre-requisite of developing communicative skills (Kang, 2006).

Problem Statement

The national curriculum in Korea specifies such instructional details as the overall goals

for language curricula, evaluation procedures, textbook choice, and proper syllabi (Hahn, 2006).

The first curriculum of English education was introduced in 1954, and the seventh in 1997.

After undergoing several revision processes, the fourth revision of the seventh curriculum was

introduced in 2007. Through the seventh curriculum, the priority is shifting from the grammar-

translation method to communicative language teaching (CLT) (Hahn, 2006; Kim, 2004; Song &

Lee, 2007). Since 2008, the Korean government has been encouraging English teachers to use

only English in class and has been considering employing a greater number of English teachers

with highly advanced speaking proficiency (Park, 2008).

However, the CLT-driven English education seems not to be in full swing, since the

focus of teaching remains on reading with an emphasis on vocabulary and grammar rather than

on writing or oral communicative skills. This is mainly due to large class size, heterogeneous

English proficiency levels, students’ lack of exposure to English speaking contexts, and teachers’

limited proficiency in speaking English (Kim, 2004; Jeong, 2004; Song & Lee, 2007).

Although English secondary school textbooks now include many spoken communicative

2
activities (Hahn, 2006), school exams and the university entrance exam greatly depend on

reading (Finch, 2006). Accordingly, secondary school English teachers consider it important to

teach lexis and grammar explicitly within reading texts thereby focusing on form first. In

Jimin’s (2006) study, sixth to ninth grade students who participated in a one week English

writing camp held in Korea pointed out that finding the right words or expressions and writing

grammatically correct sentences were their most challenging obstacles for them, and thus hoped

for explicit instruction in these areas. However, the study did not focus on how English writing

was taught in the camp and how students improved during that week. The majority of the

students in the camp were in the intermediate to advanced level in terms of their writing

proficiency: 90 percent of the sixth to ninth graders had a writing ability equivalent to grades 8 to

10, and about 80 percent exceeded the writing standards of their own grade. In other words,

they were “able to write a simple story or thoughts about a general issue fluently and quite

coherently” (Jimin, 2006, p. 66).

In university contexts, students and teachers also believe explicit grammar and

vocabulary explanations in reading are crucial in order to use correct grammar and appropriate

expressions unconsciously and intuitively in writing and later in speaking (Hahn, 2006; Park,

2008). As Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1987) and Shariati (2007) point out,

learning complex sentence structures is difficult for adult second language learners particularly

because it is hard for them to “break through the nutshell . . . to locate the borderline between

subject and predicate” (Shariati, 2007, p. 1) which can make texts with complex sentences

incomprehensible for them. This supports the perception that if second language learners

cannot understand second language (L2) sentence structures, their reading comprehension will

suffer. Furthermore, as many non-Indo-European languages, Korean has a S(Subject)-

3
O(Object)-V(Verb) word order, whereas English is a S-V-O language (Lee & Kim, 2006). Due

to this syntactic complexity, teachers feel compelled to help students by giving explicit

instruction on word order differences between Korean and English to foster correct syntactic

patterns in writing sentences. In doing so, teachers raise students’ conscious awareness of

language structure. Raising students’ consciousness about form and use of certain grammatical

features can help them understand how written discourse works (Seugupta, 1999) and also help

them read efficiently (Shariati, 2007). In other words, they will understand the text more easily.

Consciousness raising and vocabulary and grammar practice are recognized as necessary

for both teachers and a broad range of young and college level students in Korea (Hahn, 2006;

Jimin, 2006). In Hahn’s (2006) study, regardless of their proficiency level, university juniors

with nine years of English learning stated that intensive language structure instruction would be

necessary. The fact that they perceived having conscious knowledge of the grammatical system

and practice of structures within a communicative context as essential, implies that form-focused

instruction, with meaningful reading texts for consciousness raising, is necessary in order to help

all levels of Korean students use correct English forms in writing. At the same time, expanding

vocabulary and grammatical knowledge would enhance reading comprehension. Thus,

“reading and writing are inextricably linked, [and] reading is integrated into writing through

writing [activities]” (Kim, 2007, p. 60). In short, intensive instruction and practice of English

vocabulary and grammatical structures within a context can help different levels and ages of

Korean students expand their conscious knowledge of vocabulary and the grammatical system,

thereby promoting reading and writing ability.

As a way to incorporate reading and writing, while learning vocabulary, grammar, and

sentence organization, ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ have been widely used for language learning

4
and teaching in Korea. ‘Copying’ is an activity of “[producing] something so that it is the same

as an original piece of work…” (“Copying,” 2009a). However, it has a negative connotation in

the West as it brings about the idea of plagiarism (Kolich, 1983; Moon, 2002): taking words or

ideas from “someone else’s work and [using] them in one’s own work without admitting one has

done so” (Language and Culture, 1998, p. 1022). Also, ‘copying’ is thought to be an early step

of ‘summarizing’ and a survival strategy which may decrease or disappear as students’

proficiency levels increase (Keck, 2006; Shi, 2004; Eric & Moon, 2004; Moon, 2002; Song,

1998). Studies discussing ‘copying’ in connection with ‘summarizing’ consider it plagiarism

and a bad strategy used when readers do not understand the content or meaning of the text.

Some researchers discuss the different stages of ‘summarizing’ (Eric & Moon, 2004; Keck, 2006;

Shi, 2004) using slightly different terms from one another for those stages. Keck (2006), for

example, places students’ ‘summarized’ work into such different stage categories as ‘exact

copying,’ ‘near copying,’ ‘minimal revision paraphrasing,’ ‘moderate revision paraphrasing,’ and

‘substantial revision paraphrasing’ depending on the degree to which students’ summaries rely on

a text. In other words, students are perceived as progressing along a continuum as they proceed

through the various stages of summarizing.

Compared to ‘copying,’ ‘summarizing’ is an activity of condensing “the most important

details of what is retained from a text” (Joh, 2000, p. 195) and has been used to help language

learners monitor comprehension and recall and clarify meaning and important discourse (Garner

& McCaleb, 1985; Brown, Campione, & Day, 1981; Oh, 2007). Since ‘summarizing’ requires a

certain level of reading and writing ability, it has been mostly used for those who are at least

moderately proficient in reading and writing and thus are not in the ‘exact copying’ stage (Brown

et al., 1981; Brown & Smiley, 1978; Coffman, 1994; Garner, 1985; Hidi & Anderson, 1986; Oh,

5
2007).

As opposed to the Western perception that ‘copying’ is a mere survival strategy for low

proficiency level students and an avoidable or unnecessary strategy for advanced proficiency

level students, its perception in Korea is rather different. The Korean Ministry of Education

and Human Resources Development (2007) indicates that ‘copying’ is a basic and important

writing strategy for low proficiency level students and young children in learning both Korean

and English. ‘Copying’ certain words, phrases, or sentences by consciously and carefully

recognizing what is being copied has been encouraged as a tool to teach spelling, vocabulary, and

grammar as an early step of the writing process for the beginning level of Korean students (Park,

2000). The purpose of ‘copying’ in Korea is to help students consciously focus on learning

writing conventions, vocabulary, and grammar, and use them correctly and appropriately when

writing academic papers later on as they move to an advanced level. That is, ‘copying’ does not

hold the negative connotation as it does in Western countries, and is purely seen as an exercise

for learning a language.

Currie’s (1998) study supports the Korean Government’s position concerning ‘copying.’

Further, this study illustrates the usefulness of ‘copying’ for an adult in learning a new language.

An English as a second language (ESL) college student at a low proficiency level in Currie’s

study (1998), Diana, showed great development in her writing throughout the semester. She

was in the ‘exact copying’ stage and relied largely on ‘copying’ in the early part of the semester

because she was concerned about her grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and difficulties in

managing lengthy texts and in using specialized vocabulary correctly. As she became aware of

her problems, the forms and uses of grammatical features and sentence structure, and the

meaning and usage of specialized vocabulary, she moved to different stages and later she rarely

6
relied on ‘copying’ and used her own words making fewer mistakes. She said that consciously

recognizing what she was ‘copying’ and frequently practicing certain words, expressions, and

grammatical sentences helped her write correctly, appropriately, and fluently. Here, Diana’s use

of copying is vastly different from simply ‘copying’ others’ words without thought. She was

well aware of what she was copying and how the language was used. In other words, her

progression from substantial to minimal ‘copying’ in her writing implies that language learners

go through several stages to progress to an advanced level starting from the ‘copying’ stage as

the beginning.

In Korea, ‘copying’ has also been thought to be a useful strategy for students at low

proficiency levels for learning vocabulary and grammar while ‘summarizing’ to be useful for

advanced level students for enhancing reading comprehension and clarifying meaning and

significance of discourse. Figure 1 shows a line of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ continuum

supported by literature from a Western viewpoint. So far, little research has focused on the

positive aspects of ‘copying’ for advanced level students and of ‘summarizing’ for low level

students.

Figure 1
A Line of ‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ Continuum

Copying Summarizing
Low Proficiency Level Advanced Proficiency Level
-Teaches spelling, capitalization, punctuation, -Enhances reading comprehension and clarifies
vocabulary, and grammar meaning and the significance of discourse

Recognizing that there are gaps in ‘copying’ and summarizing’ research, several issues

emerge in the researcher’s mind:

If the purposes and directions of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ are clearly and explicitly

explained to students

7

If students read meaningful texts they are interested in, which are selected for their

proficiency level by teachers

If students constantly monitor and reflect on their reading and writing processes, then the

following questions arise:

 Can ‘copying’ positively affect the language development of advanced level students?

 Can ‘summarizing’ positively affect the language development of low level students?

 Can different levels of students obtain different types of benefits from ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ for language development?

This dissertation study, therefore, will specifically focus on finding answers to the following four

research questions:

1. How does the reading and writing proficiency of different levels of students in the ‘copying’

and ‘summarizing’ groups actually change? How do the nine areas of reading and writing1

proficiency change from the pre- to the post-test?

2. What metacognitive strategies do different levels of students in the ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ groups report using when reading and writing academic texts in English?

3. What metacognitive reading and writing strategies are observed being used among different

levels of students when ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ in English in a think-aloud task? Are

the reported and observed strategies different between the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’

groups?

4. How do students of various levels perceive of the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities, and

what is their perception of changes in their English reading and writing proficiency? Are

1
The nine areas of reading and writing are as follows: the areas of ‘finding main and supporting ideas,’
‘understanding and identifying the details,’ ‘making an inference,’ ‘guessing the meanings of new words or
expressions by using context clues,’ ‘organizing sentences/phrases/ideas,’ ‘understanding and using various
sentence structures/patterns,’ ‘using correct grammar,’ ‘applying new words/expressions appropriately,’ and ‘using
correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.’ They will be discussed further in Chapter 4.

8
 the actual proficiency changes and the reported perception of proficiency changes different

between the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups?

Significance of the Dissertation Study

Even though integrated reading and writing instruction has been emphasized, and

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ have been used in reading and writing instruction practice in Korea,

‘copying’ has not been considered as an effective exercise for advanced level students, and

‘summarizing’ not as effective for low level students. Little research has focused on how

different levels of students ‘copy’ and ‘summarize’—what kinds of reading and writing strategies

they use—and which areas of reading and writing they develop. Accordingly, many researchers

simply listed what advanced and low level students do when a ‘summarizing’ task was given (Oh,

2007; Johns & Mayes, 1990; Johns, 1985). They did not pay attention to what was going on in

low level students’ mind when they were ‘summarizing’ and how teachers could help those

students derive advantages from a ‘summarizing’ task. In addition, many researchers linked

‘copying’ with stealing someone’s idea, equating it with plagiarism (Leki & Carson, 1994, 1997;

Pennycook, 1996; Roig, 2001; Shi, 2004, 2006; Yamada, 2003). They considered ‘copying’ on

a continuum toward ‘summarizing’ and concluded that ‘copying’ would be an inevitable or

natural strategy for low level students and would be used only until they became proficient

enough to express, to a certain extent, their thoughts in their own words. No discussion was

thus made on how a ‘copying’ activity should be presented and used to scaffold low level

students to move on to an advanced level if ‘copying’ is really a necessary strategy for them.

Finally, possible advantages of ‘copying’ in reading and writing for advanced level students have

never been mentioned in any research.

9
 Throughout this dissertation study with lower and higher levels of Korean university

students, their reading and writing processes during ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing,’ their use of

strategies, and their development of reading and writing ability will be investigated. This study

will focus on finding the advantages of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ for different levels of

students, then, based on the results, suggest possible ways of enhancing students’ reading and

writing ability through ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing,’ and provide potential changes to English

teaching and the English curriculum in Korea.

10
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Origin of ‘Copying’ – Verbal Imitation

Addressing initial language acquisition in children, Brown (2000) notes that imitation, or

mimicry, is a salient strategy in early language and phonological acquisition. He cites that there

are two types of imitation: what young children and many foreign language class learners mostly

do is surface-structure imitation, while children who have passed the earliest language

acquisition stage mostly imitate deep-structures. Surface-structure imitation refers to repeating

and mimicking the surface strings such as repeating certain sounds without understanding what

the sounds mean. When children can manifest a good deal of surface imitation and understand

and be aware of the importance of the semantic level of language, they engage in the second type

of imitation, deep-structure imitation (Brown, 2000). Through this type of imitation, Brown

(2000) mentions that children can learn how to use correct grammar within contexts.

Brown contends that adults who are learning a second language can be good surface

structure imitators if explicit direction and meaningful contexts are given since they have a better

ability to consciously focus on surface distinctions than children. He adds that adult language

learners will become less aware of surface structure as their language proficiency develops and

as they become more able to communicate well with others in a second language.

Since children’s first language and adults’ second language oral proficiency develop in

large part through imitation, the possibility exists that reading and writing proficiency would also

develop through copying. ‘Copying’ is defined as “[writing something] exactly as it is written

somewhere else” (“Copying,” 2009b), and it can be replaced by ‘transcribing, reproducing, and

11
imitating’ (“Copying,” 2009c). Even though the necessity of imitation in speaking has been

highlighted in children’s language acquisition (Brown, 2000; Fraser, Bellugi, & Brown, 1963;

Seidenberg, 1997; Skinner, 1957), the importance and roles of written imitation, that is, copying

in reading and writing has never been discussed in any English as a first language (L1) research.

Accordingly, ‘copying’ has never been thought of as a teaching tool in English as an L1 context.

Given the benefits imitation has on language development, ‘copying’ should be seriously

examined as a language development tool in reading and writing.

Perceptions and Development of ‘Copying’ in English as a Second Language (ESL) and

English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Contexts

In contrast to L1 contexts, in English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign

language (EFL) contexts, particularly in Asia, imitating, repeating, and memorizing texts with

authorship are considered common educational methods (Kim, 2004; Pennycook, 1994, 1996;

Shi, 2006) and essential to “deepen and develop understanding” (Pennycook, 1994, p. 281).

Through imitation, repetition, and memorization, Moon (2002) states that students can

“internalize the approved material” (Moon, 2002, p. 1354). Not only in Asia but also in Spain,

for example, ‘copying’ a text has been a widely used learning strategy since it is believed to help

students consciously recognize and avoid L1 and L2 sound-writing confusion, L1 and L2

spelling or sound confusion, and punctuation and capitalization mismatches (Porte, 1995).

Thus, just as imitating surface and deep structures is found useful in developing oral language,

‘copying’ also has positive aspects in written language development.

Kim (2004) states that the popularity of ‘copying’ practice in language learning in Asia

can be attributed to collectivism and the strong influence of Confucianism while it has been

12
avoided in the West due to the importance placed on originality, individual ownership, and

private property (Eric & Moon, 2004; Kim, 2004). Kim (2004) further mentions that traditional

Asian societies emphasized respect for authority and elders, group consensus, shared property,

and group ownership. As a result, written texts were used as approved authorities and shared

knowledge. It was believed that knowledgeable and scholarly people would have the ability to

identify not only the words they were using but also where the words came from (Moon, 2002).

Thus, the people who devoted themselves to their studies tried to memorize and use famous

scholars’ words, sentences, and expressions in their own writing without referring back to the

original texts. This would mean that people could read and understand what the written words,

sentences, and expressions mean and could use them appropriately in their own writing,

suggesting that ‘copying’ helps people learn proper syntax and idiomatic expressions. In this

approach to scholarship, the act of ‘copying’ is valued as a deep and semantic processing which

is associated with higher retention (Moscovitch & Craik, 1976) for three reasons: 1) the people

were aware of and had understanding and insight of what they were ‘copying,’ 2) they had a

deliberate plan of learning, and 3) they were able to use what they had learned and understood

(McLaughlin, 1990) in their own writing.

Chaffin and Herrmann (1983) mention that consciously thinking about the meaning and

use of a certain word, for example, can help one remember it for a long time and use it, but

simply repeating or ‘copying’ it cannot engage one in a deeper level of processing. Thus, not

only is it important to be consciously aware of the meaning and use of the word but also it is

important to practice writing sentences by using the word appropriately in order to approach a

deeper level of processing (Hopkins & Nettle, 1994; McLaughlin, 1990; Shariati, 2007). Depth

of processing is referred to as “a hierarchy of stages through which incoming stimuli are

13
processed [and] are concerned with the extraction of meaning” (Schallert, 1976, p. 622) which is

different from shallow or perceptual processing: a preliminary stage which “involve[s] the

analysis of physical features” (p. 622). In this sense, ‘copying’ could be considered on an

independent continuum which includes different stages: beginning from a shallow or perceptual

level of processing to a deeper level of processing. That is, one may simply ‘copy’ certain

words and sentences mechanically when s/he does not know what s/he is ‘copying’ and thus can

be engaged in a shallow or perceptual level of processing. However, as s/he becomes aware of

what s/he is ‘copying’ and tries to remember certain words and expressions and practice using

them, s/he will possibly move to and be engaged in a deeper level of processing.

Uses of ‘Copying’ as a Language Development in English as a Second Language (ESL) and

English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Contexts

Very little research on ‘copying’ is found in English as a second language (ESL) and

English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. In Porte’s (1995) study, underachievers, low

level students who had potential but were unaware of the appropriate use of learning strategies,

whose native language was Spanish were asked to ‘copy’ a text in a limited time. Through

reviewing their copies for errors and mistakes, they became more aware of writing conventions

such as accuracy of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. What students did was ‘copying’

surface structures rather than deep structures. In other words, students relied on mechanical

‘copying’ without understanding the meaning of what they copied which, as we saw above, is a

shallow or perceptual level of the ‘copying’ processing. Porte (1995) stated that this type of

‘copying’ processing could definitely help low-level students write accurately on writing exams.

However, the focus of the study was only given to the advantages of ‘copying’ in the correct use

14
of spelling and punctuation but not on the correct and appropriate use of vocabulary or grammar.

Also, the study assumed that only low level students would make spelling and punctuation

mistakes. Using more difficult levels of texts and giving additional attention to vocabulary,

grammar, sentence structures, and organizations may have shown positive effects of ‘copying’

for advanced level students, too.

Currie’s (1998) study focused on a deeper level of ‘copying’ processing. An ESL

college student with a low proficiency level used the ‘copying’ strategy during the semester of

the study. Diana, a business major student, had difficulties in understanding lengthy texts and

new and specialized vocabulary in her field. She made many grammatical errors, used

awkward sentences and inappropriate reasoning, and lacked abilities to cope with texts and to

use procedural knowledge when writing. However, through a deeper level of ‘copying’ process,

her syntactic, vocabulary, and expression fluency greatly developed. For example, Diana used

awkward words, phrases, or sentences which were grammatically correct but not common or

appropriate in the context or in her field. Yet, by ‘copying’ certain terminologies commonly

used in her field, she became aware of their contextualized usage, and thus was able to remember

and use those terminologies in her writing. In addition, she was able to read a text, find key

ideas, make connections of ideas and sentences, and add details specific to her own organization

which improved her linguistic skills, syntactic fluency, and confidence. She was approaching a

deeper level of processing and thus able to recognize appropriate usage of words and expressions

in real society and to use them correctly and appropriately in her writing. This was the most

important merit of ‘copying’ for her. In her interview, she stated,

15
 “I like to stay with the terms that is written from the book. That’s how I got to make
use of the terms….The point is if I keep on using the language that never be ours in the
book then I will never be able to learn the more specific terms.” (Diana, as cited in
Currie, 1998, p. 11).

While Diana was ‘copying,’ she was not simply engaged in writing but also engaged in extensive

reading, learning new concepts and terminology, carrying out complex cognitive operations,

understanding different genres, and writing clearly and smoothly, thereby reaching a deep

processing stage. In other words, she achieved “her own understandings of texts and language

[and her own] approaches to learning” (Pennycook, 1996, p. 226, cited in Currie, 1998, p. 11),

and both her reading comprehension and writing ability improved. It can be inferred that

‘copying’ is a developmental and natural feature or survival strategy that is applied by students in

a developing proficiency level (Bloch & Chi, 1995; Campbell, 1990; Currie, 1998; Dong, 1996;

Moon, 2002; Shi, 2004).

In Korea, perceptual and deeper levels of ‘copying’ are commonly and officially

recommended strategies in language teaching. English has been taught as a regular subject

from third grade in elementary schools since 1997. According to the seventh national

curriculum of English education, writing is introduced from the beginning of the fourth grade.

Writing, however, is taught later because students need some time to learn how to read and write

the Roman alphabet. Both the Korean and English curricula suggest ‘copying’ activities be

used with first to fourth grade elementary school students to help them learn sound-spelling

correspondence, parts of speech, correct use of punctuation, grammar, and idiomatic expressions.

In a fourth grade English textbook, for instance, an activity of copying key words which is a

shallow or perceptual level of ‘copying’ activity is included in each chapter. One of the topics

of a chapter for the textbook is ‘Who is she?’ After listening and repeating such expressions as

16
‘Who is he?’, ‘Who is she?’, ‘He is Minsu. He is my brother.’; ‘She is Julie. She is my sister.’,

etc., an activity of copying such words as ‘father,’ ‘mother,’ ‘brother,’ and ‘sister’ twice or more

is presented (Hong, 2008). Through this type of ‘copying’ activity, students are able to learn the

English sound-spelling correspondence. For a sixth grade English textbook, a deeper level of

‘copying’ activities are presented. For example, one of the topics of a chapter is ‘I’m stronger

than you’ and introduces the comparative degree. After learning how to change such adjectives

as ‘big,’ ‘small,’ ‘tall,’ and ‘short,’ to the comparative form—‘bigger,’ ‘smaller,’ ‘taller,’

‘shorter,’—an activity of ‘copying’ several sentences which includes the comparative degree is

presented as below:
2
다음 문장을 옮겨 써 보세요.
보세요

Tom is my friend.
He is very kind.
He is taller than me.
He is faster than me, too (Pyeon, 2006, p. 31).

_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________

By copying these sentences within a thematic context, students are able to learn how to write

sentences with correct spelling and grammar. Another example of a deeper level of ‘copying’

activity for sixth graders which requires their consciousness is included in the last chapter of the

textbook. The topic of the chapter is ‘So long, everyone!,’ and the chapter introduces listening

and repeating activities of how to say goodbye to friends and teachers at the end of the semester

as well as reading and writing activities of how to write letters to friends. To enhance students’

2
This sentence can be translated into English as ‘Copy the following sentences.’

17
consciousness of writing conventions, the following ‘copying’ activity is presented:
3
틀린 부분을 고쳐서 다시 써 보세요.
보세요

dear Andy, _______________

Hello, my name is Lee, Nami. _____________________________________

I live in Seoul, Korea. I’m 13 years old. I
have one brother. I like playing computer
games, I want to know about you.
Please Write me back.
Good-bye?
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
________________________________
_____________________________________

Nami (Pyeon, 2006, p. 127) _________________

Students have to read the text, find and correct the mistakes, and copy the text correctly. The

mistakes include capital or small letter errors and punctuation errors but not grammatical errors.

Through this type of activity, students are expected to be able to understand the text content and

correct use of writing conventions, and eventually write personal letters to their friends correctly

and appropriately.

No further ‘copying’ activities for English teaching are officially recommended or

specified beyond sixth grade in the national curriculum. However, Lee (2003) describes the

important roles of ‘copying’ in high school classrooms, indicating that ‘copying’ is a commonly

used strategy for high school students as well as for elementary and middle school students.

She talks about two types of copying. One is ‘mechanical copying’ which, as we have seen, is

referred to as a shallow or perceptual level of ‘copying.’ It includes writing the alphabet,

correct word spelling, contracted forms of words, and sentences focusing on punctuation, word

order, and the meanings of words. She states that this type of ‘copying’ is always used as an

advance preparation for a class to help students preview new words and phrases within reading

3
This sentence can be translated into English as ‘Rewrite the sentences by correcting mistakes.’

18
texts. The other type is simply called ‘copying’ which seems to be more or less a deeper level

of ‘copying.’ It involves writing down the full text of each chapter in a textbook with an

understanding of the content and an awareness of what is being copied. Lee (2003) emphasizes

that this type of ‘copying’ should be used after students learn every chapter and completely

understand the text. She further adds that all sentences should be translated, and the sentence

structures and grammar should also be explicitly explained so that students can learn good

sentence organization. She also states that it would be more effective to ‘copy’ the sentences of

the text in L2 first and ‘copy’ the translated sentences in L1. Secondly, this can facilitate

students’ consciousness of syntactic and word order differences between L1 and L2 and thereby

help them produce sentences correctly as well as appropriately. She mentions that the deeper

level of ‘copying’ processing can consequently enhance concentration, learning motivation, class

participation, long-term memory of vocabulary, sentence structure, and confidence.

In Lee’s (2003) study, she compared two groups of high school Korean students whose

English proficiency level was low. The control group memorized new vocabulary and read a

text and translated it whenever learning a new chapter, whereas the experimental group copied

new vocabulary in English and a text in both English and Korean. Tests of reading

comprehension, vocabulary, and grammar were conducted three times. The final test’s mean

scores of the experimental group was significantly higher (M=70.7) than those of the control

group (M=47.9). However, a writing test was not given due to the difficulty of grading a large

number of students’ papers. In addition, other kinds of activities such as dictation, filling in

blanks with correct grammatical forms and vocabulary, and changing sentences by using

different tenses and personal pronouns were done in addition to ‘copying’ activities. Therefore,

it is difficult to determine the pure efficacy of a deeper level of ‘copying.’ Also, since no

19
methods such as interviews, think-aloud protocols, and surveys were used, how students felt and

in what ways ‘copying’ helped or impeded their learning were not determined. Furthermore,

since the study participants were all at a low proficiency level, there was no information about

‘copying’ benefits for advanced level students. Nevertheless, the study suggests that a deeper

level of ‘copying’ is and can be a useful method to enhance vocabulary, grammar knowledge,

and reading comprehension for high school students at a low proficiency level.

Park (2000) points out that a shallow or perceptual level of ‘copying’ is needed for low

proficiency level students to help them focus on the similarities and differences between L1 and

L2 and become more confident in writing. In addition, she emphasizes not only the product but

also process of ‘copying’ saying that ‘copying’ should be done after completely learning and

understanding a text; that it should be repeated and practiced many times until they can

understand sound-symbol correspondences and produce fluent sentences, and that it should be

monitored and reviewed constantly by students while ‘copying.’ Park (2000) suggests the

possibility of using a deeper level of ‘copying’ for advanced level students. She asserts that

‘copying’ can be continuously used when students are engaged in advanced writing practice.

To be specific, it would be helpful for them to make lists of words to be learned and ‘copy’ them

several times focusing on peculiarities of orthography when reading new texts. Whenever

students come across new words and phrases, they could be constantly added to the lists,

reviewed, memorized, and learned by ‘copying’ them.

While Jimin’s (2006) and Hahn’s (2006) studies did not focus on ‘copying,’ their studies

showed that students of all ages and proficiency levels wanted explicit instruction to expand

vocabulary and grammar knowledge for writing, which implies that ‘copying’ may benefit

elementary through college level, and beginning through advanced level students to learn sound-

20
spelling-meaning correspondence of vocabulary, phrases, sentence structure and organization, as

well as grammar.

To sum up, ‘copying’ appears to progress along a continuum from a shallow or

perceptual level of ‘copying’ which is useful for accuracy of writing in that it helps students learn

writing conventions, to a deeper level of ‘copying’ which is useful for fluency of writing in that it

helps students enhance reading comprehension, expand vocabulary and grammar knowledge and

apply them to their own writing. The two types of ‘copying’ can benefit both L1 and L2

learning. Research on both types of ‘copying,’ however, focused on the usefulness of ‘copying’

for low level students but not advanced level students. It is thus not known what effect

‘copying’ would have on students of other levels, and the kinds of advantages it would offer for

these groups of students.

Definition of ‘Summarizing’ and its Roles, Perceptions, and Use in English in First, Second,

and Foreign Language Contexts

‘Summarizing’ has been considered an essential and valuable study skill required in

academic settings (Guido & Colwell, 1987; Joh, 2000; Oh, 2007). Oh (2007) mentions that

“one cannot learn a language and communicate in that language” (p. 124) successfully without

having the ability to summarize. Thus, unlike ‘copying, ‘summarizing’ has been used in all

English teaching situations. ‘Summarizing’ is defined as an activity of writing “a brief

statement that represents the condensation of information accessible to a subject and reflects the

gist of the discourse” (Johnson, 1983, cited in Hidi & Anderson, 1986, p. 473), and it requires

condensing all significant facts of the original such as overall thesis, main points, and important

supporting details in one’s own words (Hidi & Anderson, 1986).

21
 Many advantages of ‘summarizing’ in language learning have been found.

‘Summarizing’ helps students monitor, insure, and enhance comprehension and recall of texts,

facilitate long-term memory, and clarify meaning and important discourse (Joh, 2000; Oh, 2007;

Palinscar, 1985; Rohler & Duffy, 1984). Guido and Colwell (1987) consider ‘summarizing’ as

a deeper level of processing which demands that students decide which parts are important or not

to include for their summary writings. This implies that ‘summarizing’ can foster reading

comprehension and the ability to restructure text. Newfields (2001) explains two different

types of summarizing: a word level summarizing and a deep level summarizing. The former

means making word level transformations while maintaining the original syntax of sentences.

The researcher would refer to this as a shallow or perceptual level of ‘summarizing.’ The latter

means making deep level transformations and making morphological, syntactic, and lexical

changes of sentences and thus requires a clear understanding of sentence meaning and the ability

to decide what is important and should be included in the summary. The researcher will refer to

this as a deeper level of ‘summarizing.’ If one is at a low proficiency level and has difficulty in

understanding an L2 text as well as the purposes and ways of ‘summarizing,’ s/he might

‘summarize’ the text by using synonyms or simply rewording sentences. This would be

perceived as a shallow or perceptual level of ‘summarizing’ processing. However, through

development of his/her L2, understanding of a given text and a ‘summarizing’ task, together with

multiple ‘summarizing’ task exercises, s/he will be able to engage in a deeper level of

‘summarizing’ processing by making various deep level sentence changes. Taylor (1982)

discovered that a deeper level of ‘summarizing’ was useful in recalling the content of reading

material as a post-reading activity. In addition, Taylor and Beach (1984) found that a deeper

level of ‘summarizing’ could improve the quality of students’ expository writing. In this sense,

22
‘summarizing’ could be posited as an independent continuum which includes different stages as

‘copying’ does: beginning from a shallow or perceptual level of processing to a deeper level of

processing.

Since one needs to read and understand a text, identify main ideas, distinguish main

ideas from supporting details, decide the structure and organization of the text, and reorganize

sequences of events in order to write a good summary (Oh, 2007), many researchers state that a

certain level of students’ reading and writing ability is necessary to complete these tasks (Brown

et al., 1981; Brown & Smiley, 1978; Coffman, 1994; Garner, 1985; Hidi & Anderson, 1986;

Johns, 1985; King, Biggs, & Lipsky, 1984; Taylor, 1984). Wignograd (1984) also mentions that

a good summary conveys the main points precisely, and here, he defines the main points as the

ideas which are specifically identified as important in a rating or selection task and then included

into summaries by fluent adult readers. Thus, writing a good summary and being engaged in a

deeper level of ‘summarizing’ processing implies a complexity and need for higher language

proficiency.

Much of L1 research has focused on identifying the kinds of factors (e.g. age, language

proficiency, length and complexity of texts, motivation, confidence, and background knowledge

of the subject) that influence one to write a good or deeper level summary and to use effective

reading and writing strategies (Brown et al., 1981; Johnson, 1983; Kirkland & Saunders, 1991;

Rinehart & Thomas, 1993; Taylor, 1986; Yang & Shi, 2003). However, most researchers

addressed the quality of ‘summarizing’ rather than the specific strategies used in ‘summarizing’

or the benefits of ‘summarizing’ for language development. In Wignograd’s (1984) study, age

and proficiency level differences were taken into account. He compared three groups: adults,

advanced proficiency level children, and low proficiency level children. The adults and

23
advanced level children wrote deeper level summaries by employing higher order thinking

strategies. They did well in identifying important points of texts by using contextual cues and

what the authors of the texts considered important through textual cues and including them into

their summaries. They were also better than low proficiency level children at integrating

individual proportions into larger units. Wignograd concluded that proficiency level was a

major factor contributing to students’ ability to write a better summary, but age was not. Johns

(1985) also examined differences between academically underprepared and adept adult students.

Advanced level students included more of the idea units found in experts’ summaries than

underprepared students, whereas low level students failed to produce an appropriate condensed

gist of the original text, combine idea units from the text, and include information which was true

to the text. From Wignograd’s (1984) and Johns’ (1985) findings, it can be inferred that

students’ language proficiency level, but not necessarily age, greatly influences their ability to

produce summaries of varying quality and to use more and better skilled strategies.

In terms of the length and complexity of texts, Hidi and Anderson (1986) maintain that

the shorter and simpler the reading text, the less difficulty students will have in ‘summarizing.’

They state that because ideas are closely related in a short text, they can be expressed in a single

topic sentence. In a long text, however, many important ideas have different values and thus

some of the ideas have to be eliminated or condensed appropriately in a summary. They

continue that text complexity is determined based on the difficulty level of the vocabulary,

sentence structure, and organization. Since the more complex texts require students to have

more conscious judgments in establishing relative importance of main ideas and supporting

details and in condensing the main points accurately and concisely, text complexity influences

students’ performances in ‘summarizing.’ Therefore, Hidi and Anderson (1986) state that

24
taking into account text length and complexity with students’ proficiency level is important when

giving a ‘summarizing’ task. However, no research has tested how text length and complexity

affect students’ performances in ‘summarizing’ and in what way they can play a role in students’

language development.

In addition to text variables, students’ personal variables such as their confidence,

background knowledge, and writing experiences in their field are considered important factors

that affect students to write better quality summaries using more and better skilled strategies.

Yang and Shi (2003) explored how these personal variables would make differences in university

students’ summary writing. They found that the more confident students were, the more

familiar with the field and text they were, and the more summary or other types of writing

experiences they had, the better they did on a ‘summarizing’ task. Yang and Shi (2003) also

looked at both the products of students’ summaries and the processes of their ‘summarizing.’

They identified the kinds of common strategies students used during the planning, composing,

and editing stages of ‘summarizing.’ Individual students showed different patterns of strategy

use. However, in general, students used more strategies when they were more confident and

had more background knowledge and more writing experiences. Even though the products and

processes of ‘summarizing’ were explored in Yang and Shi’s (2003) study, students’ different

proficiency levels were not explicitly taken into consideration. Also, the kinds of advantages

‘summarizing’ can bring in terms of language development were not explored.

In one EFL context, Korea, a shallow or perceptual level of ‘summarizing’ and a deeper

level of ‘summarizing,’ similar to the two different levels of ‘copying,’ have been recommended

for both L1 and L2 learning. The national curriculum of English education introduces

‘summarizing’ activities in the second year of middle school, whereas the national curriculum of

25
Korean education introduces ‘summarizing’ activities in the second year of elementary school.

Both English and Korean curricula introduce ‘summarizing’ activities later than ‘copying’

activities. The stated purposes of ‘summarizing’ activities in L1 and L2 teaching in Korea are

to help students enhance the understanding of texts, finding main ideas of texts and organize

those ideas coherently in their own writing, expand vocabulary and grammar knowledge, and

learn sentence structure. In other words, ‘summarizing’ has been used to help students develop

reading comprehension and engage them in a deeper level of the language learning process. As

an example, a second year of middle school English textbook includes a shallow or perceptual

level of ‘summarizing’ activities. In each chapter of the textbook, a 250-300 words text is

presented, and an activity of ‘summarizing’ is introduced at the end of some of the chapters.

After reading the comprehension check and grammar lessons related to the text, a ‘summarizing’

activity is presented as a post-reading activity. However, most of the summarized sentences are

already given so that students have to simply fill in several blanks with appropriate words. The

following is a sample activity:

4
본문의 내용을 요약한 다음 글의 빈칸에 알맞은 말을 써 넣어 봅시다.
봅시다

A young man [was hit by]5 the train that was coming _____________ near the station. He
said he was so badly injured that he could not lift his arm above his _______________.
Witnesses said that the young man broke the ___________ rule and that he might not have been
badly injured. A __________ who represented the railway company began to __________ out
cross-examinations. The lawyer went to the hospital _____________ the young man had
stayed. While talking with the ___________ man, the lawyer found out that the man could lift
his arm __________ his head (Bae, et al., 2003, p. 79).

In this exercise, students have to fill in the blanks with words such as ‘slowly,’ ‘head,’ ‘traffic,’

‘lawyer,’ ‘carry,’ ‘where,’ ‘young,’ and ‘over’ that are in the text. This type of activity requires

4
This sentence can be translated in English as ‘Summarize the text and fill in the blanks with appropriate words.’
5
The correction was made within a bracket by the researcher since a mistake was found in the textbook.

26
students to have a clear understanding of the text, main ideas, and supporting details. However,

it does not necessarily require them to decide on the structure and organization of the text and

reorganize sequences of events by using their own words. That is, students may be in a shallow

or perceptual level of ‘summarizing’ stage, but they may not yet be ready to write a deeper level

summary. Compared to the middle school textbook, a second year of high school English

textbook includes a deeper level of ‘summarizing’ activities which require students’ conscious

control over conceptualizing what they are reading and writing. At least one activity of

summarizing is included in each chapter of the textbook. Unlike summarizing a text by filling

in some blanks with appropriate words as in the middle school textbook, the high school

textbook asks students to fill in blanks with appropriate sentences or write down their own

summary in a blank page. A sample activity for second year high school students is as follows:

Read the passage below and summarize it.

What does yawning have to do with sleep?

Yawning is a universal human reaction. Contrary to popular belief, yawning is not a response
to buildup of carbon dioxide or a shortage of oxygen. However, as it has long been thought,
yawning is strongly related to sleepiness. Whether yawning makes it easier or more difficult to
sleep, or has no effect at all, is not yet known. The most interesting and mysterious thing about
yawning is that when a person yawns, it creates a powerful need in others to do the same thing.
It is not known why that is so, but it is thought to be pre-programmed response, similar to a
disease that can be passed from one person to another by touch (Shin, Jung, Jang, Cho, & Miller,
2009, p. 202).


Although the given text is relatively short, students must no only understand what the main idea

and supporting details are but also decide what is important and what to include into their

27
summaries. In addition, they may need to make changes in sentence structure and organization,

choose appropriate vocabulary, and consider grammatical correctness. Thus, this type of

decision-making activity can help students remember what they have read better and condense

ideas of the text clearly and briefly.

Most research on ‘summarizing’ has focused on what kinds of factors have caused

students to write better summaries, what good and poor summaries looked like, and how higher

and lower language proficiency level students have summarized and what kinds of strategies

they have used. No explicit attention has been given to the usefulness of a shallow or

perceptual form of ‘summarizing’ and that of a deeper level for language development. More

specifically, which areas of reading and writing can be improved through ‘summarizing’ and how

different proficiency levels of students can benefit from it have scarcely been discussed except in

one Korean study. Joh (2000) believed that a deeper level of ‘summarizing’ would have

positive effects on improving reading comprehension and writing ability. In Joh’s study, the

proficiency levels of university students who participated in the study were not considered.

However, she found that ‘summarizing’ helped students expand vocabulary knowledge, enhance

reading comprehension of texts, use more complex reading and writing strategies (e.g. finding an

author’s intended meaning by approaching the text from his/her point of view, finding main ideas

while identifying more important and less important points of the text rapidly), and develop the

quality of expository writing.

To sum up, more germane than age differences, advanced proficiency level students

wrote more comprehensive (better) and complex (deeper level of) summaries than did low

proficiency level students in both L1 and L2. This implies that a deeper level of ‘summarizing’

practice is useful and possible for advanced level students regardless of age differences.

28
However, it is unknown if those with a low reading and writing proficiency benefit from a

shallow or perceptual level of ‘summarizing’ and move on to a deeper level stage. Research

indicates that a deeper level of ‘summarizing’ is effective for vocabulary learning, reading

comprehension enhancement, and writing improvement. Most research has focused on how

text variables and students’ proficiency levels and personal variables affect the quality of

students’ summaries. However, how students of various proficiency levels would differently

approach a text and ‘summarizing’ task, and how a deeper level of ‘summarizing’ would benefit

specific areas of reading and writing development for different proficiency levels of students

have not been explored. There is a need to fill gaps in ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ research in

order to provide better reading and writing instruction guidelines for varying proficiency levels

of students in language learning. In this dissertation study, the researcher will further propose

that ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ be viewed as two independent continuums as shown in Figure

2. This view of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ differ from the view shown earlier in Figure 1.

Figure 1 showed ‘copying’ as being on the same continuum as ‘summarizing’ and also as a

beginning stage of ‘summarizing,’ whereas Figure 2 considers ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ as

two different continuums which begin at the stage of a shallow or perceptual level of processing

and in progressing to a much deeper level stage.

29
Figure 2
‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ as Independent Continuums

Shallow/Perceptual Level of Copying Deeper Level of Copying

focusing on letters or structural elements

writing down the alphabet, spelling of
words, and contracted forms of words or
sentences focusing on punctuation, word
order, and meanings of words

short-term retention if no continuous
practice and efforts are made

can help language learners understand and
use writing conventions correctly
Shallow/Perceptual Level of Summarizing

focusing on sentences separately from the
whole text

making word level changes and maintaining
original syntax of sentences
Note: Language learners at this level have
difficulties with deciding what to
include or not into their summaries.

focusing on meaning or semantic
components

writing down the full text with
understanding of the content and awareness
of what is being copied

longer retention if continuous practice of
copying and efforts of remembering and
using words, expressions, and grammar are
made

can help language learners understand and
use vocabulary, expressions, and grammar
correctly and appropriately in their writings
Deeper Level of Summarizing

focusing on sentences within the whole text
with enough understanding of the content

making deep level changes, making
morphological, syntactic, and lexical
changes
Note: Language learners at this level can
specify the main ideas and supporting
ideas of a text and decide what to
include or exclude in their summaries
even though it is not perfect.

Theoretical Framework: Metacognitive Perspective of the Reading-Writing Relationships

Employing a metacognitive perspective of reading-writing relationships as a theoretical

framework may have explanatory power to explain the processes of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing.’

Metacognition is simply thinking about thinking (Anderson, 2008; Devine, Railey, & Boshoff,

1993) but, more broadly, it involves the “ability to think about one’s cognitions [sic] [and

knowledge of] how to analyze, to draw conclusions, to learn from, and to put into practice what

has been learned” (King, 2003, p. 4). Samuels, Ediger, Willcutt, and Palumbo (2005) maintain

30
that if students are aware that they are not understanding what they are reading, they will become

more self-aware and self-informed and thus “better prepared to take the necessary and

appropriate steps towards achieving understanding” (Samuels, Ediger, Willcutt, & Palumbo,

2005, p. 42). Self-awareness would be important in writing as well as in reading. That is,

being consciously aware of what one does and does not know about what s/he is reading and

writing, s/he will find better ways to improve reading and writing, and consequently approach a

deeper level of language learning process (Schallert, 1976) and improve reading and writing

abilities. Flavell (1971), one of the pioneers in metacognition research, states that

“metacongitive thoughts are deliberate, planful, intentional, goal-directed, and future-oriented

mental behaviors that can be used to accomplish cognitive tasks” (Flavell, 1971, cited in Samuels,

Ediger, Willcutt, & Palumbo, 2005, p. 42). Flavell (1978) emphasizes learners’ understanding

of their personal abilities, given tasks, and appropriate uses of strategies. Another pioneer,

Brown (1978, 1987), highlights the importance of revising one’s actions to solve problems,

remember information, and comprehend texts. Flavell (1978) identifies two dimensions of

metacognition: knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. The first dimension,

knowledge of cognition, involves three interacting variables: person, task, and strategy.

The person variable encompasses people’s beliefs and understanding of how they learn.

For example, ‘I can learn better through reading rather than listening.’ The task variable relates

to the goals, demands, and difficulty of a task and its impact on the process of learning. The

strategy variable involves knowledge of choosing appropriate and effective strategies to achieve

various cognitive goals (Flavell, 1978; Devine, Railey, & Boshoff, 1993). The latter dimension,

regulation of cognition, includes learners’ planning, monitoring, and evaluating activities that

help them control their cognition (Paris, Cross, & Lipson, 1984; Xiao, 2007; Devine, Railey, &

31
Boshoff, 1993). Planning activities involve setting a learning goal by thinking about what one

needs or wants to achieve and how s/he tries to accomplish it. Monitoring activities involve

keeping oneself on track to meet the learning goal by constantly asking him/her if s/he is using

the strategies as intended. Evaluating activities include reflecting on what one is trying to

accomplish, what strategies s/he is using, how well s/he is using, and what else s/he can do

(Anderson, 2002; Thamraksa, 2005).

While Flavell (1978) puts more emphasis on the first dimension, Brown (1978, 1987)

puts more emphasis on the second dimension. Later, Paris and Winograd (1990) use such terms

as ‘cognitive self-appraisal’ and ‘self-management’ and consider them as important features of

metacognition which can explain the process of evaluating and orchestrating one’s behavior and

thinking. Scott and Andrea (1993) more specifically state that ‘cognitive self-appraisal’

involves “personal evaluation of literacy tasks [and] questions about personal knowledge and

abilities” (Scott & Andrea, 1993, p. 7), and ‘cognitive self-management” involves “the ability to

plan reading and writing activities, to monitor comprehension and communication, and to take

steps to repair literacy when one’s goals are not achieved” (pp. 7-8). It is clear that

metacognition plays an important role in reading and writing (Flavell, 1978) in that it guides

learners to plan their learning, monitor their process, and review their achievement and future

learning directions (Anderson, 2008).

Flavell’s (1978) and Brown’s (1990) theories of metacognition will be used in

investigating the roles of metacongition in reading and writing. In the process of reading a text

and writing about it, learners will differ in how they think and learn by using metacognition to

understand a text and write a well-structured text. In other words, based on the learner factors

such as learning styles, motivation, reading and writing proficiency levels, and age—the kinds,

32
goals, demands, and difficulty levels of a given task—the kinds of strategies used, the ways the

learner approaches reading and writing and the ways that s/he understands, plans, monitors,

revises, and evaluates his/her learning will vary.

When relating the metacognitive perspectives of the reading and writing framework to

two different tasks, ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing,’ students’ metacognition will be assumed to

operate differently depending on personal variables. Also, the kinds of metacognitive strategies

different students use are assumed to vary. As discussed in the literature review section, both

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ are viewed as integrated activities of reading and writing. When

‘copying,’ it is assumed that students read a text, understand its contents, copy the text, and

check for the accuracy of the copied text. Similarly, when ‘summarizing,’ students are assumed

to read and understand a text, plan which content to include and how to organize a summary,

write a summary, and check for the accuracy and fluency of the summary. Students will use

different kinds of planning, monitoring, and evaluating strategies during ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ which they believe are more effective. For example, they might use a dictionary

and write down the meanings of unfamiliar words, phrases, and idiomatic expressions found in a

text when reading it. They might write down not only the meanings but also the usages with

sample sentences. L2 to L1 transfer might also occur when reading the text and checking for

the accuracy and fluency of a copied or summarized text. Previous research found that

‘summarizing’ would be affected by text variables and personal variables. That is, depending

on how motivated and confident students are, how proficient they are, how familiar they are with

the reading materials and the ‘summarizing’ task, and how long, difficult, and complex the

reading materials are, students can write either good or poor summaries and engage in either a

deeper level or in a shallow or perceptual level of ‘summarizing’ processing. The possibility

33
exists that this could also apply to the ‘copying’ task although it has not been found in any of the

research on ‘copying.’ In short, within the metacognitive perspective of reading and writing

integrated framework, person, task, and strategy variables interact with one another with

planning, monitoring, and reviewing processes. The role of metacognition in ‘copying’ and

summarizing’ is outlined in Figure 3.

Figure 3
Metacognitive Processes in Reading and Writing Metacognition

Reading and Writing

Person Task Strategies

-Language proficiency -Task goals -Planning (goal setting, writing an outline)

-Motivation, Confidence
-Background knowledge
& experience
summarizing a text) -Reviewing/Evaluating (checking forms
-Task demands -Monitoring (re-reading a text to check
-Task difficulty for understanding or to remember
(e.g. reading and content, re-reading written sentences or
copying a text, reviewing an outline to get ideas about
reading and how to continue or change)
and content of written texts, checking
accuracy of condensed representation
of the essential information in the
original text, checking lexical or
grammatical correctness)

Knowing that metacognition in reading and writing is essential for successful learning (Baker &

Brown, 1984; Scott & Andrea, 1993) and that metacognition plays important roles in ‘copying’

and ‘summarizing’ (Kirkland & Saunders, 1991), it would be worthwhile to look at how different

proficiency levels of students metacognitively think and learn when ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’

tasks are given. Thus, the metacognitive perspective of the reading-writing relationships will

serve as a theoretical framework.

34
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This study aimed to examine the advantages of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities in

improving English reading and writing proficiency for 60 Korean university students who were

pre-service teachers of English. This chapter presents research approaches of this study, and is

organized in the following order: 1) English education in Korea, 2) pre-service teacher education

in Korea, 3) participants, 4) instructor’s and researcher’s roles, 5) data collection procedures, and

6) data analysis.

English Education in Korea

Korean school system consists of elementary school (6 years), middle school (3 years),

high school (3 years), and university (2 to 4 years). Elementary and middle school education is

compulsory. As a matter of fact, English education started in the late 19th century. However,

it was after the Korean War in 1950 when English was taught as a required foreign language at

the secondary school level. As English became a global language with the development of

information technology, it has been included in the elementary school curriculum since 1997.

Elementary school students thus learn English from the third grade. They have one to two

English classes every week and usually learn simple English expressions with songs and games.

Middle and high school students learn English as one of the major subjects along with Korean

and Mathematics. Since secondary school education is considered crucial for gaining

admission into universities, students are eager to gain a good grade on school exams.

Consequently, both English teachers and students focus on the skills which would be necessary

35
to answer the exam questions and particularly put great attention to reading and grammar.

Although there are three to four English classes every week, students do not have enough

opportunity to practice speaking. University students are required to take some English classes,

and often expected to reach a certain level of English proficiency for graduation. Most English

classes consist of reading activities and conversation practices (Cho, 2004).

Pre-Service Teacher Education in Korea

Whereas the U.S. or Australia has decentralized teacher education systems, Korea has a

centralized system of teacher education and certification. This allows the government to have a

strong control over the system (Educational Testing Service, 2003). Elementary and secondary

teacher education programs are provided by colleges, universities, and graduate schools of

education, and these institutions recruit about 25,000 pre-service teachers and certify 13,000

prospective teachers every year (Kwon, 2004). The teaching certificate programs in the

institutions provide courses in subject content areas and educational theories and pedagogy.

Also, they provide a practicum class for students’ teaching experience. Students who meet the

requirements receive the initial teaching certificate. To become a tenured teacher at national or

public schools, however, they should pass a national examination, the Teacher Certification

Exam (So, Lee, Roh, & Lee, 2010). The number of teachers for various subjects including

English is determined by the education offices in different cities and provinces every year.

However, passing the exam is extremely difficult because there are few vacancies for every

subject. Teaching job guarantees a stable life and quite high social status even though teachers’

salaries are generally less than other similarly educated professionals’ who are working in

business sectors (So, Lee, Roh, & Lee, 2010).

36
 Participants

Sixty juniors between the ages of 21 and 39 in a Korean university, located in the capital

of Korea, Seoul, in an ‘English Teaching Methodology’ course were recruited for the study.

Seventy five students were in the class at the beginning of the semester, but three students

dropped the course at the end of the first week, four students registered for the course in the

middle of the second week (They missed the pre-test which was given in the first week.

Although the researcher gave them the pre-test at the end of the second week, she excluded them

from the study because they might have heard about the pre-test questions from other students

and this might have affected their test results.), and the other eight students failed to complete or

submit the course requirement (i.e. portfolios). Accordingly, 15 students were excluded from

the study, and only 60 students were taken into account as the study participants. The 60

students were mostly English or other foreign language education majors, and had diverse

English proficiency levels. Some of them (40 students) represented the first generation to start

officially learning English beginning in the third grade of elementary school in 1997 and had

entered college right after high school. Other students (20 students) had served in the army or

had had a leave of absence from school. These students had started to learn English in middle

school even though they had unofficially studied English earlier in private institutes. Thus, the

students’ proficiency levels and lengths of time studying English varied. The students were pre-

service teachers and were preparing to teach English to middle or high school students after

graduation. They were taking the same course taught by the same instructor but on different

days in order to spread out the class load.

Based on the responses to some of the background information questions given

(Appendix 1), the students’ demographic information such as age, gender, major, number of

37
years studying English in school, and number of years studying English outside of school (e.g.

from an English tutor, from parents) or in private institutes is shown in Table 1:

Table 1
The Students’ Demographic Information
Demographic Information Numbers of Indication
1. Age Range between 21 and 39
(M=24.5, SD=3.5, N= 60)
2. Gender
1) Male N=18
2) Female N=42
3. Major
1) English Education N=45
2) English Language and Literature N=4
3) German Language and Literature N=3
4) Education N=8
4. Number of years studying English in school M=9.9, SD=2.1, N= 60
5. Number of years studying English outside of
M=5.6, SD=4.9, N= 60
school or in private institutes

In addition to the demographic information, the students’ reasons for learning English are shown

in Table 2.

Table 2
The Students’ Reasons for Learning English
Question: Why are you learning English? (Circle all that apply.) Number of responses
1. I need to use English in my work. 56
2. English will help me earn a higher salary. 35
3. I want to make friends with native English speakers. 35
4. I am interested in understanding cultures where English is spoken. 40
5. Knowing English will bring me prestige or status. 27
6. I must know English to study abroad (e.g. to apply for universities
13
in English-speaking countries.)
7. I am learning English because it is interesting. 38
8. Other (Please specify in either English or Korean.) .
Total 244

The majority of the students (54 among 60 students) thought that English would be essential for

their future career. Another popular reason for learning English was to understand the culture

38
of English-speaking countries (40 students). The students might have thought that not only

producing fluent English but also understanding the culture of English users would be vital to

communicate well with not only native speakers but also non-native speakers of English. Still,

many (35 students) believed that being good at English could secure them a higher salary and

help them to have good relations with native English speakers. Other than having definite

purposes for learning English, 38 students responded that they had been learning English simply

because they liked it very much. Notably, ‘getting prestige or status’ and ‘studying abroad’

were the least important reasons for learning English. Although it was not asked, many of these

teaching candidates may have desired to become teachers of English simply because they liked

teaching and not to gain a good social position. Also, many of them may have wanted to pass

the Teacher Certification Exam and teach immediately after their graduation, and thus may not

have thought about studying aboard.

In order to determine the students’ reading and writing proficiency levels, a pre-test was

given at the beginning of the semester. On the basis of the results, the students were divided

into two groups: lower level and higher level. Additionally, their scores on the TOEFL or

TOEIC and their final grades of English reading or writing related courses were gathered as part

of the background information questions. These scores and grades allowed the researcher to

divide the students into two proficiency level groups based on varied evaluation methods to

determine their English proficiency level. Twenty of the 60 students provided the Test of

English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or the Test of English for International Communication

(TOEIC) scores, and 23 provided their final grades of English reading or writing courses. The

students who provided TOEIC results had scored between 750 and 990 (990 being the highest

score possible) and those who provided Internet-based Test (iBT) TOEFL results had scored

39
between 85 and 100 (120 being the highest score possible). In addition, the students who

provided their final grades of English reading or writing courses received between an ‘A+’ and

‘C’ based on the standard scale of the university. Regardless of the two different class sections,

about half of the lower proficiency level students and higher proficiency level students were

given a ‘copying’ task while the other half of them were given a ‘summarizing’ task. The pre-

test mean scores of higher level students in the ‘copying’ (N=18, M=48.96) and ‘summarizing’

(N=16, M=49.33) groups were originally almost the same. Also, the mean scores of lower level

students in the ‘copying’ (N=16, M=37.13) and ‘summarizing’ (N=18, M=37.5) groups were

almost the same at the beginning. However, since eight students were eliminated from the

study at the end of the semester, the means scores of each group were re-calculated. As a result,

the mean scores of higher level students in the ‘copying’ (N=15, M=46.80) and ‘summarizing’

(N=14, M=49.03) groups and the mean scores of lower level students in the ‘copying’ (N=15,

M=35.73) and ‘summarizing’ (N=15, M=39.90) groups turned out to be statistically similar but

not quite the same as the beginning of the semester.

Instructor’s and Researcher’s Roles

The instructor had 30 years of teaching experience in the university and had taught the

‘English Teaching Methodology’ course for more than 20 years. Prior to and throughout the

study, the teacher and researcher continuously had multiple discussion sessions regarding the

order of implementing the study and each of their roles. The instructor played two significant

roles. First, as a course instructor, she assigned the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ tasks to the

students as the course requirement, provided clear guidelines of the tasks, and constantly

encouraged the students to complete the tasks successfully. She had several discussions with

40
the students to make sure if they were doing the tasks well and if they were having any

difficulties. At the end of the semester, she collected the students’ portfolios in which all of

their work was included. Second, as a facilitator of the study, she conducted the pre- and post-

tests and other necessary survey questionnaires as planned. In addition, she allowed and helped

the researcher to have her students participate in the think-aloud interviews and to arrange a

room for the interviews. She further participated in grading the students’ performance on the

pre- and post-tests and in providing feedback for their portfolios.

With the instructor, the researcher played two important roles. First, as a researcher,

she implemented the study based on what she had planned. She handed in the pre- and post-test

questions, survey questionnaires, and guidelines of the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities to

the instructor and let her provide them to the students and collect the students’ responses on them

in time. She, however, neither visited the instructor’s class in person nor participated in any of

the discussions between the instructor and the students. She met some students and

communicated with them in person only during the think-aloud interview sessions. Finally, she

analyzed and interpreted all the collected data of the pre- and post-tests, survey questionnaires,

think-aloud interviews, and portfolios. Second, as a colleague, the researcher shared

information with the instructor about what was happening during the discussion sessions, what

should be discussed more for the next sessions, what should be revised or changed later when

using the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities for other groups of students next semester, etc.

She further participated in grading the students’ performance on the pre- and post-tests with the

instructor and a native speaker of English instructor to increase inter-rater reliability.

41
 Data Collection Procedures

Pre-test and Post-test

At the beginning of the semester, a pre-test was given to both groups to identify the

students’ reading and writing ability levels. The test consisted of one writing question and 23

reading questions comprising 18 comprehension questions and 5 vocabulary questions

(Appendix 2). The test questions were adopted from Barron’s TOEFL iBT Internet-Based Test,

Barron’s Writing for the TOEFL iBT, and http://www.qenglish.com/samples/15280.html

(QEnglish.com, 2006). A post-test, which was given at the end of the semester, was the parallel

to the pre-test. The rationale for using the same test for the pre- and post-tests was “to assure an

exactly comparable test, thus avoiding the problem of equating different forms of pre-test and

post-test” (Song, 1998, p. 43). The students were given about 80 minutes to complete both the

pre- and post-tests. The answers for the post-test were provided at the end of the semester.

The texts for the reading part were selected based on Lexile measures (www.lexile.com).

The Lexile measures have been used by educators, parents, and readers of all ages for 20 years

(Lennon & Burdick, 2004). They take into account two factors: word frequency (or semantic

difficulty) and sentence length (or syntactic complexity). “The relationship of these two factors

within a text contributes to a single Lexile measure for that text” (Lennon & Burdick, 2004, p. 3).

The Lexile of any text can be automatically calculated for free by the Lexile analyzer at the

following website:

http://www.lexile.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?view=ed&tabindex=2&tabid=16&tabpageid=335.

There is a specified relationship between grade level of the U.S. students and the Lexile rankings

specified by www.lexile.com (Table 3).

42
Table 3
The Relationship Between Grades and Lexile Rankings
Text Measures
Grade
(from the Lexile Map)
Grade 1 200 to 400
Grade 2 300 to 500
Grade 3 500 to 700
Grade 4 650 to 850
Grade 5 750 to 950
Grade 6 850 to 1050
Grade 7 950 to 1075
Grade 8 1000 to 1100
Grade 9 1050 to 1150
Grade 10 1100 to 1200
Grade 11 & 12 1100 to 1300

The Lexile is used to estimate the approximate grade level reading ability required for

comprehension, even though the specified grade level does not necessarily reflect a student’s

actual grade. Unfortunately, no description exists concerning how well students in each grade

level from grades 1 to 12 can read or write in English. The Indiana’s Academic Standards of

English and Language Arts found in

http://dc.doe.in.gov/Standards/AcademicStandards/index.shtml was thus used to describe the

grade levels in Table 3 throughout the study in order to find appropriate level texts for the study

participants.

Two parallel reading texts were selected for the reading part of the pre- and post-tests to

determine the students’ previous reading proficiency levels at the beginning of the semester and

also to check the students’ reading improvement at the end of the semester. The first text was

selected by the researcher and the course instructor to reflect the targeted grade level (i.e. grade

11-12 with L1100-1300) that they aimed at. The other was a text at a lower grade level (i.e.

43
grade 7-8 with L950-1100) so that low proficiency level students would not be frustrated with

the pre-test. The Lexile for the selected texts were thus L1230 (grade 11-12) and L970 (grade

7), respectively. According to the Indiana’s Academic Standards of English and Language Arts,

students at grade level 11-12, which is the expected grade level of the study participants, are able

to:

1) analyze features and rhetorical (persuasive) devices of different kinds of public documents,

and the way in which authors use those features and devices.

2) analyze the way in which clarity of meaning is affected by the patterns of organization,

repetition of the main ideas, organization of language, and word choice in the text.

3) make reasonable assertions about an author’s arguments by using elements of the text to

defend and clarify interpretations.

4) analyze an author’s implicit and explicit assumptions and beliefs about a subject.

5) use point of view, characterization, style, and related elements for specific narrative and

artistic purposes.

6) structure ideas and arguments in a sustained and persuasive way and support them with

precise and relevant examples.

7) use varied and extended vocabulary, appropriate for specific forms and topics.

8) accumulate, review, and evaluate writing to determine its strengths and weaknesses.

9) further develop unique writing style and voice, improve sentence variety, and enhance

subtlety of meaning and tone.

10) demonstrate control of grammar, diction, paragraph and sentence structure, and an

understanding of English usage.

11) produce writing that shows accurate spelling and correct punctuation and capitalization.

44
12) apply knowledge of word parts to draw inferences about the meaning of terminology used

in specific fields or areas.

The two parts of the test were arranged according to topics and contents. The reading

part had two reading texts with 23 questions and required the students to read the texts and

answer the questions about the main or supporting ideas (3 questions), details (4), inference (11),

and vocabulary use (5). Eighteen of the reading questions were multiple-choice questions, and

five of the vocabulary questions were short-answer questions. The students had to replace the

underlined words in the text with synonymous words or short phrases of their own. They then

had to create their own example sentence with each underlined word. How correctly the

students substituted different words or phrases for the original and how appropriately they used

them within sentences were assessed.

The topic of the writing part (i.e. positive and negative aspects of the Internet) and the

topics of the two reading part texts (i.e. ‘development of clocks’ and ‘the challenges of

technology and equity’) were related in that they were dealing with one broad topic, technology.

The students were asked to write a two to three paragraph argument essay from their own point

of view with clear and specific examples. Their use of sentence structure and organization,

spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and vocabulary were evaluated. At the end of

the semester, a parallel-structured post-test was given. Both the pre- and post-tests’ writing

sections were graded using an analytic rubric, found in Appendix 3, created by three raters, one a

researcher, another an instructor of the course, and still another a native English speaking

instructor in the university. Scores in each category ranged from 4, the highest, to 1, the lowest.

There were five categories: organization, sentence structure/fluency, grammar,

vocabulary/idioms, and mechanics. The highest possible score was 20 points while 4 points

45
was the lowest. The percentage of agreement among the three raters on grading the students’

writing was measured to increase inter-rater reliability. A summary of data collection methods

and procedures is presented in Table 4, and further descriptions follow.

Table 4
Timetable of Data Collection Methods and Procedures
Group Data Copying Group Summarizing Group
Collection Higher Lower Higher Lower
Week Methods Level Level Level Level
Pre-test 60 students took the pre-test and responded to the
& background information questions during the first week of
1. Week 1 Background the semester.
Information
Questions
60 students responded to the Survey of Reading and Writing
2. Week 2 SORWS
Strategies (SORWS) during the second week.
15 students 15 students 14 students 16 students
‘Copying’ or ‘copied’ two ‘copied’ ‘summarized’ ‘summariz
3. Week 3
‘Summarizing’ texts per two texts two texts per ed’ two
(Groups established)
Task week. per week. week. texts per
week.
60 students in two different class sections took the same
course taught by the same instructor but on different days.
Based on their scores on the pre-test and possibly other
Guidelines
scores (e.g. TOEFL, TOEIC), students in each course
1) Week3 &
section were given either a ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ task.
Discussions
In each course section, there were discussions about
‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ tasks, and guidelines of the
tasks were provided with explanations.
Midterm After four weeks of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ tasks, the
Check-up instructor had discussions with each class section of students
2) Week6
& to talk about their concerns or difficulties and the
Discussions appropriateness of the given texts.
After completing ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ tasks, the
Portfolio
3) Week16 students’ work was placed in portfolios and submitted to the
Submission
instructor.

46
 Among the 15 2 students Among the 14 2 students
students who were students who were
reported using engaged in reported using engaged in
the 2 most a think- the 2 most a think-
frequently aloud frequently aloud
used strategies session and used strategies session and
and the 2 least short and the 2 least short
frequently follow-up frequently follow-up
used strategies interview. used strategies interview.
listed in the They talked listed in the They
SORWS, 2 about what SORWS, 2 talked
students were they did students were about what
Think-aloud
randomly and what randomly they did
Sessions
selected. strategies selected. and what
4. Week 13 &
They were they used They were strategies
Short Follow-
engaged in a while engaged in a they used
up Interviews
think-aloud ‘copying.’ think-aloud while
session and session and ‘summarizi
short follow- short follow- ng.’
up interview. up interview.
They talked They talked
about how about how
they read a they read a
text and text and
‘copied’ it and ‘summarized’
what it and what
strategies they strategies they
used. used.
Post-test 60 students took the post-test. They also responded to the
& reflection questionnaire.
5. Week 15
Reflection
Questionnaire
6. After Week 16 Portfolio 60 students got their portfolios back with feedback.
Return

Background Information Questions

In the first week of the semester, nine background information questions were given

(Appendix 1) to the students in order to gather their background information such as age, gender,

major, TOEFL or TOEIC scores, final grades of English reading or writing related courses in the

previous semester, how long they had studied English, hours spent reading and writing in

English per day, areas of interests in reading and writing, topics of interests they wish to read,

and experiences of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ for language learning. The questions required

47
the students to write down brief words or phrases, and circle or check all answer choices that

apply. It took about 10 to 15 minutes for the students to answer all the questions. Texts for

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ were selected based on their answers to the topics they were

interested in reading.

Survey of Reading and Writing Strategies (SORWS)

The students were given the Survey Of Reading and Writing Strategies (SORWS) which

was an adapted form of the Survey Of Reading Strategies (SORS) (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001)

in order to identify metacognitive strategies they used when reading and writing (Appendix 4).

The SORWS was given during the second week of the semester and before the students started

‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activities. It took about 10 to 15 minutes to complete the SORWS,

and a self-scoring guideline (Appendix 5) was provided so that the students could interpret their

responses before the questionnaire was collected.

Originally, the SORS, designed to measure reading strategies in academic reading

contexts, has 30 items and measures three categories of reading strategies: global, problem-

solving, and support strategies. Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) define global strategies as

“intentional, carefully planned techniques by which [students] monitor or manage their reading”

(Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002, p. 6). Problem-solving strategies are defined as localized and

focused techniques used when problems develop in understanding textual information. Support

strategies are the techniques intended to help students in comprehending a text. Mokhtari and

Sheorey (2002) categorized the SORS into these three subsections to analyze and report data.

However, they did not explicitly explain the reasons for this division, and the researcher did not

perceive any utility to preserve these categories for the present study.

48
 The researcher’s aim was to find the students’ use of metacongitive strategies in the

processes of reading and writing. How the students plan, monitor, and evaluate before, during,

and after reading and writing were more germane to the present study as these are important

features of metacongition (Scott & Andrea, 1993). Accordingly, SORS was re-categorized into

three subsections: planning strategies, monitoring strategies, and evaluating strategies. In

addition, SORS only has items which measure reading strategies; therefore, the researcher added

more descriptions to some of the SORS items or created additional items to measure integrated

reading and writing strategies. Moreover, some of the items in the SORS which seemed to be

redundant were deleted or combined with other similar items. For example, some items such as

‘I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understand what I am reading,’ ‘I adjust my reading

speed according to what I am reading,’ and ‘When text becomes difficult, I re-read it to increase

my understanding’ seemed to be similar. Thus, these items were combined into one: ‘I adjust

my reading speed or re-read a text when it becomes difficult or when I want to increase my

understanding.’ In the meantime, an item for writing was added: ‘I re-read what I have written

so far or adjust my writing speed when I come across difficulties in continuing writing.’ As a

result, the SORWS, the revised version of the SORS, came to consist of 36 items with 7 planning

strategy items, 22 monitoring strategy items, and 7 evaluating strategy items.

Before using the SORWS, its reliability was tested to assess how well it would perform

with a similar population to the study participants. Reliabilities of the SORWS overall and each

of its subsections were then calculated through Cronbach’s coefficient alpha which “measure[s]

internal consistency reliability among a group of items combined to form a single scale” (Litwin,

1995, p. 24). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient generally ranges between 0 and 1, and

“the closer [it] is to 1.0, the greater the internal consistency of the items in the scale” (Gliem &

49
Gliem, 2003, p. 87). To be specific, the SORWS had already been given to 35 foreign language

education students of the same university as the participants of the study, and the Cronbach’s

coefficient alpha for the SORWS was calculated. After two weeks, the SORWS was given to

the same students again to measure test-retest reliability. The reliability was examined by a t-

test.

Cronbach’s coefficient alpha according to the students’ first and second responses to the

SORWS is shown in Table 5.

Table 5
Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for the Three Subsections of the SORWS
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
First response Second response
Subsections of the SORWS
Planning Strategies 0.55 0.62
Monitoring Strategies 0.72 0.80
Evaluating Strategies 0.81 0.84
Total 0.84 0.89

According to the students’ first response, the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the overall

SORWS was 0.84. This indicates that there was good internal consistency among the 36 items.

For the students’ second response, the value of alpha for the overall SORWS was 0.89, indicating

good internal consistency of the 36 items as well. When examining three subsections of the

SORWS, however, the alpha value of each one was above 0.70 which was relatively high

compared to the alpha values for one subsection: planning strategies. The alpha values for

planning strategies (0.55 on the first response and 0.62 on the second response) were a little

lower than those for other two subsections. However, the researcher thought those values

would be adequate because the value of Cronbach’s alpha could possibly be decreased when the

number of items decreases (Cortina, 1993). That is, the small number of items (i.e. 7 items)

might be the reason why the planning strategy subsection had slightly lower alpha values of 0.55

50
and 0.62 than those values for other subsections. Thus, even though the values of 0.55 and 0.62

would not be considered ‘good’ or ‘excellent,’ they might, however, be acceptable.

In addition to the Cronbach’s alpha reliability result, the t-test reliability result which

was measured whether there was a statistically significant difference between the students’ first

response and the second response to the SORWS is presented in Table 6.

51
Table 6
Test-retest Reliability for the SORWS between the First and Second Responses
1st response – 2nd response Standard
Mean
Error t df p
Difference
SORWS item number Difference
1 -0.17 0.14 -1.23 34 0.2257
2 -0.20 0.15 -1.36 34 0.1817
3 -0.23 0.15 -1.54 34 0.1325
4 0.09 0.21 0.41 34 0.6865
5 -0.26 0.16 -1.66 34 0.1069
6 -0.29 0.18 -1.58 34 0.1244
7 -0.26 0.18 -1.46 34 0.1522
8 0.31 0.19 1.68 34 0.1017
9 0.26 0.16 1.60 34 0.1186
10 -0.03 0.19 -0.15 34 0.8814
11 -0.09 0.16 -0.53 34 0.5973
12 0.31 0.15 2.15 34 0.0392
13 0.09 0.17 0.52 34 0.6087
14 -0.26 0.18 -1.43 34 0.1629
15 -0.06 0.19 -0.30 34 0.7678
16 -0.26 0.18 -1.39 34 0.1734
17 0.03 0.16 0.18 34 0.8558
18 -0.37 0.21 -1.81 34 0.0793
19 -0.17 0.19 -0.92 34 0.3621
20 0.06 0.19 0.30 34 0.7678
21 0.20 -0.19 -1.04 34 0.3035
22 0.09 0.24 0.36 34 0.7236
23 -0.03 0.19 -0.15 34 0.8814
24 0.11 0.22 0.53 34 0.6002
25 -0.23 0.18 -1.28 34 0.2105
26 -0.09 0.18 -0.48 34 0.6378
27 0.17 0.15 1.14 34 0.2628
28 0 0.19 0.00 34 1.0000
29 0.06 0.14 0.40 34 0.6892
30 -0.51 0.16 -3.31 34 0.0022*
31 -0.09 0.17 -0.52 34 0.6087
32 -0.29 0.11 -2.53 34 0.0161
33 -0.14 0.14 -1.04 34 0.3039
34 -0.29 0.17 -1.66 34 0.1056
35 -0.37 0.21 -1.81 34 0.0793
36 -0.29 0.18 -1.58 34 0.1244
Total -0.09 0.16 -0.53 34 0.3907
Note. * p < .01.

When comparing the students’ first response and second response to the SORWS, no significant

52
difference was found except for item 30. That is, the first and second time responses to the

SORWS were highly consistent rather than different even though the consistency for item 30 was

slightly low. Since the consistencies of the overall and three subsections of the SORWS for

each of the students’ first and second responses were high as well as the consistency of each item

of the SORWS between the students’ first response and second response, it was thought that the

SORWS was judged to be reliable and hence used for the actual dissertation study without any

further revisions. The SORWS, therefore, was given to the 60 students in English.

‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ Tasks

For 12 weeks during the semester, the students read two articles every week and either

‘copied’ or summarized’ them as one of their course requirements. The semester actually had

16 weeks. However, because of the time it took to gather pre-test results, the students’

background information, and the SORWS results, and divide the students into ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ groups, the first two weeks were not taken into account. Also, because of the

busy schedules of the students during midterm and final exam weeks, those two weeks were

excluded. When first introducing the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ tasks in the third week of

the semester, the instructor had a discussion with the students on their thoughts relating to

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ as language development tools and experiences they already had

with ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ when learning a language. The instructor also advised the

students on how reading various texts and ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ them could be helpful for

the students in taking the English teaching methods course and preparing them to become

teachers. She also addressed what kinds of reading and writing strategies could be used and

which steps the students should follow to ‘copy’ or ‘summarize’ given texts. The instructor

53
took note of what had been ‘copied’ or ‘summarized’ in the middle of the semester. At the end

of the semester, the students filed all the work into their binders and submitted them. The

instructor returned the binders back to the students with feedback.

The same texts were given to the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups, thus 24 texts

were given in total. The text topics were selected according to what the students had reported

in the background information questionnaire. The students checked what they read or write the

most in English and what topics they would like to read the most in English. They could check

all of the choices listed in the questionnaire and/or add more which were not listed. The

students’ answers are presented in Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9.

Table 7
What the Students Read the Most in English
Question: What do you mostly read in English?
Number of responses
(Check all that apply.)
1. Blogs/personal websites 12
2. Class materials 55
3. Comic books 0
4. E-mails 18
5. Journals 4
6. Local news 1
7. World news 6
8. Magazines 5
9. Gossip columns 18
novels (3), educational books (3),
10. Other (Please specify in either English or Korean.) philosophy books (1), Internet
‘chatting’ with foreigners (1)
Total 127

Most students (55 students) responded that they read class materials the most. They were

taking at least one English major related course (i.e. the ‘English Methodology’ course), and all

of the course materials were written in English. Other than the class materials, the students

seemed to read what they were interested in: e-mails, gossip columns, and blogs/personal

54
websites. News, journals, magazines, and comic books were the least likely to be read by them.

Some students wrote that they read novels (3), educational books (3), philosophy books (1), and

Internet ‘chat room’ conversations (1) in English.

Table 8
What the Students Write the Most in English
Question: What do you mostly write in English?
Number of responses
(Check all that apply.)
1. E-mails 32
2. Personal diaries 22
3. Dialogue journals 1
4. Cause/Effect essays 5
5. Comparison/Contrast essays 7
6. Short stories 5
7. Persuasive or Argument essays 13
8. Explanatory or Informative essays 6
9. Poetry 0
10. Drama/Dialogues 1
11. Other (Please specify in either English or Korean.) .
Total 92

The students responded that they write e-mails or personal diaries the most in English. They

also answered that they write persuasive or argument essays more than cause or effect essays,

comparison or contrast essays, and explanatory or informative essays. This is most likely

because they usually practice writing persuasive or argument essays in order to get a good result

on tests such as TOFEL, TOEIC, and the Teacher Certification Exam. Dialogue journals, short

stories, poetry, dramas or dialogues, cause or effect essays, comparison or contrast essays, and

explanatory or informative essays were not likely to be written by the students.

55
Table 9
What the Students Want to Read the Most in English
Question: What topics would you like to read the most in
Number of responses
English? (Check all that apply.)
1. Language educational issues 31
2. Language teaching methods/tips 35
3. Science 1
4. Sports 12
5. Music 13
6. Travel 21
7. Fashion 15
8. Movies/celebrities 24
9. Political and economic issues 16
10. Technology 1
11. Health 17
12. Food 12
13. Other (Please specify in either English or Korean.) .
Total 198

More than half of the students expressed much interest in reading language educational issues

and language teaching methods or tips. In addition, the students were interested in such topics

as movies or celebrities, travel, health, food, music, sports, fashion, and political and economic

issues. However, they did not show much interest in science and technology. Based on what

the majority of the students marked as topics they would like to read, the topics of 24 texts were

decided.

If the students’ answers to the questionnaire were taken into account to select the topics

of the texts, the Lexile measures were used in order to determine the difficulty levels of the texts.

One can calculate the Lexile of a text by using the Lexile analyzer. In some cases, one can find

the Lexiles of various kinds of texts in a library database so that s/he can choose an appropriate

level of text. Indiana University Bloomington library has a database called EBSCO ‘Middle

Search Plus.’ It includes full texts for about 150 popular and middle school magazines, and all

full text articles are assigned a reading level indicator, Lexiles. Middle Search Plus also offers

56
indexing and abstracts of about 200 magazines. In addition, it contains essential documents in

American history, and other information resources such as an image collection of 116,000 photos,

maps, and flags, 96,600 biographies, and 76,000 primary source documents (“Middle Search

Plus”, 2008, from http://www.libraries.iub.edu/index.php?pageId=400&resourceId=185648).

By using the Middle Search Plus, some of the texts which were related to the students’ topics of

interest and which were closely appropriate and reasonable for the students’ proficiency level

were selected. Some other texts, especially for topics of language educational issues and

language teaching methods/tips, were selected from http://www.education-world.com/. This

contains various articles concerning lesson planning, professional development, technology

integration, administration, and school issues. They are written in relatively simpler and easier

ways compared to other kinds of articles for in-service teachers, educators, and teacher

researchers. The Lexile Analyzer was used to calculate the difficulty levels of the texts.

Twenty four texts were selected in total. At the beginning of the semester, easier texts were

given so that the students would not become frustrated, and texts that are more difficult were

introduced later. After grading the pre-test which the students had taken in the first week of the

semester, the three raters (i.e. the researcher, the course instructor, and a native-English speaking

instructor agreed that the students’ actual proficiency level would be between grade 9 and 10

based on Table 3 and the Indiana’s Academic Standards of English and Language Arts.

According to Indiana’s Academic Standards of English and Language Arts, students at grade

level 9-10 are able to:

1) analyze the structure and format of various informational documents and explain how authors

use the features to achieve their purposes.

2) extend ideas presented in primary or secondary sources.

57
3) evaluate an author’s argument or defense of a claim by examining the relationship between

generalizations and evidence, the comprehensiveness of evidence, and the way in which the

author’s intent affects the structure and tone of the text.

4) understand technical vocabulary in reading and distinguish between what words mean

literally and what they imply.

5) develop main ideas within the body of the composition through supporting evidence.

6) maintain a consistent tone and focus throughout the piece of writing.

7) review, evaluate, and revise writing for meaning, clarity, content, and mechanics.

8) produce legible work that shows accurate spelling and correct use of the conventions of

punctuation and capitalization.

Since the students’ actual proficiency level fell between grade 9 and 10, eight easy texts at grade

8 level with L1000-1100 were given for the first month. Then eight intermediate level texts at

grade 9-10 with L1100-1150 for the second month and eht difficult level texts at grade 11 or

above with L1151-1250 for the last month were provided. The topics of 24 texts and their

difficulty levels are shown in Table 10.

58
Table 10
Topics and Difficulty Levels of Texts Chosen for ‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ Tasks
Topics Difficulty level (Lexile)
1. On Thin Ice – Melting Sea Ice in the Arctic Threatens
L950
Polar Bears
2. Setting the Tone L1030
3. A Quality Approach to Writing Assessment L1040
4. Brad Builds Hope L1050
5. The Unmotivated Student L1050
6. Y is for Yoga L1060
7. Cheating in the Classroom: How to Prevent it and
L1070
How to Handle it if it Happens
8. Latecomers: Tips for Handling the Disruption of
L1070
Students who Come into Class Late
9. Wild by Nature L1110
10. Preventing 1,000 Failures L1100
11. A Process – Not a Test L1120
12. Time to Chart Better Future Amid Cataclysmic
L1130
Changes
13. Why Exercise Won’t Make you Thin L1130
14. Bringing Online L1120
15. The Disease is Likely to Keep Spreading, but a
L1150
Vaccine may be in Sight
16. Government Pushes Daylight Saving Time L1150
17. New Inquiry is Sought in Virginia Tech Massacre L1180
18. New Beginnings L1190
19. Caution Urged when Seeking Whiter Teeth L1200
20. At School in Queens, Success Draws Crowd L1210
21. Electronic Portfolios in the K-12 Classroom L1210
22. Gender Equality for Foreign Husbands L1220
23. Online Course – Taking Shows Dramatic Growth L1230
24. In Jackson’s Death, Black Ambivalence Fades L1250

Once all of the texts had been chosen, explicit guidelines of how to ‘copy’ or

‘summarize’ the given texts were provided to the students as follows.

59
Figure 4
‘Copying’ Task Guidelines
1. You will be given two articles every week for 12 weeks. Read the article that is given to
you. Feel free to take notes, underline, or highlight. You can also use a dictionary.

2. ‘Copying’ which is called ‘transcribing, reproducing, and imitating,’ is the same as writing
something exactly as it is written somewhere else.

Copy each word written in the text on a sheet of paper. Use your own handwriting. Do
NOT type on a computer.

Copy the title and subtitles in the text, but do NOT copy citations and references.

Write down the date you are ‘copying’ on the top of the paper.

The purposes of ‘copying’ are to

help you read and understand different topics of texts

learn new words, idiomatic expressions, grammatical use, sentence structure, etc. within
contexts, and

develop writing skills.

3. Check your copied text with the original text when you finish copying.

4. At the end of your copied text, write down your answers to the following three questions:
1) Have you ever read this text before? (Circle the one that applies.)

Yes No

2) How familiar were you with the information/topic in the text? (Circle the number that
applies.)

Completely Heard of it Read or heard Read of heard Very familiar

unknown 2 or 3 pieces on subject 4 or more pieces on subject (Expert)
1 2 3 4 5

3) How motivated were you to read this text? (Circle the number that applies.)

Highly Moderately Indifferent Moderately Highly

unmotivated unmotivated motivated motivated
1 2 3 4 5

4) Why were you interested OR not interested in reading the text? (Give your reasons in
Korean.)

5. Staple each original text to the copied text. Put all of them into a binder. If you have
evidence showing how you read and summarized the texts (e.g. lists of vocabulary notes,
memos you have taken in the margin of the texts, outlines of your summaries), include them
in the binder as well. You will be asked to submit the binder at the end of the semester.

60
Figure 5
‘Summarizing’ Task Guidelines
1. You will be given two articles every week for 12 weeks. Read the article that is given to
you. Feel free to take notes, underline, or highlight. You can also use a dictionary.

2. ‘Summarizing’ is an activity of restating a text in a shortened form by using YOUR OWN

WORDS.

Summarize a given text on a sheet of paper.

Your summary should include the main ideas and supporting ideas of the text but NOT your
personal opinions.

A summary should be clear, concise, and accurate in representing the original text.

Do not exceed 350-400 words. Use your own handwriting, but do NOT type on a
computer.

Write down the date you are ‘summarizing’ on the top of the paper.

The purposes of ‘summarizing’ are to

help you read and understand different topics of texts

learn new words, idiomatic expressions, grammatical use, sentence structure and
organization, etc. within contexts, and

improve your vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structuring knowledge in your writing.

3. Review your summarized text when you finish summarizing.

4. At the end of your summarized text, write down your answers to the following three
questions:
1) Have you ever read this text before? (Circle the one that applies.)
Yes No

2) How familiar were you with the information/topic in the text? (Circle the number that
applies.)

Completely Heard of it Read or heard Read of heard Very familiar

unknown 2 or 3 pieces on subject 4 or more pieces on subject (Expert)
1 2 3 4 5

3) How motivated were you to read this text? (Circle the number that applies.)

Highly Moderately Indifferent Moderately Highly

unmotivated unmotivated motivated motivated
1 2 3 4 5

4) Why were you interested OR not interested in reading the text? (Give your reasons in
Korean.)

61
5. Staple each original text to the summarized text. Put all of them into a binder. If you have
evidence showing how you read and summarized the texts (e.g. lists of vocabulary notes,
memos you have taken in the margin of the texts, outlines of your summaries), include them
in the binder as well. You will be asked to submit the binder at the end of the semester.

With the guidelines, the instructor explained the purposes, advantages, and procedures of

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ ahead of time. In the guidelines (number 4), four questions were

added to ask the students’ personal feelings about reading each of the 24 texts. Knowing

whether the students had read the given texts as well as whether they had background knowledge

on the information or topic in the texts would be important because they might affect the students’

writing performance and willingness to read the texts. Also, understanding how motivated and

interested the students were in reading the texts and why would be important because it would

affect the students enjoyment of reading and writing and thus increase the efficacy of ‘copying’

or ‘summarizing.’ In addition, a sample of both ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ were provided for

the students to provide some ideas of how a copied or summarized text would look like as shown

in Figure 6 and Figure 7. The original text sample in the Figures 6 and 7 was typed, but the

copied and summarized text samples were handwritten so that the students could understand how

they should copy or summarize the given texts by hand.

62
Figure 6
A Sample of a Copied Text
Original Text
In some respects, the increasing frequency
of mountain lion encounters in California
has as much to do with a growing human
population as it does with rising mountain
lion numbers. The scenic solitude of the
western ranges is prime cougar habitat, and
it is falling swiftly to the developer’s
spade. Meanwhile, with their ideal
habitat already at its carrying capacity,
mountain lions are forcing younger cats
into less suitable terrain, including
residential areas. Add that cougars have
generally grown bolder under a lengthy ban
on their being hunted, and an unsettling
scenario begins to emerge. (Rychnovsky,
1995, p. 40 cited in Hacker, 2004)
Figure 7
A Sample of a Summarized Text
Original Text
In some respects, the increasing frequency
of mountain lion encounters in California
has as much to do with a growing human
population as it does with rising mountain
lion numbers. The scenic solitude of the
western ranges is prime cougar habitat, and
it is falling swiftly to the developer’s
spade. Meanwhile, with their ideal
habitat already at its carrying capacity,
mountain lions are forcing younger cats
into less suitable terrain, including
residential areas. Add that cougars have
generally grown bolder under a lengthy ban
on their being hunted, and an unsettling
scenario begins to emerge. (Rychnovsky,
1995, p. 40 cited in Hacker, 2004)
Four weeks after starting the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ tasks, the instructor collected
what the students had done—original texts, ‘copied’ or ‘summarized’ texts, responses to the four
Copied Text
In some respects, the increasing frequency
of mountain lion encounters in California
has as much to do with a growing human
population as it do with rising mountain
lion numbers. The scenic solitude of the
western ranges is prime cougar habitat, and
it is falling swiftly to the developer’s
spade. Meanwhile, with their ideal
habitat already at its carrying capacity,
mountain lions are forcing younger cats
into less suitable terrain, including
residential areas. Add that cougars have
generally grown bolder under a lengthy ban
on their being hunted, and an unsettling
scenario begins to emerge.
Summarized Text
Encounters between mountain lions and
humans are on the rise in California
because increasing numbers of lions are
competing for a shrinking habitat. As the
lions’ wild habitat shrinks, older lions force
younger lions into residential areas.
These lions have lost some of their fear of
humans because of a ban on hunting.
63
questions included in the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ guidelines—and had a conservation with

the whole class to check if the students were doing well, if they were having any difficulties, and

if the given texts were appropriate so that the researcher could adjust the difficulty levels of the

texts. An original plan to change the difficulty level of texts from easier ones to more difficult

ones was withdrawn as the students were found to be very satisfied with the topics and difficulty

levels of the given texts.

At the end of the semester, the students submitted their portfolios containing all of their

work. The instructor and researcher reviewed the portfolios, provided feedback and scores, and

returned them to the students later. Feedback by the course instructor and grading by the

instructor and the researcher focused mostly on writing conventions for the ‘copying’ groups and

sentence structure and organization, grammar, and vocabulary in addition to writing conventions

for the ‘summarizing’ groups. However, they also considered extra efforts the students had

made such as writing down key words or ideas in the margin of texts, making additional notes

for new vocabulary items and expressions, etc. For both groups, additional feedback on their

performance on the pre-test and post-test, their improvement in terms of the nine areas of reading

and writing, and the areas which needed more attention and improvement were provided by the

instructor. The pre- and post-tests and 'copying' and 'summarizing' tasks were considered as

part of the course requirements and counted as 10% of the students’ final grade.

Think-aloud Protocol and Follow-up Questions

After analyzing the students’ answers to the SORWS, the two strategies used the most

and the least in each of the three categories—planning, monitoring, and evaluating—were

identified according to the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups, and also to the lower and higher

64
level students of each group. The students with different proficiency levels in each of the

‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ group who reported using the two most frequently used strategies in

each of the three categories the most (They would have checked ‘usually’ or ‘always or almost

always’ for the use of those strategies in the survey.) and the two least frequently used strategies

in each category the least (They would have checked ‘only occasionally’ or ‘never or almost

never’ for the use of those strategies in the survey.) were randomly selected for a think-aloud task

for the triangulation of the data. Think-aloud protocol is a one-to-one interview in which

individual students describe their thoughts verbally (Chamot, 2001). It has been used as “a

research tool for identifying the mental processes that [students] engage in while undertaking a

learning task” (Anderson, 2008, p. 106) and also as a pedagogical tool for enhancing

metacognitive awareness (Anderson, 2004; 2008). The researcher randomly chose enough

students from each proficiency level and each activity group to allow for a student’s possible

refusal to participate in the think-aloud sessions. She contacted one student at a time and asked

for his or her willingness and availability of time and offered a twenty five dollar gift card which

could be used for purchasing books or movie tickets as an incentive. Two students from each

level and each group, eight students in total were finally selected. Think-aloud protocols were

conducted in the 11th week of the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ stage of the study since it was

thought that the students would probably have become quite used to ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’

by that time. The think-aloud task took place in one of the reserved classrooms in school with

one student at a time so that other students could not interrupt or listen to the conversation

between the researcher and each student. Before giving an actual think-aloud task, the

researcher created a comfortable atmosphere by first introducing herself to the eight students and

holding a brief friendly conversation to build rapport. This was followed by a warm-up session

65
for about five to ten minutes in which the researcher explained what the students were to do and

modeled with a text using a similar format to the actual think-aloud protocol. The text for the

warm-up session (‘Technology to Help Struggling Students’) (See Appendix 6) had a similar

topic to the actual think-aloud protocol text, ‘Bringing Online’ (See Appendix 7). Its Lexile

was also the same as the actual think-aloud protocol text Lexile: L1210. During the actual

think-aloud sessions, the students were asked to talk about how they read the text, what kinds of

strategies they used to comprehend the text and write a copy or summary, and why. Each think-

aloud session took about an hour. Then the students answered several follow-up questions

about the think-aloud sessions such as what was good or difficult about the think-aloud task. In

addition, the students were asked about their overall feelings in doing the ‘copying’ or

‘summarizing’ activity throughout the semester (i.e. what they liked or disliked, what difficulties

they had, how ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ helped them in terms of their reading and writing

abilities, etc). The students were asked to bring their portfolios with them so that they could

refer back to what they had done so far and answer the questions. At the end of the follow-up

question and answer session, a gift card was given to each student. All conversations were

tape-recorded and transcribed word-by-word. The researcher and students used Korean since

the students were not proficient enough to express their thoughts freely or in-depth in English.

Later, all of the recorded conversations were translated into English. To promote

trustworthiness, each student’s L1 transcription was reviewed by him/her. The purposes of

providing a think-aloud task were 1) to see whether students’ self-reporting on the survey

matched their actual strategy use, and 2) to understand how their metacognition operates in the

processes of planning, monitoring, and evaluating their reading and writing.

66
Reflection Questionnaire

One week before the final exam week, a reflection questionnaire was given to the whole

group of students (Appendix 8). The questionnaire consisted of three types of questions: one

including one question requiring the students to circle or check one or more that apply (e.g. the

time they spent on ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’), another type including one question requiring

them to answer nine of five-point Likert-scale questions (e.g. students’ perception of their

improvement in reading and writing abilities, more specifically, their improvement in finding

main and supporting ideas of the text, making an inferences, applying new words and

expressions appropriately in writing, using correct grammar in writing, etc.), and the other type

including two questions requiring them to write brief opinions (e.g. students’ perception of the

most helpful and most difficult aspects of ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing,’ whether or not they

studied in order to improve their reading and writing in addition to ‘copying’ or summarizing’).

The questions generally asked about how they had felt about ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ and

how ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ had helped them improve specific areas of reading and writing.

The purposes of providing the reflection questionnaire were 1) to see how the students reported

their perception of their proficiency changes in the nine areas of reading and writing and 2) to

see whether or not their reported perception of their proficiency changes matched their actual

proficiency changes on the pre- and post-tests. The questionnaire was given in English, but

they were asked to write their answers to the two open-ended questions in Korean. It took

approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

67
 Data Analysis

Research Question 1: How does the reading and writing proficiency of different levels of
students in the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups actually change? How do the nine
areas of reading and writing proficiency change from the pre- to the post-test?

To answer the first research question, two different stages of data analysis were used.

In the first stage, the students’ pre-test results were analyzed to ascertain their reading and

writing proficiency level at the beginning of the semester and to decide which difficulty levels of

texts should be selected for ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities. Eighteen multiple choice

reading questions were given two points each, five vocabulary questions three points each, and

five categories in the writing section (i.e. content/idea organization, sentence structure/fluency,

grammar, vocabulary/idioms, and mechanics) four points each. The total possible score that

one could get on the pre-test was 71 points. Based on individual students’ pre-test scores, the

students were classified into either lower or higher proficiency level. Then about half of the

students in each proficiency level were placed in a ‘copying’ group and the other half were

placed in a ‘summarizing’ group. The mean scores of both lower level groups were similar as

were both of the higher level groups. Some of the students’ TOEFL or TOEIC scores and final

grades of English reading or writing related courses in the previous semester were taken into

account to determine their proficiency levels (Only those who had written down their test scores

or final course grades in the background information questionnaire were taken into account.).

In the second stage, the students’ performances on the pre- and the post-tests were

analyzed to compare the results of different levels of the students in the ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ groups. T-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were applied by using the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to identify how the students’ overall reading

and writing abilities had changed from the beginning to the end of the semester, how their

68
performances on each of the two sections of the pre-test differed on the post-test, and whether

there were significant differences between the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups and also

among different proficiency levels of the students. In addition, in order to examine specifically

which areas of reading (e.g. finding main or supporting ideas of a text, identifying important

details, making inferences, etc.) and writing (e.g. using various sentence structure, using correct

grammar, using new vocabulary appropriately, etc.) abilities had changed, t-test and ANOVA

were used. The percentage gains between the pre- and post-tests were also calculated.

Research Question 2: What metacognitive strategies do different levels of students in the

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups report using when reading and writing academic texts
in English?

To answer the second research question, the researcher first identified the mean scores

and standard deviations of the overall students and then divided the students into lower and

higher proficiency levels within the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups and examined those

scores and standard deviations for the 36 items of the SORWS. The two metacognitive

strategies used the most and the least in general and in the three subsections (i.e. planning

strategies, monitoring strategies, and evaluating strategies) according to the four different groups

(i.e. the higher level ‘copying’ group, the lower level ‘copying’ group, the higher ‘summarizing’

group, and the lower level ‘summarizing’ group) were identified. Also, ANOVA was applied by

using SPSS to examine whether significant differences existed among the four groups in the

three subsections of the SORWS. In addition, t-test was used to compare one subsection of the

SORWS with two other subsections one at a time to examine whether overall groups and each of

the four groups showed significant differences in their use of strategies.

69
Research Question 3: What metacognitive reading and writing strategies are observed
being used among different levels of students when ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ in English
in a think-aloud task? Are the reported strategies and observed strategies different
between the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups?

To answer the third research question, the recorded think-aloud conversations were

analyzed to discover if the students’ reading and writing strategies actually used in the think-

aloud sessions matched those reported in the SORWS. The most frequently used strategies (i.e.

the strategies marked as ‘usually’ which was point ‘4’ and ‘always or almost always’ which was

point ‘5’) and the least frequently used strategies (i.e. the strategies marked as ‘never or almost

never’ which was point ‘1’ and ‘only occasionally’ which was point ‘2’) in each subsection

reported in each student’s survey questionnaire and the strategies in each subsection actually

used and were not used during the think-aloud task were compared, and finally the percentages

of how much the reported use of strategies matched the actual use of strategies were specified.

Then the reasons why the students used or did not use the self-reported reading and writing

strategies during the think-aloud sessions were explained with examples.

Research Question 4: How do students of various levels perceive of the ‘copying’ and
‘summarizing’ activities, and what is their perception of changes in their English reading
and writing proficiency? Are the actual proficiency changes and the reported perception
of proficiency changes different between the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups?

For the fourth research question, mean scores and standard deviations of the students’

answers to nine of the five-point Likert-scale items included in the reflection questionnaire were

analyzed and compared among different proficiency levels of the students and between the

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups. The nine items asked about which specific areas of

reading (i.e. finding main ideas or supporting ideas, making inference, understanding and

identifying the details, and guessing the meanings of new words or expressions by using context

clues) and writing (i.e. organizing sentences/phrases/ideas, using various sentence

70
structure/patterns, using correct grammar, applying new words and expressions appropriately,

and using correct grammar, using correct spelling/punctuation/capitalization) the students

perceived as being improved. The numbers of the students who gave a positive response to

each of the nine items (i.e. They checked number ‘4,’ ‘gotten somewhat better,’ and number ‘5,’

‘gotten much better,’ for their perception of nine areas of reading and writing improvement in the

reflection questionnaire.), who gave a negative response (i.e. They checked number ‘2,’ ‘gotten

somewhat worse,’ and number ‘1,’ ‘gotten much worse.’), and who gave a neutral response (i.e.

They checked number ‘3,’ ‘stayed the same.’) were calculated. Also, the numbers of the

students whose grades increased, decreased, and remained constant from the pre-test to the post-

test were identified. The percentages of the students’ positive, negative, and neutral responses

for the specified nine areas of reading and writing were compared with the percentages of their

actual changes (i.e. the percentages of the students whose grades increased, decreased, and

stayed the same) according to the nine areas of reading and writing found in their performances

on the pre- and post-tests in order to see if the students’ reported perception of their reading and

writing ability changes matched their actual changes. In addition, the researcher specified

differences between the higher and lower level students and also between the ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ groups. Cross-tabulation analysis was used for the comparison.

Besides discussing whether there was a match or mismatch between the overall students’

reported perception of their reading and writing proficiency and their actual proficiency changes,

whether there was a match or mismatch between what the eight think-aloud protocol participants

reported about their proficiency changes and how they actually performed on the pre- and post-

tests was also discussed. Also, whether there were differences among the different proficiency

levels and activity groups was described.

71
 The students’ answers to the four questions included in the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’

guidelines (See Figure 4 and Figure 5.) were analyzed in order to identify how familiar students

were with the topics of the 24 given texts and how motivated or interested they were in reading

the texts and why. Mean scores and standard deviations of the students’ answers to the degrees

of familiarity and motivation five-point Likert-scale questions were calculated and compared

among the different proficiency levels of the students by using ANOVA. In addition, some of

the students’ comments on why they felt certain texts were interesting or not were identified.

Finally, some of the students’ answers to the open-ended reflection question which asked

about their opinions about the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity were analyzed to understand

how different proficiency level students in the two activity groups thought about the ‘copying’ or

‘summarizing’ activity and how it helped them improve specific areas of their reading and

writing abilities.

72
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSSIONS

The Participants’ Past Experiences of ‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’

In this chapter, the results of the collected data will be discussed by addressing each of

the four research questions. Before presenting the results, the students’ past experiences of

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ will be briefly explained in order to provide a little information on

how the students had learned Korean and English reading and writing through ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ and what they thought about their learning experiences. This information was

obtained from the discussions they had with the course instructor at the beginning of the

semester and also from their responses to the background information question: “Have you ever

experienced ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activities when learning either Korean or English? If

you answered ‘Yes,’ what did you copy/summarize and why? Did you do

‘copying’/’summarizing’ for learning Korean, English, or both?” A summary of the students’

past ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ experiences is shown in Table 11.

73
Table 11
A Summary of the Students’ Past Experiences of ‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’
Copying Experience Summarizing Experience
Types of texts that the Types of texts that Types of texts that Types of texts that the
students ‘copied’ in the students ‘copied’ the students students ‘summarized’
English in Korean ‘summarized’ in in Korean
English
-short newspaper articles -main texts from -newspaper articles -main texts from
and editorials elementary school and editorials elementary/middle/
textbooks high school
- short story books -main texts of textbooks
-classical literary middle/high
-main texts from texts from high school textbooks -biographies
elementary/middle/ school textbooks
high school textbooks -novels - novels
-newspaper
-poetry, good samples of editorials -English literary -master’s theses
TOEFL writing essays works
-book/movie/music -the Korean script
-useful idiomatic reviews called
expressions and ‘Hunminjeongeum’6
proverbs
-texts from
-TOEFL/TOEIC related educational sociology
sentences/texts by textbooks
revising grammatical
errors -classical Korean
literary works
-rules of grammar, and
book/movie/music
reviews

Among 60 students, 30 students responded that they had experiences of ‘copying’ and 37

of ‘summarizing.’ The students wrote down their experiences of either ‘copying’ or

‘summarizing,’ or of both. Ten students, however, skipped the question. Those who

responded said that they had experienced such activities from elementary school up to university.

They mentioned that ‘copying’ activities were done more often when they were in high school or

6
Hunminjeongeum was an “entirely new and native script for the Korean people” (“Hunminjeongeum,” 2010). It
was made in the year of 1443 to help the common people illiterate in Chinese characters read and write the Korean
language easily and accurately. Later, it came to be known as ‘Hangul’ (i.e. Korean alphabet).

74
university than when they were in elementary or middle school as an extra assignment even it

was not specified or included as a requirement in the school textbook. They mentioned that

‘copying’ main texts from their textbook was the most common. One interesting finding was

that many students thought that ‘copying’ good samples of Korean or English newspaper

editorials was important and somewhat necessary because the argumentative writing style of

such editorials was helpful for them to prepare for the Korean essay writing test included in the

university entrance exam and for the TOEFL or TOEIC writing sections. They also thought that

they could focus more on how to use correct orthography and grammar particularly in the case of

‘copying’ good samples of Korean newspaper editorials. Because many students were using

ungrammatical words and sentences for text messaging, blogging, and e-mailing, they said that

they often forgot correct Korean orthography and grammar when writing academic papers. In

the case of learning Korean language, the students said that they ‘copied’ short texts from the

textbook in their elementary school days in order to practise good handwriting and learn correct

rules of Korean orthography. They did not remember ‘copying’ from their textbook during their

middle school days. In high school days, they said that learning Korean classical literature was

very difficult. Since they had to read classical literature in the original language, understand its

content, and memorize and write down some archaic words or phrases for some exams, the best

way to remember was by ‘copying’ the whole text. In comparison, in the case of learning the

English language, the students mentioned that they were asked to ‘copy’ main texts of English

textbooks continuously from elementary through high school. Since English itself was a second

language for them, they thought ‘copying’ was useful even when ‘copying’ easier level words,

sentences, and short texts, and also even when they did not completely understand the whole

context of what they were ‘copying’ during their elementary school days. In middle and high

75
school days, they said that ‘copying’ a whole text from the textbook was helpful for them to both

memorize unfamiliar words and phrases for midterm and final exams and remember the correct

use of grammatical sentences. In short, most of the students were not voluntarily engaged in

‘copying’ activities, but they mostly ‘copied’ texts rather than words or phrases separated from

context. Some of the students were doing a shallow or perceptual level of ‘copying’ by

focusing on the use of standard orthography, vocabulary, and correct grammar, but others were

doing a deeper level of ‘copying’ by focusing on writing style, structure, and organization.

They were not very positive about ‘copying’ activities because they usually required a lot of time,

but considered them as necessary for language learning.

In contrast, 37 students who had experience of ‘summarizing’ mentioned that they

started ‘summarizing’ activities from middle school in the case of English, whereas they started

from elementary school in the case of Korean. For both English and Korean language learning,

the most commonly ‘summarized’ texts were the ones in their textbook. Until high school days,

they said that they did not have to create a whole summary by using their own words when

learning English. Most of the sentences for a text summary were already given in their

textbook, and they were simply required to fill in blanks with appropriate words or phrases found

in the text without making any major changes. Or, they were given an incomplete outline of a

text which only had half-written gist sentences of the introduction, body, and conclusion

paragraphs. They had to complete the gist sentences of each paragraph. Or, they had to

simply write down one or two sentences as a text summary. What the students did from

elementary school through high school was making word level changes which would be a

shallow or perceptual level of ‘summarizing.’ The students said that it took much time to

comprehend text content, understand the grammatical use of sentences in the text, and find the

76
main ideas and thus they were not able to ‘summarize’ the whole text by using their own words

at that time. However, they mentioned that a shallow or perceptual level of ‘summarizing’

helped them focus on important and new vocabulary or phrases in order to fill in blanks of a

summary with appropriate words and phrases and understand the text content. When they

became university students, they mentioned that they read many English literary works and

novels by taking at least one or two English reading and writing related classes such as English

Literature and English novel reading classes as a requirement because most of them were

majoring in English Education. The most commonly given assignment in those classes was to

write a short summary after reading a piece of work. Although they were asked to use their

own words for a summary writing, some of them mentioned that they often used similar words,

phrases, and structures as those in the original text. This was because the reading pieces from

the classics were neither very easy nor interesting, and consequently they were not able to

produce a condensed gist of a text and create well-organized or structured sentences. It seemed

that they were slowly moving from a shallow or perceptual level of ‘summarizing’ stage to a

deeper level one. They mentioned that ‘summarizing’ at the university level helped them

understand and review text content, identify main and supporting ideas and organize them

coherently in writing as well as expand grammar and vocabulary. In comparison, in the case of

Korean language learning, since Korean was their first language, the students did not have much

difficulty in understanding text content and finding main and supporting ideas. However, they

said that it was not always easy for them to organize sentences logically and express the main

and supporting ideas clearly and briefly within a two to five page of summary after reading a

novel or biography. Yet, at the university level, they were more likely to write a deeper level of

summaries as a class assignment. They mentioned that a deeper level of ‘summarizing’ was

77
helpful for them to understand text content and organize their thoughts in better ways. In short,

the students experienced both a shallow or perceptual level and a deeper level of ‘summarizing’

from elementary school to university mostly as a school assignment. Even though they were

not aware of what a shallow or perceptual level of ‘summarizing’ and a deeper level of

‘summarizing’ meant, they thought the ‘summarizing’ activities were a very helpful way of

developing reading and writing ability.

By having discussions before starting ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ tasks, the students

got a chance to look back on their past experiences of learning English and Korean languages,

how they felt about ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities, and what they thought was useful

about those activities. The instructor, then, explained more specifically about what the students

were supposed to do during the semester and what benefits they could possibly get from the

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ tasks. However, the instructor did not use such terms as a shallow

or perceptual level of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ and a deeper level of ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing.’ Also, she did not explain anything about different concepts and positive or

negative aspects of the different levels of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ because she did not want

the students to be affected by such explanations or expectations which could possibly skew the

results of the study.

After sufficiently speaking with the students and giving adequate explanations about the

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ tasks, the students were engaged in either one of the tasks during

the semester. What kinds of changes were found in relation to their English reading and writing

ability and their perception of them, and what kinds of patterns were observed in relation to their

use of strategies while ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ will be discussed in the four research

questions.

78
 Research Question One

How does the reading and writing proficiency of different levels of students in the ‘copying’
and ‘summarizing’ groups actually change? How do the nine areas of reading and writing
proficiency change from the pre- to the post-test?

The overall reading and writing proficiency changes between the pre-test and post-test of the

students in the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing groups

The 60 students who participated in the study took a pre-test in the first week of the

semester. The primary purposes of giving the test were to measure their reading and writing

proficiency, divide them into either a higher or lower proficiency level group, and assign them to

either a ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ task. At first, the researcher planned to take into account

the pre-test scores of the 75 students who originally registered for the ‘English Methodology’

course to estimate the total mean scores of the four groups. However, seven students’ test

scores were not counted because they registered for the course late or dropped the course. Also,

a further eight students’ scores were excluded because they failed to complete the ‘copying’ or

‘summarizing’ task. As a result, the re-calculated mean scores of each of the four groups were

not the same as those which were calculated at the beginning of the semester. However, the

mean scores between the two higher level groups (i.e. the higher level ‘copying’ and the higher

level ‘summarizing’ groups) and those between the two lower level groups (i.e. the lower level

‘copying’ and the lower level ‘summarizing’ groups) were respectively similar showing not much

difference statistically. Also, the mean scores between the two ‘copying’ groups (i.e. the higher

level and the lower level ‘copying’ groups) and those between the two ‘summarizing’ groups (i.e.

the higher level and the lower level ‘summarizing’ groups) were respectively similar showing no

significant difference statistically. The pre-test results of the four groups are presented in Table

12 according to the nine areas of reading and writing.

79
Table 12
Pre-test Results for the Nine Areas of Reading and Writing
Area7 R_Main/
8 R_Detail R_Infer R_Vocab W_Org W_Struc W_Gram W_Vocab W_Mecha Total
Group Supp
CH N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Mean 5.73 7.47 15.73 8.63 1.77 1.73 1.80 1.77 2.17 46.80
SD .70 .92 5.99 2.97 .78 .65 .62 .53 .79 8.40
Mini 4.00 6.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 26.00
Max 6.00 8.00 22.00 14.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 3.50 59.50
CL N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Mean 4.53 6.53 13.97 4.30 1.20 1.20 1.10 1.20 1.70 35.73
SD 1.41 .92 3.55 1.81 .37 .25 .28 .41 .59 5.83
Mini 2.00 6.00 5.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22.50
Max 6.00 8.00 18.00 7.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 3.00 43.00
SH N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Mean 5.42 7.28 17.85 8.75 1.75 1.71 1.96 1.96 2.32 49.03
SD .94 1.27 2.14 2.99 .55 .54 .75 .66 .70 5.44
Mini 4.00 4.00 14.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.00
Max 6.00 8.00 22.00 13.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 4.00 62.50
SL N 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Mean 5.25 7.13 13.88 6.22 1.41 1.38 1.31 1.50 1.84 39.90
SD 1.24 1.02 2.47 7.54 .52 .47 .44 .55 .63 8.97
Mini 2.00 6.00 10.00 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 28.50
Max 6.00 8.00 18.00 33.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 3.50 67.00
Total N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Mean 5.23 7.10 15.29 6.93 1.53 1.50 1.53 1.60 2.00 42.72
SD 1.17 1.07 4.08 4.77 .61 .54 .64 .60 .71 8.94
Mini 2.00 4.00 2.00 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22.50
Max 6.00 8.00 22.00 33.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 4.00 67.00

7
‘R_Main/Supp,’ ‘R-Detail,’ ‘R_Infer,’ ‘R_Vocab,’ ‘W_Org,’ ‘W_Struc,’ ‘W_Gram,’ and ‘W_Vocab’ in the
column indicate nine areas of reading and writing (R_Main/Supp: Ability to find main and supporting ideas in a
text, R_Detail: Ability to understand and identify the details, R_Infer: Ability to make an inference, R_Vocab:
Ability to guess the meanings of new words or expressions by using context clues, W_Org: Ability to organize
sentences/phrases/ideas, W_Struc: Ability to understand and use various sentence structures/patterns, W_Gram:
Ability to use correct grammar, W_Vocab: Ability to apply new words/expressions appropriately, W_Macha:
Ability to use correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization)
8
CH, CL, SH, and SL in the row indicate different groups (CH: ‘Copying’ higher level, CL: ‘Copying’ lower level,
SH: ‘Summarizing’ higher level, SL: ‘Summarizing’ lower level)

80
Note. The highest score that one could get for ‘R_Main/Supp’ was 6 points, ‘R_Detail’ was 8
points, ‘R_Infer’ was 22 points, ‘R-Vocab’ was 15 points, and the rest of the five areas of
writing were 4 points for each. Thus, the highest total score that one could get was 71
points.

The total mean score for the higher level students in the ‘copying’ group (CH) was 46.80 points,

the lower level students (CL) in the ‘copying’ group was 35.73 points, the higher level students

in the ‘summarizing’ group (SH) was 49.03 points, and the lower level students in the

‘summarizing’ group (SL) was 39.90 points. The SH group had slightly higher scores

particularly for the area of ‘R_Infer’ (i.e. making an inference in reading) than the CH group.

Also, the SL group had slightly higher scores for the areas of ‘R_Main/Supp,’ ‘R_Detail,’ and

‘R_Vocab’ than the CL group. However, the pre-test mean scores between the two higher level

groups (M= 46.80, SD= 8.40 for the CH group; M= 49.03, SD= 5.43 for the SH group) and the

mean scores between the two lower level groups (M= 35.73, SD= 5.83 for the CL group; M=

39.90, SD= 8.96 for the SL group) were respectively similar and did not show any statistically

significant difference as shown in Table 13 (t= -.84, p= .406 for the two higher level groups; t= -

1.52, p= .138 for the two lower level groups).

Table 13
T-test for the Pre-test Mean Difference between the Two Higher Level Groups and between the
Two Lower Level Groups
Mean Standard Error
Test Group t df p
Difference Difference
Pre-test Higher level -2.23 2.65 -.84 27 .406
Lower level -4.17 2.74 -1.52 29 .138
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

In addition, the students in the ‘copying’ groups (CH and CL) and those in the ‘summarizing’

groups (SH and SL) received similar mean scores on the pre-test (M= 41.27, SD= 9.06 for the

‘copying’ groups; M= 44.16, SD= 8.73 for the ‘summarizing’ groups), and their mean scores

statistically did not show any significant difference as shown in Table 14 (t= 1.26, p= .212).

81
Table 14
T-test for the Pre-test Mean Difference between the ‘Copying’ Groups and the ‘Summarizing’
Groups
Mean Standard Error
Test Group t df p
Difference Difference
Pre-test Copying VS. Summarizing 2.90 2.29 1.26 58 .212
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

If the primary purpose of giving the pre-test was to decide the students’ reading and

writing proficiency level and give them either a ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ task, the second

purpose was to estimate how the students would develop reading and writing ability through the

‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity throughout the semester by comparing their pre-test scores

with their post-test scores. The post-test was given at the end of the semester, and its questions

were exactly the same as those for the pre-test. The post-test results of the four groups are

shown in Table 15 according to the nine areas of reading and writing.

82
Table 15
Post-test Results for the Nine Areas of Reading and Writing
Area R_Main/
R_Detail R_Infer R_Vocab W_Org W_Struc W_Gram W_Vocab W_Mecha Total
Group Supp
CH N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Mean 5.33 7.07 17.73 10.17 2.87 2.80 2.90 2.82 3.37 55.05
SD 1.23 1.03 2.71 3.05 .74 .77 .76 .77 .83 5.78
Mini 2.00 6.00 12.00 3.25 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.75 1.00 44.50
Max 6.00 8.00 22.00 15.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 65.00
CL N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Mean 5.33 6.93 16.53 7.00 2.37 2.37 2.33 2.40 3.00 48.27
SD .98 1.28 2.20 1.81 .61 .58 .45 .47 .57 4.72
Mini 4.00 4.00 12.00 3.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 37.25
Max 6.00 8.00 20.00 10.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 57.00
SH N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Mean 5.29 7.15 17.00 9.89 2.53 2.53 2.86 2.43 3.50 53.18
SD .99 1.03 3.11 2.29 .72 .75 .69 .55 .48 6.80
Mini 4.00 6.00 12.00 5.75 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 3.00 41.75
Max 6.00 8.00 22.00 13.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 4.00 64.50
SL N 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Mean 4.50 6.25 15.75 8.09 2.36 2.41 2.28 2.32 3.28 47.25
SD 1.37 1.91 3.09 3.18 .67 .66 .71 .68 .60 6.61
Mini 2.00 2.00 10.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 36.50
Max 6.00 8.00 20.00 15.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 4.00 4.00 57.25
Total N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Mean 5.10 6.83 16.73 8.76 2.53 2.53 2.58 2.49 3.28 50.84
SD 1.19 1.39 2.83 2.90 .70 .70 .71 .64 .65 6.74
Mini 2.00 2.00 10.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 36.50
Max 6.00 8.00 22.00 15.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 65.00

The CH group gained 55.05 points which was the highest score among the four groups, the SH

group gained 53.18 points, the CL group gained 48.27 points, and the SL group gained 47.25

points which was the lowest score. When comparing the two higher level groups, the CH group

obtained slightly higher mean scores for the nine areas of reading and writing than the SH group

except the mean scores for ‘R_Detail’ and ‘W_Mecha’ areas. Also, when comparing the two

83
lower level groups, the CL group obtained slightly higher mean scores for the nine areas of

reading and writing than the SL group except the mean scores for ‘R_Vocab,’ ‘W_Struc,’ and

‘W_Mecha’ areas. However, the post-test mean scores between the two higher level groups

(M= 55.05, SD= 5.77 for the CH group; M= 53.18, SD= 6.79 for the SH group) and the mean

scores between the two lower level groups (M= 48.27, SD= 4.72 for the CL group; M=47.25,

SD= 6.60 for the SL group) were respectively similar and statistically did not show any

significant difference as shown in Table 16 (t= .80, p= .430 for the two higher level groups;

t= .49, p= .628 for the two lower level groups).

Table 16
T-test for the Post-test Mean Difference between the Two Higher Level Groups and between the
Two Lower Level Groups
Mean Standard Error
Test Group t df p
Difference Difference
Post-test Higher level 1.87 2.33 .80 27 .430
Lower level 1.02 2.07 .49 29 .628
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

In addition, the students in the ‘copying’ groups and those in the ‘summarizing’ groups received

similar mean scores on the post-test (M= 51.65, SD= 6.22 for the ‘copying’ groups; M= 50.02,

SD= 7.23 for the ‘summarizing’ groups) which were not statistically different (t= - .94, p= .350)

as shown in Table 17.

Table 17
T-test for the Post-test Mean Difference between the ‘Copying’ Groups and the ‘Summarizing’
Groups
Mean Standard Error
Test Group t df p
Difference Difference
Post-test Copying VS. Summarizing -1.64 1.74 -.94 58 .350
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

In order to make it easy to compare the difference between the total pre-test and post-test scores

of the four groups, Table 18 is presented below.

84
Table 18
Overall Pre-test and Post-test Results among the Four Groups of the Students

Test Group N Mean SD

Pre-test CH 15 46.80 8.40

CL 15 35.73 5.83
SH 14 49.03 5.44
SL 16 39.90 8.97
Total 60 42.72 8.94
Post-test CH 15 55.05 5.78
CL 15 48.27 4.72
SH 14 53.18 6.80
SL 16 47.25 6.61
Total 60 50.84 6.74
Post-test CH 15 8.25 7.87
- CL 15 12.53 5.09
Pre-test
SH 14 4.14 4.32
SL 16 7.34 10.83
Total 60 8.12 7.98

The 60 students, as a whole, showed great improvement during the semester. Their total mean

score increased from 42.72 points to 50.84 points by gaining 8.12 points from the pre-test to the

post-test. The total pre-test mean scores of the four groups were statistically different as shown

in Table 19 (F= 10.19, p < .01). Also, statistically significant differences were found among the

four groups’ total post-test mean scores (F= 5.94, p < .01). In addition, in terms of the mean

score changes from the pre-test to post-test, significant differences were also found among the

four groups (F= 3.02, p < .05).

85
Table 19
ANOVA Table for the Mean Scores of the Pre-test and Post-test, and the Mean Difference
between the Pre- and Post-tests among the Four Groups of the Students
Sum of Mean
Test Source df F Sig.
Squares Square
Pre-test Between Groups 1667.01 3 555.67 10.19 .000**
Within Groups 3054.68 56 54.55
Total 4721.69 59
Post-test Between Groups 647.97 3 215.98 5.94 .001**
Within Groups 2035.01 56 36.34
Total 2682.98 59
Post-test Between Groups 523.51 3 174.50 3.02 .037*
- Within Groups 3233.68 56 57.74
Pre-test
Total 3757.19 59
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

When considering the students in each of the four groups, they all showed great degrees of

improvement from the pre-test to the post-test as shown in Table 20.

Table 20
T-test for the Mean Difference between the Pre- and Post-tests for the Four Groups of the
Students
Mean Standard Error
Test Group t df p
Difference Difference
Pre-test – Post-test CH -8.25 7.87 -4.06 14 .001**
CL -12.53 1.31 -9.54 14 .000**
SH -4.14 4.32 -3.59 13 .003**
SL -7.34 10.83 -2.71 15 .016*
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

For all of the four groups, the differences of each of their total mean scores between the pre- and

post-tests were statistically significant. In other words, the students in the CH (t = -4.06, p

< .01), CL (t= -9.54, p < .01), SH (t= -3.59, p < .01), and SL (t= -2.71, p < .05) groups showed

statistically significant degrees of improvement from the beginning to the end of the semester

through ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities.

86
 Meanwhile, when comparing the two higher level groups, the total mean score of the

students in the CH group increased by 8.25 points on the post-test, whereas the total mean score

of the SH group increased only by 4.14 points. That is, the CH group showed more

improvement on the post-test than the SH group. However, the total mean scores of those two

groups on the post-test were similar (55.05 for the CH group; 53.18 for the SH group) and also

statistically not different (See Table 16). When comparing the two lower level groups, the CL

group gained 12.53 points more on the post-test than on the pre-test, whereas the SL group

gained 7.34 points more on the post-test. That is, the CL group showed more improvement than

the SL group. However, the total post-test mean scores of those two groups were similar (48.27

for the CL group; 47.25 for the SL group) and also statistically not different (See Table 16).

When comparing the total mean score changes between the pre- and post-tests, even though the

CH group showed a greater score change than the SH group, the two higher level groups’ score

changes statistically did not show much difference as shown in Table 21 (t= 1.72, p = .096). In

addition, the two lower level groups’ total mean score changes from the pre-test to post-test

statistically did not show much difference (t=1.68, p= .102) even though the CL group had a

greater score change than the SL group. In other words, the two higher level groups and the

two lower level groups respectively showed similar degrees of improvement in reading and

writing during the semester.

Table 21
T-test for the Pre-test and Post-test Mean Difference between the Two Higher Level Groups and
between the Two Lower Level Groups
Mean Standard Error
Test Group t df p
Difference Difference
Post-test – Pre-test Higher level 4.11 2.38 1.72 27 .096
Lower level 5.19 3.07 1.68 29 .102
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

87
Moreover, the degrees of improvement between the ‘copying’ groups and the ‘summarizing’

groups were also not statistically significant (t= - 2.28, p= .026) as shown in Table 22.

Table 22
T-test for the Pre-test and Post-test Mean Difference between the ‘Copying’ Groups and the
Summarizing’ Groups
Mean Standard Error
Test Group t df p
Difference Difference
Post-test Copying
-
– VS. -4.54 1.99 58 .026
2.28
Pre-test Summarizing
Note. * p < .01

This indicates that the ‘copying’ groups and the ‘summarizing’ groups showed similar degrees of

improvement in reading and writing throughout the semester.

The nine areas of reading and writing proficiency changes between the pre-test and post-test

of the students in the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing groups

In order to compare how much the students’ reading and writing proficiency had

changed from the beginning to the end of the semester and to examine if their reading and

writing proficiency changes were positive or negative, the percentage gains for the nine areas of

reading and writing are presented in Table 23. Also, the t-test results are indicated.

88
Table 23
Pre-test and Post-test Results for the Nine Areas of Reading and Writing - Percentage Gains
between the Pre- and Post-tests
% Gain R_Main/
Group
R_Detail R_Infer R_Vocab W_Org W_Struc W_Gram W_Vocab W_Mecha Total
Supp
CH N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
% -6.98 -5.35 12.71 17.84 62.15 61.85 61.11 59.32 55.30 17.63
T -1.87 1.15 -1.21 -2.15 -4.90 -5.67 -5.44 -4.34 -4.75 -4.06
P .082 .271 .247 .050 .000** .000** .000** .001** .000** .001**
CL N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
% 17.66 6.13 18.32 62.79 97.5 97.5 111.82 100.00 76.47 35.10
T -2.10 -1.00 -2.55 -4.66 -8.12 -8.12 -8.05 -8.81 -6.15 -9.54
P .054 .334 .023* .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000**
SH N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
% -2.40 -1.79 -4.76 13.03 44.57 47.95 45.92 23.98 50.86 8.46
T .43 .43 .92 -1.21 -5.79 -5.34 -5.62 -3.24 -6.90 -3.59
P .671 .671 .374 .247 .000** .000** .000** .006** .000** .003**
SL N 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
% -14.29 -12.34 13.47 30.06 67.38 74.64 74.05 54.67 78.26 18.42
T 2.09 1.70 -2.22 -.88 -6.01 -9.66 -4.81 -4.82 -6.45 -2.71
P .054 .110 .043* .393 .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .016*
Total N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
% -2.49 -3.80 9.42 26.41 65.36 68.67 68.63 55.63 64.00 19.01
T .75 1.27 -2.46 -2.85 -11.82 -13.74 -11.63 -9.46 -11.97 -4.96
P .454 .209 .017* .006** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .005**
Note 1. Each percentage gain was calculated by using the following formula:
[100 x (Post-test – Pre-test)/Pre-test %]
Note 2. * p < .05, ** p < .01

The 60 students in the four groups showed a 19.01% gain when comparing their total mean score

on the pre-test with their post-test mean score. Among the nine areas, they showed the greatest

improvement in ‘W_Struc’ (68.67% gain) and ‘W_Gram’ (68.63% gain) areas, whereas they

showed the least improvement in ‘R_Infer’ (9.42% gain) area. Particularly in ‘R_Main/Supp’

and ‘R_Detail’ areas, the students’ scores even dropped (-2.49% gain in ‘R_Main/Supp’ area; -

3.80% gain in ‘R_Detail’ area). However, in ‘R_Infer’ and ‘R_Vocab’ areas, they showed

statistically significant improvement (t= -2.46, p < .01 for ‘R_Infer’ area; t= -2.85, p < .01 for

89
‘R_Vocab’ area). In comparison, they obtained much higher scores on the post-test than they

did on the pre-test and showed statistically significant improvement in all five areas of ‘writing’

(i.e. ‘W_Org,’ ‘W_Struc,’ ‘W_Gram,’ ‘W_Vocab,’ ‘W_Mecha’). They showed more than 55%

of gain in those five areas.

For each of the four groups, the CL group made the greatest improvement (35.10% gain),

and the SH group made the least improvement (8.46% gain). The CH and SL groups showed a

similar rate of percentage gain (17.63% gain for the CH group; 18.42% for the SL group)

indicating that they showed similar degrees of reading and writing ability improvement from the

pre- to the post-test.

1) Comparison of the pre-test and post-test results between the two higher level

groups. When specifically looking at each of the nine areas and comparing the two

higher level groups, the CH group had improved the most from the pre- to the post-test in

‘W_Org’ area (62.15% gain, t= -4.90, p < .01) and had improved the least in ‘R_Infer’ area even

though the degree of their improvement was statistically significant (12.71% gain, t= -1.21, p

< .01). They generally performed well and showed statistically significant improvement in the

five areas of ‘writing’ on the post-test (They showed more than 55% of gain for all of the five

areas.), but they relatively did not perform well in ‘R_Main/Supp’ (-6.98% gain) and ‘R_Detail’

(-5.35% gain) areas. The SH group, in comparison, improved the most in ‘W_Mecha’ area

(50.86% gain, t= -6.9, p < .01) and improved the least in ‘R_Vocab’ area (13.03%). Among the

four areas of ‘reading,’ their scores dropped in the three areas; ‘R_Main/Supp,’ ‘R_Detail,’ and

‘R_Infer’ areas; on the post-test (-2.40% gain in ‘R_Main/Supp’ area; -1.79% gain in ‘R_Detail’

area; ‘-4.76% gain in ‘R_Infer’ area).

90
 Interestingly, although the students in the CH and SH groups were at a higher

proficiency level, they showed different degrees of improvement in different areas of reading and

writing. In reading, the CH group became slightly better in ‘making an inference’ (‘R_Infer’)

even though the degree of their improvement was not statistically significant (t= -1.21, p= .247).

As Diana, who was engaged in a deeper level of ‘copying’ processing in Currie’s (1998) study,

was eager to achieve a deeper understanding of texts and language in her own way, the CH group

might have also tried to go beyond the surface details and find other implied meanings in a text.

In contrast, the SH group became worse in that ability. They might have not tried to make

inferences because they were supposed to include the information only stated in the text into

their summaries. If they had been required to add their personal comments and interpretations

into the summaries, they might have had more in-depth thoughts about the information outside

the text. Both the CH and SH groups fell behind on the post-test than on the pre-test in ‘finding

main ideas and supporting ideas of texts they were reading’ (‘R_Main/Supp’) and also in

‘understanding and identifying the details relevant to the main and supporting ideas’ (‘R_Detail’).

The CH group might not have paid much attention to identifying main ideas, supporting ideas,

and important details because they did not have to include all of those ideas and details into their

copied texts. The SH group, in comparison, might have focused more on getting a general

sense of a text rather than specifically identifying all of the important ideas and details.

In order to examine if any significant improvement could be found in the overall reading

areas from the higher level groups, the researcher combined the four areas of ‘reading’ (i.e.

‘R_Main/Supp,’ ‘R_Detail,’ ‘R_Infer,’ and ‘R_Vocab’ areas) as well as the five areas of ‘writing’

(i.e. ‘W_Org,’ ‘W_Struc,’ ‘W_Gram,’ ‘W_Vocab,’ and ‘W_Mecha areas). Then, she examined

if there had been much improvement in overall reading and writing areas from the pre-test to the

91
post-test. The total mean scores that the CH and SH groups obtained for the overall reading and

writing areas are shown in Table 24.

Table 24
Comparisons between the Students in the Higher Level Groups’ Pre-test and Post-test Scores for
the Overall Reading and Writing Areas
Area Group Test N Mean SD Mini Max
Reading CH Pre 15 37.57 7.39 21.00 48.50
Post 15 40.30 4.22 33.50 48.00
SH Pre 14 39.32 3.34 34.00 46.00
Post 14 39.32 5.27 29.75 46.50
Writing CH Pre 15 9.23 2.92 5.00 14.50
Post 15 14.75 3.46 7.75 20.00
SH Pre 14 9.71 2.83 5.50 16.50
Post 14 13.86 2.79 9.50 18.50
Note. The highest score one could get in the overall reading areas was 51 points and that for the
overall writing areas was 20 points.

For the overall writing areas, both the CH and SH groups showed much improvement, and their

scores increased by more than 4 points on the post-test. However, for the overall reading areas,

the CH group showed very little improvement (i.e. 2.73 points increase on the post-test), and the

SH group showed no improvement at all from the pre-test to the post-test. Even though the four

areas of ‘reading’ were combined, not much improvement was observed from the two higher

level groups. The researcher found that there were several students who topped out in the CH

and SH groups. In other words, some students at the higher level received so close to the

highest score on the pre-test that they had little room to get a much higher score on the post-test.

Thus, the researcher removed eight students (i.e. four students in each of the CH and SH groups)

who gained more than 60 points on the pre-test and gained only 3 to 4 points higher scores on the

post-test. The student with the highest score obtained 63 points on the pre-test and 66 points on

the post-test. Then, the rest of the remaining students’ scores for the overall reading and writing

areas on the pre- and post-tests were re-calculated as shown in Table 25.

92
Table 25
Pre- and Post-tests Mean Scores for Overall Reading and Writing of the Higher Level Groups
Excluding Topped Out Students
Area Group Test N Mean SD
Reading CH Pre 10 37.50 1.42
Post 10 38.55 1.20
SH Pre 11 38.22 2.63
Post 11 38.70 5.19
Writing CH Pre 10 8.15 2.50
Post 10 14.17 3.53
SH Pre 11 9.00 2.34
Post 11 13.54 2.77

Still, the CH and SH groups’ pre-test and post-test scores for overall reading areas were similar,

whereas their post-test scores for overall writing areas were much higher than their pre-test

scores. That is, the CH and SH groups’ overall reading scores did not increase much on the

post-test. As shown in Table 26, no statistically significant differences were found in the

overall reading areas between the higher level groups’ pre-test and post-test scores (t= - .73,

p= .479 for the CH group; t= - .31, p= .765 for the SH group), whereas statistically significant

differences were found in the overall writing areas (t= -5.17, p < .01 for the CH group; t= -7.97,

p < .01).

Table 26
T-test for the Mean Difference in Overall Reading and Writing Areas between the Pre- and
Post-tests for the Higher Level Groups Excluding Topped Out Students
Mean Standard Error
Post-test – Pre-test Group t df p
Difference Difference
Reading CH -1.05 4.49 -.73 9 .479
SH -.47 5.14 -.31 10 .765
Writing CH -6.02 3.68 -5.17 9 .001**
SH -4.54 1.89 -7.97 10 .000**
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

93
It is clear that the students in the CH and SH groups did not show significant degrees of

improvement in the overall reading areas while they showed great degrees of improvement in the

overall writing areas.

Some other possible answers which could account for the higher level groups’ poor

performance in the overall reading areas are found from Song’s (1998) study. Song wanted to

see whether the reading ability of the students in the three different proficiency levels—low,

intermediate, and high proficiency levels—would be improved by providing a long-term training

of ‘summarizing’ with other reading strategies. The low level students showed great

improvement in ‘R_Main/Supp,’ ‘R_Detail,’ and ‘R_Infer’ areas (i.e. abilities to ‘find main ideas,’

identify important details,’ and ‘make an inference’), but the other students in the intermediate

and high levels showed much less and or statistically not significant improvement. The

intermediate level students’ scores in ‘R_Detail’ area even dropped on the post-test. Song

explained that the high level students might have not improved much because they already had

good reading ability prior to the training, whereas the low level students might have improved a

lot because their reading ability was so poor that they were not aware of how to read and

understand texts better and consequently could get much benefit from the training. The

intermediate and high level students, however, did not show much improvement even though

they received explicit training for the whole semester. If they did not receive any training at all,

they might have shown much less improvement on the post-test. In Joh’s (2000) study, students

also received ‘summarizing’ training like in Song’s (1998) study. The students showed

statistically significant improvement in all of the four areas of ‘reading’: ‘R_Main/Supp,’

‘R_Detail,’ ‘R_Infer,’ and ‘R_Vocab’ areas. However, the students’ different proficiency levels

were not taken into account. They might not have all shown a great degree of improvement if

94
their proficiency levels had been considered. In this dissertation study, however, the students

were only directed to do either a ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity, but no further training or

explanations were provided for them at all during the semester. Discovering how to read and

understand texts better through ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity was totally up to them.

Nevertheless, both the CH and SH groups showed improvement in the abilities to ‘guess

vocabulary meaning from context’ and ‘use that vocabulary appropriately in creating their own

sentences’. In addition, the CH group showed improvement in the ability to ‘make an

inference.’ Although the two higher level groups showed poor performance on the post-test

when considering their reading scores, it does not necessarily mean that their reading ability

seriously deteriorated. Their scores in most of the ‘reading’ areas dropped on the post-test, but

they still obtained higher scores than the students in the two lower level groups. In addition,

their scores in ‘R_Main/Supp,’ ‘R_Detail,’ and ’R_Infer’ areas on the post-test were mostly

lower than those on the pre-test, but their scores in ‘R_Vocab’ area increased on the post-test

although there was no statistically significant degree of increase. The other possible

explanation for the relatively low degree of improvement in reading would be that the students

might not have read the texts on the post-test as carefully as they did on the pre-test due to the

identical pre- and post-test questions. The researcher happened to meet two students whom she

interviewed in school and asked them what they thought would be the reason for the little

improvement in reading compared to writing. They said that they tended to give less attention

to specific details of the texts on the post-test when answering the questions because they

remembered the contents of the test texts. They also mentioned that since the three areas of

‘reading’ (i.e. ‘R_Main/Supp,’ ‘R_Detail,’ and ‘R_Infer’ areas) questions were multiple-choice

questions, this reinforced them to guess the answers among the four answer choices. However,

95
they said that they gave much more attention to ‘R_Vocab’ area and the five areas of ‘writing’

because all the questions were open-ended and thus prevented them from guessing.

In writing, even though the SH group improved less (They achieved between 23% and

51% of gain in the five areas of ‘writing.’) than the CH group (They achieved between 55% and

63% of gain in the five areas of ‘writing.’), they showed statistically significant improvement in

all five areas of ‘writing’ like the CH group. Among the five areas of ‘writing,’ the SH group

showed the greatest improvement for the ability to ‘use correct spelling, punctuation, and

capitalization’ (50.86% gain, t= 6.90, p < .01). They might have reviewed and corrected

mechanical mistakes relatively easily by skimming through their summaries rather than checking

and correcting ungrammatical or awkward sentence organizations and structures. The CH

group, on the other hand, showed the greatest improvement in the abilities to ‘organize sentences,

paragraphs, and ideas’ (62.15% gain, t= -4.90, p < .01), ‘use various sentence structures’ (61.85%

gain, t= -5.67, p < .01), and ‘use grammatically correct sentences’ (61.11% gain, t= -5.44, p

< .01). They might have paid more attention to a large unit of a text (e.g. considering how

sentences and paragraphs of a text are organized, how sentences are structured in various ways in

the text, and how sentences are grammatically well written) than the mechanics (e.g. considering

how spelling, punctuation, and capitalization are correctly used) when ‘copying’ the text and

thought about how they could organize their thoughts logically, use various sentence structures,

and produce grammatically correct sentences in their writing. As Currie (1998) observed in her

study that a deeper level of ‘copying’ helped the developing student, Diana, discover her own

approach of organizing and structuring sentences and ideas in addition to recognizing the ways

of appropriately applying new words and correctly using writing conventions, the CH group also

might have been able to internalize well-organized and structured texts and try out what they

96
have internalized in their own writing. It was surprising that not only the CH group but also the

SH group developed the ability to ‘use correct writing conventions.’ And the SH group

developed that ability the most among the nine areas of reading and writing. This indicates that

the SH group consciously gave extra attention to mechanics in addition to other writing areas by

engaging in a deeper level of ‘summarizing’ processing. Moreover, it was interesting to see that

the CH group became better in ‘R_Infer’ and ‘R_Vocab’ areas among the four areas of ‘reading’,

whereas the SH group became better only in ‘R_Vocab’ area.

For a more explicit comparison between the CH group and SH group, let us look at how

two students (i.e. one in the CH group and the other in the SH group) performed on the pre- and

post-tests. Their scores in the nine areas of reading and writing are presented in Table 27.

Table 27
Two Higher Proficiency Level Students’ Pre-test Scores and Post-test Scores in the Nine Areas of
English Reading and Writing
R_Main/
Group Ss Test R_Detail R_Infer R_Vocab W_Org W_Struc W_Gram W_Vocab W_Mecha Total
Supp
CH Yoo-Hee Pre 4 8 18 8 1.5 1.5 1 1 2 45
Post 4 6 20 10 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 53.5
SH Nari Pre 6 8 22 8.5 2 2 2 2 2 54.5
Post 4 8 20 10 3 2.5 3 2.5 4 57

Yoo-Hee who was in the CH group received 45 points on the pre-test and 53.5 points on the post-

test in total. In the four areas of ‘reading,’ she gained 2 points higher on the post-test than the

on the pre-test. Even though she had become worse in the ability to ‘find important details of a

text,’ she had become better in the abilities to ‘make an inference’ and ‘guess the meanings of

vocabulary from the context’ on the post-test. In ‘R_Vocab’ area, for example, she wrote down

‘majority’ as a synonym of the word ‘vast’ on the pre-test which was actually wrong in terms of

its meaning and part of speech. She also created her own sentence as follows: ‘When I search

97
the word ‘go’ by the Internet, I got majority of results.’ On the post-test, however, she provided

a correct synonym, ‘extensive,’ and created the following sentence: ‘There were extensive studies

about the language acquisition process.’ In the five areas of ‘writing,’ in comparison, she

gained 6.5 points more on the post-test. Among them, she showed the greatest improvement in

‘W_Gram’ and ‘W_Vocab’ areas by gaining 1.5 points more in each area. She also had become

better in ‘W_Mecha’ area on the post-test but not as much as she had in ‘W_Gram’ and

‘W_Vocab’ areas. What she wrote on the pre- and post-tests are shown below (The students

had to write if they were for or against the use of the Internet for the writing section of the test.).

From now on, any mechanical mistakes that the students made (i.e. mistakes in spelling,

punctuation, or capitalization) will be underlined in bold texts, and the corrections will be made

right next to the mistakes in a bracket. Also, any of the grammatical mistakes will be crossed

out, and the corrections will be made in bold italic texts.

(On the pre-test)

Today, it is very usual to get information from the Internet. Some people say that
getting information from it can causescause various problems, but it is true that the
Internet is becoming the best source of getting information.

First of all, by using the Internet, we can save time and money. with out [Without] the
Internet, we have to go to the library and look up many books, and meet the experts or
visit specific places to get the information we need. By contrast, the Internet allows us
to get valuable informationsinformation only by connecting it and clicking some
websitewebsites.

The Internet provides not only the convenience, but also huge amounts of
informationsinformation for people. Unless there is notno Internet, we could get very
small parts of the informationsinformation we need because it takes many times to find
specific information. In aditon [addition], we can only look up one book at one time.
On the contrary, we can read the information from many different books at one time On
the Internet. So we can get more various informationsinformation.

Finally, we can get more vivid and active information from the Internet. On off-line
[off-line,] it is very unsual [unusual] to provide information for other people unless we
are not specialists or authos [authors]. However, on on-line [on-line,] it is very easy

98
 to express our opinion and wirte [write] some comments about specific data. with
[With] this process, the information is getting abundant.

For theses [theses] three reasons, the Internet is the best and most essential method of
getting information. It will keep its posion [position] as the best method permanently.

(On the post-test)

Everyday, we get various and huge number of information from the Internet. Many
people enjoy it or get benefits by using Internet the Internet. However, there are some
problems in accessing to so much information.

First of all, Some [some] of the information on the Internet is from non-experts. Any
Internet users, even if elemetary [elementary] school students can upload information
on the Internet, but it is possible for people to perceive the wrong information as correct
one. Most of us don’t have abilities for comparing correct information with wrong-
information.

In addition, we spend much time to choose the information that we need among much
information. Because of vast amount of information on the Internet, we cannot avoid
spending much time to get useful information. There are is much information that is
not related with our purpose on the Internet.

Finally, due to the much information on the Internet, many people tend tend to think the
ability of seaching [searching] and choosing information is more important than
creating idea. If people do not create new ideas and try to investigate new area, human
beings will not develop anymore.

It is true that the Internet is really useful and helpful tool for our lives, and we can get
benefits from the information on the Internet. However, we should perceive the
shortcomigs [shortcomings] of current situations, try to develop abilities to choose
correct and invaluable information, and develop new ideas and areas.

Whereas she made many spelling, capitalization, and punctuation mistakes on the pre-test, she

did not make any punctuation mistakes on the post-test, and the total number of mechanical

mistakes decreased. She also had become much better in producing grammatical sentences on

the post-test. In addition, she wrote a better conclusion paragraph on the post-test by

summarizing what she had mentioned in the body paragraphs. Even though she did not use

various sentence patterns, her writing generally flowed pretty well. Moreover, she made better

99
choices in vocabulary and expressions. For example, she usually used ‘huge amounts of’ and

‘various’ rather than the simple adjective ‘much’ to modify the noun ‘information’ on the pre-test.

Also, she even used ‘a vast amount of’ (It is shaded in bold text in her writing.) as a modifier on

the post-test. Writing down a synonym of the word ‘vast’ and creating a sentence by using it

were one of the ‘R_Vocab’ area questions, and she appropriately applied this word which she had

learned to her own writing.

Compared to Yoo-Hee in the CH group, Nari who was in the SH group obtained 54.5

points on the pre-test and 57 points on the post-test in total. In reading, her score dropped from

44.5 to 42 on the post-test. Her abilities to ‘find main ideas and supporting ideas’ and ‘make an

inference’ had worsened, whereas the abilities to ‘identify important details’ and ‘guess the

meanings of new vocabulary and expressions’ had enhanced. In ‘R_Vocab’ area, for example,

she did not write anything as a synonym for the word ‘scarcity’ but only wrote down a sentence

by using it on the pre-test: ‘Scarcity of gold made it valuable.’ She seemed to know the

meaning, but might have not been able to find a synonym. However, on the post-test, she

correctly provided the synonym ‘lack’ and created the following sentence: ‘Lack of the resources

made it impossible to develop the industry in the country.’ In writing, on the other hand, she

gained 15 points more on the post-test. Among the five areas, she showed the greatest

enhancement in ‘W_Mecha’ area by gaining 2 points more and the second greatest enhancement

in ‘W_Org’ area by gaining 1.5 points more on the post-test. She also had become much better

in other three areas of ‘writing,’ but not as much as in ‘W_Mecha’ and ‘W_Org’ areas. The

following is what she wrote on the pre- and post-tests for the writing section:

100
(On the pre-test)

Some people might say access to accessing so much information from the Internet
creates problems, But [but] I think using internet [Internet] the Internet to get
information is very useful.

First, by access accessing to information from the Internet, people can gather a lot of
information without effort. On the internet [Internet], there are is a lot of infomation
[information] in the various fields. People don’t have to look over all the books,
newspapers, so on and so on to find the information they need. They can find any
information needed by just clicking and typing some words. It doesn’t take much time
to gether [gather] so much information [information]. It saves time and effort to be
used to find information. In this regard, using internet [Internet] the Internet for
information is a very efficient way.

Second, by using the internet [Internet,] people can access the newest information.
The newest news or information is updated everyday. People can even find a news
about what happened just a minute ago. It doesn’t matter where the Internet users are
and where the information or news is from [.] Wherever they are, they can access the
up-to-date news or information. For example, people in Korea could find who became
the president of United States the United States at the moment he was elected.

For these reasons, I prefers prefer internet [Internet] the Internet using use for
information search.

(On the post-test)

Although some people think access to a deluge of information on the Internet causes
many problems, I believe the Internet provides people with a lot of valuable information
needed.

First, the Internet allows people to access the newest information immediately.
Whenever or wherever something happens, people can find any kinds of information by
using the Internet.

Second, the Internet shortens the time to be used to look for information people need.
To find information one needs, he or she had to look over all the books or articles related
in the past. Also, it took a lot of time. But [,] as the Internet include includes
information from many sources including books and articles in the newspaper, people
just have to type what they need on the Internet. Then, the Internet will find the right
information for them in seconds.

Finally, people can gather valuable information from all over the world. There are
many people who use the Internet everyday. They share much valuable information on
the Internet. So, if one wants various kinds of information, he or she can get it on the
Internet very easily.

101
 For these reasons, the Internet is a useful method to get a lot of valuable information
despite the problems it has.

On the pre-test, Nari made many mechanical mistakes. For example, she inconsistently used

either ‘Internet’ or ‘internet’ using either a small letter ‘i’ or the capital letter ‘I.’ However, on

the post-test, she consistently used a capital letter ‘I’ for the word ‘Internet.’ In addition, she

only made one minor punctuation mistake, but no other mechanical mistakes were found on the

post-test. In the grammar area, she made such mistakes as forgetting to put ‘the’ in front of the

pronoun ‘United States’ and adding ‘-s’ in the verb ‘prefer’ after the first person singular ‘I’ on

the pre-test. Yet, no major grammatical mistakes were found on the post-test. In terms of

organization and sentence structure, she had become much better by organizing and connecting

the two reasons of why she thought the Internet was useful. She also added one more reason to

support her argument, and thus her writing flowed much better. In terms of vocabulary ability

in writing, she showed much improvement as she also did well in ‘R_Vocab’ area. For example,

she used simple phrases such as ‘so much’ and ‘a lot of’ on the pre-test, whereas she used an

advanced level phrase ‘a deluge of’ (It is shaded in bold text in her writing.) to modify the noun

‘information’ on the post-test.

Yoo-Hee and Nari were at the higher proficiency level but in a different activity group

and showed different degrees of improvement in different areas of reading and writing. They

both wrote better essays on the post-test and showed improvement in all of the five areas of

‘writing.’ However, Nari in the SH group showed much more improvement in mechanics than

Yoo-Hee in the CH group. In the other four ‘writing’ areas, Yoo-Hee’s score in each area

increased a little more than Nari’s score on the post-test. Yoo-Hee’s overall writing score

increased from 7 to 13.5 in total, whereas Nari’s score increased from 10 to 15. In the four

102
areas of ‘reading,’ they did not show as much improvement as they did in the overall ‘writing’

areas. Yoo-Hee gained 2 more points in total, but Nari even lost 2.5 points on the post-test.

In short, both the CH (t= -4.06, p < .01) and SH (t= -3.59, p < .01) groups showed

statistically significant improvement on the post-test. However, the CH group showed about a

double percentage gain (17.63% gain) over the SH group (8.46% gain) on the post-test indicating

that the reading and writing proficiency of the CH group had enhanced more than the SH group

during the semester. Still, the scores that both groups obtained on the pre-test were not

statistically different from each other as well as their post-test scores. In addition, the degrees

of improvement from the pre-test to the post-test (i.e. the post-test mean score – the pre-test

mean score) between the two groups were not statistically different. In other words, the

performance changes of the CH and SH groups from the pre-test to the post-test were positive,

and the degrees of improvement of both groups were statistically similar even though the CH

group showed a little more improvement than the SH group.

2) Comparison of the pre-test and post-test results between the two lower level groups.

Having compared the two higher level groups, let us now look at the two lower level groups.

The CL group improved the most in ‘W_Gram’ area (111.82% gain, t= -8.05, p < .01) and the

second most in ‘W_Vocab’ area (100% gain, t= -8.81, p < .01), whereas they improved the least

in ‘R_Detail’ area (6.13% gain, t= -1.00, p < .01). In the four areas of ‘reading,’ the CL group

showed between 6% and 63% of gain, but the degree of their improvement was statistically

significant only in ‘R_Infer’ (t= -2.55, p < .05) and ‘R_Vocab’ (t= -4.66, p < .01) areas.

Although they showed less improvement in the overall ‘reading’ areas than in the ‘writing’ areas,

they were the only group who gained much higher scores in all four areas of ‘reading’ on the

post-test among the four groups. The SL group, in comparison, improved the most in

103
‘W_Mecha’ area (78.26% gain, t= -6.45, p < 0.1) and the second most in ‘W_Struc’ area

(74.64%, t= -9.66, p < .01), whereas they improved the least in ‘R_Infer’ area (13.47% gain).

Although they improved the least in ‘R_Infer’ area, the degree of their improvement was

statistically significant (t= -2.22, p < .05). In all of the five areas of ‘writing,’ they showed

statistically significant improvement, having more than 53% of gain. In the four areas of

‘reading,’ they showed relatively less improvement in ‘R_Infer’ (13.47% gain) and ‘R_Vocab’

(30.06% gain) areas than they did in the overall ‘writing’ areas. In ‘R_Main/Supp’ (-14.29%

gain) and ‘R_Detail’ (-12.34%) areas, they performed more poorly on the post-test.

In reading, the CL group became better in ‘finding main and supporting ideas of a text,’

‘identifying important details,’ ‘making an inference of a text they were reading,’ and ‘guessing

the meanings of new words and expressions within a context.’ Even though the CL group did

not have to produce their own writing, they seemed to consciously think about what they were

reading and ‘copying’ and what benefits they could get through the ‘copying’ activity. In other

words, they might have given great attention to understanding and finding the gist and important

details of a text. In comparison, the SL group only became better in ‘making an inference’ and

‘guessing the meanings of new words and expressions,’ but became worse in ‘understanding and

finding main and supporting ideas’ and ‘identifying important details.’ In Song’s (1998) study,

low level and intermediate level students who received ‘summarizing’ training became better in

‘making an inference’ and ‘finding main ideas,’ but not in ‘finding important details.’

Unfortunately, Song did not provide any explanations for this. In Joh’s (2000) study, the

students who were given ‘summarizing’ instruction showed much more improvement in ‘making

an inference’ area than in ‘finding main and supporting ideas’ and ‘identifying important details’

areas. She mentioned that the ‘summarizing’ activity helped the students go through deep-level

104
reading and thus they could develop the ability to ‘infer implied information from a text’ which

would be a deeper level of the reading processing. The students in the SL group also might

have wanted to question themselves more about a text and find information outside the text in

order to understand and identify inferred meaning of the text as they were engaged in a deeper

level of the learning processing. They thus might have paid relatively less attention to

specifying main ideas, supporting ideas, and important details of a text rather than making

inferences. In terms of reading vocabulary ability, both the CL and SL groups developed their

ability to ‘guess the meanings of new words and expressions through context clues’ although the

SL group showed much less improvement (30.06% gain) than the CL group (62.79% gain).

Since the CL and SL groups were not at an advanced level, they might have encountered

unfamiliar words and expressions which could have hindered them in understanding the meaning

of text content. As low level students’ long-term memory of vocabulary had enhanced through

the ‘copying’ activity by giving special attention to new vocabulary in Lee’s (2003) study, the

students in the CL group also might have consciously focused on extending their vocabulary to

understand the text better and thus they could later possibly make better vocabulary choices in

writing.

In writing, the CL and SL groups also showed statistically significant improvement in

‘using correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization’ (CL group: 76.47% gain, t= -6.15, p < .01;

SL group: 78.26% gain, t= -6.45, p < .01). However, the CL group showed a much greater

degree of improvement in other four areas of ‘writing’ than in ‘W_Mecha’ area, whereas the SL

group showed a much greater degree of improvement in ‘W_Mecha’ area than in the other four

areas of ‘writing.’ Hidi and Anderson (1986) mentioned that it would be a heavy burden for

low level students to concentrate on content as well as mechanics when ‘summarizing’ a text.

105
They stated that those students would be able to shift attention to mechanics as their language

proficiency develops. The students in the SL group might also have become aware of their

mechanical mistakes and tried to reduce those mistakes by engaging in a deeper level of

‘summarizing.’ Moreover, their abilities to ‘organize sentences, paragraphs, and ideas,’ ‘use

various sentence structures or patterns,’ and ‘use correct grammar in writing’ had greatly

improved, and the degrees of those abilities were statistically significant (CL group: 97.5% gain,

t= -8.12, p < .01 in both ‘W_Org,’ and ‘W_Struc’ areas; SL group: 67.38% gain, t= -6.01, p < .01

in ‘W_Org,’ area and 74.64% gain, t= -9.66, p < .01 in ‘W_Struc’ area). Since the students in

the CL group were given well-organized texts and did not have to produce their own writing,

they might have paid close attention to how sentences or paragraphs were organized, how

various sentence structures were used, and how sentences were grammatically written. As Lee

(2003) found in her study that a deeper level of ‘copying’ could facilitate low proficiency level

students’ consciousness on organizational, structural, grammatical, and syntactic differences

between English and Korean, the students in the CL group also might have been able to develop

their abilities to ‘organize sentences,’ ‘structure various sentence patterns,’ and ‘write

grammatically correct sentences’ by continuously paying great attention to their weaknesses. In

addition, Joh (2000) observed that continuous ‘summarizing’ training helped her study

participants create meaningful summaries. Some of the students who wrote very poor

summaries in Joh’s study greatly improved their abilities to ‘identify structurally important ideas

of a text,’ ‘integrate information across sentences or paragraphs,’ ‘reformulate and transform the

ideas in a more complex way,’ and ‘create topic sentences not explicitly stated in a text’ all of

which required of them a more complex and deeper level process of thinking. Even though no

training was provided for the students in the SL group, they might have paid attention to content

106
and idea organizations, sentence structure, and syntax in order to write a meaningful summary by

using their own words as they were engaged in a deeper level of the ‘summarizing’ processing.

For a more explicit comparison between the CL group and SL group, let us look at how

two students (i.e. one in the CL group and the other in the SH group) had changed from the pre-

test to post-test. Their pre- and post-test scores in the nine areas of reading and writing are

presented in Table 28.

Table 28
Two Lower Proficiency Level Students’ Pre-test Scores and Post-test Scores in the Nine Areas of
English Reading and Writing
R_Main/
Group Ss Test R_Detail R_Infer R_Vocab W_Org W_Struc W_Gram W_Vocab W_Mecha Total
Supp
CL Bora Pre 2 6 10 6.5 1 1 1 1 2 30.5
Post 4 6 16 8.25 3 3 2.5 2.5 3 48.25
SL Jung-Eun Pre 6 8 16 4 1 1 1 1 1.5 39.5
Post 6 8 16 6.5 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 3.5 50.5

Bora who was in the CL group obtained 30.5 points on the pre-test and 48.25 points on the post-

test in total. In reading, she showed much improvement by gaining 9.75 points more on the

post-test. Even though her ability to ‘find important details’ had not improved at all, her

abilities to ‘identify main and supporting ideas,’ ‘make an inference’, and ‘guess the meanings of

new vocabulary and expressions’ had greatly improved. In ‘R_Vocab’ area, for example, she

wrote down a synonym of the word ‘eliminate’ as ‘get fid of’ but failed to create her own

sentence by using it on the pre-test. Yet, she produced a sentence correctly on the post-test: ‘We

should eliminate any kinds of racial segregation in the world.’ In writing, Bora also showed

much improvement in all five areas and particularly showed much greater improvement in

‘W_Org’ and ‘W_Struc’ areas by gaining 2 points more for each area than in other areas on the

post-test. The following is what she wrote on the pre- and post-tests:

107
(On the pre-test)

Where do you find the information when you have a question about something at first?
Probably, you will sit down in front of a computer. Thesedays, internet [Internet] is
the most common way to search for the information. We can get lots of information by
using the internet [Internet].

However, Some [some] people say that there are a lot of wrong information in the
internet [Internet], so and so it is harmful. When we write down one word and click
the mouse, We [we] can see a number of information about that. Some of them are
useful, but others are useless. The part of their concern is to accept this information
unnoticeably.

To solve this problem, we should know how to choice choose right and useful
information. Teachers informs inform to the students how to use the internet
[Internet] correctly, and also adults needsneed to know them. Furthermore, When
[when] we upload the information on the internet [Internet], we should use correct
information.

We can get many advantages by using the internet [Internet], so and so we can’t give
up it give it up because of disadvantages. Therefore, we should be well educated how
of how to use the internet [Internet] and them then we gain can gain lots of valuable
information from the internet [Internet].

(On the post-test)

Now, information is one of the most important factors which influences influence our
success, and so people have seeked sought for useful means to find various information
more effectively. Among diverse ways to find information, The [the] Internet have
has become a powerful tool for getting information. Recently, most of the people say
that the Internet provides them with valuable information_[,] and it is really convenient.
However, I think much of the information from the Internet has some problems.

First, we cannot believe the information on the Internet completely. It is possible for
people to find wrong information on the Internet. If they see the false information and
use it without noticing it, it can be a problem.

Secondly, people can abuse others’ information. For example, many students who have
to write their report try to find information from the Internet, and they sometimes tend to
use others’ information as if it is their own.

Lastly, some of the information can be harmful for, especially, children. For example,
adolescents’ suicide rate has increased because of the website which provides the
information about ways of killing oneself. On the Internet, there are much detrimental
and toxic information, so and so our children can be damaged from that information.

108
 Some people might say that using the Internet for getting information is really helpful
for us. However, as I said, there are many problems of using the Internet_[,] and it is
easy to ignore those problems. In short, now we have to recognize the danger of using
information from the Internet and find out the way to resolve those problems.

On the pre-test, her writing actually wandered off the topic. Rather than taking one position—

either the pro or con of using the Internet—and providing reasons and examples to support her

position, she suggested solutions to what people should do to choose good information on the

Internet. She did not provide clear and specific reasons of why she thought using the Internet

was good or bad. Also, she did not have convincing and logical concluding remarks.

Accordingly, she got the lowest score for the content/idea organization and sentence

structure/fluency. However, on the post-test, she provided three convincing reasons to support

her position. In addition, she stated her position clearly in the introduction paragraph and made

a smooth connection to the body paragraphs. She also briefly restated important points in the

conclusion paragraph. In terms of mechanics, Bora made many mistakes in capitalization but

not in spelling and punctuation on the pre-test. On the post-test, she seemed to forget about

putting a comma when a sentence got longer, but her overall mechanical mistakes had greatly

decreased. She also made much fewer grammatical mistakes. Moreover, similar to the

vocabulary ability in reading, she also became better in the writing vocabulary area. For

example, she used adjectives such as ‘useful,’ ‘right,’ ‘correct,’ ‘valuable,’ and ‘wrong’ to modify

the noun ‘information’ on the pre-test. However, she used more advanced level words such as

‘detrimental’ and ‘toxic’ as modifiers for ‘information’ on the post-test (They were shaded in

bold texts in her writing.).

Compared to Bora in the CL group, Jung-Eun who was in the SL group obtained 39.5

points on the pre-test and 50.5 points on the post-test in total. In reading, she only showed

109
improvement in ‘R_Vocab’ area on the post-test among the four areas. For example, she wrote

down ‘enhance’ as a synonym of the word ‘exacerbate’ which had a totally opposite meaning

from its original meaning on the pre-test. Also, by using the word ‘exacerbate,’ she made the

sentence ‘It is even more worse case that the matter exacerbates its side effect.’ On the post-

test, however, she provided a correct synonym, ‘make worse’ and created her own sentence as

follows: ‘If you add that substance to water, it will exacerbate the condition.’ In writing, on

the contrary, she showed great improvement. Among the five areas, she showed the greatest

improvement in the ‘sentence structure and fluency’ and ‘mechanics’ areas by gaining 2 points

for each area on the post-test. She also became better in other three areas of ‘writing,’ but not

as much as she did in ‘W_Mecha’ and ‘W_Struc’ areas. The following is what she wrote on the

pre- and post-tests for the writing section:

(On the pre-test)

The Internet’s [Internets]Internet became vital component of our lives. We cannot

imagine how we’ve got along with work places and friends from different nations. It
implies that we are surrounded by the internet [Internet] environment. Also, it shows
how crucial to it is to have access to the internet [Internet]. There are reasons why I
think Internet the Internet provides valuable information_[.]

First of all, Information [information] is related to weath [wealth] in a country. For

example, Korea lacks of natural resources so that we have to import natural resources
such as oil. To survive among other countries, we need to focus on IT industry. By
doing this, we can get to know what is going on all around world, and we can be more
proactive than other countries. Furthermore, we can produce IT products through
internet [Internet] the Internet.

Some people might say so much information cause causes many problems. However,
it all depends on our efforts and times We [we] actually put into using information
properly. Besides_[,] we should try to have proper “[ ] internet [Internet] and
information education” [ ] from goverment [government] regardless of their our
income, geographic location, education, and so on.

110
 (On the post-test)

The Internet has been enormously used worldwide in last the last 30 years. We cannot
think how we ever get along with others or work without access to the internet. It has
dominated our daily life. Even though the Internet has become an essential tool in so-
called “digital age,” there are three major problems in using the Internet.

First of all, we spend plenty of times time on the Internet not only to study or work but
also to explore various websites without any purposes. Thus, it can be time-wasting.
Moreover, it can cause many diseases by sitting on a chair and looking at the screen for a
long time. For example, there were several Koreans who are were in their early 2020s
to 3030s. They died from anonymous disease. It turned out that all of them spent
more than 12 hours a day on the Internet_[,] and that made their body weak.
Unfortunately, it led them to die even though they were healthy and young.

Secondly, there are increasing crimes on the Internet. Because of the fact that people
cannot check out the information on the Internet whether it is true or not, they could be
cheated when they purchase stuff. Furthermore, there is a danger of spreading people’s
secret pin numbers by computer hacking. So, personal information has become can be
used in a harmful way.

Lastly, the addiction to the Internet has become one of the social issue issues. There
are many people who are having difficulties in controlling themselves when it comes to
using the Internet. They do not know when and how to use the Internet properly and
wisely which means they are already addicted to the Internet. For instance, children
who need extra care from their parents and teachers are more likely to become victims.
They are easily addicted to playing computer games which involve violent contents.

For these reasons, people need to pay attention to the Internet since both cons and pros
exist at the same time. In this way, we can feel a sense of satisfaction by being given a
lot of valuable information. It is time for all of us to re-establish the right attitude
toward using the Internet.

On the pre-test, Jung-Eun often showed quite simple, awkward, or rambling sentence patterns

and constructions. She also made many spelling, capitalization, and punctuation mistakes.

However, on the post-test, her writing flowed more smoothly and with more varied sentence

patterns. Many grammatical mistakes were found in her writing on the pre-test: She forgot

about putting ‘the’ in front of the word ‘Internet,’ failed to make a subject and verb agree, and

mixed the first person plural possessive ‘our’ and the third person plural possessive ‘their’ in a

111
sentence. Although she still had problems with making subjects and verbs agree, using correct

forms of singular and plural nouns, and putting the article ‘the’ in front of the superlative or

ordinal number ‘last,’ the frequency of her making grammatical mistakes had been reduced on

the post-test. In terms of content and idea organization, Jung-Eun only specified one reason

which was not strong enough to support her stance on the pre-test. She also mentioned what

people should do in the future to get benefits from the information on the Internet, but did not

clearly restate or summarize her argument in the conclusion paragraph. On the post-test, she

organized her sentences, paragraphs, and ideas in much better ways by providing three clear

reasons to support her position even though she, again, discussed what people should do in the

last paragraph as she did on the pre-test. Moreover, her use of vocabulary and expressions in

writing became much more varied, specific, and appropriate on the post-test.

Bora and Jung-Eun who were at a lower level but in a different activity group showed

different degrees of improvement in different areas of reading and writing. Both of them

produced much better writing on the post-test and showed much development in all five areas of

‘writing.’ However, Jung-Eun in the SL group showed much more development in mechanics

than Bora in the CL group. Apart from ‘W_Mecha’ area, Bora and Jung-Eun showed a similar

degree of development and gained similar scores in the other four areas of ‘writing’ on the post-

test. Bora’s overall writing score had increased from 6 to 14, whereas Jung-Eun’s overall score

had increased from 5.5 to 13.5 For the ‘R_Vocab’ area, Bora gained a higher score (8.25) on

the post-test compared to Jung-Eun (6.5), but Jung-Eun showed a greater degree of improvement

than Bora (Jung-Eun gained 2.5 higher points, whereas Bora gained 1.75 higher points.). In the

rest of the three areas of ‘reading,’ Bora showed improvement in ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Infer’

areas, but Jung-Eun did not show any improvement at all in any of the reading areas.

112
 Overall, both the CL (t= -9.54, p < .01) and SL (t= -2.71, p < .05) groups showed

statistically significant improvement. However, the CL group showed a double percentage gain

(35.10% gain) over the SL group (18.42% gain) on the post-test indicating that the reading and

writing proficiency of the CL group had enhanced more than the SL group during the semester.

Yet, like the two higher level groups, the scores that the two lower level groups gained on the

pre- and post-tests were respectively not statistically different. In addition, the degrees of

improvement from the pre- to the post-test between the two groups were not statistically different.

In other words, the performance changes of each of the CL and SL groups from the pre- to the

post-test were positive and statistically significant, and particularly the CL group showed more

improvement than the SL group even though the degree of the CL group’s improvement was not

statistically significant.

In short, the students in the four groups had developed their reading and writing ability,

but their writing ability had enhanced more with a greater degree than their reading ability. The

students in the ‘copying’ groups (i.e. CH and CL groups) showed much enhancement in all of the

five areas except in ‘W_Mecha’ area in writing. The students in the ‘summarizing’ groups (i.e.

SH and SL groups), however, showed much enhancement in ‘W_Mecha’ area as well as in

‘W_Org,’ ‘W_Struc,’ and ‘W_Gram’ areas. In ‘W_Vocab’ area, the ‘summarizing’ groups

showed improvement but not as much as the ‘copying’ groups did. In reading, the students

became much better in ‘R_Vocab’ area and somewhat better in ‘R_Infer’ area, but they mostly

did not show much enhancement in other two areas: ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ areas.

Regardless of different proficiency levels, the students in the ‘summarizing’ groups had greatly

developed the ability to ‘use correct punctuation, spelling, and capitalization’ compared to other

113
writing abilities. In contrast, the students in the ‘copying’ groups had developed other writing

abilities much more than the ability to ‘use correct mechanics.’

114
 Research Question Two

What metacognitive strategies do different levels of students in the ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ groups report using when reading and writing academic texts in English?

In the second week of the semester, the Survey Of Reading and Writing Strategies

(SORWS) was given to the 60 students in order to understand what kinds of metacognitive

strategies they would use while reading and writing academic texts in English. The researcher

wanted to see what the students were thinking about their learning processes, how they were

planning for learning, how they were monitoring their reading comprehension and writing

production, and how they were self-evaluating their learning. More specifically, she wanted to

examine if the students in the four groups would be similar or different in using planning,

monitoring, and evaluating strategies and how they would be similar or different by analyzing

the students’ responses to the SORWS. She further wished to observe what kinds of strategies

the students in the different groups were likely to be using the most and the least (going by their

SORWS responses) and how frequently they would actually use those strategies. The students

were asked to circle a number among five [i.e. ‘1’ meant that ‘I never or almost never do this,’

‘2’ meant that ‘I do this only occasionally,’ ‘3’ meant that ‘I sometimes do this’ (about 50% of

the time), ‘4’ meant that ‘I usually do this,’ and ‘5’ meant that ‘I always or almost always do

this.’] which applied to them for each of the 36 questions. The mean scores and standard

deviations for their use of planning, monitoring, and evaluation strategies are presented

according to the four groups in Table 29.

115
Table 29
The Students’ Response to the SORWS – Their Use of Metacognitve Reading and Writing
Strategies
Strategy Type
Planning Monitoring Evaluating Total
Group
CH Mean 3.31 3.19 3.00 3.17
SD .64 .44 .74 .51
CL Mean 3.15 3.03 3.43 3.13
SD .92 .43 .70 .51
SH Mean 3.56 3.32 3.70 3.44
SD .59 .41 .62 .42
SL Mean 3.76 3.37 3.53 3.48
SD .55 .49 .57 .41
Total Mean 3.45 3.23 3.42 3.31
SD .71 .45 .69 .47

The total mean that the 60 students obtained was 3.31 indicating that they used different kinds of

strategies pretty often when reading and writing academic texts in English. Among the four

groups, the SL group had the highest score (M=3.48), and the CL group had the lowest score

(M=3.13). When considering the three types of the strategies, the students used the planning

strategies the most frequently (M=3.45) and the monitoring strategies the least frequently

(M=3.23). The frequency between their use of planning strategies and monitoring strategies

showed statistically significant difference as indicated in Table 30 (t= 3.30, p < .01). However,

they did not show statistically significant differences both between the frequency of monitoring

strategy use and evaluating strategy use (t= .31, p= .757) and between the frequency of

evaluating strategy use and planning strategy use (t= -2.48, p= .016).

116
Table 30
T-test Table for the Mean Difference among the Students’ Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluating
Strategy Use within the Four Groups
Mean Standard Error
Group Strategy t df p
Difference Difference
CH Planning — Monitoring .12 .12 1.01 14 .330
Monitoring — Evaluating .31 .18 1.74 14 .104
Evaluating — Planning .19 .14 1.30 14 .215
CL Planning — Monitoring .12 .15 .78 14 .448
Monitoring — Evaluating -.28 .19 -1.43 14 .173
Evaluating — Planning -.40 .15 -2.71 14 .017
SH Planning — Monitoring .23 .12 1.89 13 .079
Monitoring — Evaluating -.14 .16 -.84 13 .411
Evaluating — Planning -.37 .12 -3.03 13 .009*
SL Planning — Monitoring .39 .53 2.93 15 .010
Monitoring — Evaluating .23 .62 1.48 15 .159
Evaluating — Planning -.16 .66 -.98 15 .338
Total Planning — Monitoring .22 .06 3.30 59 .002*
Monitoring — Evaluating .028 .09 .31 59 .757
Evaluating — Planning -.19 .07 -2.48 59 .016
Note. * p < .01

Interestingly, the SL group tended to mark higher scores for most of the three types of the

strategies than other groups and considered themselves using overall strategies very often.

Accordingly, the SL group had the highest scores for the use of planning (M= 3.76) and

monitoring strategies (M= 3.37) among the four groups. In contrast, the CL group tended to

give themselves lower scores for most of the three strategy types than other groups and thought

themselves using overall strategies not very often. The CL group thus had the lowest score for

the use of planning (M= 3.15) and monitoring strategies (M= 3.03) among the four groups. For

the use of evaluating strategies, the SH group had the highest score (M=3.70), whereas the CH

group had the lowest score (M= 3.00). However, the four groups did not show statistically

117
significant differences in their use of planning (F= 2.35, p= .082), monitoring (F=1.80, p= .157),

and evaluating strategies (F= 2.13, p= .041) as presented in Table 31. This would indicate that

even though some groups had a higher score for certain types of strategy use while other groups

had a lower score, the four groups’ scores were statistically not very different from one another

(F= 2.29, p= .088). Thus, the frequency of the four groups’ use of the three types of strategies

was similar.

Table 31
ANOVA Table for the Mean Difference among the Four Groups in their Use of Strategies
Sum of Mean
Strategy Source df F Sig.
Squares Square
Planning Between Groups 3.38 3 1.12 2.35 .082
Within Groups 26.77 56 .47
Total 30.15 59
Monitoring Between Groups 1.08 3 .36 1.80 .157
Within Groups 11.21 56 .20
Total 12.29 59
Evaluating Between Groups 3.90 3 1.30 2.93 .041
Within Groups 24.79 56 .44
Total 28.69 59
Total Between Groups 1.45 3 .48 2.29 .088
Within Groups 11.85 56 .21
Total 13.30 59
Note. * p < .01

When considering what types of strategies were used the most and the least, the planning

strategy was used the most frequently by the 60 students (M=3.45) followed by the evaluating

strategy (M=3.42), and the monitoring strategy (M=3.23) in that order. For the CH group, the

planning strategy was used the most frequently (M=3.31), the monitoring strategy was used the

second most (M=3.19), and the evaluating strategy the least (M=3.00). On the other hand, the

118
SH group used the evaluating strategy the most frequently (M=3.70), the planning strategy the

second most (M=3.56), and the monitoring strategy the least (M=3.32). The SH group had a

higher total score (M=3.44) than the CH group (M=3.17) for their use of the overall strategies.

When comparing the two lower level groups, the SL group had a higher total score (M=3.48)

than the CL group (M=3.13) in their use of overall strategies. For the CL group, the evaluating

strategy was used the most frequently (M=3.43), the planning strategy the second most (M=3.15),

and the monitoring strategy the least (M=3.03). The SL group, however, used the planning

strategy the most (M=3.76), the evaluating strategy the second most (M=3.53), and the

monitoring strategy the least (M=3.37). Within each group, statistically no significant

differences were found between their use of planning and monitoring strategies, between their

use of monitoring and evaluating strategies, and between their use of evaluating and planning

strategies. Only the SH group exceptionally showed a statistically significant difference

between their use of evaluating and planning strategies (t= -3.03, p < .01).

In sum, the SL group had the highest scores and the CL group had the lowest scores for

their overall use of strategies among the four groups. However, there were not many significant

score differences among the four groups indicating that the students used the three types of

strategies—planning, monitoring, and evaluating strategies—with similar frequency (They used

all three types of strategies often with a frequency of more than ‘3’ but less than 4.’) regardless of

which proficiency level they were at and which activities they were engaged in.

Then, let us turn our attention to what kinds of strategies within planning, monitoring,

and evaluating strategy types were used the most and the least among the four groups specifically.

The top two strategies and bottom two strategies that each group of students used were indicated

with mean scores and standard deviations in Table 32. Only the top two and bottom two

119
strategies were listed for each subsection because there were more than two or three strategies

with the same mean scores for the third most and the third least frequently used ones. That is,

almost all of them could have been listed particularly for the planning and evaluating strategy

types which had a small number of strategies (i.e. Each type included only seven kinds of

strategies.) if the top three and bottom three strategies were taken into consideration. The

researcher thus considered only the top two and bottom two.

Table 32
The Top Two and Bottom Two Strategies that the Four Groups of the Students Use
Group Strategy Type Top Two Strategies
CH Planning 1. #3 (‘I think about what I
already know about the
writing topic to write
better.’)
M= 4.00, SD= 1.03
2. #6 (‘I write an outline of my 2. #5 (‘I decide how I should read
paper before writing it.’)
M= 3.93, SD= 1.26
Monitoring 1. #9 (‘I adjust my reading
speed or re-read a text when
it becomes difficult or when
I want to increase my
understanding.’)
M= 4.43, SD= 1.08
2. #10 (‘I re-read what I have
written so far or adjust my
writing speed when I come
across difficulties in
continuing writing.’)
M= 4.36, SD= .92
Evaluating 1. #33 (‘After writing, I make
changes in grammar.’)
M= 3.29, SD= 1.20
Bottom Two Strategies
1. #4 (‘I skim through a text to see
what it is about before reading
it.’)
M= 2.71, SD= .91
a text or write a paper to
achieve my purpose/goal of
reading or writing.’)
M= 2.79, SD= .80
1. #19 (‘When writing, I skip a
paragraph and write another
paragraph when I get stuck and
later go back to the skipped
part.’)
M= 1.71, SD= 1.06
2. #29 (‘When reading, I ask
myself questions I like to have
answered in a text and try to
find the answers for them.’)
M= 2.21, SD= .97
1. #31 [‘After reading, I review a
text (or notes that I took while
reading) and try to identify
important points in order to
check if I understood the text
correctly.’]
M= 3.00, SD= 1.24

120
 2. #35 [‘After writing, I make
changes in the structures of
sentences (e.g. checking for
the correct use of subject-
verb-object, noun clauses,
prepositional phrases, etc.
and revising it).]
M= 3.14, SD= 1.02
CL Planning 1. #2 (‘I think about what I
already know about the topic
or information in a text to
understand what I read
better.’)
M= 3.40, SD= 1.40
2. #5 (‘I decide how I should
read a text or write a paper to
achieve my purpose/goal of
reading or writing.’)
M= 3.33, SD= .97
Monitoring 1. #12 (‘While reading, I
underline, highlight, or circle
information in a text to help
me remember it.’)
M= 3.93, SD= 1.22
2. #10 (‘I re-read what I have
written so far or adjust my
writing speed when I come
across difficulties in
continuing writing.’)
M= 3.87, SD= 1.06
Evaluating 1. #34 (‘After writing, I make
changes in spelling,
punctuation, and
capitalization.’)
M= 4.00, SD= 1.06
2. #35 [‘After writing, I make
changes in the structures of
sentences (e.g. checking for
the correct use of subject-
verb-object, noun clauses,
prepositional phrases, etc.
and revising it).]
M= 3.80, SD= .94
121
2. #32 (‘After writing, I make
changes in vocabulary.)
M= 3.07, SD= .91
1. #7 (‘I note down words,
phrases, or short sentences
related to a writing topic before
writing.’)
M= 2.53, SD= 1.18
2. #1 (‘I have a clear and specific
purpose for reading a text and
writing a paper in English and
think about what is expected of
me.’)
M= 2.87, SD= 1.18
1. #29 (‘When reading, I ask
myself questions I like to have
answered in a text and try to
find the answers for them.’)
M= 2.20, SD= .77
2. #19 (‘When writing, I skip a
paragraph and write another
paragraph when I get stuck and
later go back to the skipped
part.’)
M= 2.27, SD= 1.22
1. #36 [‘After writing, I make
changes in the content and
ideas (e.g. checking if the
content and ideas fit the writing
topic and if ideas are coherently
and logically connected, and
revising those parts).]
M= 3.00, SD= .92
2. #31 [‘After reading, I review a
text (or notes that I took while
reading) and try to identify
important points in order to
check if I understood the text
correctly.’]
M= 3.20, SD= 1.32
SH Planning 1. #3 (‘I think about what I
already know about the
writing topic to write
better.’)
M= 4.07, SD= 1.03
2. #2 (‘I think about what I
already know about the topic
or information in a text to
understand what I read
better.’)
M= 3.80, SD= 1.08
Monitoring 1. #9 (‘I adjust my reading
speed or re-read a text when
it becomes difficult or when
I want to increase my
understanding.’)
M= 4.47, SD= .83
2. 1) #10 (‘I re-read what I
have written so far or adjust
my writing speed when I
come across difficulties in
continuing writing.’)
M= 4.13, SD= .83
2) #11 (‘I stop after a few
sentences or a whole
paragraph to check if I am
writing correctly and
logically.’)
M= 4.13, SD= .83
Evaluating 1. #33 (‘After writing, I make
changes in grammar.’)
M= 4.13, SD= .83
2. #35 [‘After writing, I make
changes in the structures of
sentences (e.g. checking for
the correct use of subject-
verb-object, noun clauses,
prepositional phrases, etc.
and revising it).]
M= 4.12, SD= .91
122
1. #5 (‘I decide how I should read
a text or write a paper to
achieve my purpose/goal of
reading or writing.’)
M= 3.00, SD= .75
2. #4 (‘I skim through a text to see
what it is about before reading
it.’)
M= 3.27, SD= 1.09
1. #29 (‘When reading, I ask
myself questions I like to have
answered in a text and try to
find the answers for them.’)
M= 2.33, SD= .89
2. #26 (‘If I don’t know a word or
expression in English, I write it
in my native language and later
try to find an appropriate
English word or expression.’)
M= 2.44, SD= .98
1. #36 [‘After writing, I make
changes in the content and
ideas (e.g. checking if the
content and ideas fit the writing
topic and if ideas are coherently
and logically connected, and
revising those parts).]
M= 3.53, SD= 1.12
2. #31 [‘After reading, I review a
text (or notes that I took while
reading) and try to identify
important points in order to
check if I understood the text
correctly.’]
M= 3.73, SD= .79
SL Planning 1. #3 (‘I think about what I
already know about the
writing topic to write
better.’)
M= 4.25, SD= .77
2. #2 (‘I think about what I
already know about the topic
or information in a text to
understand what I read
better.’)
M= 4.23, SD= .68
Monitoring 1. #12 (‘While reading, I
underline, highlight, or circle
information in a text to help
me remember it.’)
M= 4.44, SD= .81
2. #9 (‘I adjust my reading
speed or re-read a text when
it becomes difficult or when
I want to increase my
understanding.’)
M= 4.25, SD= .68
Evaluating 1. #34 (‘After writing, I make
changes in spelling,
punctuation, and
capitalization.’)
M= 4.13, SD= .88
2. #32 (‘After writing, I make
changes in vocabulary.)
M= 3.94, SD= .85
Total Planning 1. #3 (‘I think about what I
already know about the
writing topic to write
better.’)
M= 3.92, SD= 1.18
123
1. #5 (‘I decide how I should read
a text or write a paper to
achieve my purpose/goal of
reading or writing.’)
M= 3.31, SD= .87
2. #6 (‘I write an outline of my
paper before writing it.’)
M= 3.33, SD= 1.01
1. #27 (‘When reading, I translate
some sentences or the whole
text from English into my
native language.’)
M= 2.56, SD= .96
2. #29 (‘When reading, I ask
myself questions I like to have
answered in a text and try to
find the answers for them.’)
M= 2.63, SD= 1.20
1. #30 (‘After reading, I critically
analyze and evaluate the
information presented in a text
thinking about if the
information is fact or opinion,
what the author’s stance is, and
which stance I personally
would take.’)
M= 2.56, SD= .89
2. #36 [‘After writing, I make
changes in the content and
ideas (e.g. checking if the
content and ideas fit the writing
topic and if ideas are coherently
and logically connected, and
revising those parts).]
M= 3.06, SD= .99
1. #5 (‘I decide how I should read
a text or write a paper to
achieve my purpose/goal of
reading or writing.’)
M= 3.12, SD= .86
 2. #2 (‘I think about what I
already know about the topic
or information in a text to
understand what I read
better.’)
M= 3.70, SD= 1.18
Monitoring 1. #9 (‘I adjust my reading
speed or re-read a text when
it becomes difficult or when
I want to increase my
understanding.’)
M= 4.23, SD= .96
2. 1) #10 (‘I re-read what I
have written so far or adjust
my writing speed when I
come across difficulties in
continuing writing.’)
M= 4.12, SD= .86
2) #11 (‘I stop after a few
sentences or a whole
paragraph to check if I am
writing correctly and
logically.’)
M= 4.12, SD= .86
Evaluating 1. #34 (‘After writing, I make
changes in spelling,
punctuation, and
capitalization.’)
M= 3.87, SD= 1.06
2. #33 (‘After writing, I make
changes in grammar.’)
M= 3.73, SD= 1.05
The four groups showed similarities and differences in their use of the three types of the
strategies. There were some overlapping strategies within each type that most of the groups
were likely or not likely to use. For the planning strategy type, the four groups identified that
124
2. #4 (‘I skim through a text to see
what it is about before reading
it.’)
M= 3.35, SD= 1.11
1. #29 (‘When reading, I ask
myself questions I like to have
answered in a text and try to
find the answers for them.’)
M= 2.35, SD= .97
2. #19 (‘When writing, I skip a
paragraph and write another
paragraph when I get stuck and
later go back to the skipped
part.’)
M= 2.50, SD= 1.28
1. #36 [‘After writing, I make
changes in the content and
ideas (e.g. checking if the
content and ideas fit the writing
topic and if ideas are coherently
and logically connected, and
revising those parts).]
M= 3.17, SD= 1.10
2. #31 [‘After reading, I review a
text (or notes that I took while
reading) and try to identify
important points in order to
check if I understood the text
correctly.’]
M= 3.38, SD= 1.01
they either thought about what they already knew about a reading topic to increase their

understanding of a text (Strategy #2) or thought about what they knew about a writing topic to

write better (Strategy #3). However, they rarely skimmed through a text to see what it was

about before reading (Strategy #4) or thought about their purpose or goal of reading and writing

before reading a text and writing a paper (Strategy #5). Interestingly, strategy number 5 was the

least likely to be used by the CH and SL groups, whereas it was the most likely to be used by the

CL group. The CL group might have thought more deeply about why they were reading and

writing and what was expected of them so they could read and write in better ways, whereas the

CH and SL groups tended to read a text and write a paper immediately without thinking much

about their reading and writing purposes. Another planning strategy (Strategy #6)—writing an

outline of a paper before writing it—was used frequently by the CH group, but not by the SL

group. The CH group might have thoroughly planned what they would like to write about,

whereas the SL group might have written a paper by just having an outline in their head. As the

SL group did not write down their outline, the CL group also did not write down words, phrases,

or short sentences related to a writing topic before writing a paper. The students at the lower

proficiency level might have written a paper without much planning or they might have preferred

planning and developing their ideas in their mind rather than having a concrete outline on a piece

of paper.

For the monitoring strategy type, most of the groups responded that they were likely to

adjust their reading and writing speed (Strategy #9) or re-read a text or their paper when they

came across difficulties in continuing reading and writing (Strategy #10). In contrast, they

responded that they were not likely to skip a paragraph and write another paragraph when they

got stuck (Strategy #19) or not likely to ask themselves questions they would like to have

125
answered in a text and try to find the answers when reading (Strategy #29). Interestingly,

strategy number 12—underlining, highlighting, or circling information in a text to help one

remember it—was used the most only by the students at the lower level but not by the students at

the higher level. Visualization such as underlining, highlighting, and circling certain words,

phrases, or sentences with different colors might have helped the students in the lower level

group easily retrieve and remember the text information. Meanwhile, strategy number 11—

stopping after a few sentences or a whole paragraph to check if one is writing correctly and

logically—was only used frequently by the SH group. They might have wanted to repeatedly

check themselves and make sure if they were on the right track when writing a paper. The SH

group was also the only group who rarely used strategy number 26: writing a word or expression

in one’s native language and later trying to find an appropriate English word or expression. In

Zhang’s (2001) study, it was found that the English as a foreign language (EFL) college students

at a low proficiency level were daunted by new words and expressions and thus depended on

dictionaries and translated English into their first language more often than the students at a high

level did. As the high level students in Zhnag’s study were reluctant to use a dictionary, the

students in the SH group also might have wanted to write down simple English words or

expressions they already knew without using the dictionary first and then use the dictionary later

if they really could not think of the right words or expressions. The SL group, in comparison,

was the only group who was not likely to depend too much on translating sentences of a text

from English to their own native language (Strategy #27). Even though the students in the SL

group were at the low proficiency level, they avoided using the translation strategy which was

different from what the low level students in Zhang’s study did. They might have sometimes,

but not very often, translated some of the words or sentences to make their understanding clearer.

126
However, they might have tried not to do so since they knew that the translation would take up

much of their time.

For the evaluating strategy type, most of the groups responded that they were likely to

make structural changes after writing (Strategy #35). At least one evaluating strategy was used

by the lower level groups and higher level groups, respectively. The higher level groups tended

to make changes in grammar (Strategy #33), whereas the lower level groups tended to make

changes in writing conventions (Strategy #34). In addition, strategy number 32—making

changes in vocabulary after writing—was used frequently by the SL group but not by other

groups. Interestingly, strategy number 32 was the least frequently used by the CH group. In

Hosenfeld’s (1977) study, it was found that successful readers tended to read in broad phrases

and avoid word-by-word reading, whereas unsuccessful readers tended to read in short phrases

and ponder over less important words when looking at the written texts. Also, in Zhang’s (2001)

study, the high level students focused more on analyzing grammatical structures of sentences

than the meanings of words even when reading a long and complicated text, whereas the low

level students tended to consider vocabulary as a basic unit of understanding a whole written text.

As for what the more advanced and less advanced level students did in Hosenfeld’s (1977) and

Zhang’s (2001) studies, the students in the CH and SH groups who were at the higher

proficiency level might have focused more on the larger unit such as sentence structures and

grammar, whereas those in the CL and SL groups who were at the lower proficiency level might

have given more attention to smaller units such as spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.

Most of the groups responded that they were not likely to either review a text and identify

important points in order to check their understanding after reading (Strategy #31) or make

changes in the content and ideas after writing (Strategy #36). Among the four groups, the SL

127
group was the only one who rarely used strategy number 30: critically analyzing and evaluating

the information presented in a text thinking about if the information is fact or opinion, what the

author’s stance is, and which stance one personally would take after reading.

When considering the mean scores of each group, the SL group had higher scores for all

of the three types of strategies than other groups. That is, the SL group used overall strategies

more frequently than other groups. For the planning strategy type, the SL group had the highest

mean score, whereas the CL group had the lowest mean score. For the monitoring strategy type,

the SH and CH groups had slightly higher mean scores than the SL group, but the SL group had

higher mean score than the CL group. For the evaluating strategy type, the SH group had the

highest mean score and the SL group had the second highest. The CH group, however, had an

even lower mean score than the CL group indicating that the students in the CH group were less

likely to evaluate their own learning than were those in the CL group.

In sum, students in the four groups were similar in that they used all three types of

metacognitive strategies quite often with a frequency of between ‘3’ and ‘4’ on average (‘5’

indicates the highest frequency.), and also their self-reported scores for the use of overall

strategies were statistically similar among the four groups. In general, the students in the CL

group who were at the lower level used the three types of strategies with the lowest frequency,

whereas the students in the SL group who were also at the lower level used most of those

strategies with the highest frequency among the four groups. This indicates that the higher

proficiency level was not necessarily proportional to the higher mean scores of the strategy use.

That is, the higher proficiency level students did not necessarily obtain higher scores and use the

strategies more often than the lower proficiency level students. In Anderson’s (1991) study, it

was found that the high level and low proficiency level students were not different in using the

128
kinds of strategies, but rather they were different in the ways they used the strategies. The high

and low level students were similar in that they used similar kinds of strategies, but they were

different in that the high level students applied the strategies more effectively and appropriately

than the low level students did. The SL group used similar strategies as the other three groups

did and also used those strategies more often than other groups. However, they might have

lacked the ability to use those strategies appropriately for their purpose of reading and writing.

Additionally, Gregersen, Martinez, Rojas, and Alvarado (2001) found in their study that the low

level students realized that using some strategies would no longer be effective as their language

proficiency developed. For example, depending too much on dictionaries, relying heavily on

translation, and focusing too much on understanding unimportant ideas in a text (some of which

were what the CL or SL group also did) were less likely to be preferred by the low level students

as they became more proficient. Although specific types of the strategies (i.e. planning,

monitoring, and evaluating strategies) were not considered in Gregersen, Martinez, Rojas, and

Alvarado’s (2001) study, it was found that overall metacognitive strategies were used frequently

both by high and low level students. Also, regardless of how many years the students studied at

a university, high and low level students all frequently used metacognitive strategies, indicating

that “metacognitive strategies are [indispensable for successful foreign language learning] at all

stages of the language acquisition process” (Gregersen, Martinez, Rojas, & Alvarado, 2001, p.

108). Some of the strategies were commonly preferred or avoided by the students in the CH,

CL, SH, and SL groups even though, of course, slight differences existed among the four groups.

In other words, there were many similarities among the four groups in terms of the kinds of the

strategies that they used the most and least, but some of the strategies were preferred only by

certain groups while they were avoided by the other groups. The higher proficiency level and

129
higher scores for the strategy use did not positively correspond to each other, and also the lower

proficiency level and lower scores for the strategy use did not positively correspond to each other.

Although the SL group obtained relatively higher scores for the three types of strategy use than

other groups, one cannot say that the SL group was the only one who used the strategies

successfully and with the greatest frequency. Other groups might also have been aware of how

to apply the strategies appropriately and successfully even though they obtained lower mean

scores for the strategy use and did not use the strategies as frequently as the SL group did. Thus,

it would be more important to consider how effectively the students in each group used the

strategies rather than considering the higher mean scores that they gained for the strategy use or

which kinds of strategies that they were likely or not to use.

130
 Research Question Three

What metacognitive reading and writing strategies are observed being used among
different levels of students when ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ in English in a think-aloud
task? Are the reported strategies and observed strategies different between the ‘copying’
and ‘summarizing’ groups?

If the strategies that the 60 students in the four groups used when generally reading and

writing academic texts were considered in the previous section, the strategies that they used

particularly when reading and either ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ academic texts will be taken

into account in this section. Since it was impossible to interview all of the 60 students, two

students who could represent each group, and thus eight students in total, were randomly selected

and observed. The researcher wanted to examine whether or not what each of the four groups

responded to the SORWS would match what the two students in each group actually did during

the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity. Mainly, how the eight students read the given text

with the topic of ‘Bringing Online’ which had a difficulty level of L1210 (Appendix 7) and

‘copied’ or ‘summarized’ it will be discussed in this section. More specifically, focus will be

given to whether or not the strategies reported in the survey matched those actually used in the

think-aloud task. Also, whether or not the top two and bottom two strategies that the students

reported using the most and the least in the survey were actually used or not during the think-

aloud task will be examined. In addition, whether or not there were any differences both

between the students in the ‘copying’ groups and the ‘summarizing’ groups and between the

students at the higher level and lower level will be compared. The background information of

the eight students who participated in the think-aloud task is presented in Table 33.

131
Table 33
Background Information of the Think-aloud Task Participants
Hours of
Years of What they Interested
reading
usually read & topics they
Group Name Gender Age Major learning & writing
write the most would like to
English English
in English read the most
everyday
Class
materials,
local news,
gossip Language
columns, educational
Da- English e-mails, issues, language
Female 23 12-13 2-3 personal teaching
Young Education
diaries, short methods or tips,
stories, travel
persuasive or
argument
CH essays
Language
educational
issues, language
teaching
Class
methods or tips,
English materials,
Ji-Hee Female 33 14 1 e-mails,
music, fashion,
Education movies or
journals
celebrities,
food, travel,
political and
economic issues
Class
materials,
English
Jun-Su Male 23 11 1-2 teaching Sports, music
Education methods or
tips
CL Class Language
materials, educational
Yoon- English gossip issues, language
Female 23 13 2-3
Ju Education columns, teaching
personal methods and
diaries tips
Language
Class educational
Sang- English materials, issues, language
Male 25 12 2-3 Internet teaching
Woo Education
chatting methods and
tips, technology
SH Class
Language
materials,
educational
personal
English issues, language
Yuna Female 22 12 2-3 diaries,
teaching
Education persuasive or
methods and
argument
tips, music
essays

132
 Class
materials, Language
English blogs, educational
personal issues, language
Language
Su-Eun Female 22 12 1 websites, teaching
& e-mails, books methods and
Literature related to tips, movies or
educational celebrities
SL issues
Language
educational
Class issues, language
Young- English 4 or materials, teaching
Male 24 11 personal methods and
Jae Education more
diaries tips, sports,
movies or
celebrities

Additionally, the students’ past experiences of ‘copying’ and/or ‘summarizing’ activities are

presented in Table 34.

Table 34
A Summary of the Think-aloud Participants’ Past Experiences of ‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’
Group Name ‘Copying’ Experience ‘Summarizing’ Experience
-‘copied’ new English words and -‘summarized’ Korean and
expressions to remember and English texts from the textbooks
Da-Young memorize them during her high school days in
order to find and understand the
CH gist of the texts quickly
-‘copied’ new English words and -‘summarized’ texts from her
expressions to remember and textbooks for Korean language or
Ji-Hee
memorize them literature classes during her
middle and high school years
-‘copied’ some sentences from the -did not remember any
textbook when he could not ‘summarizing’ practices
understand their meanings while he
was doing a basic English writing
course assignment  However, he
CL Jun-Su neither went back to the ‘copied’
sentences nor ‘copied’ the whole
text because he did not have much
interest in his studies. He simply
‘copied’ sentences in isolation from
the context.

133
 -‘copied’ new or difficult Korean
and English words and expressions
Yoon-Ju
to learn their orthography
-‘copied’ classical Korean literary
passages from the textbook during
his high school years to remember
Sang-Woo classical Korean words and phrases
better  However, he thought
most of the texts were very long
and difficult and thus felt bored.
-did not remember any ‘copying’
practices
SH
Yuna
-did not remember any ‘copying’
practices
Su-Eun
-voluntarily ‘copied’ new words he
SL encountered while reading the
English textbooks during his
middle and high school years 
However, he thought that this was
Young-Jae
not helpful because he memorized
the meanings of new words
separated from contexts and thus
easily forgot most of the words he
had ‘copied.’
134
-‘summarized’ some Korean
biographies or novels and some
Korean texts from the textbooks
during her high school years
-‘summarized’ some Korean
literatures NOT included in the
textbook as a school assignment
 Since he felt Korean literature
was not interesting at all to read,
he was not willing to do the
‘summarizing.’
-‘summarized’ English
newspaper articles as a class
assignment in a U.S. college 
She wrote her personal opinions
and comments in addition to
article summaries. She said that
her ‘summarizing’ experience
helped her enhance her
understanding of various issues in
the U.S., but did not speak of any
advantages of ‘summarizing’ in
terms of her English proficiency
(She thought that the contents and
topics of the articles were
unfamiliar and difficult.).
-‘summarized’ Korean
newspaper editorials and added
her personal opinions during her
middle school years  However,
she did not like it because she felt
the editorials were too difficult
and not related to her interests.
-‘summarized’ some Korean
biographies or novels as a school
assignment during his high school
years
Reading and writing process of the ‘copying’ group of students and comparisons between their

reported and actual use of strategies

1) Da-Young in the higher level ‘copying’ group. During the semester, Da-Young

said that she enjoyed reading most of the texts which were given for the task very much except

when she had to ‘copy’ some of the long texts. She particularly liked the texts related to

teaching methods and tips because they gave her clear answers to how she should deal with

different kinds of difficulties in school as a teacher. She mentioned that the given texts were

neither too easy nor too difficult to comprehend, and reading and ‘copying’ two articles a week

was not too much of a burden for her.

Here is Da-Young’s process of ‘copying’ during the think-aloud task. Some of her

statements and the researcher’s interpretation were added:

She flipped through the text to check its length, glanced at its title, and then started to read it

silently.

After reading one paragraph, she stopped and started to ‘copy’ it before reading the next

paragraph (She tried not to lose concentration on what she was reading and writing and

constantly monitored her understanding of the text.).

She circled some words when their usages were different from what she had known. For

example, consider one of the sentences in the text:

“A portfolio is a purposeful collection of student work demonstrating the

student’s achievement or growth as characterized by…”

She circled the word ‘purposeful’ and stated (She was not only thinking about the meaning of

the word but also the usage of that word in the sentence.),

“I am very familiar with using the word ‘purpose’ as a noun, but I’ve never seen it used
as an adjective. It modifies the noun ‘collection’ in this sentence.”

135

She used an English-English dictionary to check the definitions and usages of unfamiliar

words. The reasons why she was using an English-English dictionary were:

“Of course, a Korean-English or English-Korean dictionary is much more convenient.

It explains the meanings of words clearly and easily, but, as you know, there are subtle
differences when translating English words into Korean. I usually used a Korean-
English dictionary in the past to understand the meanings of unfamiliar words while
reading. I then tried to use some of those words when writing an essay. But, my
professor told me that some of the words seemed to be awkward and did not fit in the
sentences. I think…I thus decided to use an English-English dictionary and also tried
to see how a certain word was used differently…I mean how the word was used
differently as a noun, adjective, or something else in different sentences. That’s why I
check sample sentences in the dictionary.

She, however, did not always use the dictionary whenever she encountered unfamiliar words.

She said,

“If a certain word is totally new to me, I use an English-Korean dictionary. But, if I
think I’ve seen a certain word somewhere before, I use an English-English dictionary.
In that case, I simply underline the word. And if I already know the different usage of
a word, I only check its meaning but not sample sentences. Oh, and I don’t like to
write down the meaning, usage, or sample sentences on the text because…if I write them
down, I kind of feel relieved…and I feel like I already understood that word perfectly,
but actually I don’t. If I don’t write them down, and then if I see the same word later in
another text…and if I still think I am not clear about it, then I look them up in the
dictionary again. In that way, I think I get better…I mean I can understand and use that
word as if it’s mine.”

She was aware of what her weaknesses were and in what ways she could make up for those

weaknesses. She had been trying hard to enrich her vocabulary and thought about the usage

of vocabulary within a context. It was impressive that she looked up a same word whenever

she saw it until she had clearly understood its meaning and usage rather than taking notes

immediately.

She put a slash between words when a sentence got longer during reading. Consider the

same sentence as above:

136
 “A portfolio is purposeful collection of student work /demonstrating the student’s
achievement or growth as characterized by…”

She explained the reason why she put a slash between ‘work’ and ‘demonstrating’ as follows:

“I sometimes forget what I was reading when a sentence gets long. I thus usually put a
slash between a subject and verb of a long sentence or in front of a relative
pronoun…and think about which phrase or clause modifies what.”

She underlined certain words or phrases when she did not know the meanings, when she

thought they were important, or when she wanted to remember them.

She constantly went back and forth in the text to check her understanding of certain

vocabulary, phrases, and paragraphs while ‘copying,’ but never went back to either the

original text or the ‘copied’ text once she had finished the ‘copying’ activity. She gave a

clear answer as to why she did not use evaluating strategies compared to planning and

monitoring strategies:

“I didn’t go back to the text because I already checked everything while I was ‘copying’
this text. I think it’s important to just focus on what I really want to know and learn.
Um…if this was not a ‘copying’ task but…um…if I was supposed to write an essay for a
test, for example, I definitely would have checked my grammar and spelling or
something else very carefully after writing. But, because I didn’t have to create my
own sentences, I didn’t think it was important to check spelling or maybe…
punctuation…something like that after ‘copying.’ During this semester, I’ve focused
on my goals…I mean I had my own purpose of learning for the ‘copying’ activity. It
would have been very boring if I had simply ‘copied’ the given texts without thinking
anything. As you know, there is an old saying, ‘If it is unavoidable, enjoy it’ (laugh).
Most of the given texts were pretty interesting, and there was a lot of useful information
in them. I thus tried to learn collocations, sentence structures, word usage,
and…hopefully later…I want to test myself by using the expressions that I’ve learned in
my own writing.”

The researcher went over her response to the SORWS and checked if what she had reported

matched what she actually did during the think-aloud task. Also, the researcher particularly

gave more attention to the top two and bottom two strategies that the CH group and Da-Young

137
used or did not use, and asked her the reasons why she used or did not use the top two and

bottom two strategies. Specifically, the percentages of match between the eight think-aloud

task participants’ reported and actual use of strategies are presented in Table 35.

Table 35
The Percentages of Match between the Think-aloud Participants’ Reported and Actual Use of
Strategies
Group Name Planning Monitoring Evaluating Total
CH Da-Young 3/4 (= 75%) 6/11 (55%) 1/6 (= 17%) 10/21 (= 48%)
Ji-Hee 3/4 (= 75%) 6/11 (55%) 1/5 (= 20%) 10/20 (= 50%)
CL Jun-Su 4/7 (= 57%) 7/11 (= 64%) 0/5 (= 0%) 11/23 (= 48%)
Yoon-Ju 3/5 (= 60%) 5/10 (= 50%) 0/5 (= 0%) 8/20 (= 40%)
SH Sang-Woo 3/4 (= 75%) 7/10 (= 70%) 4/4 (= 100%) 14/18 (= 78%)
Yuna 3/4 (= 75%) 7/11 (= 64%) 4/4 (100%) 14/19 (= 74%)
SL Su-Eun 3/4 (= 75%) 7/11 (= 64%) 2/4 (50%) 12/19 (= 63%)
Young-Jae 4/5 (= 80%) 7/9 (= 78%) 2/5 (40%) 13/19 (= 68%)
Total 26/37 (= 70%) 52/84 (= 62%) 14/38 (= 37%) 92/159 (= 58%)

In addition, the percentages of match between the eight participants’ top two and bottom two

reported and actual use of strategies are shown in Table 36.

Table 36
The Percentages of Match between the Think-aloud Participants’ Top Two and Bottom Two
Reported Strategies and their Actual Use of Strategies
Group Name Strategy Planning Monitoring Evaluating Total
CH Da-Young Top two 50% 100% 0% 50%
Bottom two 0% 50% 50% 33%
Ji-Hee Top two 50% 100% 0% 50%
Bottom two 0% 100% 50% 50%
CL Jun-Su Top two 100% 100% 0% 67%
Bottom two 50% 100% 0% 50%
Yoon-Ju Top two 100% 100% 0% 67%
Bottom two 50% 50% 0% 50%
SH Sang-Woo Top two 100% 100% 50% 83%
Bottom two 50% 0% 50% 33%
Yuna Top two 100% 100% 100% 100%
Bottom two 50% 50% 50% 50%
SL Su-Eun Top two 100% 100% 50% 83%
Bottom two 50% 100% 100% 83%

138
 Young-Jae Top two 100% 100% 50% 83%
Bottom two 50% 0% 50% 33%
Top two 78% 100% 28% 69%
Total
Bottom two 33% 50% 33% 39%

Generally, Da-Young used the planning strategies the most frequently, the monitoring

strategies the second most, and the evaluating strategies the least during the think-aloud task in

the same way as the overall students in the CH group and she had reported in the SORWS. The

following are the comparisons between her reported and actual use of strategies for the three

subsections:

For the planning strategies, only one top strategy (Strategy #3) that she reported using in the

survey was actually used during the think-aloud task between the top two strategies. The

bottom two reported strategies (Strategies #4 and #5), however, were all preferably used the

most during the task. Da-Young mentioned that she always thought about what she already

knew about the reading or writing topic so that she could read and write better (Strategies #2

and #3). She also said that she usually wrote an outline before writing a paper (Strategy #6).

However, since she was writing down exactly in the same way as what was written in the

original text, she did not think it was necessary to write an outline. In the SORWS, she

responded that she rarely skimmed through a text before reading and also rarely thought

about how she should read a text or write a paper to achieve her purpose of reading or writing

(Strategies #4 and #5). She quickly looked through the text length and title before reading,

but did not skim through the text. She said,

“I think…if I skim through a text and get an overall view of the text, I feel like I’ve
already understood about a half of the text. So, I tend not to read the text carefully after
skimming. That’s why I don’t do skimming.”

For strategy number 5, she mentioned that she usually did not think much about her purpose

139
 of reading or writing because she was overwhelmed with a heavy amount of difficult reading

and writing assignments most of the time. She said that since the purposes of reading and

writing assignments were clearly given by the instructors of the courses she was taking, she

read class materials or wrote papers without thinking much about what her purposes of

reading or writing were. However, for the ‘copying’ activity, she had clear purposes

(Strategy #1) and thought about in what ways she should read and write in order to expand

her vocabulary and learn sentence structures (Strategy #5).

For the monitoring strategies, all of the top two (Strategies #9 and #10) and bottom two

strategies (Strategies #19 and #29) reported in the survey matched the top two and bottom

two strategies actually used in the think-aloud task except one bottom strategy (Strategy #29).

Da-Young adjusted her reading and writing speed, re-read some of the sentences while

reading the text, or stopped after a few sentences while writing whenever she came across

difficulties or wanted to increase her understanding (Strategies #9, #10, and #11). She also

used different types of marks—circling, slashing, and underlining—while reading and

‘copying’ for her own learning (Strategy #12). The two least likely used strategies that she

checked were skipping a paragraph when getting stuck and later going back to the skipped

part (Strategy #19) and asking oneself questions s/he would like to have answered in a text

and trying to find the answers for them (Strategy #29). She said,

“If I skip a paragraph, write other parts first, and come back to the skipped paragraph
later, I might forget about what I was going to say. I usually try my best to overcome
any difficulties I have while writing, right away. If I think I can’t really write perfect
sentences, I might write at least several words either in English or in Korean and then
move on to the next part.”

140
 She additionally stated,

“Generally when I am reading class materials or argument essays like sample TOEFL
essays, I don’t ask myself any questions because those texts provide clear conclusions
and thus I don’t have anything more to question. But, in this semester, many articles
that I got for the ‘copying’ were about teaching methods or tips….like…for example,
how teachers could handle the students who are cheating or late for class. I mostly
agreed with the authors’ opinions or suggestions, but because I want to be a teacher in
the future, I also questioned myself about what I would do as a teacher if I encounter
those situations.”

She thus exceptionally used strategy number 29 only for the ‘copying’ activity.

For the evaluating strategies, only one bottom strategy reported in the survey (Strategy #31)

matched the bottom strategy actually used during the think-aloud task. Da-Young reported

that she made changes in grammar and sentence structure (Strategies #33 and #35) rather

than making changes in vocabulary, writing conventions, and the content and ideas

(Strategies #32, #34, and #36) after she wrote essays or reports for a test or class assignments.

However, for the ‘copying’ activity, she did not use any of those five strategies because she

tried to have a thorough understanding of the text content, sentence structure, and vocabulary

by constantly re-reading the text in the middle of ‘copying.’ She also thought about the

meanings and usages of words and phrases within the context and focused on how sentences

were structured and organized. In other words, since she already checked the content

organization, sentence structure, vocabulary, etc. of the ‘copied’ text while she was ‘copying,’

she did not check them again once she had finished.

The reasons why not all strategies reported in the survey were actually used in the think-aloud

task were because 1) Da-Young had to write exactly in the same way as what was written in the

original text rather than creating her own words and thus neither needed to have an outline of

141
how to organize her thoughts nor had to use a dictionary to find and use the right words or

expressions in her writing, 2) there were no tables, figures, pictures, etc. in the text and thus she

did not have to picture or visualize information even though she reported it as her frequently

used strategy in the survey, and 3) she spent much more time on checking if she was correctly

‘copying’ the text and clearly understanding it while ‘copying’ rather than spending time

checking after finishing ‘copying.’

2) Ji-Hee in the higher level ‘copying’ group. Ji-Hee had been working after

graduation from high school before she later entered university because she strongly desired to

become an English teacher. She thus seemed to have more passion and put more effort into

studying than others even though her overall English proficiency level was, from the course

instructor’s perspective, slightly lower than other students at the higher level. Her pre-test score

(i.e. 43 points in total) was also relatively lower than other students in the CH group and thus

close to the cut-off score between the lower and higher levels. She had slightly different

thoughts from Da-Young about the difficulty levels of the texts. She thought the texts related to

teaching methods or tips and educational issues were very interesting and helpful for her future

career, but felt that other texts were a little difficult because she was not familiar enough with the

topics. Yet, she said that reading about unfamiliar but interesting topics was very enjoyable.

In addition, she felt very happy when she saw some of the vocabulary and expressions that she

learned through the given texts in some other class materials. She thus mentioned that she

could understand and read the class materials much faster than before.

Here is Ji-Hee’s process of ‘copying’ during the think-aloud task:

She first checked the length of the text and then started to read it.

She pointed where she was reading with her pencil so as not to lose her concentration, and

142
 underlined some phrases or sentences on the text which she thought were important.

After reading the text, she started to ‘copy’ it. She underlined unfamiliar words, phrases, or

sentences such as ‘K-12,’ ‘electronic portfolio,’ and ‘independent consultant’ on the ‘copied’

text, but not on the original text.

She used the Internet to find the meanings and usages of those words. Unlike Da-Young,

Ji-Hee mostly used an English-Korean dictionary and wrote down the meanings of unfamiliar

words in a margin of the ‘copied’ text. However, she always tried to find and read sample

sentences to understand the usages of unfamiliar words and phrases in English as Da-Young

did.

When she could not find the meaning of ‘K-12’ even though she used several kinds of

English-Korean dictionaries, she finally gave up and read several sample sentences which

included ‘K-12,’ and tried to guess the meaning by using context clues:

“Um…I don’t know what this word really means…and I don’t know why all the
dictionaries did not show the meaning. But, I think…hum…when I…by reading
through several sample sentences here…this indicates something like…maybe it is
related to students’ grade level…”

She explained the reasons why she only used an English-Korean dictionary as follows:

“If I use an English-English dictionary, I have to spend much time reading and
understanding long explanations of certain words. So, I prefer reading sample
sentences provided in the English-Korean dictionary…or like what I just did…I try to
look at different kinds of websites which provide useful information about certain words.
For example, I could understand not only what electronic portfolios meant but also how
they were used in the classroom.”

When she also could not find the meaning of ‘electronic portfolio,’ she used ‘Google’ and

typed the word in the search engine. She finally stopped at the ‘Wikipedia’ website. She

skimmed through the page and tried to get a sense of what ‘electronic portfolio’ meant.

When she found the exact meaning of an unfamiliar word or phrase, she immediately wrote it

143
 on one side of the ‘copied’ text margin and numbered each word or phrase.

For some words, phrases, or sentences, she put a question mark next to them in addition to

underlining them. For example, consider the following sentence in the text:

“The collection must include student participation in selecting content, the criteria for
selection, the criteria for judging merit,? and evidence of student self-reflection.”

She said,

“I also put a question mark even though I didn’t have difficulty understanding the
meaning of the sentence because…um….I don’t think I am ready yet to…I…I think it
seems to be difficult for me to use those expressions in my writing by mixing individual
words like ‘criteria,’ ‘judge,’ and ‘merit’ and creating a good sense of phrase like ‘the
criteria for judging merit.’ I know it’s impossible for me to use these kinds of
wonderful expressions yet, but hopefully I could do so sometime in the future.”

She often erased certain words whenever she made spelling or punctuation mistakes.

However, as Da-Young did, Ji-Hee also did not go back to either the original text or the

‘copied’ text to review and correct mistakes once the ‘copying’ activity was completed.

She provided the following reason:

“Because…as you just saw, I tend to continuously go back and forth in the text and
check if I misunderstood something and if I made any mistakes while I was ‘copying’ a
text. So, I don’t think it’s necessary to re-check the ‘copied’ text after ‘copying.’ If
an argument writing task was given rather than a ‘copying’ task, then I probably would
have checked for mistakes. But, because I was writing exactly in the same way as the
author of the text had written, I didn’t think it would be important to for me to pay much
attention to my possible mistakes.”

Ji-Hee stated that it had usually taken her about two and half hours to read and ‘copy’ a given

text, but she said that the length of time for completing each task was gradually getting shorter.

Interestingly, she mentioned that she usually read a whole text during break the time between

classes or in her commute ride in the subway or bus, but ‘copied’ it little by little in her spare

time. She usually did not ‘copy’ right after reading it, but she did this time since she was in an

144
interview situation. She seemed to spend a lot more time than other students thinking about and

finding what the meanings of certain words were, figuring out how sentences were structured

and how she could use them appropriately in her own writing, as well as looking for additional

information about new concepts related to the text topic (e.g. use of electronic portfolios as a

class assignment). Since it seemed to be taking so long to wait until she completed ‘copying’

the whole text, the researcher asked her to stop when her task was a half way done.

Overall, Ji-Hee used the planning strategies the most frequently, the monitoring

strategies the second most, and the evaluating strategies the least during the think-aloud task, as

the CH group of students and she had reported in the SORWS (See Table 35.). Here are the

comparisons between her reported and actual use of strategies for the three subsections (See

Table 36.):

For the planning strategies, one of the top strategies that she reported using in the survey

(Strategy #3) was indeed used the most during the task, whereas the two bottom strategies

reported in the survey (Strategies #4 and #5), ironically, became her top two strategies during

the task. She thought much about what she already knew about the topic or information in

the text to enhance her understanding of what she was reading and writing (Strategies #2 and

#3). She mentioned that she always wrote an outline before writing a paper (Strategy #6)

like she had reported in the survey, but she thought that an outline was unnecessary for the

‘copying’ activity. She further stated that she had not seriously thought about how she

should read and write to achieve her goal in the past. However, for the ‘copying’ activity,

she said,

145
 “As I mentioned earlier, I knew that I was not good at writing. But, after my professor
told me that I really should try hard to pass the Teacher Certification Exam and become
a teacher, I began to think deeply about how I could develop my writing proficiency as
much as possible through the ‘copying’ activity.”

Accordingly, she carefully thought about better ways to read and ‘copy’ the given texts

(Strategy #5). Skimming through a text (Strategy #4) was reported as her least preferred

strategy in the survey. However, she did, in fact, carry out this strategy during the task

because she wanted to spend more time on ‘copying.’ She wished to give more attention to

writing than reading because she thought improving her writing ability was the most urgent.

For the monitoring strategies, the top two (Strategies #9 and #10) and bottom two strategies

(Strategies #19 and #29) reported perfectly matched the top two and bottom two strategies

actually used in task. She adjusted her reading and writing speed when encountering

difficulties (Strategies #9 and #10). Although she stopped ‘copying’ for a while whenever

she could not understand a certain part, she never skipped but came back to it later (Strategy

#19). She re-read it many times until she could get a clear understanding and also used

additional reference materials such as various websites and dictionaries right away

(Strategies #13, #14, and #24). In addition, she created a list of the meanings of unfamiliar

words and tried to remember and use them in her writing (Strategy #22). Unlike Da-Young,

Ji-Hee did not ask herself questions that she would like to have answered in the text (Strategy

#29). She said,

“I don’t think I’ve ever questioned myself about the text when I was reading it. I guess
that I just tried to understand and interpret what the author said in the text literally, but I
actually didn’t have enough time to question myself about something more and find the
answer. I spent a lot of time trying to understand new vocabulary, expressions, and
sentence structure and thought about how I could use them appropriately as if they were
mine. So…I think…um…maybe that’s why I just could not think more deeply about
the underlying meaning of the text and raise questions...”

146

For the evaluating strategies, none of the top two and bottom two evaluating strategies

reported in the survey matched the top two and bottom two strategies actually used in the

task. She mentioned that she usually focused on finding mistakes in grammar and sentence

structure (Strategies #33 and #35) both during and after writing an essay for a test or

assignment. In addition, she said that she tried to find and correct mechanical mistakes

(strategy 34) while writing an essay by constantly checking her work and thus did not pay

attention to those mistakes once she had finished writing. During the think-aloud task, she

also corrected her spelling or capitalization mistakes only during but not after ‘copying.’

The reasons why Ji-Hee did not use all of the reported strategies during the think-aloud task were

because 1) she was ‘copying’ the text and thus did not feel it necessary to write an outline or note

down words, phrases, or sentences related to the writing topic before ‘copying,’ 2) she did not

need to be concerned about choosing simple words or expressions she already knew or finding

the right words from a dictionary when ‘copying,’ and 3) she had already reviewed mistakes in

her writing in the middle of ‘copying’ and thus did not review them again after finishing the task.

3) Jun-Su in the lower level ‘copying’ group. Jun-Su’s pre-test score was the highest

in the CL group, and he also had only a one point gap with Ji-Hee in the CH group in terms of

his score. Unlike Da-Young and Ji-Hee in the CH group, he did not think the texts related to

teaching methods or tips and educational issues were more helpful than other topics of the texts.

He said,

“Honestly, I wanted to read something more about topics not related to teaching methods
or tips because what I always read for classes is all about teaching and education. I
sometimes felt that I was a little ignorant about social and political issues compared to
those relating to education because I had little time to give attention to such matters. I,
of course, enjoyed reading texts about teaching methods, tips, and educational issues.
But, I just thought it would have been better if I could have read more about various

147
 kinds of topics . . . . It would have been nice if I could have practiced ‘copying’ with
much more difficult texts relating to teaching methods or tips…or something similar to
the class materials…or some other kinds of texts which were provided for the Teacher
Certification Exam in the past years.”

He had wished to read and ‘copy’ the texts which he thought as more practical (e.g. class

materials and past Teacher Certification Exam texts). However, he expressed a strong

willingness to read and ‘copy’ most of the given texts and thought that he gained much benefit

from the ‘copying’ activity.

Here is Jun-Su’s process of ‘copying’ during the think-aloud task:

He immediately started to read it without checking its length, skimming through it, or

glancing at the title or subtitles.

While reading, he underlined some of the words or phrases. When the researcher asked him

why he was doing so, he said,

“I don’t know….I didn’t think the underlined things were important, but I just…I think I
don’t know why…but I habitually underline something when I am concentrating on
reading.”

Even though he was not aware of why he was underlining, he seemed to be marking certain

words and phrases which he wanted to remember or which were not clear enough to him.

When he saw three types of portfolios explained in the text for the second time, he circled

them and said,

“Oh, did I just circle these phrases? I didn’t realize that I was doing so.
Um…maybe…okay, I just realized that I circled these to remember the information
about the three types of portfolios better. I think I usually underline something without
thinking much, but if I circle the same thing…that means that I saw it more than once
and I feel like I need to remember it in order to understand the whole text better.”

He might have not contemplated why he was using certain marks (e.g. underlining and

148
 circling) in the past. However, by responding to the researcher’s questions, he became

aware of why he was using the marks and in what ways marking on the text helped him.

For certain words, he put a check mark (i.e. √). For example, consider the following

sentence in the text:

“…he or she can emphasize different portions of the content by creating √pertinent
hyperlinks.”

He said that did so because he did not know the meaning. However, for a certain word like

‘K-12,’ he only underlined it without a check mark even though he also did not know the

meaning. When the researcher asked him about the difference between the underlined word

and the check marked word, he stated,

“I put a check mark if I think I should find the meaning of a word from a dictionary.
But, like this word, ‘K-12,’ I don’t exactly know the meaning, but I don’t think the
dictionary would provide a clear meaning for that. Also, I just think it doesn’t matter to
understand the text content even though I don’t know the meaning of ‘K-12.’ But, like
this word, ‘pertinent,’ I don’t think I can clearly understand this whole paragraph until I
get the clear meaning of this word.”

He tried to guess the meanings of unfamiliar words, but never used a dictionary while

reading.

After reading the whole text, he wrote down the meanings of the unfamiliar words in Korean

under the check marks which were found from an electronic English-Korean dictionary. He

additionally put their phonetic symbols for the correct pronunciation. Then, he re-read the

sentences which included those words. It seemed that the greatest barrier of understanding

the text for him resulted mostly from unfamiliar words rather than sentence structure,

grammar, or the text content or ideas. He was paying much attention to understanding the

meaning of new vocabulary, whereas Da-Young and Ji-Hee in the CH group were paying

149
 equal attention to understanding the meanings and usages of new vocabulary, collocations,

and sentence structure, and the meaning of the text content or ideas.

Whenever he made mechanical mistakes while ‘copying,’ he made corrections. Both during

and after ‘copying,’ he stopped for a moment or re-read the sentences which included the

unfamiliar words. Contrary to the two students in the CH group, he reviewed both the

original and ‘copied’ texts after he had finished reading and ‘copying’ in order to check his

understanding of new words in sentence context. This was the strategy that the researcher

found to be peculiar to the students in the CL group.

Overall, Jun-Su reported that he used the evaluating strategies the most frequently, the

planning strategies the second most, and the monitoring strategies the least. However, during

the task, he used the planning strategies the most frequently, monitoring strategies the second

most, and the evaluating strategies the least (See Table 35.). Here are the comparisons between

Jun-Su’s reported and actual use of strategies for the three subsections (See Table 36.):

For the planning strategies, he actually applied both the top two strategies (Strategies #2 and

#5) during the task. He thought about what he already knew about the text topic to increase

his understanding (Strategies #2 and #3) and also considered in what ways he should read or

‘copy’ the text to achieve his goals (Strategy #5): having a clear understanding of unfamiliar

vocabulary. Between the two bottom strategies (Strategies #1 and #7) reported in the

survey, only one strategy (Strategy #7) was not actually used in the task. He mentioned that

he did not think it would be necessary to write down memos before writing because he did

not have to create his own writing. He also stated that he often drew an outline in mind

before writing an essay, but he never wrote down memos on a piece of paper related to its

150
 topic. He further stated that he usually had not seriously thought of a specific purpose of

reading a text or writing a paper (Strategy #1) because he had always been given most of his

English reading and writing tasks as class requirement, and also the purposes or goals of

reading and writing had already been specified by the class instructors. However, in this

semester, he was willing to do the ‘copying’ activity and read various texts and thus set his

own goals of reading and ‘copying’: learning new vocabulary and applying them

appropriately to his own writing.

For the monitoring strategies, the top two (Strategies #10 and #12) and bottom two strategies

(Strategies #19 and #29) he reported in the survey perfectly matched the top two and bottom

two strategies he actually used in the task. He underlined and circled certain words or

phrases and put a check mark next to them while reading (Strategy #12). In addition, he

adjusted his reading or ‘copying’ speed and re-read the original or ‘copied’ text when he felt

the meanings of certain words or sentences were not clear (Strategies #9 and #10). When

the researcher asked him the reason why he was not likely to use strategy number 19—

skipping a paragraph and writing another paragraph when getting stuck—he said,

“I might lose my train of thoughts if I skip a paragraph and come back to it later. Also,
in most of the writing test circumstances, students are given a piece of paper, and they
have to write down their thoughts with a pencil in a limited time. So, it’s hard to think
about how much space I should leave if I am going to skip a paragraph. Let’s say that I
left this amount of space, for example (He pointed about one third of a paper with his
right hand.), and wrote down the next paragraph first because I was stuck. Later, even
though I come back to the missing part and write down something there, there might be
much less space than I had expected. So, I might not be able to write everything that I
really should say. Or, there might be too much space left so that I cannot fill in that
space even though I wrote down everything. If I worry about too much or too little
space during the test, I might forget about what I was going to write. If I write an essay
by using MS word and if I have enough time until the due date, I might skip some of the
paragraphs and spend as much time as possible to revise my essay…”

He additionally mentioned that he never thought of skipping a paragraph while he was

151
 engaged in the ‘copying’ activity because he was not supposed to develop his own ideas to

write a paper. Moreover, similar to what Ji-Hee had mentioned, he did not wonder much

about questions which could be derived from texts and try to find answers for them (Strategy

#29). He said that he tended to admit or accept all the statements written in the texts as a

fact:

“I usually try to understand a text as it is written. I focus on understanding what the

author of the text actually stated rather than asking myself questions about it.”

Meanwhile, unlike the two students in the CH group, he used a dictionary simply to find the

meanings of unfamiliar words, but not to see how they were used in context. He also used

only an English-Korean dictionary and took memos of unfamiliar words only in Korean.

Yet, he was different from the students in the CH group in that he repeatedly evaluated his

understanding of new vocabulary and difficult sentences. He tried to understand the whole

text without the help of a dictionary when first reading it (Strategy #20). He, later, went

back to the text, checked the correct meanings of unfamiliar words from the dictionary

(Strategy #21), and re-read some of the difficult sentences many times.

For the evaluating strategies, even though he reported that making changes in spelling,

punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure (Strategies #34 and #35) were his top

strategies in the survey, he did not do so during the think-aloud task. In addition, he

checked strategy number 31—reviewing a text and identifying important points to check

one’s understanding—as one of the bottom strategies in the survey, but he actually reviewed

a part of the text to ensure his understanding of certain words and sentences in the task.

What was different from the two students in the CH group was that Jun-Su paid great

attention only to a small unit of a text—vocabulary—but not to a large unit such as grammar,

152
 sentence structure and organization, and content and ideas of the text both during and after

reading and ‘copying.’

The reasons why the strategies Jun-Su reported using the most in the survey did not match the

strategies he actually used in the think-aloud task were because 1) he needed much less planning

of writing for the ‘copying’ activity even though he spent much time on planning for other kinds

of writing, 2) he checked mistakes in his writing in the middle of the ‘copying’ process rather

than checking them after ‘copying,’ and 3) he frequently used one of the bottom evaluating

strategies reported in the survey—reviewing the text to increase his understanding of new words

and the text content—and thus this strategy was not taken into account when estimating the

percentage of match between the reported and actually used evaluating strategies.

4) Yoon-Ju in the lower level ‘copying’ group. Whereas Jun-Su in the CL group

mentioned that he never stopped until he had finished reading and ‘copying’ a text, Yoon-Ju

mentioned that she often repeated stopping and continuing reading and ‘copying.’ Ji-Hee who

was in the CH group also stopped many times while reading and ‘copying’ a text. However,

the difference between Ji-Hee and Yoon-Ju was that Ji-Hee stopped whenever she encountered

difficulties in understanding the meanings of certain sentences and spent much time on how to

overcome her difficulties even though she was temporarily away from a text, whereas Yoon-Ju

stopped whenever she felt exhausted and did not think about a text at all while she was away

from it. In other words, Ji-Hee was continuously monitoring what she was reading or ‘copying’

even when she was not looking at a text, but Yoon-Ju’s metacognitive thinking process totally

stopped when she turned her eyes away from a text.

Here is Yoon-Ju’s ‘copying’ process during the think-aloud task:

153

She immediately started to read the text and neither checked the length of the text nor

skimmed through it.

While reading, she placed brackets around the sentences which she wanted to remember.

For example, consider the following sentence in the text:

[“A portfolio is a purposeful collection of student work that exhibits the student’s
efforts, progress, and achievements in one or more areas.”]

She put the sentence in brackets and then said:

“Um…I put brackets because I just thought this sentence seemed to involve useful
information. The sentences for which I am putting brackets do not necessarily indicate
the main ideas of the text, but something that I would like to remember in order to
understand the text better.”

She also circled some unfamiliar words. She read the sentences which included those

words once or twice, but did not use a dictionary to check the meanings. She said that she

used a dictionary immediately only when she really could not understand a sentence which

included a new word. Otherwise, she used a dictionary after she had finished reading the

whole text.

While ‘copying’, she corrected those mistakes with a whiteout whenever she made mistakes

in spelling or punctuation. Often times, she seemed to be lost in thinking. The researcher

asked her what she was thinking, and she said,

“I was just thinking about the electronic portfolio. I was actually surprised that this
kind of portfolio was not popularly used in English classrooms in Korea even though the
Internet has become widely used by most people in Korea. It might be great if the
electronic portfolio could be used well to teach students in Korea.”

She did not seem to care much about finding the main idea or identifying important details of

the text, but thought deeply about the information not stated in the text. She said that she

154
 thought a lot about what she had experienced as a student when learning English, and how

she could use some of the useful teaching tips or ideas to her students in the future whenever

reading about teaching methods or tips and language educational issues.

When she was completely done with the ‘copying’ activity, she went back to the original text,

looked at the dictionary to find the meanings of circled words, and wrote them down with

their meanings on a piece of paper by numbering each word. The researcher asked her

what she would do with the list of unfamiliar words, she said,

“Oh, this one? I usually write down any unfamiliar words whenever I see them
everyday. I include not only unfamiliar words I found from the ‘copying’ task but also
those I found from my class materials or some other texts. I carry around this kind of
paper which includes a list of unfamiliar words everywhere and try to memorize them.
I usually look at the list when in a subway or bus…or when taking a rest in school…and
also when going to a restroom (laugh). I tear the paper to pieces and throw them away
every night so that I can try my best to memorize as many words as possible.”

This was a very interesting way of memorizing and remembering unfamiliar words which

was not found by other think-aloud task participants. Yoon-Ju was the only one who made

a list of unfamiliar words and who tried to memorize them even after reading and ‘copying’ a

text. However, like Jun-Su in the CL group, Yoon-Ju focused mostly on new vocabulary

but not sentence organization and structure or grammar.

Overall, she reported that she used the evaluating strategies the most frequently, the

planning strategies the second most, and the monitoring strategies the least. However, during

the think-aloud task, she actually used the planning strategies the most frequently, the monitoring

strategies the second most, and the evaluating strategies the least (See Table 35.). Here are the

comparisons between Jun-Su’s reported and actual use of strategies for the three subsections

(See Table 36.):

155

For the planning strategies, the top two strategies (Strategies #2 and #5) and one of the

bottom strategies (Strategy #1) showed a perfect match. She thought about what she knew

about the topic or information in the text before reading it (Strategy #2). She also set a clear

goal of reading and ‘copying’ (Strategy #1): expanding her vocabulary knowledge. She

also planned how she should read and ‘copy’ the text in order to achieve her goal (Strategy

#5). However, she did not write down memos related to the text topic before writing

(Strategy #7). She thought it was not necessary to do so because the task did not require her

to produce her own writing.

For the monitoring strategies, the top two (Strategies #10 and #12) and one bottom strategies

(Strategy #29) that she reported in the survey matched the top two and one bottom strategies

that she actually used or did not use in the task. She put brackets around important

sentences and circled unfamiliar words in the text (Strategy #12). She also adjusted her

reading or writing speed and re-read some of the sentences to enhance her understanding

(Strategies #9 and #10). She tried to guess the meanings of new words or phrases by using

context clues first and used an English-Korean dictionary later (Strategy #21). However,

she often used the dictionary right away when she could not clearly understand a certain

sentence with an unfamiliar word (Strategy #23). She also created a list of new words with

the meanings to remember them better (Strategy #22). She never skipped a paragraph when

she got stuck (Strategies #18 and #19), but re-read what she had read or ‘copied’ several

times until she got a clear understanding. She usually took some breaks while reading and

‘copying’ a text. However, she continued straight through until she had finished everything

during the task since she was in an interview situation. She reported in the survey that she

tended not to ask herself questions about a text (Strategy #29) when she felt it was not

156
 interesting. However, during the task, since she was interested in reading the given text

topic, she asked herself questions about why the electronic portfolios were not likely to be

used in Korea and how they could be used for teaching Korean students and then tried to

answer those questions.

For the evaluating strategies, none of the top two and bottom two strategies reported matched

the ones actually used. She mentioned that she always checked and corrected mechanical

mistakes right after writing (Strategy #34). She also tried to make changes in sentence

structure (Strategy #35) even though she felt it was a little difficult. However, she said that

she rarely made changes in the content and ideas (Strategy #36):

“I usually write an outline before writing a paper, and because I write based on what I
have planned, I don’t think much about the content of my paper once I finish writing. I
think I am more concerned about spelling mistakes…and I worry about whether some of
the words that I used are appropriate or not. I also think whether the subject and verb
are correctly placed when a sentence gets longer. But, for the ‘copying’ activity, I
didn’t have to worry about those kinds of mistakes. I just had to write down what the
author had written. So, I think I could focus more on what I have always thought to be
my weakness…which is my vocabulary ability.”

Like Jun-Su in the CL group, Yoon-Ju also paid much attention to vocabulary rather than

grammar, sentence organization and structure, and content and ideas of texts when reading

and ‘copying.’ She often went back and forth in the text to check her understanding of

unfamiliar vocabulary while reading, and reviewed her new vocabulary list after ‘copying’

the text. However, as she had reported in the survey, she did not review the text and

identify important points to check her understanding of its content (Strategy #31) during the

think-aloud task.

The reason why there was mismatch between Yoon-Ju’s reported use of strategies and her actual

157
use of strategies was because she checked mistakes in her writing while she was ‘copying’ the

text but did not do so once she had completed ‘copying.’

Reading and writing strategy use of the students with different proficiency levels in the

‘copying’ group

The four students who were engaged in the ‘copying’ activity showed some similarities

and differences in their use of metacognitive reading and writing strategies according to different

proficiency levels. The two students at the higher level actually used the planning strategies the

most frequently, the monitoring strategies the second most, and the evaluating strategies the least

during the think-aloud task in the same way as they had reported in the SORWS. In contrast,

the two students at the lower level reported that they used the evaluating strategies the most

frequently, the planning strategies the second most, and the monitoring strategies the least, but

their actual use of strategies was different from what they had reported. Nevertheless, the

evaluating strategy was the least likely used type of strategy during the think-aloud task for the

students in both the CH and CL groups. Since they were writing down the text exactly in the

same way as the author had written, they constantly and frequently checked mistakes in the

middle of ‘copying,’ but did not check possible mistakes once they had finished ‘copying.’

Consequently, the percentages of match between the four ‘copying’ groups of students’ overall

reported and actual use of evaluating strategies as well as their top two and bottom two reported

and actual use of evaluating strategies indicated in Table 35 and Table 36 could be ignored.

The percentages of match for the total strategy use would then have been greatly raised.

When comparing Da-Young and Ji-Hee at the higher proficiency level and Jun-Su and

Yoon-Ju at the lower level, they expressed a liking for the given topics for the ‘copying’ activity,

158
but particularly liked the ones related to teaching methods or tips and educational issues more

than other topics. All students except Yoon-Ju were similar in that they spent some time in

checking the text length and skimming through it before reading. All of them were similar in

that they used different kinds of marks on the text to increase their understanding while reading.

In addition, they tried to guess the meanings of unfamiliar words within a context or used a

dictionary after reading the whole text. They re-read certain sentences or paragraphs or went

back and forth in the text when encountering difficulties. They also thought more deeply about

the text topic or the possibility of applying useful information in the text to their own teaching

circumstances. Moreover, they checked if they were ‘copying’ the text correctly while

‘copying,’ but never did so once they had finished the task. Regardless of their proficiency

levels, they all carried out many of the same strategies during the think-aloud task.

However, there were some differences between the two proficiency levels in the ways

they were using the strategies. First, as advanced proficiency level students tended to think

about and comprehend general ideas of a text and then details later as Carrell (1989) discovered

in his study, the higher level students in the ‘copying’ group considered the text as a whole unit

with a meaning. They read it in broad phrases by focusing not only on the meanings of words

but also on the meanings, structures, and organization of sentences and paragraphs. For

example, they identified a subject and verb in a complicated or long sentence and thought about

which phrase or clause modifies what in the sentence. They also speculated on how they could

organize and structure sentences in similar ways as the text author did in their own writing. In

contrast, as low proficiency level students in Carrell’s (1989) study tended to spend too much

time and pay too much attention to all the details of the text and then think about general ideas

later, the lower level students in the ‘copying’ group considered that the text consisted of many

159
individual and small units. They thus read the text in short phrases by focusing on the

meanings of words, phrases, or sentences. For example, they went back and forth in the text or

re-read some of the sentences mostly because they could not understand the meanings of certain

words, phrases, or sentences. Yet, they did not think about how those words or phrases were

used within sentences and how the sentences were structured or organized. Unless they had

understood the meanings of the words, phrases, and sentences, they were not able to clearly

understand the text content. In addition to Carrell’s (1989) study findings, Hosenfeld’s (1977)

study results also support the difference between the higher level and lower level students in the

‘copying’ group. He found that more advanced level students thought about the meaning of the

whole text content while reading, read in broad phrase, and skipped less important parts, whereas

the less advanced level students focused on the meanings of words or sentences of the text while

reading, read in short phrases, and gave a similar amount of or more attention to less important

parts.

Second, the higher level students were more effective in using a dictionary when dealing

with unfamiliar vocabulary. They used not only a Korean-English dictionary but also an

English-English dictionary or several kinds of Korean-English dictionaries when necessary.

For example, Da-Young mostly used an English-English dictionary when she felt like she had

seen a certain word before, but used an English-Korean dictionary when a word was totally new

to her. Ji-Hee, in comparison, mostly used an English-Korean dictionary, but used several other

dictionaries when she could not find a clear answer. She also used reference materials to find

more information about a phrase (i.e. ‘electronic portfolios’) in addition to understanding the

meaning. When Da-Young and Ji-Hee encountered a new word or expression, they looked not

only for the meaning of the word or expression but also its usages with sample sentences from

160
the dictionary. That is, they thought about how a certain word could be used in different forms

in different contexts, how certain words could be used together (i.e. collocation), and how they

could use certain words or expressions appropriately in their writing. In contrast, the lower

level students did not consider anything else except meaning when using a dictionary. Also,

even though they were not able to get a clear definition of a new word, they tended to guess the

meaning by using context clues, but did not take any further action. For example, Jun-Su only

used an English-Korean dictionary in order to find the meanings of unfamiliar words rather than

understanding how they were used within sentences. He often wrote down the phonetic

symbols and meanings of certain words on the text when he was not clear about the

pronunciation. Yet, he did nothing more except checking the meanings of new words to expand

his vocabulary. Paris and Meyers (1981) mentioned, based on their study findings, that being

concerned about or focusing on the pronunciation of words rather than focusing on the meanings

and usages of words was what low level readers usually did. Like Jun-Su, Yoon-Ju also

depended only on an English-Korean dictionary and was eager to find the meaning of new

vocabulary.

Da-Young did not make a list of new vocabulary, but the other three students did so.

Still, the difference between the higher and lower level was that Ji-Hee at the higher level kept

lists of vocabulary and reviewed the accumulated lists as many times as possible whenever she

felt necessary after ‘copying’, whereas Jun-Su at the lower level never reviewed lists of

vocabulary, and Yoon-Ju also at the lower level reviewed one list only one time and then

disregarded it.

Third, the higher level and lower level students were aware of what their weaknesses in

reading and writing were and what kinds of strategies would help them improve their ability

161
through the ‘copying’ activity. That is, they basically had knowledge of cognition which

involves ‘person’ knowledge (i.e. knowledge of themselves), ‘task’ knowledge (i.e. knowledge

of the nature of the ‘copying’ task), and ‘strategy’ knowledge (i.e. knowledge of strategies

considered as useful for the ‘copying’ task). However, the lower level students lacked

regulation of cognition: knowledge of how to regulate the use of planning, monitoring, and

evaluating strategies appropriately to their ability, proficiency level, given task, etc. Even

though they knew which strategies they were using, they did not know how they should use

those strategies effectively. Anderson (1991) emphasized that it is important for students to

know not only which strategies they are using but also how to use those strategies successfully.

Da-Young and Ji-Hee at the higher level knew that they were applying different kinds of

strategies when encountering different kinds of difficulties. Although Ji-Hee often spent too

much time on reading and ‘copying’ the text, she seemed to use various strategies quite

effectively and appropriately. Jun-Su and Yoon-Ju at the lower level, in contrast, used similar

strategies like those that the higher level students used and also employed those strategies as

frequently as (or often even more frequently than) the higher level students did. Yet, as the low

proficiency level students in Waxman and Padron’s (1987) study applied strategies less

effectively than the high proficiency level students did, Jun-Su and Yoon-Ju were not very

successful in applying their reading and writing strategies. For example, they used such

strategies as re-reading several sentences in the text to enhance their understanding of the text or

using a dictionary to find the meaning of an unfamiliar word, but they focused both on important

and unimportant details or thought only of the meaning of a word rather than its usages. In

other words, they were not using those strategies as effectively as the higher level students did.

In sum, the higher level and lower level students were alike in that they used similar

162
types of strategies with similar frequency. However, they were different in that the higher level

students focused on a larger unit of the text, were effective in the ways they were dealing with

unfamiliar words, and were aware of which strategies they were using and how they should use

those strategies effectively. In contrast, the lower level students focused on a smaller unit of the

text, were not very effective in the ways of dealing with new vocabulary, and were using

strategies inappropriately or ineffectively. Based on what the researcher had observed from the

students in the ‘copying’ group during the think-aloud task, the four students all surpassed the

shallow or perceptual level of ‘copying’ stage in that they were not simply focusing on

vocabulary in isolation from the context and accuracy of writing. Rather, they tried to

understand the whole text better and expand their vocabulary knowledge through the ‘copying’

activity. Yet, the higher level students were more likely to be engaged in a deeper level of

‘copying’ processing in that they were thinking more deeply about how words and expressions

were used in different forms in different sentences, how sentences or paragraphs were structured

or organized, how they could use words and expressions appropriately and organize sentences

well in their writing, and how they could relate or apply information obtained from the text to

their own teaching situation. In contrast, the lower level students were more likely to be in the

stage of moving closely toward a deeper level of ‘copying’ processing. They pondered over the

meaning of vocabulary within the context and the possibility of applying some of the useful

information in the text to their teaching, but they were not quite ready to use the acquired

vocabulary appropriately in their writing. Still, they showed potential abilities of reaching a

deeper level of the ‘coping’ stage.

163
Reading and writing process of the ‘summarizing’ group of students and comparisons between

their reported and actual use of strategies

1) Sang-Woo in the higher level ‘summarizing’ group. Sang-Woo returned to school

this semester after having a two year break due to his military service. He said that he had not

been sure of what he really wanted to do and thus had not studied hard before he joined the army.

However, he had since made up his mind to become a teacher and thus applied himself closely to

his studies. He thought most of the selected topics for the ‘summarizing’ activity were

interesting. Also, he felt that the length of the texts and reading and ‘summarizing’ two texts

per week were appropriate. He said that the ‘summarizing’ activity motivated him to improve

his reading and writing ability in the semester.

Here is Sang-Woo’s process of ‘summarizing’ during the think-aloud task:

He started to read the text carefully without checking the length or subtitles.

While reading, he underlined some of the words, phrases, and sentences which he thought he

should include into his summary:

“I underline something that I think is important. I always think about what kinds of
things should be included into my summary when reading a text. So, I underline
certain words or sentences that are related to the main ideas and details. And I use all
of them for summarizing.”

When he encountered unfamiliar words such as ‘mastery,’ ‘artifacts,’ and ‘inclusion’, he

read one or two more sentences and then came back to where he was if he still could not

guess the meanings of those words within the context. He, then, used an English-Korean

dictionary and wrote down the meanings in Korean on the text. Even when he could guess

the meanings of certain words or had rough ideas of them, he checked the meanings of those

words by using a dictionary. However, in this case, he did not write down the meanings on

164
 the text.

When he finished reading, he spent some time going back and forth in the text and then

started to ‘summarize’ it with a pencil without an outline. He said,

“I don’t like to write an outline on paper. I usually draw an outline in my mind by

looking at what I’ve underlined in the text. I think about what to write and how to
connect the important ideas of the text smoothly …”

While ‘summarizing,’ he constantly went back to the original text, checked the underlined

parts, and tried to connect them.

He re-read what he had written after writing several sentences to check if he was writing

correctly in terms of spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, vocabulary, and sentence

structure. Whenever he found any mistakes in his summary while writing, he immediately

made corrections.

When he was not so sure about how a word was used appropriately within sentences, he used

a dictionary right away in order to employ the correct form of a word in his summary. For

example, he suddenly stopped writing and used an English-Korean dictionary to look for the

usage of ‘reflect’ and said:

“I saw the word ‘reflection’ or ‘self-reflection’ a lot while reading this text. I wanted to
use ‘reflect’ in my writing, but I was not sure if ‘reflect’ could be used as an intransitive
or transitive verb…and also I wondered how its form could be changed and used in
different ways in different sentences. I just wanted to know how I can correctly use
this word in my summary…”

Even though he was different from the other three students in the higher level groups (i.e. the

CH and SH groups) in that he did not use an English-English dictionary, he was similar to

them in that he checked not only the meaning of a word but also its usage, sample sentences,

and part of speech . He thus often changed the form of a word or erased an inappropriate

word he had written and used another appropriate word found from the dictionary.

165

He underlined some of the sentences in the original text while ‘summarizing’:

“I didn’t know that these sentences were important when I read this paragraph for the
first time (He pointed to the first paragraph of the second page.). But, I couldn’t
continue writing because I felt that I was missing something important. So, I went back
to the text and re-read the second page…and realized that these sentences were
important. That’s why I underlined them.”

He continuously reviewed the text in order to increase his understanding, check important

points, and thus write a better summary.

When he had completed writing, he skimmed through the whole summary to find and correct

any mistakes.

Sang-Woo’s completed summary is as follows:

‘According to the article, the use of electronic portfolios which are required for the
entrance of entrance into many colleges and universities is increasing. First, the
article defines what the portfolios are. It says that a portfolio is a purposeful collection
of student work that exhibits the student’s efforts, progress, and achievements in one or
more areas. Also, a portfolio has several purposes and the three most common types of
portfolios are the working portfolio, the display portfolios, and the assessment portfolio.
There are five steps for developing effective electronic portfolios. According to Barrett,
students who make portfolios select and collect items based on the portfolios’ purposes
and readers first. They then reflect on the importance of each item, set a future goal,
and finally provide opportunities for feedback through creating hypertext links and
publication.

Several advantages of electronic portfolios exist. They firstly provide different

accesses, and the users can modify their contents easily. Also, the users can emphasize
different parts of the portfolio contents depending on their purposes by making
appropriate hyperlinks. Not only that but also developing electronic portfolios can be
the process of self-reflection and personal growth. Bergman considers electronic
portfolios as a natural extension of the technology that today’s K-12 students are
growing up with.’

Almost no mistakes in mechanics and grammar were found, and also no awkwardness in

vocabulary or expression use was observed in the summary. In addition, all the important

166
details of the text were included, and most of the sentences flowed smoothly. Although Sang-

Woo had already written down the meanings of unfamiliar words in the original text, he, again,

wrote down the unfamiliar words and their meanings at the end of his ‘summarized’ text. He

mentioned that he had only reviewed those words once or twice until another new text was given.

He said that taking memos of unfamiliar words helped him remember and use them appropriately

in his writing. Like Yoon-Ju in the CL group, Sang-Woo also made a list of unfamiliar words.

However, his list was much shorter than Yoon-Ju’s. Moreover, he tried to pay more attention

to the usages of new words rather than their meanings, whereas Yoon-Ju mostly focused on

remembering and memorizing the meanings of new words. When comparing Sang-Woo with

Da-Young and Ji-Hee in the CH group, Sang-Woo used most of the evaluating strategies

frequently, whereas the two students in the CH group rarely used most of the evaluating

strategies. Since the ‘summarizing’ activity required one to have a clear understanding of a text

and produce writing by using his or her own words, Sang-Woo might have given greater

attention to reviewing what he had read and written than did the students in the CH group.

However, he was different from the two students in the CH group in that he only used an

English-Korean dictionary, but not an English-English dictionary. Still, he used a dictionary to

search for the meaning and usage of new vocabulary as did the two students in the CH group,

even though he depended only on an English-Korean dictionary.

Overall, Sang-Woo used the evaluating strategies the most frequently, the planning

strategies the second most, and the monitoring strategies the least during the think-aloud task, as

he and the SH group had reported in the SORWS (See Table 35.). Here are the comparisons

between his reported and actual use of strategies for the three subsections (See Table 36.):

167

For the planning strategies, the top two (Strategies #2 and #3) and one bottom strategies

(Strategy #4) showed a good match. He thought about what he knew about the text topic

before reading and ‘summarizing’ (Strategies #2 and #3). He did not skim through the text

before reading it (Strategy #4), but thought about how he should read or ‘summarize’ it to

accomplish his goal (Strategy #5). For other kinds of the texts that he usually read (e.g.

class materials) and wrote (e.g. short essays), he did not think seriously about how he should

approach the reading and writing and what his goals were because these had been already set

out by the instructors. Whether he wanted or not, he had to read the assigned texts and

write papers in order to get good grade. He also emphasized the fact that he did not have

much passion for learning before he served in the army, and thus he did not have specific

purposes of reading and writing (Strategy #1). Yet, he said that most of the texts given for

the ‘summarizing’ activity matched his interests:

“I thought about how I should read a text in order to summarize it better. So, I tried to
underline important parts that I would like to include into my summary while reading.
Also, because I was not reading a text to answer specific questions for a test like TOEFL
in a limited time, I felt pretty relaxed and was able to have enough time to read and write.
And, I of course, liked most of the given topics. I had enough time to check the
awkwardness of sentences and usages of unfamiliar words or expressions in my
summary. If I had had to ‘summarize’ a text for a test, it would have been impossible
for me to do so.”

He explained that he was able to set clear goals and do his best because he liked most of the

reading topics and was not under time or grade constraints. He seemed not to like writing

down memos or creating an outline before writing (Strategies #6 and #7) but rather liked to

draw his plans of writing in his mind.

For the monitoring strategies, the top two (Strategies #9, #10, and #11) and one bottom

strategies (Strategy #26) reported in the survey matched the top two and one bottom

168
strategies actually used in the task. In the middle of reading and ‘summarizing,’ he adjusted

his reading and writing speed (Strategies # 9 and # 10). He sometimes stopped and re-read

the original or ‘summarized’ text when having difficulties in understanding the content and

words, in selecting adequate words, and in using them appropriately in writing (Strategy #11).

When he encountered unknown words or expressions, he first tried to guess the meanings

(Strategy #20) and then used an English-Korean dictionary later (Strategy #21). In addition,

he often used a dictionary to look up appropriate words or to understand their usages when he

could not continue writing. However, he neither skipped the parts nor wrote down words or

memos in Korean for those parts (Strategy #26). After ‘summarizing,’ he created and

reviewed a list of new words and expressions (Strategy #23). For strategy number 29—

asking oneself questions one would like to have answered in a text and trying to find the

answers for them—he reported that he rarely used this strategy when reading in English

because what he mostly read (i.e. class materials) were not so easy to understand.

Accordingly, he had not thought of relating them to his personal interests or experiences. In

contrast, he thought that most of the given topics for the ‘summarizing’ activity matched his

interests, and also the difficulty level of the texts was appropriate for him. Still, since he

paid much attention to the finding main and supporting ideas in order to write better

summaries, he mostly focused on understanding factual meanings stated in the text rather

than deciphering their inferred meanings. For the think-aloud task text, he spent much time

in specifying and listing important points of the text and connecting them coherently in his

summary. Yet, he did not try to find additional information about the electronic portfolios

through reference materials as did Ji-Hee in the CH group. Nor did he contemplate on how

he could apply teaching tools or methods to his teaching circumstance in the future as Yoon-

169
 Ju in the CL group did.

For the evaluating strategies, he used all of the strategies except two: critically analyzing and

evaluating the information presented in the text and making changes in the content and ideas

after writing (Strategies #30 and #36). In addition, between the top two (Strategies #33 and

#35) and bottom two strategies (Strategies #31 and #36) reported in the survey, most of them

showed a good match in the task except strategy number 31. He said that he rarely

reviewed a text unless he had to study and read textbook chapters for a test. However,

during the think-aloud task, he reviewed the given text after reading it in order to check his

understanding and write a better summary. He checked and corrected mistakes in grammar,

vocabulary, sentence structure, and mechanics after ‘summarizing,’ but did not make any

changes in the content or ideas because he had already spent much time planning the content

and ideas before writing the summary. One of the differences between the two students in

the CH group and Sang-Woo was that the students in the CH group were not likely to review

and make corrections in mechanics after ‘copying’ the text, whereas Sang-Woo placed a

great deal of weight on checking mistakes in mechanics in addition to reviewing mistakes in

grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure.

The reasons why Sang-Woo did not actually use all of the strategies he reported in the survey

during the think-aloud task were because 1) he planned how he would write a summary in his

mind rather than concretely writing down his plan before ‘summarizing’ and 2) there were no

tables, figures, and pictures in the text and thus he did not try to picture or visualize information

to enhance his understanding of the text while reading.

170
 2) Yuna in the higher level ‘summarizing’ group. Yuna, like other students, liked the

texts about teaching methods and tips and educational issues the most because they were closely

related to her major and interests. However, she also enjoyed reading most of the other topics

and thought that the given texts had an appropriate difficulty level. She said that she usually

read the text in the subway or bus and then ‘summarized’ it later at home.

Here is Yuna’s process of ‘summarizing’ during the think-aloud task:

She started to read the text without checking the length or skimming through it. She was a

little different from other students in that she was aware of which areas of reading and

writing she needed or wanted to improve more and thus clearly set specific goals of reading

and ‘summarizing’: learning vocabulary use within contexts and using conjunctions, sentence

structures, and grammar correctly. She thus seemed to focus on how vocabulary and

conjunctions were used, how sentences were organized and structured, and how sentences

were grammatically well written, etc. while reading.

She used several kinds of marks to remember what she was reading better and to write a

better ‘summary.’ For example, she circled such words as ‘electronic portfolios,’ ‘what,’

‘types,’ ‘process,’ and ‘why’ which she thought as keywords. She also underlined certain

phrases or sentences such as ‘…electronic portfolios have begun to enter the world of K-12

education…,’ ‘working portfolio,’ ‘display portfolio,’ ‘assessment portfolio,’ etc. which she

thought were related to the main and supporting ideas or important details.

When encountering unfamiliar words, she double underlined them, but did not use a

dictionary until she had completed reading the whole text.

She numbered each paragraph under each subtitle (e.g. ‘what is a portfolio?’, ‘the process of

portfolio development,’ ‘why electronic portfolios?’, etc.) by writing down ‘#1,’ ‘#2,’ ‘#3,’

171
 etc. right next to each paragraph on the text. For some of the subtitles, she wrote down

memos using her own words. For example, she wrote down ‘definition of portfolio’ under a

subtitle, ‘what is a portfolio?’, and also wrote down ‘importance of portfolios’ under another

subtitle, ‘why electronic portfolios?’. She stated:

“I think writing a short memo helps me remember important points of each paragraph.
Also, I always think about how I should organize sentences for a summary while reading.
So, writing down memos helps me decide what to include into my summary and spend
much less time to organizing my thoughts before writing.”

She clearly knew what kinds of marks she should use and in what ways writing down memos

on the text helped her. That is, she was aware of what kinds of strategies she was using and

how using those strategies helped her.

She went back and forth in the text or adjusted her reading speed to increase her

understanding or to find relationships among ideas in the text.

After reading the whole text, she went back to the double underlined words and looked for

the meanings by using an English-English dictionary. She checked both the appropriate

meaning of a word and also other meanings. If a word was totally unknown, she wrote

down the meaning(s) right under it on the text. However, if she felt she knew it a little bit

or had seen it somewhere, she simply checked the meaning(s) or usage(s) without writing

anything on the text. For example, she was curious about the usage of ‘long’ in the

following sentence: ‘The use of personal portfolios for assessment and presentation long has

been a component of higher education.’ She said,

“I, of course, know the meaning of ‘long’ very well. But, I’ve never seen this word
placed before a verb. I thought that ‘long’ should be used at the end of the sentence in
this sentence. For example, this sentence could be written like ‘The use of personal
portfolios for assessment and presentation has been a component of higher education for
a long time.’ But, strangely enough, ‘long’ was used before ‘has been,’ and I thought it
was somewhat interesting…”

172
 She looked at some sample sentences in the dictionary, but did not write down anything on

the text. When she checked all the unfamiliar words and wrote down the meanings on the

text, she re-read the sentences which included those words and checked if she could clearly

understand them. However, unlike Ji-Hee in the CH group, Yoon-Ju in the CL group, and

Sang-Woo in the SH group, Yuna did not create a list of unknown words.

She started to write a summary with a pencil without an outline.

Before and during ‘summarizing,’ she constantly re-read what she had marked on the text

and the short memos she had taken under each subtitle.

After writing every two to three sentences, she checked if there was any awkwardness or any

mistakes.

As she clearly had set her own goals of reading, she also had specific goals of ‘summarizing.’

She said that she particularly focused on sentence structure, tense, subject and verb

agreement, and appropriateness of vocabulary. She stated that she usually made a lot of

mistakes in subject-verb agreement and thus tried to scrutinize if there were any improper

subject-verb agreement in her sentences. Additionally, she was concerned about which

tense she should use:

“This text is written in the present tense. But, some of the people’s quotes included in
the text are written in the past tense. So, I feel a little confused when I am connecting
or combining some of the author’s ideas and other people’s ideas in my sentences. In
that case, I can’t decide which tense I should use.”

She thus stopped for a moment when writing each sentence to think about the appropriate

tense. Moreover, for the vocabulary use, she said that she usually chose words or

expressions she already knew well for the summary. Yet, when she could not really think of

the right words or expressions in English, she first used a Korean-English dictionary to find

173
 them and then checked their uses with sample sentences using an English-English dictionary.

Furthermore, she thought deeply about how she could write structurally well-flowing

sentences and arrange the text content briefly and smoothly by using her own words.

She checked and corrected mechanical mistakes while writing her summary, but did not

consider much about those mistakes once she had finished writing. She said that she could

easily recognize mechanical mistakes without much effort while ‘summarizing’, whereas she

had to pay much attention to review the correctness and appropriateness of her use of

vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure after ‘summarizing.’

Yuna’s completed summary is as follows:

‘Personal portfolios have been considered as a component of higher education so far, but
electronic portfolios have been started to be applied for K-12 education. The definition
of a portfolio is described as a purposeful collection of student work which not only
demonstrates students’ development but also shows students’ efforts, progress, and
achievement. There are three types of portfolios depending on purposes: working
portfolios, display portfolios, and assessment portfolios. In the process of portfolio
development, Barrett identified five steps to make it effective: selection, collection,
reflection, direction, and connection.

The importance of an electronic portfolio is [,] needless to say [,] in that it makes it
easy to duplicate and transport the portfolio content. It is more helpful for students
who are in higher education than in K-12 because of its web-based trait. Through this
portfolio developing method, students can get benefits like self-reflection and personal
growth. Especially, kids can take ownership and pride while doing this project.
However, reflection is not a the main purpose [,] and it is totally different from a
digital scrapbook as well. With the help of the development of digital technologies and
tools, today’s kids are going into the new world where digital portfolio is widespread.

Several punctuation and grammatical mistakes were found, but no major mistakes,

inappropriateness, or awkwardness in vocabulary use, sentence structure and fluency, and idea

and content organization were observed.

174
 Overall, she used the evaluating strategies the most frequently, the planning strategies

the second most, and the monitoring strategies the least during the task, as the SH group and she

had reported in the survey (See Table 35.). Here are the comparisons between her reported and

actual use of strategies for the three subsections (See Table 36.):

For the planning strategies, the top two (Strategies #2 and #3) and one of the bottom

strategies (Strategy #4) she reported matched those that she actually used. She recollected

her background knowledge of the text topic—electronic portfolios—before reading and

‘summarizing’ (Strategies #2 and #3). She mentioned that she thought about the portfolio

assignment given this semester and compared the difference between the paper type

portfolios and electronic portfolios when she first got the text and saw its title. She said that

she did not think of her purpose of reading or writing in the past, but she had set concrete

goals of learning for this semester because she was very much interested in the topics

(Strategy #5). In addition, whether she liked it or not, she had to read the text and write a

summary as a course requirement and thus she tried to carefully read the text from the

beginning without skimming (Strategy #4). Moreover, she said that she never wrote an

outline (Strategy #6), but wrote short memos before writing (Strategy #7) when writing a

long report or essay as a class assignment. However, she did not think it was necessary to

do so for the think-aloud task because she was writing a very short summary.

For the monitoring strategies, the top two (Strategies #9, #10, and #11) and one bottom

strategies (Strategy #26) reported in the survey and actually used in the task matched. She

adjusted her reading and writing speed and frequently re-read what she had read and written

in order to understand the text better and write sentences correctly and logically (Strategies

#9, #10, and #11). She also took notes or put marks on the text to remember the content

175
 better (Strategies #8 and #12). She said that translating sentences into Korean or writing

down words in Korean and later finding the right word in English had never happened in any

kinds of English reading and writing situations for her. When she could not find the right

word or expression in English, she used a Korean-English dictionary as well as an English-

English dictionary immediately before writing the next sentence (Strategies #26 and #27).

However, she never skipped a word, expression, or sentence until she had resolved the parts

she got stuck on. She said that she usually did not ask herself questions she would like to

have answered in a text and try to find the answers for them (Strategy #29). Yet, as most of

the other think-aloud task participants had mentioned, Yuna also questioned about the things

which were not presented or stated in the text while doing the ‘summarizing’ activity. Since

she liked the text topic and wanted to know more about it, she spent some time thinking

about the advantages of using electronic portfolios for Korean students which were not

discussed at all in the text.

Among the evaluating strategies, the top two (Strategies #33 and #35) and one of the bottom

strategies (Strategy #31) reported in the survey and actually used in the think-aloud task

coincided. She said that she did not review a text or notes unless she was reading a text to

answer questions for a test, but reviewed the think-aloud text because she had to decide what

information she should include into her summary (Strategy #31). She made changes in

vocabulary, grammar, mechanics, and sentence structure during and after ‘summarizing’

(Strategies #32, #33, #34, and #35), but she was more likely to correct mechanical mistakes

during, rather than after ‘summarizing.’ Nevertheless, like Sang-Woo in the SH group,

Yuna did not check the content and ideas of her summary at all (Strategy #36). She said,

176
 “I think what I need to do is just represent the author’s ideas clearly and briefly in my
summary. I’m a student who is learning a second language, but I’m not and I can’t be a
literary person, professional writer, or journalist. I thus don’t think I should be
checking if the content and ideas of my summary are well organized after I am done
with writing because I usually think about in what ways and in what order I should
arrange the author’s ideas logically before writing.”

Since she thought about how she would organize the content and ideas before ‘summarizing,’

and also since she paid much attention to polishing her writing by checking the

appropriateness of vocabulary, correctness of grammar and mechanics, and the smoothness of

sentence structure, she rarely focused on the coherence or logic of her writing content and

ideas after ‘summarizing.’

The reasons why Yuna did not use all of the reported strategies during the think-aloud task were

because 1) she had to write a very short summary and thus did not feel necessary to write down

words, phrases, or sentences related to the writing topic before ‘summarizing’ and 2) no tables,

figure, and pictures were included in the text and thus she did not have a chance to picture or

visualize information in the text while reading.

3) Su-Eun in the lower level ‘summarizing’ group. Su-Eun was majoring in English

Language and Literature and was the only one among the eight think-aloud task participants

whose major was not English Education. She had been in the U.S. for two years when she was

a middle school student. She mentioned that she was thinking about being an English teacher

or news anchor, but she had not made up her mind yet. She pointed out some positive aspects

of the ‘summarizing’ activity which she was engaged in this semester:

“I am taking a course from the English Education Department for the first time this
semester. As you know…because I am from the English Language and Literature
Department, I’ve only been taking literature classes so far. So, I enjoyed reading the
texts about English teaching methods and educational issues given for the ‘summarizing’

177
 activity. They were actually much more interesting and much less difficult than the
class materials for the course I am taking. And I also liked other general topics of texts
because I’ve never had a chance to read different kinds of issues. I don’t know exactly
in what ways the ‘summarizing’ helped me, but I just think it helped in some ways to
become interested in reading something in English and also to improve my overall
English proficiency.”

She thought that all the given texts were much less difficult than the texts for her classes and thus

she enjoyed reading them and thought the ‘summarizing’ activity helped her in many ways.

She did her task at home or in school when she wanted to take a breath of fresh air and said that

she did not stop until she had completely finished reading and ‘summarizing’ a text.

Here is Su-Eun’s process of ‘summarizing’ during the think-aloud task:

She checked the text length first and then started to read it carefully from the first paragraph

without skimming.

She underlined some words, phrases, or sentences while reading. She tended to underline

so many things, but did not seem to have a specific purpose of doing so. When the

researcher asked her why she was underlining, she said:

“I just underline the things that I think are important. But, I guess I am more likely to
underline things habitually...because if I don’t underline something, I usually lose
concentration and forget about what I am reading. I actually don’t think I put too much
meaning to the underlined parts.”

She thought about which parts were important and which parts should be included into her

summary while reading. Also, she went back and forth in the text and also re-read some of

the sentences or even a whole paragraph several times to increase her understanding. For

example, when she had almost finished reading the whole text, she suddenly went back to the

second page and re-read a paragraph under the subtitle ‘Why electronic portfolios?’ much

more slowly and carefully than the first time she had read it:

178
 “I didn’t think this part was important when I read it for the first time. But, I realized
that I should understand this part clearly to understand the whole text better. I just
could not remember what the author said about the purposes of using electronic
portfolios. I wanted to see if what I thought about the advantages of electronic
portfolios was correct. That’s why I went back.”

When she faced unfamiliar words, she usually checked the meanings after she had finished

reading the whole text unless they impeded her understanding of the content. In contrast to

Da-Young in the CH group and Yuna in the SH group, Su-Eun only used an English-Korean

dictionary. Also, in contrast to the four students in the two higher level groups (i.e. Da-

Young and Ji-Hee in the CH group and Sang-Woo and Yuna in the SH group), she did not

check the usages of unfamiliar words within sentences. After reading the text, she went

back to unfamiliar words and checked the meanings by using an electronic dictionary, but did

not write down any memos. She explained the reason as follows:

“I am reading the given texts for the ‘summarizing’ just for fun. Of course, my
portfolios will take 10% of the course grade, but I think I’m doing pretty well. I’ve
never skipped reading and ‘summarizing’ two texts every week. So, I don’t think there
will be any problems with my grade. I might have gotten very nervous and tried to
understand all the details and remember unfamiliar words if this was a major assignment
related to my major or if this was a task given for a test. But, because I just tried to
enjoy reading the texts without having any pressure, I didn’t want to write down the
meanings of unfamiliar words and try to remember them.”

Her statement explains why she also did not put as much effort as the students in other

groups to focus on specific areas which she considered as her weaknesses or which she

would like to improve.

When ‘summarizing,’ she repeated such processes as going back to the original text as well

as some of the ‘summarized’ sentences she had written, pondering the next sentence, re-

reading some parts she had underlined, and continuing writing.

179

She also erased several sentences she had already written and then re-wrote new sentences.

Erasing and re-writing sentences was a strategy which had not been observed in other think-

aloud task participants. Other students tended to be thinking deeply about what they were

going to write before writing a new sentence because they did not want to eliminate what

they had written. However, Su-Eun was not afraid of erasing the sentences which she had

already produced:

“I think about what to write before I start to write. But, sometimes I find that some of
the sentences don’t make sense. I can recognize it only after I’ve written the sentences.
Erasing and re-writing a new sentence is not a big deal for me. That’s why I am using
a pencil.”

Even though she could not immediately think of the appropriate English word, she tried to

find easy words that she already knew but never used a dictionary.

In contrast to other students, Su-Eun considered whether her summary content and ideas

were well organized and whether they were making good sense in the middle of

‘summarizing.’ However, she never checked them once she had finished ‘summarizing.’

After ‘summarizing,’ she checked and made changes in mechanics and grammar but did not

review her use of vocabulary and sentence structure or fluency.

Su-Eun’s completed summary is as follows (One unclear sentence was replaced in bold text and

double-underlined in a blank. For an unclear pronoun, ‘it,’ an appropriate phrase was written in

bold text within a blank. Also, a missing word was added in bold text within a blank as well.

Finally, grammatical mistakes were crossed out, and corrections were made in bold italic texts

next to them if necessary.):

180
 ‘A portfolio is a collection of student work which we can see students’ progress.
Therefore, it is required at colleges and universities to find out students’ assessment.
Portfolio programs are aimed at K-12 level, and these days because of the development
of the technology, electronic portfolios are in the limelight. In the development of
electronic portfolios, we can find that one thing is added compared with paper portfolios.
It is hyperlink that students can duplicate and transport the portfolios (Students
can use hyperlinks to connect different parts of portfolio content and also duplicate
and transport the portfolio content.). Therefore, it seems that it (electronic
portfolios) helps help students to get feedback and to reflect on themselves, (and) so
they can grow up.’

Several serious problems, which were not found in the other two SH group students’ summaries,

were found in Su-Eun’s summary. It seemed that she did not clearly understand the text

content. It was not clear what the subject (i.e. ‘it’) referred to in a sentence. She seemed to

borrow the same form of a sentence from the original text and did not think carefully about what

she had written in the previous sentences. Accordingly, she was using the plural for ‘electronic

portfolio’ and ‘paper portfolio’ in the previous sentences, but ambiguously used a singular

pronoun ‘it’ in the next sentence, and thus it was not clear if ‘it’ was referring to ‘electronic

portfolio’ or ‘paper portfolio.’ It seemed that what she meant was more likely to be ‘electronic

portfolio’ as inferred from the context. In addition, she seemed to have a general understanding

of the advantages of electronic portfolios, but did not seem to clearly understand what ‘hyperlink’

meant and what kinds of roles it would play for electronic portfolios users. Even though she

checked the content and ideas of her summary in the middle of writing, she might not have

realized the fact that she did not clearly understand the original text.

Overall, Su-Eun reported that she used the planning strategies the most frequently, the

evaluating strategies the second most, and the monitoring strategies the least. However, she

actually used the planning strategies the most frequently, the monitoring strategies the second

181
most, and the evaluating strategies the least during the task (See Table 35.). Here are the

comparisons between her reported and actual use of strategies for the three subsections (See

Table 36.):

For the planning strategies, the top two (Strategies #2 and #3) and one of the bottom planning

strategies (Strategy #6) showed a good match between what was reported and what was

actually used. She mentioned that she thought about what an electronic portfolio was and

how it would be different from a paper type portfolio before reading and ‘summarizing’

(Strategies #2 and #3). She said that she usually did not have enough time to think about

how she should read and write (Strategy #5) because she had to read abundant class materials

and write reports or essays as class requirements. She thus tried to think about how she

could get a higher grade rather than how she could improve her reading and writing ability.

However, in this semester, she mentioned that her only goal was to enjoy reading different

kinds of topics. Thus, she was only interested in expanding her knowledge on different

topics, but did not pay much attention to how she could write a good quality of summary or

develop different areas of reading and writing. Similar to the two students in the SH group,

Su-Eun wrote a summary without an outline (Strategy #6).

For the monitoring strategies, all of the top two (Strategies #9 and #12) and bottom two

strategies (Strategies #27 and #29) reported in the survey and those actually used in task

perfectly matched. She adjusted her reading and writing speed and re-read some of the

sentences in order to understand them better or to make changes (Strategies #9, #10, and #11).

She also underlined some of the words, phrases, and sentences while reading to increase her

understanding (Strategy #12). She went back and forth in the text to find relationships

among ideas in it (Strategy #17) when reading and ‘summarizing,’ but never skipped a

182
 sentence or paragraph (Strategies #18 and #19). In addition, she used a dictionary to check

the meanings of unfamiliar words after reading (Strategy #21), but did not do so when

writing her summary. Rather, she simply used words or expressions that she already knew

(Strategy #25). Moreover, she mentioned that she always thought about the information in

the text both in English and Korean (Strategy #28), but not only in English (Strategy #27)

because it was difficult for her to consider everything purely in English even when the text

itself was not too difficult. She did not ask herself questions that she would like to have

answered in the text (Strategy #29) because she said: “I just enjoyed reading the text but not

studying it.”

For the evaluating strategies, the two bottom reported and actually used strategies (Strategies

#30 and #36) matched, but the two top reported and actually used strategies (Strategies #32

and #34) did not match. As she constantly had mentioned, she did not think it would be

necessary to critically analyze and evaluate the information in the text (Strategy #30) because

she wanted to enjoy reading the text rather than studying it. After reading, she reviewed

some parts which she thought were important in order to write a better summary (Strategy

#31). After ‘summarizing,’ she only reviewed her use of grammar and mechanics

(Strategies #33 and #34), but not vocabulary, sentence structure, or content and idea

organization (Strategies #32, #35, and #36). Even though she checked for the content and

ideas of her summary in the middle of writing, her summary was not well organized

compared to other two students in the SH group. She also lacked a sense of purpose for

expanding vocabulary when comparing her not only with the students in the SH group but

also with those in the CH and CL groups. She never made efforts to remember unfamiliar

words and to use them appropriately in her writing (e.g. using a dictionary to look for the

183
 meanings and usages, creating a list of them, reviewing them, etc.). Again, the reason for

doing so was that she did not want to get too much stress by pushing herself to focus on

understanding all of the specific information in the text and developing her reading and

writing ability. This might have made her use the evaluating strategies much less than the

planning and monitoring strategies.

The reason why there was a mismatch between what Su-Eun reported in the survey and what she

actually did during the think-aloud task was because she did the ‘summarizing’ activity to have

fun rather than to improve her reading and writing ability and thus reviewed her writing focusing

only on grammar and mechanics. She reviewed and made changes whenever she found

grammatical mistakes or awkward expressions while ‘summarizing,’ but never did so once she

had finished her writing.

4) Young-Jae in the lower level ‘summarizing’ group. Young-Jae thought that his

writing ability was well below average compared to his reading ability and thus tried to practice

writing as much as possible. He said that he liked reading all of the given topics for the

‘summarizing’ activity, but felt the topics not relevant to teaching methods or tips and

educational issues were somewhat tough. He might have been familiar with the topics related

to his major, but did not have much information on the other topics. He said that he tended to

read a text whenever he had time and then ‘summarize’ it later at the beginning of the semester.

However, he realized that he had to re-read the text in order to ‘summarize’ it and thus it took

much more time for him to complete a task. Accordingly, he decided to read and then

‘summarize’ it immediately afterward.

Here is Young-Jae’s process of ‘summarizing’ during the think-aloud task:

184

He did not check the text length, but skimmed through the text. He said he was skimming,

but he was actually scrutinizing the text. He read the whole text for a long time and

underlined some words or phrases which he thought were unclear or important.

Once he had finished reading, he started to re-read the text. This time, he spent much more

time on reading each sentence. He put brackets around some sentences which he thought

important:

“When I read the text for the first time, I focused on identifying important phrases,
thinking about unfamiliar words, and the meanings of unclear phrases. But, when I
read it again, I focused on finding important sentences which I think I should remember
to understand the text better. I just put brackets because the text would get messy if I
underline so many sentences that I think are important.”

He said that he focused on smaller units of the text like words and phrases by trying to

understand their meanings when he first read the text, whereas he focused on a larger unit of

the text by trying to find important ideas and better understand the content when reading the

text for the second time.

He used an English-Korean dictionary to check the meanings of unfamiliar words and wrote

down the meanings on the text while reading it for the second time. Yet, he never checked

the usages of those words.

When he had difficulties understanding a certain paragraph, he skipped it and then later came

back to it.

He tried to translate some of the difficult sentences into Korean while reading. He said that

translating some of the sentences helped him enhance his understanding of the text.

In the middle of reading, he stopped many times and spent some time thinking. When the

researcher asked him what he was thinking, he said,

185
 “I was just thinking about the purpose of using electronic portfolios by trying to list
benefits of using them. Also, I was curious about other benefits not stated in the text.
I was also interested in how this type of portfolio could be used for Korean students and
what kinds of problems could occur. For example, I think the Internet and computers
have to be available for every student both at home and in school so that they can
develop their own portfolios…”

He was asking himself questions that he would like to have answered in the text and also

critically analyzed the information presented in the text.

He did not write down an outline, but spent much time thinking about how he would

organize the content and structure sentences before ‘summarizing’ the text.

When ‘summarizing,’ he did not repeatedly go back and forth in the original text to check the

important parts. Rather, he slowly re-read what he had marked on the text one by one and

wrote down each sentence in his summary.

When he got stuck, he stopped for a moment to organize his ideas and then continued writing.

Or, he left several lines blank, wrote down the next paragraph first, and then went back to the

skipped paragraph later. However, he never went back and forth in the original text:

“I usually spend a lot of time reading a text and never start ‘summarizing’ until I clearly
understand it. So, I go back to the text again when I begin ‘summarizing’ in order to
check what I have marked, but I don’t go back and forth in the text. Going back and
forth many times makes me very confused. And I sometimes forget about what I was
going to say if I do so. So, I stay in the same place or page on the original text until I
have completely covered that part in my summary.”

Interestingly, he used a pen rather than a pencil. The researcher asked him why he was

using a pen and what he would do if he made any mistakes, and he said,

“I am using a pen on purpose. If I use a pencil, I feel much relaxed because I can erase
and re-write words or sentences anytime. However, if I use a pen, I become more
careful about writing each word and sentence. I am taking the Teacher Certification
Exam next year, and all the participants are required to use only a pen in writing. I just
wanted to train myself to write a paper as fast as possible without making serious
mistakes. I usually don’t have much time to practice writing due to a lot of school

186
 work and I know that my writing ability is not good enough. So, I use a pen to
‘summarize’ a text and I re-write the summary if I make any mistakes.”

When he made a grammatical mistake while writing the second sentence of his summary, he,

indeed, brought out a new piece of paper and then started to re-write the summary.

However, when he made a minor spelling or punctuation mistake, he simply used a whiteout

to correct his mistakes, but did not re-write it. While Su-Eun in the SL group was not aware

of her weaknesses and was not interested in improving reading and writing proficiency

through the ‘summarizing’ activity, Young-Jae was clearly aware of what his weaknesses

were and what efforts he should make in order to improve his writing ability and prepare

himself for the Teacher Certification Exam.

When he could not think of the right words, he first tried to use simple words that he already

knew. If he could not, he used a Korean-English dictionary. Yet, he never checked the

usages of the words he had found.

After ‘summarizing,’ he glanced through his writing to look for and correct mechanical

mistakes. However, he did not check the content or ideas, sentence structure, grammar, and

vocabulary because he had constantly checked them and made changes while ‘summarizing.’

He mentioned that he did not think it was necessary to do so because he had conscientiously

planned how he would organize his summary before he began ‘summarizing.’ This might

be the reason why he used more of the planning strategies than the evaluating ones like Su-

Eun in the SL group did as well.

Young-Jae’s completed summary is as follows:

187
 ‘The electronic portfolios have begun to enter the world of K-12 education. A portfolio
is a collection of student work demonstrating the students’ student’s achievement or
growth. It also exhibits the student’s efforts, progress, and achievements in one or
more areas. It supports learning, play plays an assessment role, or support supports
employment. There are three typical types of portfolios: the working portfolio, the
display portfolio, and the assessment portfolio. And there are five steps in the
development of effective electronic portfolios: selection, collection, reflection, direction,
and connection.

The benefits of a digital portfolio are that it allows different access to different artifacts.
Students can modify the contents and emphasize different portions of the content by
creating pertinent hyperlinks.’

Even though he re-wrote his summary to correct a grammatical mistake, several mistakes still

existed. His summary also did not cover all of the important points of the text. He only

covered from the first page to the second page of the text. The rest of the text provided

information about which age group the electronic portfolios could be used for, what kinds of

roles the electronic portfolios could play for students’ personal growth, etc., but he did not

include this information into his summary. He might have thought that they were not important.

His summary was better than Su-Eun’s summary in terms of content and sentence structure, but

it was not well written compared to the two students in the SH group.

Overall, Young-Jae reported that he used the planning strategies the most frequently, the

evaluating strategies the second most, and the monitoring strategies the least. However, he

actually used the planning strategies the most frequently, the monitoring strategies the second

most, and the evaluating strategies the least during the task (See Table 35.). Here are the

comparisons between his reported and actual use of strategies for the three subsections (See

Table 36.).

For the planning strategies, the top two (Strategies #2 and #3) and one of the bottom

188
 strategies (Strategy #6) showed a good match. He thought about the text topic before

reading and writing (Strategies #2 and #3). He also had a clear and specific purpose

(Strategy #1)—improving his writing ability—and decided how he should read and

‘summarize’ to attain his goal (Strategy #5). He drew a very thorough outline of the

summary in his mind (Strategy #6), but did not write it down on paper.

For the monitoring strategies, only the top two reported strategies (Strategies #9 and #12)

matched the top two strategies actually used. He adjusted his reading and writing speed and

re-read some of the sentences in the original and ‘summarized’ texts in order to check or

increase his understanding (Strategies # 9, #10, and #11). He also underlined some phrases

and put brackets around certain sentences to remember them (Strategy #12). Moreover, he

skipped a sentence or paragraph which he thought was difficult and later came back to it

(Strategies #18 and #19). He used a dictionary when he wanted to check the meanings of

new words while reading or when he could not think of simple words while writing

(Strategies #21, #24, and #25). However, he was not interested in checking the usages of

new words. He said that translating the whole text into Korean would not be helpful at all,

but continued to say that translating some of the complex sentences was useful because

clearly and quickly understanding the meanings of those sentences was crucial in order to

‘summarize’ the text better (Strategy #27). Furthermore, he mentioned that he usually did

not like to ask himself questions which he would like to have answered in a text (Strategy

#29). However, he was very much interested in reading the given texts for the

‘summarizing’ activity and thus he became very curious and eager to know more about

information which was not sufficiently explained in the texts.

For the evaluating strategies, only one of the top (Strategy #34) and bottom strategies

189
 (Strategy #36) reported in the survey were actually used in the task. He spent much time

critically reviewing the information in the text by considering what the author discussed, how

the author discussed the information in the text, and what he thought about the author’s

opinions or statements (Strategy # 30). After reading the text, he reviewed the underlined

words and phrases as well as the sentences in the brackets to check his understanding and

write a better summary (Strategy #31). He also checked and corrected both grammatical

and mechanical mistakes while ‘summarizing,’ and checked mechanical mistakes once more

after ‘summarizing’ (Strategy #34). However, he never reviewed his summary to make

changes in the content, ideas, grammar, and vocabulary once he had finished ‘summarizing’

(Strategies #32, #33, and #36).

The reason why there was a mismatch between what Young-Jae reported in the survey and what

he actually did in the task was because he checked mistakes in vocabulary, grammar, and

sentence structure while ‘summarizing’ the text and re-wrote his summary from the beginning

when he discovered any mistakes. Yet, he never checked any other mistakes except mechanical

ones after completing the ‘summarizing’ task.

Reading and writing strategy use of the students with different proficiency levels in the

‘summarizing’ group

The four students who were engaged in the ‘summarizing’ activity showed similarities

and differences in their use of reading and writing strategies regarding their different proficiency

levels. All of them were willing to read different kinds of topics given for the ‘summarizing’

activity. They thought that most of the topics were closely related to their interests and thus

enjoyed reading. They particularly liked the topics relevant to teaching methods or tips and

190
educational issues because they liked to get new and useful ideas for teaching and wanted to use

them in their future career. They were similar in that they used different kinds of marks on the

text to understand it better and write a better summary. Also, they tried to guess the meanings

of unfamiliar words by using context clues during reading or used a dictionary after reading. In

addition, all of them tried to use simple words when they could not find more appropriate ones.

If they failed, all of them except Su-Eun used a dictionary. They re-read certain sentences or

paragraphs and went back and forth in the text when they encountered difficulties in reading and

writing. They also meditated on how they could use information gained from the text

effectively in a real teaching situation. Moreover, they checked if they were ‘summarizing’ the

text well both during and after writing. In spite of the different proficiency levels, all of the

four students employed many of the same strategies during the think-aloud task.

However, there were some differences in the ways the two different proficiency levels of

the students were using the strategies. First, Sang-Woo and Yuna at the higher level used the

evaluating strategies the most frequently, the monitoring strategies the second most, and the

planning strategies the least during the think-aloud task in the same way as they had reported in

the survey. They used the evaluating strategies the most by checking if there were any mistakes

in vocabulary, grammar, sentence structure, and mechanics both during and after ‘summarizing.’

However, they did not check the content and idea organization because they already had planned

how they should organize their writing before ‘summarizing.’ They also had a clear purpose of

reading and ‘summarizing’ and thought specifically about what they should do to improve their

reading and writing ability. These would be the reasons why the higher level students used the

planning strategies more than the monitoring strategies during the task.

In contrast, Su-Eun and Young-Jae at the lower level reported that they used the

191
planning strategies the most frequently, evaluating strategies the second most, and the

monitoring strategies the least, but they actually used the planning strategies the most frequently,

the monitoring strategies the second most, and the evaluating strategies the least during the task.

They rarely used the evaluating strategies because they mostly reviewed mistakes in sentence

structure, grammar, and content or idea organization during but not after ‘summarizing.’

However, once they finished writing, they only checked grammatical or mechanical mistakes.

They were different from the higher level students in that they checked if the content or ideas of

their summary were well organized while ‘summarizing’, whereas the higher level students did

not do this. In addition, the lower level students skimmed through the text or checked its length,

but the higher level students did not do so. This would be the reason why the lower level

students used the planning strategies more frequently than the higher level students did.

Moreover, Young-Jae at the lower level skipped a paragraph when he had difficulties

understanding it. He also often translated some of the complicated sentences into his first

language, which was identified as a common strategy for low level students in Zhang’s (2001)

study. These would be the reasons why the lower level students used the monitoring strategies

more frequently than the higher level students.

Second, the higher level students had a global view of the text and paid great attention to

the meanings of words as well as the organization and structures of sentences and paragraphs

while reading and ‘summarizing.’ For example, they thought about how conjunctions were

used in a long sentence or what kinds of phrases or clauses were combined within sentences.

They also contemplated on how they could organize and structure sentences well in writing. In

addition, since they viewed the text as a whole unit with a meaning, they knew what the main

theme of the text was. Thus, they were good at identifying important details of the text and

192
deciding what to include or not into their summary. In contrast, the lower level students

considered the text as a combination of many individual and small units. They thus mostly

focused on the meanings of words, phrases, or sentences. For example, they went back and

forth in the text or re-read some of the sentences mostly because they were not clear about the

meanings of certain words and phrases. However, they did not think about how words or

phrases were used within the contexts and how sentences were structured or organized. Unless

they had understood the meanings of the words or phrases, they were not able to clearly

understand the text. In addition, they placed too much emphasis on unimportant details or

failed to have a clear understanding of the text. Accordingly, they included insufficient or often

impertinent information and were, therefore, not very successful in deciding what to include or

not into their summary.

Third, the higher level students were more flexible when dealing with unfamiliar

vocabulary using a dictionary. Whether or not they used a Korean-English or an English-

English dictionary, they made the best use of it. For example, Sang-Woo only used a Korean-

English dictionary, but carefully checked how a word could be used in different forms within

different contexts. In Yuna’s case, she used both a Korean-English dictionary and an English-

Korean dictionary. She was interested in finding multiple meanings and usages of new words.

In contrast, the lower level students used a dictionary to find only the meanings of words. For

example, Su-Eun and Young-Jae depended only on an English-Korean dictionary in order to find

the meanings of unfamiliar words rather than understanding how they were used within

sentences. When writing his summary, Young-Jae at least tried to find the right word through a

Korean-English dictionary, but Su-Eun did not use a dictionary at all and tried to use simple

words that she already knew.

193
 Meanwhile, unlike the other three students, Su-Eun did not make any memos related to

new vocabulary. Still, the difference between the higher level and lower level is that Sang-Woo

and Yuna at the higher level wrote down the meanings of some of the unfamiliar words which

they really wanted to remember, but they did not note down the meanings of all of the unfamiliar

words. After ‘summarizing,’ they went back to the text, reviewed the meanings of those words

by re-reading some of the sentences. In contrast, Young-Jae at the lower level never reviewed

the meanings of new vocabulary.

Finally, the higher and lower level students were aware of what their purposes of reading

and ‘summarizing’ were, what their weaknesses were, and what kinds of strategies would be

helpful to develop their reading and writing ability through the ‘summarizing’ activity. In other

words, they had knowledge of cognition which involves ‘person’ knowledge, ‘task’ knowledge,

and ‘strategy’ knowledge. However, the lower level students lacked knowledge of how to

regulate and use planning, monitoring, and evaluating strategies appropriately to their ability,

proficiency level, given task, etc. They knew which strategies they were applying, but did not

know how they should use those strategies effectively. Sang-Woo and Yuna at the higher level

knew that they were applying different strategies to overcome different kinds of difficulties in

reading and ‘summarizing.’ For example, they selectively looked for the meanings and usages

of unfamiliar words or expressions and reviewed them within contexts to remember them better.

They also had an elaborate plan in their mind of how to organize the content and ideas of their

summary before writing so they were able to reduce the reviewing time of making changes in the

content and ideas during or after writing. On the other hand, Su-Eun and Young-Jae at the

lower level used similar strategies like those that the higher level students used and also as

frequently as (or often even more frequently than) the higher level students did. However, they

194
were not using the strategies as effectively as the higher level students were. For example,

Young-Jae wrote down the meanings of all the unfamiliar words, but never reviewed them after

‘summarizing.’ Also, the lower level students were reluctant to use a dictionary even when

they could not think of the right word. In addition, they often erased several sentences and re-

wrote new sentences or started to write the whole summary again when they found any mistakes

or awkwardness in their summary. Although they believed this to be useful, they seemed to be

unnecessarily consuming too much time and energy by employing this strategy. In Young-

Jae’s case, he re-wrote a new summary when he discovered a minor grammatical mistake found

in one of his sentences. When he reached that sentence again, he seemed to forget about what

he was going to say from then onwards. He thus had to spend much time re-reading some of

the sentences in the text in order to re-organize his thoughts.

In sum, the higher level and lower level students were similar in that they used similar

kinds of strategies with similar frequency. Nevertheless, they were different in that the higher

level students had a global view of the text, were flexible in dealing with unfamiliar words, and

were aware of which strategies they were using and how they should use those strategies

successfully, whereas the lower level students had a narrow view of the text, were not very

flexible in the ways of dealing with new vocabulary, and were using strategies ineffectively.

Based on what the researcher had observed from the ‘summarizing’ group of students during the

think-aloud task, they all passed over the shallow or perceptual level of the ‘summarizing’ stage

in that they were focusing on sentences within meaningful contexts trying to understand the text

content, being able to identify the general meaning of the text, and trying to make morphological,

syntactic, and lexical changes for their summary (even though it was not always successful).

However, the higher level students were more likely to be engaged in a deeper level of the

195
‘summarizing’ processing in that they were contemplating on how words and expressions were

used within different contexts, how sentences or paragraphs were organized, and how they could

use words and expressions appropriately and produce a better organized summary. They also

had a good enough understanding of the text content, specified important points by using

contextual clues, decided what to include or not into their summary, and tried to use their own

words in the summary. They seemed to be thinking more about inferred meanings of the text

rather than identifying main ideas, supporting ideas, and important details such as pondering

over how they could apply useful information of the text to their future English classroom and

what other benefits the electronic portfolios could bring which were not stated in the text.

Furthermore, they had a clear understanding of the text content enabling them to successfully

integrate the main ideas and all the important details of the text into their summary. In contrast,

the lower level students were slowly approaching a deeper level of ‘summarizing’ stage, but they

had not reached that level yet. They thought deeply about the meaning of vocabulary within a

context, but they rarely tried to apply the acquired vocabulary into their summary writing.

They also often reworded some of the sentences or used synonyms of the words in the original

text when writing. In addition, they spent much time speculating about inferred meanings of

the text and finding main and supporting ideas as well as important details. Yet, they were not

very successful in deciding which parts were really important and thus often either included

unimportant parts or failed to include key points of the text into their summary.

Reading and writing strategy use, different tasks, and different proficiency levels

The eight students who were engaged in the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities had

each shown distinctive features in their use of metacognitive reading and writing strategies.

196
The ‘copying’ group of students used the evaluating strategies the least, but the ‘summarizing’

group of students used those strategies the most during the think-aloud task. Since the latter

had to produce a summary using their own words, they were more likely to be checking and

correcting mistakes. However, most of them reviewed their mistakes frequently during rather

than after ‘summarizing.’ The former rarely checked their ‘copied’ text once they had finished

‘copying.’ They thought that there would not be or could not be any mistakes in their writing

because they were writing down exactly the same as what the author of the text had written.

Interestingly, the ‘summarizing’ group of students was concerned more about mechanical

mistakes. The researcher had incorrectly assumed that the students in the ‘copying’ groups

would pay much more attention to the accuracy of writing than those in the ‘summarizing’

groups. Most of the students in the ‘summarizing’ groups checked if there were any

mechanical mistakes in their summary after ‘summarizing’ even if they had already repeatedly

checked their mistakes during ‘summarizing.’ Moreover, the ‘copying’ group of students re-

read some of the words, phrases, and sentences, went back and forth in the text, or used different

kinds of marks in order to remember certain information better or to increase their understanding.

The ‘summarizing’ group of students also used the re-reading or going back and forth strategy,

but they did so not only to remember something or enhance their understanding but also to use

the information obtained from the text appropriately for their summary.

When comparing the higher level students in the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups

with the lower level students in those two groups, many of the characteristics peculiar to each

proficiency level group were found. First, the higher level students used the three types of

strategies during the think-aloud task with the same frequency as they had reported in the survey,

whereas the lower level students showed a mismatch between what they actually did and what

197
they had reported for their use of the three types of strategies. The higher level students read

the text by phrase or sentence unit while the lower level students were more likely to read it by

word unit. The higher level students thus focused on the meanings and usages of vocabulary

within sentences, content and idea organization, mechanics, grammar, and sentence structure

when reading. They always thought about how they could use vocabulary, mechanics, and

grammar correctly and appropriately and also how they could organize and structure sentences in

better ways in their writing. On the other hand, the lower level students paid great attention

mostly to the meaning of vocabulary, but nothing else when reading. Getting the correct and

clear meaning of vocabulary was very important for them because they were not able to

understand the whole text without understanding the vocabulary. They often focused on the

correct use of mechanics and grammar when writing, but rarely considered sentence fluency or

content and idea organization. Also, some of them simply used a word found from a Korean-

English dictionary in their writing without checking its appropriateness.

Second, both the higher and lower level students tried to identify main ideas, supporting

ideas, and important details of the text and think deeply about the inferred meaning of the text.

However, even though the lower level students spent much time on identifying the major points

of the text, they often perceived unimportant information as important and specified too many or

insufficient details as key points of the text. In contrast, the higher level students grasped and

specified key points of the text more quickly and correctly.

Third, the students at the higher and lower proficiency levels had clear goals of reading

and writing and were aware of the kinds of strategies they were using. Yet, the higher level

students had a clearer understanding about what their weaknesses were, what kinds of effort they

needed in order to enhance their reading and writing ability, which kinds of strategies were

198
helping or hindering them, and how they should use those strategies successfully. The lower

level students, however, were not exactly aware in which areas of reading and writing they

specifically needed improvement and how they could formulate effective strategies to make

progress. Nevertheless, it is very important to note that both the higher and lower level students

were very thoughtful about commenting on their reasons why they actually used or did not use

the strategies they had reported in the survey. Moreover, they all reflectively thought-aloud how

they were doing ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing.’ That is, even the lower level students’

metacognition operated quite actively by making it possible for them to be reflective about their

learning processes and to circumspect about deciding what strategies to use and how to use those

strategies.

In short, the higher level students were engaged in a deeper level of processing by

reading and writing the text’s meaning, focusing on understanding the meanings and usages of

words and expressions and also understanding organization and structures of sentences and

paragraphs. They thought about or actually tried to apply what they had understood to their

writing. In contrast, the lower level students were not exactly at the stage of a deeper level of

processing. Rather, they were staying somewhere between a shallow or perceptual level and a

deeper level of the processing stage, but were gradually moving close to the latter. They tended

to read and write the whole text, but not discrete words, phrases, or sentences as did the higher

level students. More specifically, the lower level students were focusing mostly on the smaller

units of the text such as finding and understanding the meanings of new words and expressions,

but not on the larger units such as understanding sentence structure and organization. Also,

they considered the meaning of new vocabulary within the context, but they rarely thought about

or tried using that vocabulary in their own writing.

199
 To summarize, depending on which proficiency levels the eight students were at and

which tasks they were engaged in, the kinds of strategies they were using and the ways they were

using those strategies varied. The ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups had similarities as well

as their own peculiarities. Also, some of the similarities and differences existed between the

higher and lower level groups. How many strategies they were using and how frequently they

were using the strategies were not important in showing the differences between the two

different proficiency level groups. Rather, how effectively they were using those strategies for

the particular tasks was the most decisive difference. Specifically, the higher level students’

metacognition operated more actively and effectively than that for the lower level students.

The latter were less likely to realize how to monitor and control their knowledge and awareness

of cognitive behaviors and processes than the former. However, regardless of different

proficiency levels and tasks, all of their metacognition played important roles within interactions

among the three variables of cognition knowledge: ‘person,’ ‘task,’ and ‘strategy.’ They knew

and were well aware of their cognitive behaviors and processes. That is, they were

metacognitively thinking about and aware of what their strengths or weaknesses of reading and

writing were, what the given task was, what advantages they could get from the task, what kinds

of effort they should make to improve their reading and writing ability, how they were reading

and writing while engaged in the task, and what kinds of strategies they were using. It is also

important to note that even the lower level students clearly thought-aloud their processes of

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ as well as their reasons for using or not using certain strategies.

Additionally, it should be highlighted that the students at different proficiency levels all took

very active roles in their learning by having personal goals (e.g. wishing to become English

teachers, developing their overall English proficiency to pass the Teacher Certification Exam,

200
enhancing certain areas of English reading and writing which they personally thought as they

would need to strengthen, etc.). They used their own goals to make their ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ go well beyond the shallow or perceptual levels of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing.’

They were doing some very productive things and trying to personalize their own learning which

have not appeared in as much detail in earlier studies. It should be pointed out that not all

Korean university students would try hard to develop their language skills as this study

participants did if an extra task such as ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ was given during the

semester. However, there might have been a little pressure for the participants since the given

task accounted for 10% of their final grade. This would be a part of reason why the students

with different proficiency levels were eager to complete the task successfully. Also, the

discussions regarding ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities before starting the task in the first

week of the semester might have helped the students think about the advantages they could gain

through the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities. Yet, more importantly, because most

participants of this study were majoring in a language related field and wished to become

language teachers, they may have been more strongly motivated to become highly proficient in

English. A no less important assumption would be that they generally liked most of the

selected topics for the task and had quite high motivation to read the texts which might have

significantly influenced them to put much more effort to do the given task.

In the meantime, from the self-report survey, the SORWS, many matches and

mismatches between the students’ reported and actual use of strategies were found. In other

words, the SORWS did not perfectly support the students’ actual use of strategies during the

think-aloud task. This might have been due to some shortcomings of the SORWS. For one,

the students would have responded to the SORWS by thinking about how frequently they were

201
using strategies when generally reading and writing academic texts. Accordingly, what they

actually did during the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity might have been somewhat different

from their responses to the SORWS. That is, the response to the SORWS might have changed

depending on the different task purposes. For another, the SORWS was able only to assess

strategy use and frequency, but not strategy effectiveness. For still another, the students might

have responded to the SORWS without thinking much about or even being aware of what they

actually did. However, using the SORWS and comparing its results with the students’ actual

use of strategies had important merits. First, the researcher was able to find reasons why the

students in the different proficiency level and task groups used certain strategies more or less

than other groups and why there was a gap between what they reported and what they actually

did. Second, the researcher found that focusing on how effectively the students were using the

strategies on specific tasks was much more important than simply focusing on how many and

what strategies they were using and how frequently they were using them. This was drawn by

the lack of significant difference found among the different groups in the numbers, types of

strategies, and frequency of their strategy use.

202
 Research Question Four

How do students of various levels perceive of the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities,
and what is their perception of changes in their English reading and writing proficiency?
Are the actual proficiency changes and the reported perception of proficiency changes
different between the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups?

A week before the final exam, a reflection questionnaire was provided to the 60 students

in order to see how much they thought their English proficiency in the specific areas of reading

and writing had improved during the semester, what they thought were the advantages or

disadvantages of the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities, and how they thought the activities

had helped them improve their reading and writing ability. In this section, the students’

responses to the questionnaire will be compared with their actual English proficiency changes in

the nine areas of reading and writing from the pre- to the post-test. In addition, the students’

responses to the questions included in their portfolios which asked about their familiarity with

the topics of the given texts, their motivation to read the texts, and the reasons why they liked or

did not like reading them will be presented. Additionally, how the students’ motivation and

familiarity influenced their task performance and strategy use will also be discussed. The more

in-depth responses of the eight think-aloud task participants will also be discussed with their

actual changes and perception of changes in their reading and writing proficiency. The

similarities and differences between the ‘copying’ groups and the ‘summarizing’ groups and also

between the higher level groups and lower level groups will be taken into consideration.

203
Students’ perception of changes in their English reading and writing proficiency and the

comparison between their actual proficiency changes and perception of them

1) Students’ reported perception of changes in the nine areas of English reading and

writing proficiency. The students in the four groups were asked to evaluate

how much they thought they had improved, specifically in the areas of their reading and writing

ability during the semester through the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity. They had to

determine if they thought their English proficiency in the nine areas of reading and writing had

become much better or worse and then rate their proficiency by choosing one of the scores

among five (‘1’ meant ‘gotten much worse,’ ‘2’ meant ‘gotten somewhat worse,’ ‘3’ meant

‘stayed the same,’ ‘4’ meant ‘gotten somewhat better,’ and ‘5’ meant ‘gotten much better.’).

Their self-reported perception scores for the nine areas of reading and writing proficiency are

presented in Table 37.

204
Table 37
Means and Standard Deviations of Students’ Reported Perception of Changes in the Nine Areas
of English Reading and Writing Proficiency
Area R_Main/
R_Detail R_Infer R_Vocab W_Org W_Struc W_Gram W_Vocab W_Mecha Total
Group Supp
CH N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Mean 4.40 4.26 3.73 3.40 4.20 3.67 3.87 3.60 3.67 34.80
SD .51 .59 .79 .63 .56 .72 .74 .74 .72 3.78
CL N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Mean 3.93 3.87 3.53 4.00 3.40 3.40 3.60 3.00 3.93 32.66
SD .45 .63 .51 .75 .50 .73 .82 .84 .70 3.54
SH N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Mean 3.50 4.07 3.14 3.93 3.78 3.86 3.50 3.57 3.86 33.21
SD .51 .47 .53 .61 .69 .66 .75 .85 .66 2.26
SL N 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Mean 4.00 4.00 3.81 3.93 3.81 3.56 3.38 3.38 3.56 33.43
SD .73 .81 .65 .57 .54 .73 .62 .81 .63 3.78
Total N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Mean 3.97 4.05 3.56 3.82 3.80 3.62 3.58 3.38 3.75 33.53
SD .63 .64 .67 .67 .63 .71 .74 .82 .67 3.19

The students gave themselves 33.53 points out of 45 in total for the nine areas of reading and

writing proficiency. When considering each of the four groups, the CH group had higher

perception scores for most of the areas than the other groups. For the ‘finding main and

supporting ideas of texts,’ the CH group had the highest perception score (M= 4.40, SD= .51)

and the SH group had the lowest score (M= 3.50, SD= .51). Also, there were statistically

significant differences among the four groups in their reported perception scores for

‘R_Main/Supp’ area (F= 6.107, p < .01) as shown in Table 38.

205
Table 38
ANOVA Table for the Mean Differences among the Four Groups in their Reported Perception
of Changes in the Nine Areas of English Reading and Writing Proficiency
Sum of Mean
Area Source df F Sig.
Squares Square
R_Main/ Between Groups 5.90 3 1.96 6.107 .001**
Supp Within Groups 18.033 56 .32
Total 23.933 59
R_Detail Between Groups 1.25 3 .41 .993 .403
Within Groups 23.59 56 .42
Total 24.85 59
R_Infer Between Groups 3.91 3 1.30 3.203 .030*
Within Groups 22.81 56 .40
Total 26.73 59
R_Vocab Between Groups 3.51 3 1.17 2.798 .048*
Within Groups 23.46 56 .41
Total 26.98 59
W_Org Between Groups 4.80 3 1.60 4.773 .005**
Within Groups 18.79 56 .33
Total 23.60 59
W_Struc Between Groups 1.59 3 .53 1.044 .380
Within Groups 28.58 56 .51
Total 30.18 59
W_Gram Between Groups 2.00 3 .66 1.221 .311
Within Groups 30.58 56 .54
Total 32.58 59
W_Vocab Between Groups 3.40 3 1.13 1.728 .172
Within Groups 36.77 56 .65
Total 40.18 59
W_Mecha Between Groups 1.33 3 .44 .959 .419
Within Groups 25.91 56 .46
Total 27.25 59
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

For ‘R_Detail’ area (i.e. understanding and identifying the details relevant to the main and

supporting ideas), the CH group gave themselves the highest scores (M= 4.26, SD= .59), and the

SH (M= 4.07, SD= .47) and the SL (M= 4.00, SD= .81) groups gave quite high scores as well.

206
However, the CL group gave themselves relatively lower score (M= 3.87, SD= .47) than the

others. The SH and SL groups might have spent much more time in clearly understanding and

identifying important details of the texts rather than specifying the main and supporting ideas or

making inferences because they had carried out their writing summaries by listing details of the

texts. The CL group, in contrast, might have thought that their ability to ‘identify important

details’ had improved relatively much less than their ability to ‘find main and supporting ideas of

the text’ because they were not supposed to produce writing by using their own words as the SH

and SL groups were and thus they might have focused on figuring out what the texts were about

rather than on specifying important details. Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences

were found among the four groups in their self-reported scores for ‘R_Detail’ area (F= .993,

p= .403).

Interestingly, the SL group had the highest score (M= 3.81, SD= .65) and the SH group

had the lowest score (M= 3.14, SD= .53) for ‘R_Infer’ area. Both the SH and SL groups might

have gone beyond the surface details of the texts to understand other meanings that the details

had implied when reading about the topics which they were interested in. Thus, the SL group

might have perceived that their ability to ‘make inferences’ had developed. Yet, the SH group

might have given much more attention to identifying important details of the texts, re-stating

those details in their own words, and arranging them appropriately to make their summary flow

more smoothly. Accordingly, they might have given a higher score for ‘R_Detail’ area than for

‘R_Infer’ area. Not only between the SH and SL groups but also among the four groups,

statistically significant differences were found in their scores for ‘R_Infer’ area (F= 3.203, p

< .05). Nevertheless, most of the four groups’ self-perception scores for ‘R_Infer’ area were

relatively lower than those for other areas. Also, the four groups’ total mean score for the

207
‘R_Infer’ area (M= 3.56, SD= .67) was the lowest among the mean scores for each of the four

areas of ‘reading’. This indicates that the students might have felt difficult to make inferences

by using contextual clues and their personal experiences to draw their own conclusions. Since

interpreting a text in their own ways might have been thought to be more complicated than

identifying factual information clearly stated in the text, they might have given themselves a low

score for their ‘R_Infer’ proficiency improvement.

For ‘R_Vocab’ area, the CL group had the highest score (M= 4.00, SD= .75) and the CH

group had the lowest (M= 3.40, SD= .63). The CL group thought that their ability to ‘guess the

meaning of new vocabulary by using context clues’ had remarkably enhanced while their ability

to ‘apply new vocabulary appropriately to their own writing’ had hardly enhanced. That is, they

gave themselves the lowest score for ‘W_Vocab’ area (M= 3.00, SD= .84). Since they focused

on finding and understanding the meanings of new words and expressions while reading the

given texts, they considered that their vocabulary ability in reading had become much better.

However, since they did not have much opportunity to apply the new words and expressions they

had learned to their own writing, they might have perceived that their writing vocabulary ability

had enhanced much less than their reading vocabulary ability. In contrast to the CL group, the

CH group thought that their writing vocabulary ability had improved (M= 3.60, SD= .74) while

their reading vocabulary ability had hardly improved. Besides the CH group, another higher

level group—the SH group—also gave themselves a quite higher score for ‘W_Vocab’ area (M=

3.57, SD= .85). Since the students in the higher level groups, whether they were doing the

‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity, tended to give greater attention to the usages of new words

and expressions within contexts rather than their meanings, they might have thought that their

writing vocabulary ability had become better than that of their reading vocabulary. Similar to

208
the CL group, another lower level group, the SL group, also gave themselves a lower score for

‘W_Vocab’ area (M= 3.38, SD= .81). They might have focused more on understanding the

meanings of unfamiliar words rather than thinking about how they could use those new words

appropriately in their writing. Although the students at the higher level gave themselves a

higher score than those at the lower level, no statistically significant differences were found in

‘W_Vocab’ area among the four groups (F= 1.728, p = .172) [Yet, they showed statistically

significant differences in ‘R_Vocab’ area (F= 2.798, p < .05)]. In the meantime, the total mean

score of the four groups for ‘W_Vocab’ area was the lowest (M= 3.38, SD= .82) among the mean

scores for other areas of reading and writing. They might have thought that it was difficult for

them to apply new vocabulary and expressions to their own writing properly and thus might have

not been so much confident about this ability even though they actually had become quite

proficient. That is, they might have not recognized their improvement in ‘W_Vocab’ area on

the actual test and thus underestimated their ‘W_Vocab’ ability.

For the abilities to ‘organize sentences/phrases/ideas’ and ‘use correct grammar,’ the CH

group had the highest score (M= 4.20, SD= .56 for ‘W_Org’ area; M= 3.87, SD= .74 for

‘W_Gram’ area), and the CL or SL group had the lowest. The CL group had the lowest score

for ‘W_Org’ area (M= 3.40, SD= .50), and the SL group had the lowest for ‘W_Gram’ area (M=

3.38, SD= .62). In addition, for the ability to ‘use various sentence structures/patterns,’ two of

the higher level groups had higher scores, whereas the two lower level groups had lower scores.

The higher level groups gave themselves above 3.60 points (M= 3.67, SD= .72 for the CH group;

M= 3.86, SD= .66 for the SH group), but the lower level groups gave themselves below 3.60

points (M= 3.40, SD= .73 for the CL group; M= 3.56, SD= .73). This indicates that the

students at the higher level generally thought that they had become much better in organizing and

209
structuring sentences and producing grammatically correct sentences. However, statistically

significant differences were found only in ‘W_Org’ area among the four groups for their self-

rated perception scores. That is, the students’ perception of their ‘W_Struc’ and ‘W_Gram’

proficiency in the four groups was not much different.

For the ability to ‘use spelling, punctuation, and capitalization correctly,’ the CL group

and the SH group had higher scores, whereas the CH group and the SL group had lower scores.

While ‘copying’ the given texts, the CL group might have paid careful attention to the spelling of

unfamiliar words, correct punctuation, and capitalization, etc. The CH group, in contrast, might

have paid much more attention to how sentences in the texts were organized, structured, and

grammatically well written and how they could possibly produce better organized and structured

sentences in their writing. Meanwhile, the SH group might have concentrated on the correct

use of mechanics, which the higher proficiency level students usually regard as less important

and thus do not pay as much attention to, in addition to putting emphasis on grammar and

sentence structure and organization. The CH group, however, might have focused so intently

on other areas of writing that they cared much less about mechanics.

Overall, when considering the nine areas of reading and writing, the 60 students in the

four groups thought that the ability to ‘find main and supporting ideas of texts’ had improved the

most (M= 4.05, SD= .64), whereas the ability to ‘apply new vocabulary appropriately in their

writing’ did the least (M= 3.38, SD= .82). Among the four areas of ‘reading,’ they thought that

their ‘R_MS’ ability had developed the most and their ‘R_Infer’ ability the least (M= 3.56,

SD= .67). In addition, among the five areas of ‘writing,’ they thought that their ‘W_Org’ ability

had improved the most (M= 3.80, SD= .63) and their ‘W_Vocab’ the least. The students in the

CH group rated their ‘R_Main/Supp’ area proficiency as the highest (M= 4.40) and ‘R_Vocab’

210
area proficiency the lowest (M= 3.40). Contrary to the CH group, the students in the CL group

rated their ‘R_Vocab’ area proficiency as the highest (M= 4.00) while rating their ‘W_Vocab’

area proficiency as the lowest (M= 3.00). The CL group might have paid attention to finding

and understanding the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary while reading, whereas the CH group

might have paid additional attention to how they could use unfamiliar vocabulary appropriately

in their own writing. The students in the SH group perceived that their ‘R_Detail’ area

proficiency had developed the most (M= 4.07) and ‘R_Infer’ area proficiency the least (M= 3.14).

They might have focused more on identifying important details of the texts rather than making

inferences in order to write better summaries. The students in the SL group, in contrast,

considered that their ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ areas of proficiency had enhanced the most

(M= 4.00) and ‘W_Gram’ and ‘W_Vocab’ areas of proficiency the least (M= 3.38). Like the CL

group, the SL group also might not have thought much about how they could use new words and

expressions which they had learned from the given texts in their own writing.

For the total score for the nine areas of reading and writing, the CH group had the

highest score (M= 34.80, SD= 3.78) and the CL group had the lowest (M= 32.66, SD= 3.54).

However, the mean score differences among the four groups were not statistically significant at

all (F= 1.226, p= .309) as shown in Table 39.

Table 39
ANOVA Table for the Total Mean Score Difference among the Four Groups in their Reported
Perception of Changes in English Reading and Writing Proficiency
Sum of Mean
Source df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 36.90 3 12.30 1.226 .309
Within Groups 562.02 56 10.03
Total 598.93 59
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

The four groups of students rated their proficiency in the nine areas differently, and each group

211
thought that their proficiency in some of the areas had much improved and their proficiency in

other areas had less improved. For some of the areas’ self-rated proficiency scores (i.e.

‘R_Main/Supp,’ R_Infer,’ ‘R_Vocab,’ and ‘W_Org’ areas), statistically significant differences

were found among the four groups, but no statistically significant differences were found among

those four groups for their total scores of the nine areas of reading and writing proficiency.

That is, the four groups had a similar perception of their improvement in their overall English

reading and writing proficiency.

2) Students’ actual reading and writing proficiency changes and their reported

perception of them. Based on the students’ performance on the pre-test and

post-test and their responses to the reflection questionnaire, how their reading and writing

proficiency had actually changed and how their perception of reading and writing proficiency

had changed during the semester were compared according to each of the nine areas and also

according to the four groups. For R_Main/Supp’ area, a cross-tabulation table comparing the

students’ actual proficiency changes with their perception of them are shown below. The cells

of the table report the frequency counts and percentages for the number of students in each cell.

212
Table 40
Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘R_Main/Supp’ Proficiency Changes and their Perception
of them
What changes did the students perceive in their ‘R_Main/Supp’ proficiency? Did they
think that their ‘R_Main/Supp’ proficiency had deteriorated (A>B), had not changed at
all (A=B), or had improved (A<B)?
A=B A<B Total
N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row%
R_Main/ CH A>B 0 .0% .0% 3 20.0% 100.0% 3 20.0% 100.0%
Supp A=B 9
0 .0% .0% 12 80.0% 100.0% 12 80.0% 100.0%
How had A<B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
the
Total 0 .0% .0% 15 100.0% 100.0% 15 100.0% 100.0%
students’
scores in CL A>B 1 50.0% 100.0% 0 .0% .0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
‘R_Main/ A=B 0 .0% .0% 8 61.5% 100.0% 8 53.3% 100.0%
Supp’ area
changed A<B 1 50.0% 20.0% 5 38.5% 80.0% 6 40.0% 100.0%
from the Total 2 100.0% 13.3% 13 100.0% 86.7% 15 100.0% 100.0%
pre- to the
post-test? SH A>B 2 28.6% 66.7% 1 14.3% 33.3% 3 21.4% 100.0%
Had their A=B 4 57.1% 44.4% 5 71.4% 55.6% 9 64.3% 100.0%
scores
dropped A<B 1 14.3% 50.0% 1 14.3% 50.0% 2 14.3% 100.0%
(A>B), not Total 7 100.0% 50.0% 7 100.0% 50.0% 14 100.0% 100.0%
changed at
all (A=B), SL A>B 2 50.0% 33.3% 4 33.3% 66.7% 6 37.5% 100.0%
or A=B 2 50.0% 22.2% 7 58.3% 77.8% 9 56.2% 100.0%
increased
A<B 0 .0% .0% 1 8.3% 100.0% 1 6.3% 100.0%
(A<B)?
Total 4 100.0% 25.0% 12 100.0% 75.0% 16 100.0% 100.0%

For the CH group, none of the students showed a match between their actual ‘R_Main/Supp’

proficiency changes and their perception of them. All 15 students in the CH group reported that

their ability to ‘find main and supporting ideas in texts’ had improved, but all of their post-test

scores in ‘R_Main/Supp’ area were the same as those on the pre-test or even dropped compared

to those on the pre-test. For the SH and SL groups, five students and three students respectively

showed a match, but most of them (i.e. 4 for the SH group and 2 for the SL group) thought that

9
The numbers which are highlighted, written in bold texts, and linked with dotted line indicate the number of
students who showed a perfect match between their actual performance changes on the pre- and post-tests and their
reported perception of changes on the reflection questionnaire.

213
their proficiency in ‘R_Main/Supp’ area had not changed at all during the semester. The CL

group was the only one in which all of the five students, who showed a match between the

changes of actual proficiency and that of perceived proficiency, performed much better on the

post-test and thought that their proficiency had enhanced. Overall, the students in the SH and

the CL groups showed the greatest match, whereas those in the CH group showed the least match

between their actual ‘R_Main/Supp’ proficiency changes and their perception of them.

Nevertheless, there were more students whose post-test scores in ‘R_Main/Supp’ had remained

constant with their pre-test scores than those whose post-test scores had increased. More than

half of the students in each of the four groups (i.e. 15 in the CH group, 9 in the CL group, 12 in

the SH group, and 15 in the SL group) had maintained the same scores or received lower scores

in ‘R_Main/Supp’ area on the post-test, but more than half of the students (i.e. 15 in the CH

group, 13 in the CL group, 7 in the SH group, and 12 in the SL group) thought that their

‘R_Main/Supp’ proficiency had improved. That is, the majority of the students in the four

groups overestimated their ‘R_Main/Supp’ proficiency.

The comparison between the students’ actual changes in ‘R_Detail’ area and their

perception of them is shown in Table 41.

214
Table 41
Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘R_Detail’ Proficiency Changes and their Perception of
them
A=B A<B Total
N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row%
R_Detail CH A>B 0 .0% .0% 5 35.7% 100.0% 5 33.3% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 8 57.1% 100.0% 8 53.3% 100.0%
A<B 1 100.0% 50.0% 1 7.1% 50.0% 2 13.3% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 6.7% 14 100.0% 93.3% 15 100.0% 100.0%
CL A>B 0 .0% .0% 3 27.2% 100.0% 3 20.0% 100.0%
A=B 2 50.0% 33.3% 4 36.4% 66.7% 6 40.0% 100.0%
A<B 2 50.0% 33.3% 4 36.4% 66.7% 6 40.0% 100.0%
Total 4 100.0% 26.7% 11 100.0% 60.0% 15 100.0% 100.0%
SH A>B 0 .0% .0% 3 23.1% 100.0% 3 21.4% 100.0%
A=B 1 100.0% 11.1% 8 61.5% 88.9% 9 64.3% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 2 15.4% 100.0% 2 14.3% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 7.1% 13 100.0% 78.6% 14 100.0% 100.0%
SL A>B 1 20.0% 33.3% 6 54.5% 85.7% 7 43.8% 100.0%
A=B 3 60.0% 50.0% 3 27.3% 50.0% 6 37.5% 100.0%
A<B 1 20.0% 33.3% 2 18.2% 66.7% 3 18.7% 100.0%
Total 5 100.0% 31.2% 11 100.0% 68.8% 16 100.0% 100.0%

Even though 14 students among 15 in the CH group perceived that their ability to ‘identify

important details of reading texts’ had developed, only one student actually showed improvement

in ‘R_Detail’ area on the post-test. About one third of the students in the CL and SL groups (i.e.

6 in the CL group and 5 in the SL group) and three students in the SH group showed a good

match between their actual ’R_Detail’ proficiency changes and their perception of them.

Among those students, the largest number found in the CL group (i.e. 4) had a positive

perception of changes in their ‘R_Detail’ proficiency and showed much improvement on the

post-test. For the SH and SL groups, two students in each group showed improvement, and the

rest of the students maintained the same scores for both the pre- and post-tests and thought their

‘R_Detail’ proficiency had not changed at all during the semester. Overall, the majority of the

215
students in the four groups tended to have a positive perception of their ‘R_Detail’ proficiency

(i.e. 14 in the CH group, 11 in the CL group, 13 in the SH group, and 11 in the SL group), but

only a small number of them (i.e. 2 in the CH group, 6 in the CL group, 2 in the SH group, and 3

in the SL group) actually showed improvement. Most of the students had retained the same

scores or even gained lower scores in ‘R_Detail’ area on the post-test. In other words, the

students in the four groups tended to evaluate themselves much higher than their actual

proficiency.

The comparison between the students’ actual changes in ‘R_Infer’ area and their

perception of them is shown in Table 42.

Table 42
Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘R_Infer’ Proficiency Changes and their Perception of
them
A>B A=B A<B Total
N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum% Row% N Colum % Row%
R_Infer CH A>B 0 .0% .0% 2 28.6% 50.0% 2 25.0% 50.0% 4 26.7% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 2 28.6% 40.0% 3 37.5% 60.0% 5 33.3% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 3 42.8% 50.0% 3 37.5% 50.0% 6 40.0% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 7 100.0% 46.7% 8 100.0% 53.3% 15 100.0% 100.0%
CL A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 2 25.0% 100.0% 2 13.3% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 2 28.6% 66.7% 1 12.5% 33.3% 3 20.0% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 5 71.4% 50.0% 5 62.5% 50.0% 10 66.7% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 7 100.0% 46.7% 8 100.0% 53.3% 15 100.0% 100.0%
SH A>B 1 100.0% 20.0% 3 30.0% 60.0% 1 33.3% 20.0% 5 35.7% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 3 30.0% 60.0% 2 66.7% 40.0% 5 35.7% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 4 40.0% 100.0% 0 .0% .0% 4 28.6% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 7.1% 10 100.0% 71.4% 3 100.0% 21.4% 14 100.0% 100.0%
SL A>B 0 .0% .0% 2 40.0% 66.7% 1 9.1% 33.3% 3 18.8% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 3 27.3% 100.0% 3 18.8% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 3 60.0% 30.0% 7 63.6% 70.0% 10 62.5% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 5 100.0% 31.3% 11 100.0% 68.7% 16 100.0% 100.0%

The largest number of students in the CL and SL groups (i.e. 7 for each group) showed a good

216
match between their actual proficiency changes and their reported perception of them in ‘R_Infer’

area. All seven students in the SL group had a positive perception of their ability to ‘make

inferences’ and had also actually developed that ability during the semester. However, only five

students out of seven in the CL group showed a positive perception and performance, the other

two students maintained the same perception of their ‘R_Infer’ proficiency during the semester

and received the same scores for ‘R_Infer’ area on both the pre- and post-tests. In contrast to

the CL and SL groups, a relatively small number of students in the CH and SH groups (i.e. 5 in

the CH group and 4 in the SH group) showed a match between their actual proficiency changes

and their perception of them. Apart from one student who received a lower score in ‘R_Infer’

area on the post-test, all of them either had a positive perception of their proficiency changes or

maintained the same perception of their proficiency. As they perceived, their actual proficiency

either had improved or had not changed at all. Overall, however, more than one third of the

students in each group (i.e. 6 in the CH group, 10 in the CL group, 4 in the SH group, and 10 in

the SL group) actually performed better in ‘R_Infer’ area on the post-test, but more than one

third of other students in each group (i.e. 9 in the CH group, 5 in the CL group, 10 in the SH

group, and 6 in the CL group) perceived that their ‘R_Infer’ proficiency had not improved at all

or even worsened. In other words, they tended to underestimate their ‘R_Infer’ proficiency.

The comparison between the students’ actual proficiency changes and perception of

them in ‘R_Vocab’ area is shown in Table 43.

217
Table 43
Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘R_Vocab’ Proficiency Changes and their Perception of
them
A>B A=B A<B Total
N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row%
R_Vocab CH A>B 1 100.0% 25.0% 0 .0% .0% 3 42.9% 75.0% 4 26.7% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 7 .0% .0% 4 57.1% 100.0% 11 73.3% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 6.7% 7 100.0% 46.7% 7 100.0% 46.7% 15 100.0% 100.0%
CL A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 2 18.2% 100.0% 2 13.3% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 1 25.0% 100.0% 0 .0% .0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 3 75.0% 25.0% 9 81.8 % 75.0% 12 80.0% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 4 100.0% 26.7% 11 100.0% 73.3% 15 100.0% 100.0%
SH A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 5 45.5% 100.0% 5 35.7% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 1 33.3% 50.0% 1 9.0% 50.0% 2 14.3% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 2 66.7% 28.6% 5 45.5% 71.4% 7 7.1% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 3 100.0% 21.4% 11 100.0% 78.6% 14 100.0% 100.0%
SL A>B 0 .0% .0% 1 33.3% 33.3% 2 15.4% 66.7% 3 18.8% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 2 66.7% 15.4% 11 84.6% 84.6% 13 81.2% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 3 100.0% 18.8% 13 100.0% 81.2% 16 100.0% 100.0%

More students in the lower level groups (i.e. 10 in the CL group and 11 in the SL group) than

those in the higher level groups (i.e. 5 in the CH group and 6 in the SH group) showed a good

match between their actual ‘R_Vocab’ proficiency changes and their perception of them. In

addition, more students in the CL and SL groups (i.e. 9 in the CL group and 11 in the SL group)

than those in the CH and SH groups (i.e. 4 in the CH group and 5 in the SH group) actually

showed improvement in their ability to ‘guess the meanings of new words and expressions using

context clues’ on the post-test in the same way as they perceived. Even though the majority of

the students in each of the four groups obtained higher scores in ‘R_Vocab’ area on the post-test,

not all of them had a positive perception. That is, some students perceived that their ‘R_Vocab’

proficiency had not enhanced much. For example, seven students out of 11 in the CH group

218
whose post-test scores had increased thought that their ‘R_Vocab’ proficiency had not improved

at all. On the other hand, some other students had highly positive perception about their

‘R_Vocab’ proficiency than their actual proficiency. For example, only half of the SH group

students (i.e. 7) had shown improvement, and the other half had maintained the same scores or

scored lower on the post-test. Yet, 11 students out of 14 perceived that their ‘R_Vocab’

proficiency had enhanced. Although the CH group underestimated and the SH group

overestimated their ‘R_Vocab’ proficiency, the students in the higher level groups were generally

less confident about their proficiency than those in the lower level groups. In other words,

more students in the lower level groups (i.e. 11 out of 15 in the CL group and 13 out of 16 in the

SL group) than those in the higher level groups (i.e. 7 out of 15 in the CH group and 11 out of 14

in the SH group) had much more positive perception of their reading vocabulary proficiency.

The former focused largely on finding and understanding unfamiliar vocabulary while they were

reading the given texts, whereas the latter paid more attention to applying new vocabulary

appropriately in their writing than to simply understanding new vocabulary. It can be

concluded that more students in the CL and SL groups than those in the CH and SH groups had

more confidence in their ‘R_Vocab’ proficiency.

The comparison between the students’ actual ‘W_Org’ proficiency changes and their

perception of them is shown in Table 44.

219
Table 44
Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘W_Org’ Proficiency Changes and their Perception of
them
A=B A<B Total
N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row%
W_Org CH A>B 0 .0% .0% 2 14.3% 100.0% 2 13.3% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A<B 1 100.0% 7.7% 12 85.7% 92.3% 13 86.7% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 6.7% 14 100.0% 93.3% 15 100.0% 100.0%
CL A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 1 16.7% 100.0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A<B 9 100.0% 100.0% 5 83.3% .0% 14 93.3% 100.0%
Total 9 100.0% 60.0% 6 100.0% 40.0% 15 100.0% 100.0%
SH A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 2 22.2% 100.0% 2 14.3% 100.0%
A<B 5 100.0% 41.7% 7 77.8% 58.3% 12 85.7% 100.0%
Total 5 100.0% 35.7% 9 100.0% 64.3% 14 100.0% 100.0%
SL A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 3 25.0% 100.0% 3 18.8% 100.0%
A<B 4 100.0% 30.8% 9 75.0% 69.2% 13 81.2% 100.0%
Total 4 100.0% 25.0% 12 100.0% 75.0% 16 100.0% 100.0%

Most of the students in the four groups (i.e. more than 12 in each group) showed much

improvement in the ability to ‘organize sentences, ideas, and content well in writing’ on the post-

test. However, not all of them thought this ability had become much better at the end of the

semester. Among the 13 students in the CH group whose post-test scores for ‘W_Org’ area had

increased, 12 perceived that their ‘W_Org’ proficiency had developed. For the SH and SL

groups, seven students out of 12 in the SH group and nine out of 13 in the SL group showed a

good match between their actual changes in ‘W_Org’ proficiency and their perception of them.

Yet, only five out of 13 in the CL group showed a match. In other words, the largest number of

students in the CH group showed a match, whereas the smallest number of students in the CL

group showed a match. In addition, the students in the CH as well as those in the SH and SL

220
groups in general tended to correctly assess their ‘W_Org’ proficiency changes as positive,

whereas many of the students in the CL group tended to underestimate their ‘W_Org’ proficiency.

The students in the CH group might have focused on how sentences were organized while

reading the given texts, and thought about how they could organize their ideas logically in their

own writing while ‘copying’ the texts. In addition, since the students in the SH, and the SL

groups practiced organizing their ideas well while doing the ‘summarizing’ task during the

semester, they might have thought that their ‘W_Org’ proficiency had improved. However, the

students in the CL group might have felt difficult in organizing ideas and content well in writing

and thus might have not been very confident about their ‘W_Org’ proficiency.

The comparison between the students’ actual ‘W_Struc’ proficiency changes and their

perception of them is shown in Table 45.

221
Table 45
Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘W_Struc’ Proficiency Changes and their Perception of
them
A>B A=B A<B Total
Colum
N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Row% N Colum % Row%
%
W_Struc CH A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 1 10.0% 100.0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 1 10.0% 100.0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A<B 1 100.0% 7.6% 4 100.0% 30.7% 8 80.0% 66.7% 13 86.6% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 6.7% 4 100.0% 26.6% 10 100.0% 66.7% 15 100.0% 100.0%
CL A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 1 16.7% 100.0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A<B 1 100.0% 7.1% 8 100.0% 57.1% 5 83.3% 35.7% 14 93.3% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 6.7% 8 100.0% 53.3% 6 100.0% 40.0% 15 100.0% 100.0%
SH A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 2 20.0% 100.0% 2 14.3% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 4 100.0% 33.3% 8 80.0% 66.7% 12 85.7% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 4 100.0% 28.6% 10 100.0% 71.4% 14 100.0% 100.0%
SL A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 1 11.1% 100.0% 1 6.3% 100.0%
A<B 1 100.0% 6.7% 6 100.0% 40.0% 8 88.9% 53.3% 15 93.7% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 6.3% 6 100.0% 37.5% 9 100.0% 56.2% 16 100.0% 100.0%

Similar to ‘W_Org’ area, the majority of the students in the four groups showed great

improvement in ‘W_Struc’ area on the post-test. Among them, the same number of students

(i.e. 8) in each group except the CL group had a positive perception of their ‘W_Struc’

proficiency changes. In other words, eight students in each of the CH, SH, and SL groups

showed a perfect match between their actual ‘W_Stuc’ proficiency changes and their perception

of them. However, there were many students in those three groups (i.e. 5 in the CH group, 4 in

the SH group, and 7 in the SL group) who thought that their ‘W_Struc’ proficiency had not

changed at all or worsened even though their actual proficiency had improved. For the CL

group, even if five students out of 14 showed a good match, the rest had a quite negative

222
perception about their ‘W_Struc’ proficiency. This indicates that many of the students,

particularly in the CL group, were not very confident about ‘using various sentence structures or

patterns in their writing’ compared to other groups of students. Similar to what the CL group

thought about their ‘W_Org’ proficiency, they might have not been confident about their

‘W_Struc’ proficiency because they did not have much opportunity to practice structuring

sentences in their own writing while doing the ‘copying’ task.

The comparison between the students’ actual ‘W_Gram’ proficiency changes and their

perception of them is shown in Table 46.

Table 46
Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘W_Gram’ Proficiency Changes and their Perception of
them
A>B A=B A<B Total
N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row%
W_Gram CH A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 1 10.0% 100.0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 1 10.0% 100.0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 5 100.0% 38.5% 8 80.0% 61.5% 13 86.6% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 5 100.0% 33.3% 10 100.0% 66.7% 15 100.0% 100.0%
CL A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 1 16.7% 100.0% 0 .0% .0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A<B 1 100.0% 7.1% 5 83.3% 35.8% 8 100.0% 57.1% 14 93.3% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 6.7% 6 100.0% 40.0% 8 100.0% 53.3% 15 100.0% 100.0%
SH A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 2 33.3% 100.0% 0 .0% .0% 2 14.3% 100.0%
A<B 1 100.0% 8.3% 4 66.7% 33.3% 7 100.0% 58.3% 12 85.7% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 7.1% 6 100.0% 42.9% 7 100.0% 50.0% 14 100.0% 100.0%
SL A>B 0 .0% .0% 1 9.1% 100.0% 0 .0% .0% 1 6.2% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 2 18.2% 66.7% 1 20.0% 33.3% 3 18.8% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 8 72.8% 66.7% 4 80.0% 33.3% 12 75.0% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 11 100.0% 68.8% 5 100.0% 31.2% 16 100.0% 100.0%

A similar number of students in the CH, CL, and SH groups (i.e. 8 in the CH group and 9 in each

of the CL and SH groups) showed a good match between their actual ‘W_Gram’ proficiency

223
changes their perception of them. Among those, one of the students in the CL group and two in

the SH group perceived that their ability to ‘use correct grammar in writing’ had not changed at

all during the semester, and their scores in ‘W_Gram’ area on the post-test actually had not

changed at all compared to their pre-test scores. The rest of the students in the CH, CL, and SH

groups thought that their writing grammar ability had developed and actually showed much

improvement on the post-test. In comparison, a relatively less number of the students in the SL

group (i.e. 6) than that of the students in other three groups showed a good match between their

actual proficiency changes and their perception of them. Overall, most of the students in each

group actually gained higher scores in ‘W_Gram’ area on the post-test, and their ability to ‘write

grammatically correct sentences’ had greatly enhanced. However, not all of them were so

certain about their grammar ability, and thus perceived that their ‘W_Gram’ proficiency had not

improved much during the semester.

The comparison between the students’ actual ‘W_Vocab’ proficiency changes and their

perception of them is shown in Table 47.

224
Table 47
Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘W_Vocab’ Proficiency Changes and their Perception of
them
A>B A=B A<B Total
N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row%
W_Vocab CH A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 1 14.3% 100.0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 2 28.6% 100.0% 2 13.3% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 8 100.0% 66.7% 4 57.1% 33.3% 12 80.0% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 8 100.0% 53.3% 7 100.0% 46.7% 15 100.0% 100.0%
CL A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 1 25.0% 100.0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A<B 3 100.0% 21.4% 8 100.0% 57.1% 3 75.0% 21.5% 14 93.3% 100.0%
Total 3 100.0% 20.0% 8 100.0% 53.3% 4 100.0% 26.7% 15 100.0% 100.0%
SH A>B 0 .0% .0% 1 16.7% 100.0% 0 .0% .0% 1 7.1% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 2 33.3% 50.0% 2 28.6% 50.0% 4 28.6% 100.0%
A<B 1 100.0% 11.1% 3 50.0% 33.3% 5 71.4 % 55.6% 9 64.3% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 7.1% 6 100.0% 42.9% 7 100.0% 50.0% 14 100.0% 100.0%
SL A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 3 30.0% 75.0% 1 20.0% 25.0% 4 25.0% 100.0%
A<B 1 100.0% 8.3% 7 70.0% 58.4% 4 80.0% 33.3% 12 75.0% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 6.3% 10 100.0% 62.5% 5 100.0% 31.2% 16 100.0% 100.0%

More students in the ‘summarizing’ groups (i.e. 7 in each of the SH and SL groups) than those in

the ‘copying’ groups (i.e. 4 in the CH group and 3 in the CL group) showed a good match

between their actual ‘W_Vocab’ proficiency changes and their perception of them. Yet, similar

number of the students in each group (i.e. 4 in the CH group, 3 in the CL group, 5 in the SH

group, and 4 in the SL group) showed not only improvement in ‘W_Vocab’ area on the post-test

but also a positive perception of changes in their ‘W_Vocab’ proficiency. There were generally

more students in the four groups who thought that their writing vocabulary proficiency had not

improved at all or worsened than those who had a positive perception about their proficiency.

However, many more students in the lower level groups than those in the higher level groups

225
who showed improvement on the post-test had a negative perception of their proficiency changes.

The lower level groups might have felt slightly more confident in understanding new vocabulary

and expressions in the text than using them appropriately in their own writing. On the other

hand, the students in the higher level groups might have paid great attention to not only

understanding the meaning of new vocabulary but also to thinking about applying new

vocabulary in their writing. Nevertheless, they still did not think that their writing vocabulary

ability had enhanced much. They tended to underestimate their ‘W_Vocab’ proficiency as they

did for their ‘R_Vocab’ proficiency.

The comparison between the students’ actual ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency changes and their

perception of them is shown in Table 48.

Table 48
Comparison between Students’ Actual ‘W_Mecha’ Proficiency Changes and their Perception of
them
A>B A=B A<B Total
N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row% N Colum % Row%
W_Mecha CH A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 1 12.5% 100.0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 1 14.3% 100.0% 0 .0% .0% 1 6.7% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 6 85.7% 46.2% 7 87.5% 53.8% 13 86.6% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 7 100.0% 46.7% 8 100.0% 53.3% 15 100.0% 100.0%
CL A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 2 15.4% 100.0% 2 13.3% 100.0%
A<B 1 100.0% 7.7% 1 100.0% 7.7% 11 84.6% 84.6% 13 86.7% 100.0%
Total 1 100.0% 6.7% 1 100.0% 6.7% 13 100.0% 86.6% 15 100.0% 100.0%
SH A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 1 10.0% 100.0% 1 7.1% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 4 100.0% 30.8% 9 90.0% 69.2% 13 92.9% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 4 100.0% 28.6% 10 100.0% 71.4% 14 100.0% 100.0%
SL A>B 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% 0 .0% .0%
A=B 0 .0% .0% 1 12.5% 50.0% 1 12.5% 50.0% 2 12.5% 100.0%
A<B 0 .0% .0% 7 87.5% 50.0% 7 87.5% 50.0% 14 87.5% 100.0%
Total 0 .0% .0% 8 100.0% 50.0% 8 100.0% 50.0% 16 100.0% 100.0%

226
A similar number of students in the four groups showed a good match between their actual

‘W_Mecha’ proficiency changes and their perception of them. The majority of students (i.e.

more than 13 in each group) in the four groups showed much improvement in the ability to ‘use

spelling, punctuation, and capitalization correctly’ on the post-test. However, many students in

the four groups (i.e. 6 in the CH group, 4 in the SH group, and 7 in the SL group) except those in

the CL group thought that their ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency had not improved at all and had

remained the same throughout the semester. In contrast, almost all of the students in the CL

group who received higher scores in ‘W_Mecha’ area on the post-test (i.e. 11 out of 13)

considered that their ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency had improved. That is, the CL group among the

four groups showed the highest match between their actual ‘W_Mecha’ area score changes from

the pre- to the post-test and their self-rated perception of ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency changes.

In sum, among the 60 students in the four groups, over one third in each group showed a

good match between the changes in their actual proficiency in the nine areas of reading and

writing and those in their perception of proficiency in the same areas. For the five areas of

‘writing,’ and ‘R_Vocab’ area, many of the students in the four groups among those who showed

a good match had improved much on the post-test and also had a positive perception of their

proficiency changes. However, for the three areas of ‘reading’ (i.e. ‘R_Main/Supp,’ ‘R_Detail,’

and ‘R_Infer’ areas), even though some showed a good match by having a positive perception of

their proficiency and showing much improvement on the post-test, many others perceived that

their proficiency had not changed at all and obtained the same scores both on the pre- and post-

tests.

When considering overall students in the four groups including those who showed both a

good match and a mismatch, most of them, regardless of different proficiency levels, showed

227
improvement in the five areas of ‘writing’ and in ‘R_Vocab’ area, but they were not so confident

about their proficiency. The students showed a somewhat noticeable difference depending on

their different proficiency levels only in ‘R_Vocab’ area. More students at the lower level

groups than those at the higher level groups tended to have a more positive perception about their

reading vocabulary proficiency than their writing vocabulary proficiency. They might have

thought that applying new vocabulary to their own writing was more difficult than simply

guessing the meaning of new vocabulary within contexts. On the other hand, more students at

the higher level groups than those at the lower level groups tended to be more confident about

their writing vocabulary proficiency than their reading vocabulary proficiency even though there

were still many students who were not so certain about their ‘W_Vocab’ proficiency. For the

‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ areas, many students had a positive perception about their

proficiency even though their actual proficiency had worsened. That is, they overestimated

themselves. For the ‘R_Infer’ area, however, there were many students whose proficiency had

enhanced on the post-test, but they were very uncertain about their proficiency. This indicates

that they underestimated themselves. Since they were most likely to be focusing on finding

main ideas and important details when reading a text, they might have felt finding underlying

meaning of the text was relatively much more difficult. Accordingly, they might have been

more confident about their ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ proficiency, whereas they were less

certain about their ‘R_Infer’ proficiency.

Overall, for all nine areas of reading and writing except for ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’

areas, the students in the four groups tended to rate their proficiency much lower than their actual

proficiency. In other words, although their actual proficiency had become much better on the

post-test, they perceived that they had not improved during the semester. Many students might

228
have thought that their reading and writing ability became somewhat better, but that they still

needed to make much more effort to enhance their overall reading and writing proficiency.

Although the self-perception assessments of the students’ proficiency changes did not perfectly

supported their actual proficiency changes, analyzing how they perceived of their reading and

writing ability changes were worthwhile in that it helped the researcher understand the students’

awareness of their reading and writing proficiency changes as well as possible reasons why there

was a match or mismatch between their actual proficiency changes and their reported perception

of them.

3) Eight think-aloud participants’ actual reading and writing proficiency changes and

their reported perception of them. For a more in-depth comparison of the

students’ actual English reading and writing proficiency changes and their perception of them, of

how the eight students, who were selected from the 60 students for the think-aloud task,

performed on the pre- and post-tests, of which areas of proficiency had become better or worse

and why, of what they thought about their proficiency in the nine areas, and why there was a

match or mismatch between their actual proficiency changes and their perception of them will

now be discussed.

3-1) Da-Young in the higher level ‘copying’ group. Da-Young gained 52 points on the

pre-test and 60 points on the post-test in total. The eight think-aloud task participants’ pre- and

post-test scores including Da-Young in the nine areas of reading and writing are presented in

Table 49.

229
Table 49
Think-aloud Participants’ Pre-test Scores and Post-test Scores in the Nine Areas of English
Reading and Writing
Group Ss Test R_Main/Supp R_Detail R_Infer R_Vocab W_Org W_Struc W_Gram W_Vocab W_Mecha Total
CH Da- Pre 6 6 18 9.5 2 2 2.5 3 3 52
Young
Post 6 8 14 13.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 4 60
Ji-Hee Pre 6 8 16 5 1.5 1.5 1 2 2 44
Post 4 8 16 11.5 2 2 2 2 3 50.5
CL Jun-Su Pre 6 8 18 4.5 1 1.5 1 1 2 43
Post 6 8 14 7.25 3 3 3 3 3.5 50.75
Yoon-Ju Pre 6 8 12 3.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 2 36.5
Post 4 6 18 7.25 2 2 2 2.5 3 46.75
SH Sang- Pre 6 6 22 7.5 1 1 2 2 2 48.5
Woo
Post 6 8 20 11 3 2 3 2.5 3 58
Yuna Pre 6 8 18 7 2 2 1.5 1 2 47
Post 6 8 18 10 3 2.5 3 2.5 4 62.5
SL Su-Eun Pre 6 6 12 7 1 1 1 2 1.5 37.5
Post 2 8 18 7 2 2 2.5 2 3.5 49
Young- Pre 6 8 10 2 1 1 1 1 1 31
Jae
Post 4 4 14 5.5 2 2 3 2 4 40.5

In the four areas of ‘reading,’ Da-Young gained the same score for the area of ‘finding main

ideas and supporting ideas’ both on the pre- and post-tests. For the area of ‘identifying

important details,’ she gained a higher score (i.e. 2 points) on the post-test. However, her score

in the area of ‘making an inference’ slightly dropped on the post-test. For the vocabulary area

in reading, she provided the correct meanings for all of the given five words both on the pre- and

post-tests. Yet, she created much better sentences by using those words on the post-test. For

example, she wrote down ‘worsen’ as a synonym of ‘exacerbate,’ and composed the following

sentence on the pre-test: ‘It is you that exacerbates this bad situation.’ On the post-test, her

sentence seemed to be more meaningful than the one on the pre-test: ‘Stop itching your arm. It

will exacerbate your scar.’ When comparing her actual performance on the pre- and post-tests

with her responses to the reflection questionnaire, she showed a mismatch between her actual

230
proficiency change and her perception of her proficiency change for half of the reading areas.

She perceived that her ability to ‘find main and supporting ideas’ had improved and her ability to

‘make an inference’ had not changed at all during the semester which were different from her

actual test results. However, for the abilities to ‘guess the meanings of new words and

expressions by using context clues’ and ‘identify important details,’ her actual post-test scores

had increased, and she also thought that those abilities had improved. The students’ actual

proficiency changes (including Da-Young) and their perception of them for the nine areas of

reading and writing are presented in Table 50.

231
Table 50
Think-aloud Participants’ Actual Proficiency Changes and their Perception of them for the Nine
Areas of English Reading and Writing
R_Main/
Group Ss Comparison R_Detail R_Infer R_Vocab W_Org W_Struc W_Gram W_Vocab W_Mecha
Supp
CH Da- Performance A=B A<B A>B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B
Young
Perception A<B A<B A=B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B
Match X O X O O O O O O
Ji-Hee Performance A>B A=B A=B A<B A<B A<B A<B A=B A<B
Perception A<B A<B A=B A<B A<B A<B A<B A=B A=B
Match X X O O O O O O X
CL Jun-Su Performance A=B A=B A>B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B
Perception A<B A<B A=B A=B A=B A<B A<B A=B A<B
Match X X X X X O O X O
Yoon- Performance A>B A>B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B
Ju
Perception A<B A=B A=B A<B A=B A<B A=B A=B A<B
Match X X X O X O X X O
SH Sang- Performance A=B A<B A>B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B
Woo
Perception A<B A<B A<B A=B A<B A<B A=B A=B A=B
Match X O X X O O X X X
Yuna Performance A=B A=B A=B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B
Perception A<B A<B A=B A=B A<B A<B A=B A<B A=B
Match X X O X O O X O X
SL Su-Eun Performance A>B A<B A<B A=B A<B A<B A<B A=B A<B
Perception A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B A=B A=B A<B A=B
Match X O O X O X X X X
Young- Performance A>B A>B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B A<B
Jae
Perception A<B A<B A=B A=B A<B A=B A=B A=B A<B
Match X X X X O X X X O
Note.‘A’ indicates his/her pre-test score or his/her perception of proficiency at the beginning of
the semester. ‘B’ indicates his/her post-test score or his/her perception of proficiency at the end
of the semester. Thus, ‘A>B’ means that ‘S/he performed much worse on the post-test than on
the pre-test’ or ‘S/he perceived that his/her proficiency had become worse.’ ‘A=B’ means that
‘His/her pre-test and post-test scores were the same’ or ‘S/he perceived that his/her proficiency
had not changed at all.’ ‘A<B’ means that ‘S/he performed much better on the post-test’ or
‘S/he perceived that his/her proficiency had improved.’

In all five areas of ‘writing,’ Da-Young showed a perfect match between her actual proficiency

changes and her perception of them. She showed great improvement in the area of ‘sentence

232
organization and structure.’ On the pre-test, she provided three reasons why she thought the use

of the Internet was harmful. However, her introductory and concluding paragraphs were

weaker than those on the post-test. For example, as an introduction, she wrote as follows on the

pre-test:

“Internet The Internet is considered ‘a treasure box’ which has almost every
information of anything information about everything. Of course, we cannot deny
the fact the Internet offers lots of information, which is helpful for our lives. Nowadays,
however, there has been a worry in voice about this unlimited information in on the
Internet.”

Her introduction paragraph was quite well organized. Yet, there were some phrases which did

not flow well within sentences (They were substituted by appropriate phrases in bold texts and

double-underlined.), and minor grammatical mistakes were also found. In contrast, on the post-

test, she wrote a better constructed introductory paragraph:

“Internet The Internet is really a ‘sea of information.’ We can find almost all
information we need through the Internet. Of course, we usually benefit from the
infinity of information of the Internet. However, because of too much information, a
serious problem is occurring, which is a privacy problem. Through the Internet, we can
search information about people easily. Even a non-entertainer who is not a celebrity
can be searched through many web-sites. This causes mainly two serious problems.”

No major errors were found, and the sentences flowed smoothly. As concluding remarks, Da-

Young simply wrote one sentence on the pre-test. However, she provided a brief and clear

summary of what she mentioned in the body paragraphs on the post-test:

(On the pre-test)

“Therefore, it is time to be aware of these three main serious problems that the Internet
could cause.”

(On the post-test)

“Increasing number of cyber crime and suffering from negative replies on the Internet
are the two main serious problems that too much information on the Internet can bring.
I think that there should be a powerful filter which can block people’s own personal
information on the Internet.”

233
Not only the introduction and conclusion paragraphs but also the body paragraphs on the post-

test were organized in a better way. Even though Da-Young gave only two reasons why she

negatively thought about information on the Internet on the post-test, she gave a concrete

example when explaining each reason (She gave three reasons on the pre-test, but simply stated

her thoughts and provided no examples.). In addition to the sentence organization and

structures, Da-Young also showed improvement in the areas of ‘mechanics,’ ‘grammar,’ and

‘vocabulary.’ She made almost no mistakes in spelling, punctuation, and capitalization on the

post-test. Moreover, the number of grammatical mistakes was reduced, and also her ability to

use vocabulary had enhanced. For example, on the pre-test, she was more advanced in using

single vocabulary items compared to others in the CH group such as ‘innumerous,’ ‘emerge,’

‘exposure,’ ‘confessed,’ etc. On the post-test, in comparison, she frequently used phrases such

as ‘…might not commit suicide…,’ ‘They are definitely nuisances for most people…,’ ‘…are

always exposed to…,’ etc. appropriately. She seemed to get a lot of benefits from using an

English-English dictionary and focusing on the usage of vocabulary within a context. In short,

she could develop the ability to apply the words and phrases that she had learned to her own

writing.

Overall, except for the two areas of ‘reading’ (i.e. ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Infer’ areas),

Da-Young’s actual performance changes and her perception of them for the remaining other

areas of reading and writing showed a good match.

3-2) Ji-Hee in the higher level ‘copying’ group. Ji-Hee received 44 points on the pre-

test and 50.5 points on the post-test in total (See Table 49.). Even though she put much effort to

develop her writing ability, which she considered as her weakest point, she did not show much

improvement in overall writing areas on the post-test. All of the reading and writing areas’

234
scores slightly increased or did not change at all except ‘R_Main/Supp’ area’s score. Among

the four areas of ‘reading,’ Ji-Hee maintained the same scores for the areas of ‘finding important

details’ and ‘making an inference’ for both the pre- and post-tests, but her score for the area of

‘finding main and supporting ideas of a text’ slightly dropped on the post-test. When

considering her responses to the reflection questionnaire, her perception of changes in her

‘R_Infer’ proficiency matched her actual proficiency changes: Her proficiency had improved on

the post-test in the same way as she perceived of her proficiency. For ‘R_Main/Supp’ and

‘R_Detail’ areas, she perceived that her proficiency in those areas had improved even though her

actual ‘R_Main/Supp’ proficiency had worsened and ‘R_Detail’ proficiency had not changed at

all. That is, she overestimated her ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ proficiency. In contrast, for

‘R_Vocab’ area, she showed the greatest improvement among the nine areas of reading and

writing. Also, her actual ‘R_Vocab’ proficiency changes matched her perception of them. On

the pre-test, she provided wrong synonyms for some of the words or wrote down incomplete

sentences. On the post-test, however, she created much better sentences. For example, she

wrote down ‘rare’ as a synonym of ‘scarcity,’ and composed the following sentence on the pre-

test: ‘This pearl is rare to search.’ The word ‘scarcity’ was used as a noun in the text, but Ji-

Hee might not have realized that she had to provide the noun form ‘rarity’ as a synonym of

‘scarcity.’ She might have thought that using ‘scarcity’ for the sentence she created was

somewhat strange, and thus used the word ‘rare.’ On the post-test, however, she provided its

correct form and meaning: ‘lack.’ She also created a correct sentence: ‘The scarcity of

Diamond makes it precious.’

In the five areas of ‘writing,’ she showed a similar amount of improvement in sentence

organization, sentence structure or fluency, grammar, and mechanics on the actual test. Her

235
perception of her proficiency changes in ‘W_Org,’ ‘W_Struc,’ ‘W_Gram,’ and ‘W_Vocab’ areas

matched her actual proficiency changes in those areas. However, she thought that her

‘W_Mecha’ proficiency had not changed at all during the semester even though her actual

proficiency had enhanced. On the pre-test, she thought that the use of the Internet was

advantageous because it would provide equal opportunity for the rich and poor and make it

possible for people at any locations in the world to access an abundance of useful information.

She discussed the advantages of the Internet very well, but unnecessarily discussed the

disadvantages of the Internet in the body paragraphs. Accordingly, her body paragraphs partly

did not flow smoothly. On the post-test, she explained why she thought the use of the Internet

could bring positive effects by providing the two reasons which she also had presented on the

pre-test. Yet, she did not needlessly discuss the negative aspects of the Internet use in the body

paragraphs. Still, she did not provide concrete examples to support her arguments. Besides

the body paragraphs, she developed her introduction and conclusion paragraphs on the post-test

by organizing and structuring sentences in better ways. For example, let us compare Ji-Hee’s

introduction paragraphs written on the pre- and post-tests (Any mechanical mistakes were

underlined, and the corrections were made within the brackets. Also, any grammatical mistakes

were crossed out, and the corrections were made in bold italic texts.):

(On the pre-test)

“Do you need information kept in several universities in the U.S.A_[.]? For that
information, do you think you have to go to the U.S.A_[.]? The answer would be “No.”
What you need to do is just accessing access to the Internet. Wherever you are, you
can make use of valuable information through Internet the Internet.”

(On the post-test)

“Some people say that Internet the Internet has bad effects because it can create such a
problem of addiction or provide harmful information to children. But, these aspects are
only small parts when we consider many advantages that the Internet can bring us.
Here are the reasons why I think the Internet is useful in our lives.”

236
Ji-Hee started the first sentence with questions on the pre-test, and it seemed to make sense.

However, her sentences seemed to flow much more smoothly on the post-test. When writing

her conclusion paragraph on the pre-test, she simply stated that the Internet could provide much

benefit for people. On the post-test, in comparison, she briefly summarized what she had stated

in the body paragraphs on the post-test as Da-Young did:

(On the pre-test)

“To sum up, Internet the Internet can change our life better if we use it properly.
Although it has some bad effects, it will give us valuable information and opportunities
that we have never had until now.”

(On the post-test)

“To sum up, the Internet makes our life more comfortable and more valuable. It offers
us equal opportunity of education for all of the people. In addition, it saves much of
our time because we do not have to waste our time visiting different places to find the
information we are looking for. So, I would say that Internet the Internet is useful
and necessary in our life.”

Not only did she make improvement in ‘organizing content’ and ‘using various sentence

structures,’ but also she became better in using correct grammar and mechanics. She made

fewer mistakes in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar on the post-test even though

the number of mistakes had not greatly decreased. For the vocabulary area in writing, in the

same way as she had reported on the reflection questionnaire, she maintained the same score on

the post-test as the score she had obtained on the pre-test and showed no improvement at all.

Since she did not add other reasons to support the use of the Internet on the post-test but simply

gave examples, she might not have made any big changes in choosing vocabulary for her writing.

In addition, even though she had enthusiastically made and reviewed lists of new words and their

meanings and often checked the usages of some of the words within sentences during the

semester, she might not have been successful in applying those words to her writing on the post-

test because she mostly depended on an English-Korean dictionary and made all of the memos

237
about the new words only in Korean. She also seemed to lack the ability to manage time

efficiently. Based on the researcher’s observation, she used much more time than other students

at the higher level reading and ‘copying’ the text, finding additional information related to it,

understanding its content, and completing the ‘copying’ task. Consequently, it might have been

difficult for her to think deeply about how she could use new vocabulary or expressions she had

learned appropriately in her writing within the restricted time period. She might have spent so

much time in organizing and structuring sentences and ideas in better ways that she relatively

had little time to think about applying new vocabulary or expressions in her writing on the post-

test.

3-3) Jun-Su in the lower level ‘copying’ group. Jun-Su received 43 points on the pre-

test and 50 points on the post-test in total. Among the four areas of ‘reading,’ he maintained the

same scores for the areas of ‘finding main and supporting ideas’ and ‘identifying important

details’ both on the pre- and post-tests. However, his actual proficiency changes for

‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ areas were all different from his perception. He thought that his

proficiency had enhanced even though he actually did not show any improvement at all. That is,

he overestimated his ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ proficiency. For the area of ‘making an

inference,’ even though his perception and his actual proficiency change did not match, he was

not quite sure about his proficiency, and his proficiency actually had worsened during the

semester. Since he mentioned that he mostly tried to understand the information which was

clearly stated in the text, he might not have been very successful in understanding the

information which was inferred or implied. Also, he might have felt that he had become better

in finding key points and details while his ability to make guesses to understand the meaning of

the text had not. For the vocabulary area in reading, Jun-Su thought that his proficiency had not

238
changed at all, but he actually showed improvement on the post-test. Still, he provided wrong

synonyms and sentences for the two reading vocabulary questions among the five on the post-

test. For example, he wrote down a synonym of ‘exacerbate’ as ‘promote’ on the pre-test and

created the following sentence: ‘The bad action of celebrities exacerbates youngsters to initiate

their behavior.’ On the post-test, he also failed to understand its correct meaning. He wrote

down its synonym as ‘increase’ and created the following sentence: ‘The world’s bad economy

situation exacerbates the possibility of economic depression.’ In contrast, he provided much

better answers for some of the vocabulary questions. For example, he wrote down a synonym

of ‘vast’ as ‘in large numbers’ on the pre-test and produced the following sentence: ‘It’s hard for

me to read English books in large numbers.’ It seemed that he did not know how he should use

‘vast’ correctly in his sentence, and thus wrote down a somewhat awkward sentence. However,

on the post-test, he correctly provided a synonym of ‘vast’ as ‘enormous’ and created the

following sentence: ‘A vast number of students failed the exam.’

In the five areas of ‘writing,’ Jun-Su was not very confident about his proficiency in

‘W_Org’ and ‘W_Vocab’ areas, but showed a similar amount of improvement on the post-test in

all five areas. Particularly, his scores in the areas of ‘sentence organization,’ ‘grammar,’ and

‘vocabulary’ had increased 0.5 points more than those in the areas of ‘sentence structure or

fluency’ and ‘mechanics.’ On the pre-test, the organizations of his ideas were ambiguous and

did not fit the writing topic. He did not clarify his position (i.e. pros or cons of using the

Internet) at all and discussed both the advantages and disadvantages of accessing information on

the Internet in the body paragraph. His sentences thus did not flow well, and he used similar

sentence patterns repeatedly. For example, he started sentences mostly with ‘We.’ Specifically,

the following two kinds of sentence patterns were frequently used: “We can get…” and “We have

239
to…” At the end of the body paragraph, he suddenly discussed the importance of the Internet

users’ efforts to make good use of the Internet and wrote down his conclusion simply in one

sentence (A grammatical mistake was crossed out.):

“Therefore, whether that the Internet provides us with a lot of information is helpful or
not depends on people who use and manage it.”

On the post-test, however, he showed great improvement in organizing and structuring his ideas

and sentences. In the body paragraphs, he clearly provided two reasons of why he thought the

use of the Internet created problems: getting inaccurate information and losing one’s creativity of

thinking. He included all of the contradictory ideas into one body paragraph on the pre-test, but

he knew when he should start a new paragraph and thus argued each point separately in a new

paragraph on the post-test. In addition, his introduction and conclusion paragraphs were

organized and structured in much better ways on the post-test (A suitable phrase was written in

bold text and double-underlined for an incomplete sentence. Also, grammatical mistakes were

crossed out, and the corrections were made in bold italic texts.):

(Introduction paragraph on the pre-test)

“Nowadays we can access much information with the use of the Internet. While some
people consider this situation as problematic, some others consider it as greatly helpful.
I think the fact that Internet the Internet provides us with a lot of information is useful
because we can enrich our knowledge, and, therefore, our views of the world can be
developed.”

(Introduction paragraph on the post-test)

“As information technology is developing, people can get plenty of information from
many sources. The main source for getting a lot of information is the Internet. While
there are some advantages in getting information from the Internet, the information on
the Internet actually creates more problems than benefits.”

240
 (Conclusion paragraph on the post-test)
“Because the Internet is available for everyone, we have been getting much useful
information on the Internet. But, as I mentioned above, many problems are have
resulted from the quantity and quality of information on the Internet and so we should be
very careful about using the Internet. Also, all the problems should definitely be
handled in order to make the Internet space be used much more effectively.”

In addition to sentence organization and structures, Jun-Su made significantly fewer mechanical

and grammatical mistakes. Moreover, he tended to use simple vocabulary on the pre-test, but

became much more diverse on the post-test. For example, he used ‘a lot’ and ‘very much’ on

the pre-test when indicating or describing the explosion of information on the Internet. In

comparison, on the post-test, he used ‘remarkably’ and ‘significantly’ appropriately as follows:

‘…as the amount of information on the Internet increases remarkably…’ and ‘…the chance of

getting false information increased significantly…’ He also created the following sentence by

using such words as ‘means’ and ‘end’ on the post-test: ‘Getting information from the Internet

should be the means, but not the end itself.’ Although Jun-Su showed great improvement in all

areas of ‘writing,’ he still might have felt that organizing his ideas well and applying new

vocabulary to his own writing were not so easy and thus were uncertain about his ‘W_Org’ and

‘W_Vocab’ proficiency.

3-4) Yoon-Ju in the lower level ‘copying’ group. She was at a lower level and received

36.5 points on the pre-test and 46.75 points on the post-test in total. Among the four areas of

‘reading,’ her scores for the area of ‘finding main and supporting ideas’ on the post-test

decreased even though she thought that her ‘R_Main/Supp’ proficiency had improved during the

semester. For the area of ‘identifying important details,’ she was uncertain about her ‘R_Detail’

proficiency, and her actual proficiency had worsened. In contrast, for the area of ‘making an

inference,’ she showed great improvement on the post-test, but perceived that her ‘R_Infer’

241
proficiency had not changed at all. Since she spent much time in familiarizing herself with new

vocabulary in reading, she might have paid less attention to grasping important ideas and details

of the text. This would be the reason why her ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ proficiency had

worsened. However, she might have thought getting the main ideas of the text was relatively

easier than specifying important details and understanding inferred meaning of the text.

Accordingly, she might have had a positive perception of her ‘R_Main/Supp’ proficiency.

Unlike Jun-Su, her ability to ‘make inferences’ had improved since she thought much about how

she could put useful information of teaching indicated in the text into practical use, for example.

Yet, she still might have felt making guesses of inferred meanings of the text was not so easy and

was thus not confident about her ‘R_Infer’ proficiency. For the vocabulary in reading, she

became much better in presenting synonyms of unfamiliar words and creating sentences with

those words and perceived that her ‘R_Vocab’ proficiency had improved. For example, she

wrote down a synonym of ‘vast’ as ‘huge’ on the pre-test, but was not able to make a sentence.

However, on the post-test, she wrote down its synonym as ‘huge’ with the following sentence:

‘Africa is a vast land.’ Even though the sentence was very simple, she at least tried to compose

one. In addition, for another word ‘eliminate,’ she provided a correct synonym ‘get rid of’ both

on the pre- and post-tests. Yet, her sentence showed much more development on the post-test:

(On the pre-test)

‘This medicine can eliminate cholesterol.’

(On the post-test)

‘I am trying to eliminate my bad habit habits such as waking up late and sleeping late at
night.

Although there was a minor grammatical mistake on the post-test, the sentence was more

meaningful and its structure more complex when compared with her pre-test sentence.

242
 Among the five areas of ‘writing,’ Yoon-Ju showed a slight improvement in the areas of

‘sentence and idea organization’ and ‘sentence structure and fluency’ and particularly showed

remarkable improvement in ‘vocabulary’ area. Yet, according to her response to the reflection

questionnaire, she thought that her ‘W_Org,’ ‘W_Gram,’ and ‘W_Vocab’ proficiency had not

changed at all during the semester. On the pre-test, she had clear introduction and conclusion

paragraphs and presented three reasons why she supported the idea that the Internet gives people

advantages (i.e. easy to get new information immediately, saving money and time to contact

people in different countries, easy to get much information). However, all of the three reasons

were unorganized and stated in one body paragraph. Also, she simply stated each reason with

fewer than three sentences but did not give either full explanations of each reason or add specific

and appropriate examples. In addition, two of the reasons that she provided seemed to overlap.

For the first reason, she wrote as follows (Any mistakes in spelling, and punctuation were

underlined in bold texts, and the corrections were made within a bracket. Grammatical

mistakes were crossed out, and the corrections were made in bold italic texts. Also, a missing

word was added in bold text within a blank. In addition, a nonsense phrase was shaded in bold

text, and an appropriate phrase was provided in bold italic text.):

‘We can gain information we need instantly. We cannot wait until 9.p.m. [9 p.m.] to
watch news on television to know what is going on. Such disease like Newly Flu (?)
swine flu is one of the biggest problem problems all over the world. If we can know
the government’s policy about that kind of disease as soon as that is udpated [updated],
we can handle it easily and immediately when we seem to get those that disease.’

For the third reason, in comparison, she wrote as follows:

‘We cannot gain information only from books, textbooks, or magazines. Using the
Internet, we can get much information we need immediately, [ ] when we have to give a
presentation to other people or prepare for an examination or (write) school reports.’

243
Yoon-Ju was basically insisting on the same thing: ease of getting abundant information on the

Internet promptly. In contrast, on the post-test, she combined those two reasons into one and

thus provided two reasons in total. She also changed a paragraph when discussing each reason

and added more specific and appropriate examples to support her arguments. Nevertheless, she

failed to complete her writing. It seemed that she spent too much time organizing her thoughts

for the body paragraphs to write the concluding remarks. She thus did not get a much higher

score on the post-test for the area of ‘sentence organization’ and was not very confident about her

‘W_Org’ proficiency. For the writing vocabulary area, Yoon-Ju, for example, put a question

mark next to the phrase ‘Newly Flu’ because she felt uncertain about it on the pre-test.

However, she wrote down the correct phrase ‘swine flu’ on the post-test. Since one of the given

texts during the semester was about the swine flu, she might have learned what the correct

spelling and usage of ‘swine flu’ were. Yoon-Ju’s overall ability to use vocabulary and

expressions had enhanced. She became more proficient in using such words as ‘blame,’ ‘abuse,’

‘exaggerate,’ etc. which had not been used in her writing on the pre-test. She also used such

expressions as ‘…the Internet learning can reduce much of their burden’ and ‘…the more

information we can get, the more help we can get from…’ on the post-test. Yet, she might have

not realized her great improvement in ‘W_Vocab’ area, and thus expressed uncertainty about her

writing vocabulary proficiency. In addition to her improvement in the use of vocabulary in her

writing, her sentences flowed much more smoothly on the post-test even though she did not use

varied sentence patterns. The number of grammatical and mechanical mistakes had decreased

from the pre- to the post-test even though she perceived that her ‘W_Gram’ proficiency had not

improved at all. Overall, Yoon-Ju was not very confident about her proficiency in ‘R_Infer,’

‘W_Org,’ ‘W_Gram,’ and ‘W_Vocab’ areas even though her actual proficiency in those areas

244
showed improvement on the test. On the other hand, she was quite confident about her

‘R_Main/Supp’ proficiency, but her actual proficiency had worsened on the post-test.

3-5) Sang-Woo in the higher level ‘summarizing’ group. Sang-Woo was at a higher

level and gained 48.5 points on the pre-test and 58 points on the post-test in total. Among the

four areas of ‘reading,’ he perceived that his ‘R_Detail’ proficiency had improved and actually

showed a little improvement in that area on the post-test. He thought that his ‘R_Main/Supp’

and ‘R_Infer’ proficiency had enhanced as well during the semester. However, his actual score

in ‘R_Main/Supp’ area had not changed at all, and his score in ‘R_Infer’ area had even dropped

on the post-test. That is, he tended to overestimate his ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Infer’

proficiency. As he mentioned during the interview, he focused on specifying important details

of the text in order to write a better summary, but he did not think much about underlying

meanings of the text. Thus, he might have performed better in ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘’R_Detail’

areas than in ‘R_Infer’ area. Yet, he might have been confident and positive about his overall

reading proficiency. For the reading vocabulary area, in comparison, he personally thought that

his reading vocabulary ability had not improved at all during the semester even though he did

much better in providing the correct synonyms of unfamiliar words and creating sentences by

using those words on the post-test. Contrary to the other students, Sang-Woo provided two

synonyms correctly for each vocabulary question. For example, he wrote down ‘worsen’ as a

synonym of ‘exacerbate’ on the pre-test, but wrote down ‘worsen’ and ‘aggravate’ on the post-

test. For another word ‘vast,’ he wrote down a synonym ‘huge’ and created the following

sentence on the pre-test: ‘A few days ago, there emerged a huge monster at our university.’

Rather than using ‘vast’ which was originally given in the question, he used its synonym ‘huge’

in the sentence. However, on the post-test, he wrote down two words ‘large’ and ‘enormous’ as

245
synonyms and produced a more meaningful sentence: ‘It is very difficult to sail the wild and vast

ocean.’

Among the five areas of ‘writing,’ Sang-Woo considered that his abilities to ‘organize

sentences and ideas’ and ‘use various sentence structures and patterns’ had greatly developed,

whereas his abilities to ‘use correct grammar,’ ‘use correct spelling, punctuation, and

capitalization,’ and ‘apply new vocabulary in writing’ had not been enhanced at all during the

semester. However, when considering his actual performance on the pre- and post-tests, he

generally showed much improvement in all five areas. To be more specific, he showed little

development in ‘W_Vocab’ area, but showed great development in ‘W_Org’ area than in the

remaining other three areas. Interestingly, Sang-Woo was the only one who took a totally

opposite position in his post-test writing. That is, he was negative about using information on

the Internet and provided arguments to support his position on the pre-test. However, on the

post-test, he became in favor of using the Internet. In developing his ideas, he began his writing

with a nice introductory paragraph and gave quite specific and convincing examples on the pre-

test. However, his explanations and examples seemed to be getting so long and specific that he

could not wrap up his arguments and write a conclusion paragraph. Consider two of his

introduction paragraphs on the pre- and post-tests (Any mistakes in spelling and punctuation

were underlined in bold texts, and the corrections were made within a bracket. A grammatical

mistake was crossed out, and the correction was made in bold italic text. Also, a missing phrase

was added in bold text within a blank.):

246
 (On the pre-test)
‘The advent of the Internet has influenced on our daily life a lot. Furthermore, some
people say that the advent of the Internet can positively change our life and give us lots
of information. However, I strongly disagree with that idea. Because, [ ] there are so
many things that (the Internet) interfere interferes with our getting valuable
information such as media an [and] ads.’

(On the post-test)

‘The advent of the Internet has changed our life in various ways. It could be positive or
negative for our life. Some people say that too much information hinders people from
finding genuine information, and it leads the people to confusion. Altough [Although]
there are some disadvantages of the Internet, I surely think we can benefit from the
Internet by using it wisely.

As pointed out above, Sang-Woo showed the opposite point of view about the Internet from the

view he had at the beginning of the semester on the post-test. In the meantime, he provided two

reasons why he was not in favor of using the Internet on the pre-test: possibility of getting

abundant incorrect information and so many distracting advertisements on websites. He then

gave the following two examples (An inappropriate word was substituted by appropriate one in

bold texts and double-underlined.):

‘…For example, a candidate paid a lot of money to the media to get an a good image
toward the public [,] and the media paid by the candidate chose and wrote only
favorable articles about the candidate. People had to watch that kind of those kinds of
articles because there were’nt [were not] unfavorable articles about the candidate.
Therefore, the candidate was elected, although he was immoral and corrupted corrupt…’

‘…For instance, when I was a junior, I had to write an a report and logged on the
Internet to get useful information for the report. However, so many ads interfered
distracted me that and I couldn’t finish my work…’

Even though he provided good examples, he did not finish writing about his second reason. In

contrast, on the post-test, his arguments about the favorable view of the Internet sounded more

reasonable. He provided two reasons of why he supported using the Internet as follows:

‘First, in the Internet world, many wise searching engines exist. People can filter
wrong or false information through them and get the information that they exactly want’

247
 and

‘In addition, people can know and understand other people people’s thoughts through
the Internet. Nowadays, lots of portal sites provide a lot of article articles with other
people’s opinions. That is because people simply put their own opinions on articles or
writings by the means of reply. So, people can get information not only from the
articles themselves but also from other people’s opinions and thoughts. What is more,
people can take advantages of the Internet encyclopedia and library…’

He also provided brief but appropriate examples for each of the two reasons and finally wrote a

quite well-constructed conclusion as follows even though he did not restate or summarize the

two reasons in the conclusion paragraph:

‘To conclude, it is true that there exist some disadvantages on the Internet. However, I
can surely say that much more advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Therefore, if
people make efforts to use the Internet wisely and efficiently, they will be able to get as
much benefit as possible.’

Sang-Woo’s sentences and ideas generally flowed much more smoothly, and were organized in

much better ways on the post-test than on the pre-test. In addition, the number of grammatical

and mechanical mistakes had decreased a lot. Even though he practiced how to write grammar

and writing conventions correctly through the ‘summarizing’ activity, he might have felt it was

difficult not to make any mistakes. Accordingly, he would have not been so confident about his

‘W_Gram’ and ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency. In the ‘W_Vocab’ area, he showed only a little

improvement on the post-test. He used vocabulary and expressions appropriately within the

context, but they were not varied enough. For example, he used a little more advanced level of

expression like ‘flood of information’ on the post-test, whereas he used the expression ‘much of

information’ on the pre-test. Yet, no other advanced expressions were shown in Sang-Woo’s

post-test writing. He might have found it difficult for him to use vocabulary and expressions

appropriately in his writing and thus might have not been so certain about his writing vocabulary

248
proficiency.

3-6) Yuna in the higher level ‘summarizing’ group. Yuna was at a higher level and

received 47 points on the pre-test and 62.5 points on the post-test in total. Although she

thought that her ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ proficiency had improved, she did not show any

improvement at all in ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ areas. For ‘R_Infer’ area, she did not

think her proficiency had been enhanced and had not actually performed any better in that area

on the post-test. She might have given so much attention to how she could write a good

summary and enhance her writing ability that she had no extra time to concentrate on developing

different areas of reading. However, her vocabulary ability in reading showed much

improvement even though she perceived no improvement at all in that ability. For example, she

was not able to provide a synonym of ‘concentration’ on the pre-test but wrote down a correct

synonym ‘convergence’ on the post-test. Even though she failed to write down the synonym on

the pre-test, she produced a pretty good sentence in terms of its structure: ‘Harlem is a part of

concentration of poor and dangerous people.’10 On the post-test, in comparison, she produced

a much better sentence in terms of its structure and content: ‘A new policy got a huge attention

thanks to high concentrations of small- and mid-sized companies.’ Moreover, even though she

could not get a correct synonym of ‘exacerbate’ on both the pre- and post-tests (She wrote down

‘develop’ on the pre-test and ‘promote’ on the post-test.), her sentence was very well written in

terms of both linguistic and content aspects on the post-test: ‘LG Electronics has exacerbated the

selling of their brand-new laptop, X-note, for recent 2 months. She also provided better

sentences on the post-test by using ‘vast’ and ‘eliminate’ as follows:

10
The sentence is grammatically correct, but it is considered as politically incorrect.

249
 ‘The vast audiences audience came to see the President Lee at the City Hall’

and

‘This product would be prefect because we already eliminated all defectives that we
found in the last version.’

Among the five areas of ‘writing,’ similar to Sang-Woo, Yuna was not very confident

about her ‘W_Gram’ and ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency, whereas she was confident and positive about

her ‘W_Org’ and ‘W_Struc’ proficiency. Even though Yuna as well as Sang-Woo practiced how

to write grammatically correct sentences and use correct writing conventions through the

‘summarizing’ activity during the semester, they still might have found it difficult not to make

any mistakes in grammar and mechanics. Whereas some awkwardness of sentence organization

and structure can be acceptable or bearable by readers or teachers, any minor errors in grammar

and mechanics cannot. This might made Yuna and Sang-Woo feel worried more about

grammar and mechanics than sentence organization and structure in writing. Nevertheless,

Yuna showed great improvement in all five areas of ‘writing’ on the post-test. Particularly, her

score in ‘W_Mecha’ area significantly increased on the post-test compared to her scores for other

areas. There were more mistakes in spelling than in punctuation (No capitalization mistakes

were found.) on her pre-test writing. However, she hardly made any mechanical mistakes on

the post-test. For the organization of the summary, Yuna had clear introductory and concluding

paragraphs on the pre-test. However, she did not clearly state a reason why she was positive

about the use of the Internet (i.e. possibility of getting much useful information) in the body

paragraph, but simply presented her personal experience related to her argument. Readers

could only infer what her argument would be from the personal experience stated in the body

paragraph as follows:

250
 ‘There are so many situations that we want to use Internet the Internet: when finding a
famous spaggetti [spaghetti] restaurant near home, when researching information to
write a report for English Literature class, or even when buying a unique box for my
boyfriend’s present. If you type the word you want to know at the potal [portal] site,
excessive lists and information would show up…’

In contrast, on the post-test, she clearly stated two reasons why she thought using the Internet

was beneficial as follows even though those two reasons seemed to be somewhat similar:

‘First of all, the Internet offers us an opportunity to get information for a variety of
purposes: for studying, for researching, or even for fun’

and

‘Second, the Internet provides people authentic and practical information as well.’

Yuna also added appropriate examples to support each of her arguments. In terms of sentence

structure and fluency, she connected each paragraph smoothly by using such ordinal numbers as

‘first’ and ‘second.’ In addition, her introduction, body, and conclusion paragraphs were

polished well on the post-test compared to those on the pre-test. Consider the following

introduction and conclusion paragraphs she composed on the pre- and post-tests:

(Introduction paragraph on the pre-test)

‘Nowadays, it is common that we use Internet the Internet in daily routine. Some
people say it benefits us in various ways [,] but others way it is harmful for us because
there is too much information. However, if people who are using Internet the Internet
have critical views to choose and utilize the information, they can get more benefits than
harmfulness.’

(Introduction paragraph on the post-test)

‘In Korea, most of the people have a computer which makes us possible to makes it
possible for us to access to the Internet. Using the Internet is very common, and it
also has advantages and disadvantages. However, the Internet is the best in that it
provides diverse and a large amount of useful information as well as authentic and
practical knowledge.’

251
 (Conclusion paragraph on the pre-test)
‘In conclusion, it is inevitable that we use the Internet always in 21 the 21st centuries
because we can get much information from Internet the Internet. Because it is
unavoidable to use it, we have to use it wisely.’

(Conclusion paragraph on the post-test)

‘To summarize, the Internet provides us provides us with a lot of and diverse
information everyday, and we can get really useful, authentic, and practical information.
Of course, some people could say the Internet is giving wasteful, false, and inaccurate
information, but it has much more advantages than disadvantages.’

In Yuna’s post-test summary, her grammatical and mechanical mistakes had reduced. Moreover,

she became much more advanced in using vocabulary or expressions on the post-test and also

showed a positive perception about her writing vocabulary ability. For example, she used the

expression, ‘the more common people use the Internet, the more they can share various kinds of

information’ appropriately. Since Yuna paid so much attention to how she could apply new

vocabulary and expressions properly to her writing that she felt more confident about her writing

vocabulary proficiency than her reading vocabulary proficiency.

3-7) Su-Eun in the lower level ‘summarizing’ group. Su-Eun received 37.5 points on

the pre-test and 49 points on the post-test in total. For the four areas of ‘reading,’ she responded

on the reflection questionnaire that her overall reading proficiency had improved. However,

when considering her actual performance on the pre- and post-tests, she showed remarkable

development for the ability to ‘make an inference,’ but her ability to ‘find main ideas and

supporting ideas’ had somewhat regressed. She also showed a little improvement in the ability

to ‘identify details’ area (i.e. a 2 point increase) but not so much as her improvement in the

ability to ‘make an inference’ area (i.e. a 6 point increase). Even though she mentioned that she

did not focus too much on finding all the important ideas and details of the texts, she might have

unnoticeably thought about inferred meanings of the texts. In addition, she said that she tried to

252
simply enjoy reading different kinds of issues through the ‘summarizing’ activity, but did not

care much about enhancing her writing ability. During the think-aloud task, she spent more

time in reading the given text than ‘summarizing’ it. She also seemed to care much about the

text content, but she neither thought much about how to write a good summary nor reviewed her

summary carefully. Consequently, her focus might have been given more to reading than

writing without knowing it. This, then, could be the reason why her abilities to ‘find and

specify main and supporting ideas’ and ‘specify important details’ did not show as much

improvement as her ability to ‘make inferences.’ Still, she personally thought that her ‘R_Infer’

proficiency had improved as she did for her ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ proficiency. For the

vocabulary in reading, Su-Eun’s score did not increase at all on the post-test even though she

perceived that her reading vocabulary proficiency had improved. She provided correct

synonyms for four words out of five on the pre-test. However, her sentences were very simple

and short and were much less meaningful than the sentences of the other two students in the SH

group. Even on the post-test, her sentences did not show much improvement in terms of

content and complexity. For example, she wrote down ‘huge’ as a synonym of ‘vast,’ and

created the following sentence on the pre-test: ‘The plain is vast.’ On the post-test, she wrote

down ‘grand’ as a synonym with the following sentence: ‘This field is vast.’ For another word

‘scarcity,’ she wrote down ‘lack’ as its synonym both on the pre- and post-tests. The sentence

she provided on the pre-test was ‘The scarcity of birds is increasing,’ and the one she wrote

down on the post-test was ‘The scarcity of gold raised its cost.’ Even though those two

sentences were the most well-written ones of all, they were still poor compared to what the

students in the SH group wrote.

For the five areas of ‘writing,’ Su-Eun had a positive perception of her ‘W_Org,’

253
‘W_Vocab’ proficiency, but was not very positive about ‘W_Struc,’ ‘W_Gram,’ and ‘W_Mecha’

proficiency. As two students in the SH group (i.e. Sang-Woo and Yuna) did, Su-Eun was also

might have concerned about making mistakes in grammar and mechanics when writing a

summary and thus have not felt very confident about her ‘W_Gram’ and ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency.

However, unlike the students in the SH group, Su-Eun had a quite negative perception about her

‘W_Struc’ proficiency as she had for her ‘W_Gram’ and ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency. Since the

students in the higher level groups had a broad view about texts, they might have put much effort

into organizing content and ideas as well as into using various sentence structures better.

Accordingly, they might have thought that they had become much better in organizing and

structuring sentences through the ‘summarizing’ activity, but somewhat worried if they were

correctly using spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. In contrast, Su-Eun at the lower level

might have focused more on the small units of texts. Thus, she might have worried if she was

appropriately using various sentence structures in her summary. Contrary to her perception, Su-

Eun actually showed improvement in ‘W_Org,’ ‘W_Struc,’ and ‘W_Gram’ areas and showed

even more improvement in ‘W_Mecha,’ but her score in ‘W_Vocab’ did not change at all from

the pre- to the post-test. On the pre-test, she had no introductory and concluding statements in

her summary. She began her sentence by immediately discussing the advantages of using the

Internet without writing an introduction paragraph. She gave two good examples to support her

argument as follows:

‘In my opinion, the Internet has advantages and disadvantages. Here are advantages.
First, we are free from time because of the Internet. When there wasn’t the Internet, we
had restraints for (of) time. For example, we had to go to the post office (and) send a
mail before it closed. We had to go to the library to search some documents before it
closed. However, thesedays [these days] we can do mailing and searching on the
Internet at any time.

254
 Second, we can get much informaitons information for free. For example, we can get
some advice from other netizens or we can download all kinds of musics music, movies,
and TV program shows.’

Then, she suddenly discussed the disadvantages of using the Internet and finished her summary

without a conclusion paragraph. It seemed that she did not clearly understand the writing test

instruction and thus did not recognize the fact that she had to take one position. On the post-

test, however, she clarified her position: a positive position for the Internet use. She listed three

examples of its advantages. This time, she had very simple and short introductory and

concluding sentences as follows (Missing phrases were added in bold texts within a blank.):

(Introductory sentences)
‘The Internet became has become a part of our life. Therefore, it is impossible to live
without it. Because of the development of technology, we could not live comfortable
(lives without the Internet).’

(Concluding sentence)
‘Therefore, it is sure that the Internet has made our lives comfortable and economic.’

However, she did not put each of the introductory and concluding sentences into a separate

paragraph. Her summary was written within one paragraph, and she did not start a new one

even when she wrote about a new idea unit. Although she provided both positive and negative

aspects of using the Internet on the pre-test, she only focused on and discussed what she thought

was an advantage of the Internet on the post-test: possibility of getting abundant information for

free, and presented appropriate examples. Still, no other advantages were discussed at all.

Thus, her summary was still neither very well organized nor well structured. In addition, her

use of vocabulary did not show any improvement at all on the post-test. She generally used

vocabulary and expressions appropriately within the context both on the pre- and post-tests, but

used very simple ones. Since she rarely used a dictionary to check the meanings or usages of

255
new words, depended only on an English-Korean dictionary, and never reviewed her

understanding of the new words, her vocabulary ability might not have developed much through

the ‘summarizing’ activity. However, her ability to ‘produce grammatically and mechanically

correct sentences’ had greatly improved on the post-test. She hardly made any grammatical and

mechanical mistakes.

3-8) Young-Jae in the lower level ‘summarizing’ group. Young-Jae received 31 points

on the pre-test and 40.5 points on the post-test in total. On the reflection questionnaire, he

reported that his ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ proficiency had improved and that his ‘R_Infer’

proficiency had not changed at all. However, when considering his actual performance on the

pre- and post-tests, he did not show any improvement at all in ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’

areas, but showed great improvement in ‘R_Infer’ area. His scores for ‘R_Main/Supp’ and

‘R_Detail’ areas even dropped on the post-test. Even though he marked certain sentences

which he thought as important, he might have failed to completely understand those sentences.

In contrast, he pondered on issues not stated or dealt with in the text. Accordingly, he might

have become better in ‘making inferences’ than in ‘finding and specifying main and supporting

ideas and important details of the text’ even though he was not so confident about his ‘R_Infer’

proficiency. For the vocabulary in reading, he thought that his proficiency had not improved at

all, but there was a little increase in his score for ‘R_Vocab’ area from the pre- to the post-test (i.e.

3.5 points). Still, his reading vocabulary ability had fallen far behind other think-aloud task

participants. On the pre-test, Young-Jae only got a correct answer for one of the vocabulary

questions among five. He wrote down ‘delete’ as a synonym of ‘eliminate’ and created the

following sentence: ‘The president eliminated the position in the government.’ On the post-test,

he answered more than one question. For the same question, he correctly provided ‘remove’ as

256
a synonym of ‘eliminate’ and wrote down the following sentence which had a similar pattern as

that of the pre-test sentence (i.e. Subject + Verb + Object + Adverb phrase): ‘John eliminated the

branch by scissors.’ Thus, no improvement was found in this sentence. Yet, for another word,

‘vast,’ he provided the sentence, ‘The vast sea is so beautiful,’ but failed to find a synonym. For

the other word, ‘concentration,’ he only provided the synonym ‘focus,’ but failed to produce a

sentence. For the rest of the other two vocabulary questions, he only left blanks.

For the five areas of ‘writing,’ similar to Su-Eun, Young-Jae had a positive perception of

his ‘W_Org’ proficiency while he was not very confident about his ‘W_Struc’ and ‘W_Gram’

proficiency. However, Young-Jae was a little different from Su-Eun in that he believed that his

‘W_Mecha’ proficiency had developed during the semester, whereas Su-Eun had a quite negative

perception about her ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency. Like many of the students, particularly those in

the lower level groups, Young-Jae showed uncertainty about his ‘W_Vocab’ proficiency. He

might have felt that selecting and using appropriate vocabulary and expressions in his writing

was difficult and thus thought that his writing vocabulary ability had not enhanced at all. On

the actual test, he showed enhancement in all areas, but showed enormous development

particularly in ‘W_Gram’ and ‘W_Mecha’ areas. On the pre-test, he immediately discussed

why he thought using the Internet was beneficial without any introductory statements. He

briefly talked about the reasons why he was supportive to the use of the Internet with examples:

‘The Internet provides us with a lot of convenience. For example, we can conect
[connect] with people whenever we want by the Internet. Moreover, we can save the
money money as well as times time. And we can utilize the Internet in various ways.
For example, we can use it in the classroom to search information which needs for the
class.’

He, then, abruptly discussed the disadvantage of using the Internet and suggested wise ways of

using it. He finished his writing without any concluding remarks. He also did not divide

257
paragraphs when discussing a new idea. Overall, the content and ideas were poorly organized,

and the sentences were poorly structured as well. Moreover, many grammatical and mechanical

mistakes were found. However, on the post-test, he wrote down short concluding sentences as

follows even though he still did not write an introduction:

‘By using the Internet, our life styles are changing conveniently. We can utilize a lot of
information through it and save our precious time.’

Still, the concluding sentences were embedded into the very last body paragraph, but were not

written independently in a new paragraph. He provided two reasons why he thought using the

Internet was good. This time, he divided the paragraph appropriately when discussing each

reason:

‘Attaining information from the Internet is very helpful to people. People who are
working in various parts can use the Internet to get information they need. A lot of
people use the Internet, and therefore there is a plenty of information in the Internet.
We can use the information easily whenever we want.

Moreover, we can save the time to work work on something by using the Internet. For
example, if we want to buy some flowers, we can buy them through the Internet
shopping without visiting a flower shop. Like this, we can save our time to do
something. Instead of going out and meet meeting somebody, we can do all of them at
home.’

Although a few grammatical mistakes were observed, Young-Jae made significantly fewer

mistakes than on the post-test. In addition, he made almost no mechanical mistakes. He

provided a much clearer argument on the post-test, but clear and logical introductory and

concluding statements were still missing in his writing.

In sum, the eight students in the four groups showed a match or mismatch between their

actual proficiency changes and their perception of them for the nine areas of reading and writing.

All students except the two in the CH group showed more of a mismatch for most of the reading

258
and writing areas. The students in the CH group showed a match for more than six areas of

reading and writing. All of the eight students showed uncertainty about many areas except

‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ areas, thinking that their proficiency in those areas had not

changed at all during the semester. However, nobody thought that their proficiency in any area

had seriously worsened even though their actual proficiency on the post-test had dropped off.

That is, they were not very confident about their proficiency in some of the areas of reading and

writing, but they were not too negative about their overall reading and writing proficiency. To

be more specific, in the five areas of ‘writing’ and ‘R_Vocab’ area, almost all the students

showed much improvement on the post-test. However, in the rest of the three areas of ‘reading’

(i.e. ‘R_Main/Supp,’ ‘R_Detail,’ and ‘R_Infer’ areas), they did not. Most of them retained the

same scores or performed even worse on the post-test in ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ areas

even though they had positive perception about their proficiency in those areas. Since they

tended to concentrate more on finding important ideas and details of the given texts rather than

getting inferred meaning of the texts, they might have felt more positive about their

‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ proficiency than their actual proficiency and thus overestimated

themselves. On the other hand, they tended to be much less confident about their ‘R_Infer’

proficiency than their actual proficiency and thus underestimated themselves.

When considering the ‘copying’ groups, the students at the higher level thought that their

proficiency in most of the areas had improved and actually showed improvement in those areas.

Both Da-Young and Ji-Hee were not very confident about their ability to ‘make an inference,’

and particularly Ji-Hee thought that her ‘W_Vocab’ and ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency had not changed

at all during the semester. Jun-Su and Yoon-Ju at the lower level were also not very confident

about their ability to ‘make an inference.’ In addition, they were worried about their abilities to

259
‘organize content, ideas, and sentences’ and ‘apply new words and expressions appropriately in

their writing’ and perceived that those abilities had not improved at all. In addition to ‘W_Org’

and ‘W_Vocab’ proficiency, Yoon-Ju was also not very positive about her ‘R_Detail’ and

‘W_Gram’ proficiency. Even though each student had some differences, most of them

generally evaluated their ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ proficiency higher and ‘R_Infer’

proficiency lower than their actual proficiency. The higher level students showed a good match

between their actual proficiency changes and their perception of them for most of the reading

and writing areas, whereas the lower level students showed a good match for only two to three

areas of reading and writing.

When considering the ‘summarizing’ groups, not only the students at the lower level but

also those at the higher level were not very confident about their proficiency in many of the

reading and writing areas. The higher level students perceived that particularly their ‘R_Vocab,’

‘W_Gram,’ and ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency had not improved at all and had stayed the same

throughout the semester. In comparison, the lower level students were not very confident about

their ‘W_Struc’ proficiency in addition to ‘W_Gram’ and ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency. However, on

the actual test, all students at the higher and lower levels showed improvement in the overall

areas of ‘writing.’ Similar to the students in the ‘copying’ groups, the overall students in the

‘summarizing’ groups tended to overestimate their proficiency in the areas of ‘R_Main/Supp’ and

‘R_Detail’ and underestimate their proficiency in the area of ‘R_Infer.’ The four students in the

‘summarizing’ groups all showed more mismatch than match for most reading and writing areas.

When comparing the two higher level groups (i.e. CH and SH groups) with the two

lower level groups (i.e. CL and SL groups), the former, interestingly, were quite concerned about

their ability to ‘use correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization’ even though they were at a

260
higher proficiency level. They might have realized that they could be less careful about using

correct writing conventions when giving so much attention to the content organization, sentence

structure, and vocabulary choice. Accordingly, they might have thought that making no

mistakes in mechanics was quite difficult even though they could produce quite fluent sentences.

The latter, however, were more concerned about their abilities to ‘organize content, ideas, and

sentences’ and ‘use various sentence structures.’ Both the higher and lower level students were

generally all concerned about their ability to ‘use grammar correctly.’ It can be inferred that the

higher level students were not necessarily positive about their reading and writing proficiency,

and the lower level students were not necessarily less confident about their proficiency. In

addition, regardless of different proficiency levels, all of the eight students in the four groups

generally undervalued their overall writing proficiency while overestimating most of their

reading proficiency. On the actual test, they showed much more improvement in the five areas

of ‘writing’ than in the four areas of ‘reading’ (They mostly showed improvement in overall

writing areas, whereas many of them did not or even showed deterioration in overall reading

areas.). Generally speaking, all students except for the students in the CH group showed a

match between their actual proficiency changes and their perception of them for a similar

number of reading and writing areas (i.e. between two and five areas). The CH group of

students’ perception of changes for overall reading and writing proficiency coincided with their

actual proficiency changes. However, the other three groups of students’ perception of their

proficiency changes showed inconsistency with their actual proficiency changes for many of the

reading and writing areas.

Since the eight students in the four groups were selected and interviewed in order to

understand their ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ processes and their reading and writing strategy

261
use rather than knowing their reasons of a match or mismatch between their actual proficiency

changes and their perception of them, the researcher did not have a chance to ask the students

about the reasons why they thought certain areas of their proficiency had changed or not and why

they overvalued or undervalued certain areas of their proficiency. However, based on what they

had mentioned and done during the think-aloud interview and how they performed on the pre-

and post-tests, the researcher was able to make some assumptions. Also, she was able to find

the similarities and differences among the four groups of the 60 students’ actual proficiency

changes and their perception of them.

The 60 students in the four groups generally showed great improvement in the five areas

of ‘writing’ and in ‘R_Vocab’ area and some improvement in ‘R_Infer’ area, but showed

deterioration in ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ areas. They also showed more of a match than a

mismatch between their actual proficiency changes and their perception of them for overall areas

of ‘writing.’ For the most areas of match, the students had a positive perception about their

proficiency, and their actual proficiency had also developed. However, for the areas of

mismatch, they tended to overvalue their proficiency for ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail’ areas,

while undervaluing their proficiency for ‘R_Infer’ area. Although the researcher was not able

to ask the students why their ability to ‘make an inference’ had particularly not improved much

even though many of them actually showed improvement on the post-test, one strong assumption

can be drawn. Korean students in general have been imparted knowledge, in English, for

instance, explicit explanations about grammar and new vocabulary or expressions, from their

teachers (Hahn, 2006; Jimin, 2006; Park, 2008). That is, they have been quite passive in

learning which can hinder their creative thinking. Thus, rather than making their own

interpretations about the text, they want to hear if their guess or inference is correct or wrong

262
from their teachers. Accordingly, many of the students in the four groups in this study might

have not been very confident about the ability to ‘make inferences’ even though they were quite

good at this ability. In addition to ‘R_Main/Supp,’ ‘R_Detail,’ and ‘R_Infer’ areas in which the

overall students commonly showed a mismatch, there were some other areas of mismatch in

which the students in the different task and proficiency level groups showed their own

characteristics. For example, most of the students in the CH, the SH, and the SL groups tended

to undervalue their ‘W_Mecha’ proficiency. Among them, those who were engaged in the

‘summarizing’ task (i.e. SH and SL groups) might have felt quite difficult not to make any

mechanical mistakes while trying to produce their own writing during the semester. The other

who were at the higher level in the ‘copying’ group (i.e. CH) tended to pay attention to how

writing conventions were correctly used in the given texts and how they could make fewer

mistakes in mechanics when ‘copying’ the texts. They might have considered that improving

‘W_Mecha’ proficiency was difficult and thus would have not been confident about their

‘W_Mecha’ proficiency. The students in the CL, SH, and the SL groups, in comparison, tended

to underestimate their ‘W_Gram’ proficiency. They might have felt that being judged right or

wrong for their use of grammar in their writing would be much easier than in the idea or content

organization and sentence fluency. Accordingly, they might have felt less confident about their

‘W_Gram’ proficiency. In addition, most students in the lower level groups tended to be much

less confident about their ‘W_Struc’ proficiency than those in the higher level groups.

Particularly the lower level students in the ‘copying’ group also showed uncertainty about their

‘W_Org’ proficiency. The lower level students might have felt that organizing their ideas and

contents coherently and/or structuring sentences fluently was the most difficult. Moreover, for

the reading and writing vocabulary areas, the students in the lower level groups were more

263
confident about their ‘R_Vocab’ proficiency than those in the higher level groups; whereas the

former were less confident about their ‘W_Vocab’ proficiency than the latter. Since the former

read a text by word unit and mostly concentrated on finding meanings of unfamiliar vocabulary

and expressions in order to understand the whole text, they were less likely to pay attention to

how to use those vocabulary and expressions appropriately in their own writing. They thus

might have been more positive about their reading vocabulary than their writing vocabulary

proficiency. However, since the latter read the text by phrase or sentence unit and focused on

both the meanings and the usages of vocabulary within sentences, they might have a more

positive perception about their writing vocabulary than their reading vocabulary proficiency.

Some students might have evaluated their reading and writing proficiency changes

without thinking much or have felt difficult to self-perceive their proficiency changes. Thus,

their self-perception assessments could have not been reliable enough. However, the researcher

was able to compare the students’ perception with their actual proficiency changes, understand

the reasons why the students in the four groups thought that certain areas of proficiency had

changed more or less than other groups, and how their actual proficiency changes and their

perception of them affected each other.

Students’ perception of the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities

1) Students’ familiarity with the topics of the texts and motivation to read them –

Relationship between students’ familiarity and motivation, and their task

performance and strategy use. In the metacognitive process of reading and

writing, Yang and Shi (2003) articulated the fact that students’ previous writing experiences, their

perception of the nature of a given task, familiarity to texts, and motivation to read or write texts

264
were important factors affecting students’ task performance. From the metacognitive

perspectives of the reading and writing framework, the researcher wanted to know if the 60

students in the four groups would be similar or different in performing either the ‘copying’ or

‘summarizing’ task depending on two of their personal variables: how familiar they were with

the 24 topics of the given texts and how motivated they were to read them.

The students who were engaged in the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity checked

degrees of familiarity with the topics of the texts and their motivation to read them whenever

reading each text. Their self-rated scores for familiarity and motivation are presented according

to the four groups in Table 51.

Table 51
Means and Standard Deviations for Students’ Familiarity with Topics of the Texts and Motivation
to Read them
N Mean SD Mini Max
Familiarity CH 13 2.48 .45 1.96 3.38
CL 15 2.36 .46 1.67 3.29
SH 13 2.36 .62 1.54 3.79
SL 14 2.33 .49 1.71 3.29
Total 55 2.38 .50 1.54 3.79
Motivation CH 13 3.88 .25 3.48 4.42
CL 15 3.78 .35 3.21 4.50
SH 13 3.72 .37 2.96 4.25
SL 14 3.96 .27 3.42 4.38
Total 55 3.83 .32 2.96 4.50
Note. The score that one could check for familiarity and motivation ranged from ‘1’ to ‘5.’ The
score ‘1’ meant the lowest familiarity or motivation, and ‘5’ meant the highest familiarity or
motivation.

Even though the students were asked and required to rate scores for the familiarity and

motivation, not all of them did so. Thus, only 55 students out of 60 responded to the familiarity

and motivation questions. When reading the given texts, no one responded that they were very

familiar with the topics of the texts. Also, they all mentioned that it was their first time to read

265
the given texts. However, they responded that they at least had heard of the topics or had read a

few other texts on those topics (M=2.38, SD= .50). When considering each of the groups, no

statistically significant differences were found among the four groups in terms of the degrees of

familiarity with the topics of the texts as shown in Table 52 (F= .254, p= .858).

Table 52
ANOVA Table for Mean Differences among the Four Groups of Students for their Familiarity
with Topics of the Texts and Motivation to Read them
Familiarity
Sum of Mean
& Source df F Sig.
Squares Square
Motivation
Familiarity Between Groups .199 3 .066 .254 .858
Within Groups 13.338 51 .262
Total 13.538 54
Motivation Between Groups .494 3 .165 1.641 .191
Within Groups 5.116 51 .100
Total 5.610 54
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

Although the students in the four groups felt that they were not very familiar with the given

topics, they were pretty much motivated to read the texts (M= 3.83, SD= .32). Again, no

statistically significant differences were found among the four groups in terms of the degrees of

motivation to read the texts (F= 1.641, p= .191). Regardless of different proficiency levels,

most students were quite unfamiliar with the given texts, but generally showed much interest in

reading them.

In the portfolios, the students included their comments about why they felt reading each

text was interesting or not. Those comments provided more explicit explanations about how

familiar the students were with the topics of the texts or motivated to read them and why. Some

of the students’ positive comments are as follows:

266
(Student A)
“I was interested in reading this text because global warming is a serious problem these
days, and it is our fault to make polar bears endangered,”

“I liked this article because this technique seemed to be very useful for both students and
teachers. By applying this technique, the students in the article gradually showed much
improvement in their writing ability. I think it would be good to use this kind of
technique for Korean students and also help teachers assess their students in better ways.”

(Student B)
“I was interested in this topic because I am recently going to the gym these days. I am
trying hard to lose my weight and, at the same time, stay healthy. This article gave me
very useful information about exercising, and I wish I could learn yoga someday,”

“I found it very interesting to read this article because cheating is an instinct that every
student might have. Therefore, teachers should warn their students to avoid cheating.
Because I will also teach students in the future, I think I need to remember some of the
tips which were presented in this article.”

(Student C)
“I was not familiar about formative assessment, but I thought that I must know about it
in order to plan lessons for my future students. So, even though it was a little difficult,
I was very much interested in reading it,”

“As the H1N1 flu became a hot issue these days, I was very curious about where it came
from, how dangerous it is, if it is contagious, etc. I think this article gave clear answers
for the questions that I had in mind.”

(Student D)
“Crimes in school are increasing these days. Even though the Korean government does
not allow people to carry guns, other kinds of school violence or crimes are frequently
occurring in Korea. I was thus very much interested in this issue,”

“When I was taking a teaching practicum course, my professor talked a lot about how I
should maintain a good balance as a teacher as this article had discussed. When I
started to teach students in a middle school while taking the course, I encountered a lot
of difficulties. I tried to overcome those difficulties by observing how other veteran
teachers dealt with their students. This article reminded me of my past experience as a
student teacher. I would definitely need the information in this article when I really
become a teacher next year.”

267
 (Student E)
“Since I didn’t have much background knowledge about this field, I might not have been
willing to read it if it had been from a major science journal. However, since this text
was about a true story, it was very inspiring. I was impressed by both father’s and
daughter’s passion for work. The author mentioned that Steve Irwin’s bravery was to
teach people ‘respect’ for animals, but not to show off himself. This was very touching,”

“I think that it is really good that many famous stars perform good deeds because they
can promote participation of the public. I like Brad Pitt as a movie star very much, but
after reading this article, I became fond of him even more than before. I was very
impressed that he gave hope for those who lost their homes.”

Whether or not the texts were related to their major (i.e. texts about teaching methods or tips and

educational issues), the students showed much interest in most of the topics. Negative

comments were rarely found, but some of them are as follows:

(Student F)
“I was actually not very familiar with the daylight saving time, but I thought it can
provide advantages and disadvantages at the same time. As the author mentioned in
the text, the daylight saving time could reduce electricity consumption, crimes, traffic
accidents, etc. However, people would need to extend their working hours. It was
interesting to learn about a new issue, but I felt somewhat difficult to clearly understand
the whole content. I might need to look for some other materials about this issue to
understand the text better.”

(Student G)
“I knew that many people care about whitening their teeth. Since I’ve never tried it in
my life, I was not very much interested in reading this text. However, since I realized
something new that I’ve never known before, I thought that this text was pretty
informative.”

(Student H)
“Because this text talked specifically about election in the United States, I didn’t feel it
was necessary for me to know all the details in the text. If it had discussed election in
Korea, I might have been willing to read it very carefully.”

The students expressed less willingness to read some of the texts due to their somewhat lack of

interest in the topics and/or the difficulty level of the texts. Even though the 24 texts were

chosen by taking the students’ interests of topics and difficulty levels into consideration, not all

268
the topics might have satisfied all students. Also, not all students might have perceived that the

difficulty levels of all texts were appropriate for their proficiency. Nevertheless, they were not

too negative about the texts. Although they felt some of the texts were not very interesting or

easy, they mentioned that they were able to learn about a new issue that they had not known or

seriously thought of before. Whether or not they were at a lower or higher proficiency level

and also whether or not they were familiar with the topics of the given texts, they stated that they

were considerably motivated to read the texts. The students’ familiarity to the topics of the

texts and motivation to read them seemed to positively affect their task performance. They

were engaged in either the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity during the semester, and their

willingness to read the given texts made them concentrate on what and how they were reading

and writing and also made them aware of which strategies they were using and how they were

using them in order to read and write better. Since they were interested in reading the given

texts, they tried to relate the information in the texts to themselves and think deeply about how

they would apply the useful information to their real life. Through reading the texts and

‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ them, the students were able to develop the abilities to ‘understand

text contents,’ ‘find main ideas and supporting ideas,’ ‘identify important details,’ ‘understand

the meanings and usages of new words and expressions,’ ‘apply new vocabulary appropriately in

their writing,’ ‘organize contents and ideas better,’ ‘use various sentence structures’, and ‘use

correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.’ Consequently, their overall English

reading and writing proficiency had significantly improved during the semester even though the

degrees of improvement for the various areas of reading and writing were different among the

four groups. In addition, they tried to use different kinds of strategies to read and write better

even though not all of them were effective at using them. The students at the higher level were

269
much more successfully applying different kinds of strategies than those at the lower level when

reading and ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing.’ However, all of them in the four groups were likely to

be engaged in a deeper level of processing. Or, they were at least moving toward a deeper level

of reading and writing stage rather than staying at a shallow or perceptual level stage.

Moreover, they generally showed a positive perception of their reading and writing proficiency

changes even though their perception of the degrees of improvement for different areas of

reading and writing were different among the four groups. In short, two personal variables of

the students—familiarity and motivation—played important roles when they were performing

the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ task and also when they were using different kinds of reading and

writing strategies. In other words, the students’ metacognitive knowledge of the ‘person,’ ‘task,’

and ‘strategy’ variables—their knowledge and thoughts about themselves as learners, the

‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ task, and appropriate strategies for the successful task completion—

interacted with one another (Devine, Railey, & Boshoff, 1993) in the processes of reading and

writing. With these three variables of the students’ knowledge, they also regulated their

cognition by trying to develop and apply appropriate strategies to satisfy the task demands.

Regardless of different proficiency levels and tasks, a higher degree of familiarity and motivation

stimulated the students to have a positive attitude toward the task performance and consequently

helped them put much effort on the given task, enhance their reading and writing ability, use

appropriate reading and writing strategies effectively, and have a positive perception of their

reading and writing proficiency changes.

2) Advantages and disadvantages of the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities –

Students’ responses to the reflection questionnaire. During the semester, how the

students’ actual reading and writing proficiency had changed through the ‘copying’ or

270
‘summarizing’ activity was measured, and also how their perception of their reading and writing

proficiency had changed was observed according to different activity and proficiency level

groups. Additionally, how familiar the students were with the topics of the texts, how

motivated they were to read them, and how the degrees of their familiarity and motivation

affected their task performance, strategy use, reading and writing proficiency development, and

perception of their reading and writing proficiency changes were investigated. Now, last but

not least, what the students thought about the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity itself and what

kinds of advantages or disadvantages they thought to have gotten from it will be discussed.

The students provided their opinions about what they thought as the most helpful and

most difficult aspects of the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity on the reflection questionnaire.

The students in the different activity and proficiency level groups expressed different opinions.

Some of the students’ comments in each group are presented in Table 53 (What they thought as

the most helpful about the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity were underlined in bold text and

what they thought as the most difficult about the activity were double underlined in italic bold

text.).

Table 53
Students’ Comments on the ‘Copying’ and ‘Summarizing’ Activities
Task Group Students’ Comments
‘Copying’ CH (Student A)
Activity “What I think the area which I got a lot of help through continuous practice
of ‘copying’ was sentence structure….I heard many times from my
professor that I was using very awkward sentences even though they were
grammatically correct. Through the ‘copying’ practice, I was able to use
various kinds of sentence structures naturally and appropriately for
the writing contexts and also use grammar correctly in my writing.”

271
(Student B)
“I think I became better in understanding the content and finding main
ideas because all the topics were closely related to my interests. I
‘copied’ the texts sentence by sentence thinking about each of the sentence
meaning, and I realized that some of the sentence structures and
expressions were very new to me. So, I gave much attention to those
unfamiliar sentence structures and thought about how I could use
them in my writing.”

(Student C)
“By continuously and repeatedly practicing writing sentence structures and
grammar that native speakers of English had used, I was able to develop
my own writing style. This was very exciting.”

(Student D)
“While reading and ‘copying’ different kinds of texts, I discovered that
some of the same or similar sentence structures occurred many times in
different texts. So, I think I was unconsciously acquiring some of the
uses of grammar and sentence structures.”

(Student E)
“I think I haven’t cared much about correct use of mechanics. While I
was ‘copying,’ however, I realized that some of the spelling of words
and punctuation that I’ve known as correct were wrong. So, I gave
very careful attention to mechanics afterward.”

(Student F)
“I saw that a word could be used in different forms with different meanings
within different contexts. So, I was able to learn how I could use words
correctly and appropriately in my writing.”

(Student G)
“I was confused about some of the words and correct use of spelling and
punctuation. But, by ‘copying’ the whole text, I was able to
unconsciously use spelling and punctuation correctly. In addition, I
learned better ways to organize content and ideas and also make my
sentences flow smoothly.”

(Student H)
“By reading about different topics and thinking deeply about new
information I got from the texts through the ‘copying’ practice, I could
build my knowledge of various kinds of issues not only in educational
field but also in many other fields…”

272
CL (Student A)
“If the given texts had been too long or if too much task had been given, I
might have felt exhausted and might not have done my best. Of course,
several texts were pretty long, and it took much time to ‘copy’ them.
But, because I liked most of the topics of the texts, I could learn many
new words and expressions. Also, I could learn how to use those
words and expressions appropriately within contexts.”

(Student B)
“…I could increase my writing speed. Since writing a paper within the
limited time is very important when taking a writing test, I thought
increasing my writing speed was essential.”

(Student C)
“I think it is very hard to find articles written in English by myself and read
them regularly because I don’t have enough time to do so. But, through
this ‘copying’ activity, I could read and hear different kinds of issues in
English. I could learn not only new words and but also authentic
expressions that native speakers of English were using.”

(Student D)
“I liked the fact that I could read about various kinds of interesting issues
which could not be found in my class materials…..I wanted to learn
something rather than just enjoying reading them. So, I focused on some
of the difficult but useful words and expressions within contexts. I tried
to review and practice using some of those words and expressions in
my writing even though it was not that easy...”

(Student E)
“The most useful and helpful aspect of ‘copying’ practice was that I could
learn correct use of punctuation which had never been emphasized in
regular classes. Also, my reading speed had been increased much.”

(Student F)
“By continuously practicing ‘copying,’ I was able to remember and
sometimes tried to unconsciously use some of the words and
expressions which were frequently shown in many of the texts.”

(Student G)
“I was able to learn how to maintain consistency in writing. That is, I
could understand how well and smoothly the main ideas, supporting
details, and examples are connected and organized in a text. Also, I
was able to improve my ability of guessing the meanings of unfamiliar
words within sentences.”

273
 (Student H)
“I could understand how such punctuation as “, ”, ;, and : are used in
sentences. Also, I thought about how I could organize sentences,
which vocabulary I should use in my writing, and how I could write
grammatically correct sentences while I was reading and ‘copying’ the
given texts. Even though social, economic, political, or cultural issues
were not always easy to read and understand, but I felt very happy about
reading different kinds of issues.”
‘Summari SH (Student A)
zing’ “I tried to focus on how a whole text was structured well while reading it.
Activity I, then, thought about how I could write a summary logically and
which parts of the text I should include or not into my summary. I
think the ‘summarizing’ practice helped me write other kinds of writings
better, too.”

(Student B)
“Finding what the main and supporting ideas and important details were at
the same time, including those ideas and details into my summary, and
producing a well-written summary by connecting all of those
important ideas and details smoothly were the most difficult but the
most helpful practice.”

(Student C)
“Since I’ve been trying to paraphrase some of the sentences in the texts, I
could expand my vocabulary knowledge. That is, I tried to look for
synonyms and antonyms of certain words by using a dictionary and to
understand uses of those synonyms and antonyms. Also, while
paraphrasing, I’ve tried to structure and organize sentences in better
ways and write grammatically correct sentences.”

(Student D)
“It was difficult to decide which parts were important and thus should be
included into a summary. But, the continuous practice of distinguishing
important details and not important ones from a text throughout the
semester helped me write better organized summaries. Additionally,
because I usually wrote a paper in English by using a computer, I think
I’ve never worried much about mechanics. But, this semester, since I had
to write a summary by using my hand, I carefully looked at if I was using
punctuation and spelling of some of the difficult words correctly.”

274
(Student E)
“….in addition to the ability of expressing the author’s ideas clearly and
briefly in my writing, using grammar correctly, and choosing appropriate
vocabulary, I think my ability of using correct mechanics got also
better. While I was reviewing my writing, I realized that I was making
many mistakes in spelling and punctuation. I thus tried to pay close
attention to the correct use of mechanics in my writing.”

(Student F)
“I think I used skimming and scanning strategies very effectively
through the ‘summarizing’ activity this semester. I tried to find and
identify precisely and quickly what the author of a text was mainly
discussing. Also, I carefully looked at how ideas of a text were
structured and organized well and thus I was able to develop the ability of
structuring and organizing sentences and condensing others’ ideas
briefly in my summary.”

(Student G)
“It was a little difficult to understand and summarize a text which was
not related to my major, but I could expand vocabulary which was used
in different fields. Also, I could enhance my grammar proficiency
and paraphrasing skills. In addition, I became much better in finding
key ideas of a text quickly.”

(Student H)
“I think I could develop the ability of logical reading, writing, and
thinking through the ‘summarizing’ activity. I liked most of the topics,
and I think this motivated me to predict the content of a text, think about
underlying meanings of a text, predict about how the ideas would
develop in a next paragraph, etc. while I was reading different kinds of
texts. When writing a summary, I gave much attention to how I could
connect main ideas and important details of a text smoothly. So, I think I
could develop the ability condensing ideas briefly and clearly.”

(Student I)
“I think it was very meaningful for me to continuously do ‘summarizing’
practice during about three months. Particularly, I was able to
understand and use different kinds of writing patterns and sentence
structures in my own writing. Also, I carefully read all of the sentences
in the texts very carefully rather than skipping some parts. I thus think
my ability of reading and finding key ideas quickly had much
improved.”

275
SL (Student A)
“I felt very difficult about selecting right words and structuring sentences
well when writing summaries. However, through continuous practice of
creating my own sentences, my vocabulary and sentence structuring
ability had improved even though I think I still need much more
improvement. Overall, I became very confident and less nervous about
reading and writing.”

(Student B)
“I could learn how to use conjunctions well to connect sentences and
make my summaries flow well. By reading the texts which I was
interested in, I became less afraid of reading.”

(Student C)
“It took much time to thoroughly understand text content before
‘summarizing’ it and rephrasing some of the words, expressions, and
sentences for writing a summary. But, I became much faster in
understanding a text. Also, it became possible for me to apply some of
the sophisticated sentence structures in my own writing. Additionally,
I was able to get much good information from various kinds of topics
of texts.”

(Student D)
“I felt it was very difficult to summarize a long or difficult text by using
my own words, but I could expand my vocabulary knowledge, use
better structured sentences, and write grammatically correct
sentences.”

(Student E)
“I think I became much better in logically and clearly organizing ideas
and sentences in writing. Also, I could develop my reading skills and
reading comprehension by reading different kinds of topics of texts
regularly.”

(Student F)
“The thing that I liked the most was that I could improve my vocabulary
and increase my writing speed. Because I tried to focus on finding
meanings of new words and expressions and using them appropriately in
my own writing, I cared much about how to spell those words and
expressions correctly. I knew that I sometimes got stuck when writing
because I forgot how to spell a word. So, I think I could learn not only
many of the new words’ meanings but also correct spelling of those
new words.”

276
 (Student G)
“Finding main ideas and connecting them with supporting ideas
smoothly were very difficult because I had to use different sentence
structures, grammar, and vocabulary which were not used in a given text.
However, through continuous ‘summarizing’ practice, I think the ability of
organizing ideas logically, structuring sentences, using grammatical
sentences, and using various kind of vocabulary had somewhat
improved. Overall, my reading and writing speed has become much
faster than before.”

(Student H)
“When reading the texts, I found it very difficult to specify important ideas
of the texts and write summaries by using different words from the
original texts. But, by reading different kinds of issues in English, I
could deepen and broaden my knowledge in different fields. Also,
I’ve gotten into the habit of reading English articles regularly. In
addition, I realized which parts I should focus on more, which kinds of
vocabulary that I should give more careful attention, and in what ways
I should read depending on different types of topics and styles of
texts.”

The students in the four groups expressed their positive rather than negative feelings about the

‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity. Some of them talked about the difficulties they had

encountered, but no one thought that the activity was useless or unhelpful at all. They similarly

mentioned that they paid great attention to how text ideas and contents were organized, how

words and expressions were used appropriately within contexts, how those words and

expressions were spelled, how complex sentences were structured, and how sentences were

grammatically written when they were reading the given texts. In addition, they said that they

tried to organize content better, use new words and expressions appropriately, use various

sentence structures, make their sentences flow well, and use correct grammar and mechanics in

their writing. They thus thought that their overall reading and writing ability had improved

during the semester. They pointed out that most of the topics were interesting even though

some were not very familiar and/or slightly difficult. Accordingly, similar to their responses to

277
the familiarity and motivation questions included in their portfolios, they mentioned in the

reflection questionnaire that they could enrich their knowledge on different fields because the

topics of the texts aroused their interests. Having a high level of motivation stimulated them to

concentrate on what they were reading and writing and what their weaknesses were and also to

have clear and specific goals of reading and writing.

When considering the students in the ‘copying’ groups, they expressed more of an

improvement in their writing than reading. Only one student in the CH group (i.e. Student B)

mentioned that she could develop her ability to ‘find main ideas of texts’, but the other students

did not mention anything more about their reading ability improvement. They mentioned that

they had become much better in organizing writing content and ideas, structuring sentences,

using vocabulary appropriately within sentences, and using correct grammar, spelling, and

punctuation. While reading different kinds of texts, they discovered that many similar or same

sentence structures and vocabulary were used recurrently in different texts. Thus, even if they

felt that some of the sentence structures and vocabulary were somewhat difficult, it became

possible for them to unconsciously use those sentence structures and vocabulary in their writing.

They said that applying what they had learned to their own writing was difficult, but they

thought that continuous practice helped them develop their writing ability. The differences

between the CH group and CL group were that more of the students in the CL group were

concerned about their vocabulary ability the most and thus paid much attention to understanding

the meanings of unfamiliar words and using them appropriately in sentences, whereas more of

the students in the CH group focused more on organizing ideas and structuring sentences in

better ways and developing their own writing style. Moreover, the students in the CL group

(e.g. Student E and Student H) tended to simply focus on the correct use of punctuation or

278
spelling. However, the students in the CH group mentioned that they specifically paid careful

attention to the spelling of some words and punctuation which they had been confused about (e.g.

Student E and Student G). That is, the students in the CH group were better than those in the

CL group in that they were aware of exactly what their weak points were and specifically what

they should do in order to overcome their weaknesses.

When considering the students in the ‘summarizing’ groups, they talked not only about

their writing ability improvement but also about their reading ability enhancement. While the

students in the ‘copying’ groups did not express much about their difficulties (e.g. taking much

time to ‘copy’ the whole texts, difficulty of understanding various kinds of issues), those in the

‘summarizing’ groups talked much about their difficulties with reading and writing. Since they

had to read diverse issues of texts and write summaries in their own words, they seemed to spend

much time reading the given texts and worried much about finding main and supporting ideas,

deciding what to include or not into their summaries, connecting important points of the texts

logically and smoothly, using correct grammar, using vocabulary appropriately, and using

correct spelling and punctuation. However, they thought that continuously and regularly

reading diverse issues in English and practicing writing summaries greatly helped them improve

their overall reading and writing proficiency and accelerate their reading and writing speed.

More specifically, they mentioned that their abilities to ‘find key points of texts correctly and

quickly,’ ‘sort out important and unimportant points of the texts,’ ‘logically organize contents

and ideas,’ ‘choose appropriate vocabulary,’ ‘use well-flowing sentence structure,’ and ‘use

correct grammar and mechanics’ had considerably improved. Yet, the differences between the

SH group and SL group were that the latter thought that their speed increase in reading and

writing (i.e. Student C and Student G in the SL group) and their confidence enhancement in

279
reading and writing (e.g. Student A and Student B in the SL group) were great benefits from the

‘summarizing’ activity. In contrast, the former explained more specifically about the kinds of

advantages they had gotten from the ‘summarizing’ activity and which areas they could develop.

For example, they thought that the ‘summarizing’ practice influenced them to do better in

producing other types of writing (e.g. Student A), developing logical thinking and predicting

underlying meanings of texts (e.g. Student H), condensing complex ideas of the texts precisely,

briefly, and quickly (e.g. Student F), and developing and applying some of the reading and

writing strategies appropriately and effectively in their own learning (e.g. Student F). The

students in both the SH and SL groups mentioned that they were able to develop the ability to

‘use mechanics correctly,’ but there was a small discrepancy. The students in the SL group (e.g.

Student F), unlike those in the CL group, knew that their unfamiliarity with the spelling of many

new words was their weakness because they realized that they could not carry out writing when

they did not know the correct spelling of certain words. Thus, they paid much attention to the

spelling of vocabulary. The students in the SH group were also well aware of what their

weaknesses were, but they focused not only on appropriate use of vocabulary but also on their

synonyms and antonyms in order to rephrase the original texts for their summary writing.

Overall, the students at the higher proficiency levels (i.e. CH and SH) were more

systematically using specific strategies appropriately than those at the lower proficiency levels

(i.e. CL and SL) did in order to overcome their weaknesses or to improve specific areas of

reading and writing. Accordingly, the higher level students seemed to use and manage time

efficiently by focusing on the specific areas they needed more attention and development.

However, the lower level students seemed to spend much more time and energy than they

actually needed by focusing on trivial or unnecessary areas, and thus they felt that the given task

280
was somewhat difficult and took much of their time. In addition, the higher level students

mentioned that either the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity helped them read and understand

different kinds of topics of texts better, write different kinds of writing (e.g. summary, argument

essay, book report), and develop logical thinking, whereas the lower level students mentioned

that either one of the activities generally helped them read and write better and increase their

reading and writing speed. Even though all students in the four groups showed similarities and

differences when commenting on their feelings of performing the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’

activity, they generally considered it to be very positive. They emphasized that the interesting

topics of the given texts played a positive role in leading them to do their best to improve their

reading and writing ability. Since the topics they had been reading for classes were limited to

educational issues, they felt interested in reading diverse issues in different fields and felt

satisfied with expanding their knowledge. In addition, their willingness to read the given texts

not only helped them understand the word usage, sentence structure, content and idea

organization, grammar, and mechanics but also stimulated them to use new words and various

sentence structures appropriately, organize ideas and content well, use correct mechanics, and

produce grammatically correct sentences in their own writing. Moreover, they mentioned that

their abilities to ‘grasp and specify main and supporting ideas of the texts’ and ‘identify

important details’ within a short period of time had improved even though that ability had not

actually improved much on the post-test.

281
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS

Summary of the Study and Conclusion

Researchers in second language learning and teaching have agreed that reading and

writing are strongly connected to each other and considered them as “flip sides of the coin”

(Tompkins, 1997, p. 249). They perceived that reading and writing are the most complex skills

that are essential for the construction of meaning (La Berge & Samuels, 1974; Flower & Hayes

1981; Olson, 2007). They also considered reading and writing as “complementary processes

involving the use of similar congnitive strategies” (Olson, 2007, p. 1) and mentioned that the

more experienced readers and writers are, the more they select and apply strategies appropriately

and monitor and control those strategies well in order to make and clarify meaning from or

within texts.

In Korea, the seventh national curriculum of English which has been applied since 1997

has highlighted the importance of teaching listening, speaking, reading, and writing integrally, by

giving all of those four areas an equal amount of attention (Jwa, 2007). Even though the

seventh curriculum put emphasis on Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), much more

attention has been given to explicit and intensive instruction on vocabulary and grammatical

structures with meaningful texts as well as to consciousness raising and practice of vocabulary

and grammar (Hahn, 2006; Jimin, 2006; Park, 2008). Since form-focused instruction within

meaningful contexts can help students enhance their reading and writing ability, incorporating

those two skills into class has been considered as essential in language teaching circumstances in

Korea.

282
 As common practice for reading and writing, ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ have been

used not only for Korean but also English language teaching. However, from a Western point

of view, ‘copying’ often alludes to plagiarism, albeit in varying degrees. It is also believed to

be a survival strategy commonly used by low proficiency level students and thus would no

longer be used once the students’ reading and writing ability developed (Eric & Moon, 2004;

Kech, 2006; Kolich, 1983; Moon, 2002; Shi, 2004; Song, 1998). ‘Copying’ is considered to be

on the same continuum as ‘summarizing,’ and ‘summarizing’ is considered as a strategy that

advanced proficiency level students use (Brown, et al, 1981; Brown, & Smiley, 1978; Coffman,

1994; Garner, 1985; Hidi & Anderson, 1986; Oh, 2007). On the other hand, from a Korean

point of view, in general, ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ are on two different continuums both of

which begin from a shallow or perceptual level of processing stage to a deeper level of

processing stage. ‘Copying,’ is believed to have many positive aspects for language learners

particularly who are at a lower proficiency level (Porte, 1995). Accordingly, a shallow or

perceptual level of ‘copying’ has been used to help the learners acquire writing conventions,

vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, parts of speech, and grammar not within but separated from

contexts. Even though ‘copying’ has not been officially encouraged or used for advanced level

learners, some of the research (Currie, 1998; Hahn, 2006; Jimin, 2006; Lee, 2003) supports the

possible advantages of a deeper level of ‘copying’ such as enhancing learners’ reading

comprehension, expanding their vocabulary and grammar knowledge, and helping them use

vocabulary and grammar appropriately in their writing as their language proficiency develops.

In contrast, a deeper level of ‘summarizing’ is believed to be useful for those whose language

proficiency has surpassed the lower level in order to help them increase their understanding of

texts, find main ideas of texts, organize those ideas logically and coherently in writing, use

283
various kinds of structures appropriately, enrich vocabulary, and extend grammar knowledge, etc

(Brown et al, 1981; King, Biggs, & Lipsky, 1984; Taylor, 1984). Even though specifically the

kinds of advantages a shallow or perceptual and a deeper level of ‘summarizing’ can provide for

both lower and advanced levels of language learners have never been discussed at all, it was

implied in some of the research (Hidi & Anderson, 1986; Yang & Shi, 2003) that the different

levels of learners could possibly obtain benefits through ‘summarizing’ practice when the

difficulty levels and topics of the texts were controlled appropriately in relation to the learners’

proficiency levels and interests.

This current study, accordingly, has attempted to investigate the possible advantages that

different proficiency levels of English language learners at different levels of processing stages

could obtain through ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing,’ and consequently improve their overall

reading and writing ability. In addition, since metacognition plays important roles in the

process of reading and writing by raising learners’ awareness of what the they are reading and

writing, what kinds of effort they should make, how they should read and write in order to

comprehend a text and write about it well, this study has tried to focus on the kinds of

metacognitive strategies that the different proficiency levels of learners would use and how they

would use those strategies when ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing.’ By taking the metacognitive

perspective of the reading-writing relationships as theoretical framework, this study recruited 60

students who were learning English as a second language at one of the universities in Korea in

order to examine how their reading and writing proficiency would develop through ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ practice, what kinds of reading and writing strategies they would use, and how

they would use those strategies to read and write better. Based on the pre-test given at the

beginning of the semester, the 60 students were placed either into a lower or higher proficiency

284
level group. Then, they were given either a ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ task. The students

were given two texts every week. They read and ‘copied’ or ‘summarized’ them, put all of their

work into portfolios, and submitted the portfolios at the end of the semester as part of their

course requirement. During the semester, they were given 24 texts in total which were selected

based on the students’ interests. Furthermore, the difficulty levels of the texts were considered

and thus the easier texts were given first and the more difficult ones were given later.

The first research questions aimed at finding how the students would develop their skills

in the nine areas of reading and writing. Regardless of different proficiency levels and task

groups, the students in the four groups all showed statistically significant improvement

throughout the semester. However, their writing ability had improved much more than reading.

The higher proficiency level groups (i.e. CH and SH groups) particularly showed no statistically

significant improvement at all in the four areas of ‘reading’, whereas the lower proficiency level

groups (i.e. CL and SL groups) showed statistically significant improvement at least in one or

two areas of ‘reading.’ Even though the researcher combined the four areas of ‘reading’ to see

if any improvement in reading could be found from the higher level students from the pre-test to

the post-test, no statistically significant improvement was observed. In addition, even though

several students who had topped out were excluded, no statistically significant improvement was

found in the overall areas of reading. It is possible that the higher level students gained quite a

high score or close to the highest score in reading and thus showed a smaller amount of

improvement than the lower level students. Also, two of the students at the higher level gave

convincing comments by saying that they were less likely to answer the reading questions on the

post-test as carefully as they did on the pre-test because they were given the same reading texts

as the ones on the pre-test, and most of the reading questions were multiple-choice.

285
Accordingly, they paid less attention to reading the test texts and answering the questions.

However, they mentioned that they paid much attention to the vocabulary questions in reading

because they had to create their own sentences by using new vocabulary. Although no

statistically significant improvement was found in the overall reading areas, the higher level

students showed some improvement in the vocabulary area in reading. In contrast, in reading,

the lower level students showed statistically significant improvement either in the area of

‘making an inference’ or ‘guessing the meanings of new vocabulary by using context clues’ or in

both areas. Not only the lower level but also the higher level students showed much

development in the area of ‘using correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.’ When

comparing the ‘copying’ groups with the ‘summarizing’ groups, all students in both groups

showed more improvement in writing than in reading. In addition, the students in the ‘copying’

groups showed great improvement in all areas of ‘writing,’ but showed slightly less improvement

in the area of ‘using correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.’ Yet, the students in the

‘summarizing’ groups showed a similar amount of improvement in all five areas of ‘writing.’

Nevertheless, the students in both the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups learned closed to

equally with a few differences.

The second research question aimed at determining the different kinds of metacognitive

strategies that the students used while reading and writing academic texts in English.

Specifically, how they plan, monitor, and evaluate themselves before, during, and after reading

and writing were given attention. Thus, the students were given and responded to the Survey

Of Reading and Writing Strategies (SORWS) which was designed to examine how frequently

they used which kinds of reading and writing strategies. All students in the four groups

generally used the three types of metacognitive strategies—planning, monitoring, and evaluating

286
strategies—quite often with a frequency of between ‘3’ and ‘4’ (‘3’ indicating ‘sometimes’ and ‘4’

indicating ‘usually.’). The higher proficiency level groups did not necessarily use the three

types of strategies more frequently than the lower proficiency level groups. The CL group used

the three types of strategies the least frequently, whereas the SL group used most of the strategies

frequently. Some of the strategies were used more or less frequently by some groups than

others, but most strategies were quite frequently used by all of the four groups. There was little

difference between the higher level and lower level groups in terms of the kinds of strategies

they used, but there might have been differences in the ways they used those strategies. The

higher level groups might have been more successful in applying different kinds of strategies

effectively and appropriately for their purposes of reading and writing or the nature of given

tasks, whereas the lower level groups might have lacked the ability to use different kinds of

strategies effectively even though they were using certain strategies more frequently than the

higher level groups.

The third research question aimed at observing the students’ processes of reading and

writing as well as their actual use of metacognitive strategies when ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing.’

The focus was also given to determine whether the students’ actual use of strategies would match

their reported use. Since it was difficult to observe all of the 60 students, two students in each

group and thus eight students in total were chosen for the think-aloud task. The students were

asked to read a given text and either ‘copy’ or ‘summarize’ it as they usually had been doing for

the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity. The top two and bottom two strategies based on what

they had reported in the SORWS were identified, how much those reported strategies matched

the strategies they actually used during the think-aloud task, and the reasons why there was a

match or mismatch were analyzed. In general, the eight students in the four groups showed a

287
58% match in terms of their use of overall strategies between what they had reported in the

survey and what they had actually used during the task. In addition, there was a 69% match

between the top two strategies that they reported and the top two strategies they actually used as

well as a 39% match between the bottom two reported strategies and the bottom two actually

used strategies. The students in the ‘copying’ groups’ (i.e. the CH and CL groups) reported and

actual use of monitoring strategies showed an almost 100% match, but their reported and actual

use of planning and evaluating strategies showed less than a 50% match. Since they were

required to ‘copy’ the given text rather than produce their own writing, they rarely created an

outline or thought deeply about how they could write better. Also, they mostly checked their

mistakes while they were ‘copying’ rather than after ‘copying.’ It is for these reasons that they

showed a mismatch between some of their reported strategies and their actual use of strategies.

In comparison, the students in the ‘summarizing’ groups’ (i.e. the SH and SL groups) reported

and actual use of the three types of strategies mostly showed more than a 50% match. Some of

the reasons why there was a mismatch were that the students preferred planning how they would

write a summary in their mind rather than writing their plans on a piece of paper, and also they

did not have to picture or visualize information in the text while reading because neither tables

and figures nor pictures were included in the given text.

The students in the ‘copying’ groups used the evaluating strategies the least frequently,

whereas those in the ‘summarizing’ groups used them the most frequently. Most of the students

in the ‘copying’ groups reviewed their ‘copied’ text during ‘copying,’ but more of the students in

the ‘summarizing’ groups reviewed their summaries both during and after ‘summarizing.’

Moreover, the ‘copying’ group of students used re-reading and going back and forth strategies in

order to remember certain information better or enhance their text comprehension, whereas the

288
‘summarizing’ group of students used the same strategies in order to identify key points of the

texts and include them into their summaries. When comparing the higher level groups with the

lower level groups, there were very crucial differences between those two groups in that the

higher level students were more effectively using the reading and writing strategies and also

more successfully performed the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ tasks than the lower level students

did. The former tended to read the given text by phrase or sentence unit, but the latter word by

word. Accordingly, the higher level students thought deeply about how to use words and

expressions appropriately within sentences, how to organize content and ideas in better ways,

how to use various kinds of sentence structures appropriately, and how to use grammar and

mechanics correctly when reading and writing. In contrast, the lower level students gave more

attention to understanding the meanings of new words and expressions and using grammar and

mechanics correctly than other areas of reading and writing (i.e. content and idea organization

and sentence fluency). Moreover, the higher level students were successful in specifying key

points and important details of the text and making inferences, whereas the lower level students

were less successful in grasping important points of the text. Furthermore, the higher level

students generally had specific goals of reading and writing, had a clear understanding of their

weaknesses in reading and writing, and knew what kinds of strategies they were using and how

they should use them effectively. However, the lower level students were less aware of what

their weaknesses were and how they should use which kinds of strategies in order to overcome

their weaknesses and consequently improve their reading and writing ability. In short, the

higher level students were at a deeper level of processing stage, but the lower level students were

somewhere between a shallow or perceptual level and a deeper level of processing stage. Yet,

they were gradually and continuously moving towards the latter. Also, they all successfully

289
thought-aloud about their ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ processes as well as their reasons for using

or not using the strategies. In addition, they were very actively engaged in learning by making

their ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ go beyond the shallow or perceptual levels of ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing.’ Their major(s), desire to become English teachers and enhance their overall

English proficiency, motivation to read the given texts and do the task, and interests to the topics

of the texts greatly affected them to take active roles in improving their reading and writing skills

through the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities. Thus, the lower level students, though they

were not always successful in performing the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ task and in using the

strategies, as well as the higher level students in this study showed more improvement and took

more advantages of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities than had been expected.

The last research question aimed at finding what changes the students perceived in their

proficiency in the nine areas of reading and writing, how their actual proficiency changes and

their perception of them were similar or different, how their familiarity to the topics of the texts

and motivation to read them influenced them in doing the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity

and using reading and writing strategies, and what they thought about the ‘copying’ or

‘summarizing’ activity. When considering the students’ perception of their improvement in the

nine areas of reading and writing, most of them thought that they had become much better in the

area of ‘identifying important details of texts,’ and that they had improved the least in the area of

‘applying new vocabulary appropriately in writing.’ The students in the CH group’s self-rated

score for the area of ‘finding main and supporting ideas of texts’ was the highest and the score

for the area of ‘guessing the meanings of new vocabulary within a context’ was the lowest.

However, the students in the CL group gave themselves the highest score for the area of

‘guessing the meanings of new vocabulary within a context’ and the lowest score for the area of

290
‘applying new vocabulary appropriately in writing.’ They might have focused more on clearly

understanding the meanings of unfamiliar words rather than focusing on using those unfamiliar

words appropriately in their own writing when ‘copying’ the given texts. In contrast, the

students in the SH group thought that they had improved the most in the area of ‘finding

important details of texts’ and the least in the area of ‘making inferences.’ In order to condense

ideas of the given texts briefly and logically for summary writing, they might have paid much

attention to grasping important details of the texts rather than thinking about their underlying

meanings. The students in the SL group, in comparison, considered that they had developed the

most in the areas of ‘finding main and supporting ideas of texts’ and ‘finding important details of

texts’, whereas they thought that they had developed the least in the areas of ‘writing

grammatically correct sentences’ and ‘applying new vocabulary appropriately in writing.’

Since they were not very confident about producing a good summary by using their own words,

they might have thought that their writing ability had improved much less than that of reading.

The four groups of students had different ideas about which areas of reading and writing had

improved more and which areas had improved less. However, their total self-rated scores for

the nine areas of reading and writing proficiency were not statistically very different, which

indicates that the students in the four groups had similar perception of their overall English

reading and writing proficiency improvement.

When comparing the students’ perception of their reading and writing proficiency

changes with their actual proficiency changes, approximately one third of the students in each of

the four groups showed a good match in the nine areas of reading and writing. In the reading

vocabulary area and in the five areas of ‘writing,’ the four groups of students perceived that their

proficiency had improved, and their actual scores in those areas had also increased. However,

291
in the remaining two areas of ‘reading’ (i.e. ‘finding main and supporting ideas of texts’ and

‘identifying important details’), many of the students thought that they had improved much, but

actually showed no improvement or even deterioration on the post-test. In one other area of

‘reading’ (i.e. ‘making inferences’), the students were not very certain about their proficiency

even though many of them actually had enhanced. Since Korean students tend to be more

interested in finding factual information explicitly stated in a text rather than understanding its

implied meaning, the study participants might have been more certain about their ‘R_Main/Supp’

and ‘R_Detail’ proficiency, but less about their ‘R_Infer’ proficiency. Generally speaking, the

students in the four groups evaluated their proficiency in the nine areas slightly lower than their

actual proficiency. Yet, they overestimated their proficiency only in the areas of ‘finding main

and supporting ideas’ and ‘identifying important details.’ That is, even though they showed

improvement in most of the nine areas on the post-test except in ‘R_Main/Supp’ and ‘R_Detail,’

they were not very confident about their proficiency. They might have tried their best to

enhance their reading and writing ability through the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity during

the semester, but might have thought that they would need to work much further and harder to

become very proficient in reading and writing.

When considering the students’ familiarity to the topics of the 24 given texts for the

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities and motivation to read them, they responded that they

were not very familiar with most of the topics. Yet, they mentioned that they were very much

interested in reading all of the texts. Based on the students’ comments about why they felt

certain texts were interesting or not, the researcher found that the students liked the topics related

to their major such as teaching methods or tips and educational issues because most of them were

preparing to become teachers after graduation from the university. They also liked other kinds

292
of topics because they were able to read and learn about various kinds of issues which could not

be found in their textbooks or other class materials. Of course, not all of them had positive

thoughts about the given texts. Some students mentioned that they felt it was somewhat

difficult to read the texts which were unrelated to their major. However, they said that they

enjoyed reading those texts even though it took much time to clearly understand them. Overall,

the degrees of familiarity with the topics of the texts and degrees of motivation to read them did

not statistically show any significant differences among the four groups. That is, all of the

students in the four groups had a low degree of familiarity with the topics, but they all showed

great willingness and interest to read them.

Finally, when considering the students’ opinions about the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’

activities, they expressed some of the difficulties they had had such as understanding contents of

some of the texts, producing well-structured sentences, organizing ideas logically and coherently,

writing grammatically correct sentences, using spelling, punctuation, and capitalization correctly,

using vocabulary appropriately within sentences, etc. However, they mentioned that they could

learn how to read and write better by trying to overcome their difficulties through the ‘copying’

and ‘summarizing’ practices during the semester. The higher proficiency level students were

being more systematic than the lower level students in that they appropriately applied specific

kinds of strategies to increase text comprehension or learn how to write well. Thus, they made

good use of their time by concentrating on the areas in which they really needed improvement

and careful attention. They also mentioned that the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity helped

them expand their knowledge on various kinds of issues, develop logical and critical thinking,

and produce different types of writing better. The lower proficiency level students, in contrast,

were not always successful in applying appropriate strategies and managing time. They also

293
tended to unnecessarily give attention to unimportant areas. In addition, they mentioned that

the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity generally helped them develop their overall reading and

writing ability and also speed up their reading and writing, but they were not immediately aware

of the kinds of advantages the activity brought them specifically. The students in the ‘copying’

groups did not have much difficulty in reading and writing, but those in the ‘summarizing’

groups expressed much difficulty in identifying key points of texts, deciding which ideas they

should include into their summary, organizing content and ideas well, using various sentence

structures correctly, using words and expressions appropriately, and using grammar and

mechanics correctly. Since the students in the ‘summarizing’ groups had to create their own

sentences, they were much more concerned about their writing than those in the ‘copying’

groups were. Some of the similarities and differences were found among the four groups in

terms of their comments on the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities, but all students in the

four groups had positive opinions about them.

To conclude, the researcher essentially wanted to know if both a shallow or perceptual

level and a deeper level of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ could be useful in developing English

reading and writing ability for the students at different proficiency levels. Assuming this to be

true, the researcher endeavored to determine what advantages a shallow or perceptual level and a

deeper level of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ could provide to students at different proficiency

levels, and consequently help them enhance specific areas of reading and writing proficiency.

Regardless of different activities (i.e. ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’) and their different levels (i.e.

‘shallow or perceptual level’ and ‘deeper level’), the students generally showed much

development in the abilities to ‘make inferences,’ ‘guess the meanings of new words and

expressions,’ ‘organize content and ideas well,’ ‘use various sentence structures,’ ‘use new

294
words and expressions appropriately in writing,’ ‘produce grammatically correct sentences,’ and

‘use spelling, punctuation, and capitalization correctly.’ Thus, it is clear that any level of

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ practices could help English language learners at different

proficiency levels improve those abilities.

Importantly, since the students at the lower proficiency level were also given meaningful

texts and were willing to read and understand those text contents as well as those at a higher

proficiency level were, they were more likely to approach to a deeper level of ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ than being engaged in the very shallow or perceptual level of ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing.’ Thus, the lower proficiency level students who were engaged in between a

shallow or perceptual level processing and a deeper level of processing showed considerable

improvement particularly for the abilities to ‘make inferences’ and ‘guess the meanings of new

words and expressions’, whereas the higher proficiency level students who were engaged in a

deeper level of processing showed relatively much less or no improvement for those abilities on

the actual test. The lower level students tended to spend more time trying to understand the

underlying meaning of the texts. Also, they paid much attention to smaller units of the texts by

trying to find and understand the meaning of new vocabulary in the texts. They thought it was

the most important in order to comprehend the contents of the whole texts better. Based on the

higher level students’ responses to the reflection questionnaire and the think-aloud task interview,

they, of course, also thought deeply about underlying meanings of texts by relating their

experiences or background knowledge to the contents and topics of the texts, but it was more

important for them to grasp key points of the texts in order to check their understanding and

‘copy’ or ‘summarize’ them better even though they actually showed no statistically significant

improvement at all in any of the reading areas. In addition, they focused not only on how to

295
choose the right words and expressions but also on how to use them appropriately in their writing.

They actually showed statistically significant improvement in both reading and writing

vocabulary areas on the test. Clearly, all levels of the students showed statistically significant

improvement in overall writing areas, and it is worthy to note that not only the students at a

deeper level stage but also those between at a shallow or perceptual level and at a deeper level

stage enhanced the ability to ‘use correct mechanics in writing’ through the ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ activities. Accordingly, it is possible to expect that English learners who are

both between at a shallow or perceptual level stage and at a deeper level stage will be able to

develop particularly the abilities to ‘figure out the underlying meaning of texts’ and ‘get the

meaning of new vocabulary within a context.’ The learners at a deeper level stage, on the other

hand, will be able to develop the abilities to ‘find main and supporting ideas,’ ‘identify important

details,’ and ‘apply new vocabulary appropriately in writing,’ through the ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ practices.

When considering benefits the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ practices could provide, it

was found that the students who did ‘summarizing’ improved the ability to ‘use correct spelling,

punctuation, and capitalization’ the most, even much more than the students who did ‘copying.’

Those who were engaged in the ‘copying’ activity showed much more enhancement than the

students who did ‘summarizing’ in the area of ‘applying new vocabulary appropriately in

writing.’ These findings were in total contrast to the views stated in previous literature

regarding the advantages of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing.’ To be specific, previous research

found that a shallow or perceptual level of ‘copying’ would be only effective in helping lower

proficiency level students learn correct spelling of words, contracted forms of words, correct use

of punctuation, word order, and meanings of words. Even though the possibilities of higher

296
proficiency level students’ getting advantages from a deeper level of ‘copying’ were implied in

previous research, too, the kinds of advantages students would be able to get had never been

discussed. Since the students, regardless of their proficiency levels, constantly checked if they

had correctly used spelling, punctuation, and capitalization while they were ‘copying,’ they

rarely reviewed or corrected mechanical mistakes once they had finished ‘copying.’ Although

they paid less attention to the correct use of mechanics, they paid greater attention to how to use

vocabulary appropriately, organize text content and ideas in better ways, use various sentence

structures, and produce grammatically correct sentences. They wanted not only to understand

and learn as many new words and expressions as possible within meaningful contexts but also to

use those words and expressions appropriately when writing sentences. Accordingly, while

they were reading and ‘copying’ the given texts, they thought about how a word was used in

different forms in different sentences, what other meanings it had, and how they could use it

appropriately when creating their own sentences. In comparison, previous research on

‘summarizing’ mainly discussed the advantages of a deeper level of ‘summarizing’ for advanced

level students, but possible advantages that the ‘summarizing’ activity could provide for lower

level students had never been given attention. Of course, the different proficiency levels of the

students who did ‘summarizing’ practice during the semester were able to improve their abilities

to ‘make inferences,’ ‘guess the meaning of new vocabulary,’ ‘organize content and ideas better,’

‘use various sentence structure,’ and ‘use correct grammar,’ but they had improved the ability to

‘use correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization’ the most and even more than the students

who did the ‘copying’ activity regardless of their different proficiency levels. They mentioned

that they carefully focused on the spelling of certain words and expressions and punctuation

which they had been confused about when reviewing their summary. They also pointed out that

297
giving special attention to spelling and punctuation of specific words they would want to know

better greatly helped them use correct mechanics in writing. However, they paid less attention

to the area of ‘applying new vocabulary appropriately in writing’ than the students who did

‘copying’ activity because they spent much more time on condensing ideas of the texts briefly

and clearly as well as connecting important ideas of the texts smoothly and logically for their

summary. It short, the ‘copying’ activity would be more effective in developing one’s ability to

‘apply new vocabulary appropriately in writing,’ and the ‘summarizing’ activity would be more

helpful in improving one’s ability to ‘use spelling, punctuation, and capitalization correctly.’

Different types of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ definitely helped the students at the different

proficiency levels enhance the abilities to ‘make inferences,’ ‘guess the meaning of new

vocabulary,’ ‘organize text content and ideas well,’ ‘use various sentence structure,’ and ‘use

grammatically correct sentences.’ However, the students who were engaged in between a

shallow or perceptual level and a deeper level of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ particularly

showed a much greater amount of improvement in the areas of ‘making inferences’ and

‘guessing the meaning of new vocabulary’ than those who were engaged in a deeper level of

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing.’ This would not mean that a deeper level of ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ were not much beneficial. The students who were at the higher proficiency level

and were engaged in a deeper level of processing already had been at a certain level of reading

and writing proficiency and thus showed less amount of improvement than those who were at the

lower proficiency level, being at the stage of between a shallow or perceptual level and a deeper

level.

Which types of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ the students were engaged in, which

activities they had done, and which proficiency levels they were at were important factors that

298
affected the students’ reading and writing ability improvement, but how much they were willing

to be engaged in the activities also played an important role. Regardless of which activities

they had done during the semester, they all expressed much interest and willingness to read the

given texts and either ‘copy’ or ‘summarize’ them. Since the difficulty levels and topics of the

texts were selected by taking into account the students’ proficiency levels and their interests, they

enjoyed reading the texts and did their best to improve their reading and writing ability. In

addition, even though many students tended to underestimate and feel not very confident about

their proficiency, their perception of their reading and writing proficiency development and their

actual reading and writing proficiency development generally matched positively with each other.

The differences of the students who were engaged in a shallow or perceptual level and a deeper

level of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ were that those who were at a deeper level stage were well

aware of what their weaknesses in reading and writing were, what kinds of efforts they should

make in order to overcome their weaknesses, what kinds of strategies they should use, and how

they should use them, whereas those who were at between a shallow or perceptual and a deeper

level of stage were less aware of what their specific weaknesses were and thus often applied

strategies ineffectively or paid too much attention to unimportant areas.

In short, both ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities, as language learning tools, can

help different proficiency levels of English language learners develop the abilities to ‘make

inferences in reading,’ ‘guess the meaning of new vocabulary,’ ‘organize and structure sentences

in better ways,’ and ‘use correct grammar.’ The ‘copying’ activity would, however, be more

beneficial in helping the learners ‘apply new vocabulary appropriately within sentences,’ and the

‘summarizing’ in helping them develop the ability to ‘use spelling, punctuation, and

capitalization correctly.’ Particularly in the areas of ‘making inferences’ and ‘getting the

299
meaning of new vocabulary correctly,’ much more improvement can be expected from the

learners at a lower proficiency level than those at a higher level through a deeper level of

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing.’ In addition to the importance of the proficiency level of learners

and the type of given activity, attitudinal factors such as their willingness and motivation to do

the activity, and awareness of their purposes of reading and writing, of their weaknesses, and of

effective ways of using various reading and writing strategies would also be important to have

them reach at a deeper level of processing stage and thus improve their overall reading and

writing ability.

Pedagogical Implications

A strong reading-writing connection is stressed by researchers (Trosky & Wood, 1982;

Tierney, Soter, O’Flahavan, & MacGinley, 1989; McGinley, 1992; Shim, 2004), and the present

study further underscores the need for teachers to help students realize that reading and writing

are inseparable and thus should be improved simultaneously. As Shim (2004) mentions,

explicit and effective ways in which teachers can connect reading and writing in class have not

been suggested in EFL contexts. Particularly in Korea, even though some teachers mix a little

bit of reading and writing activities in English classes by providing a sample narrative writing as

an additional reference before students write a narrative or by asking multiple-choice reading

comprehension questions and simple short-answer questions after students read a text, they pay

little attention to the ways to connect reading to writing or vice versa. In addition, much of the

attention is given mostly to reading and grammar in secondary school English classes in Korea

(Hahn, 2006; Jimin, 2006), and also the majority of reading and writing courses are divided

particularly in universities. Courses which are specifically designed to integrate reading and

300
writing are rarely found in the English curriculum.

Based on this dissertation study results, some of the implications for teaching reading

and writing together in class through ‘copying and ‘summarizing’ are suggested as follows.

First, prior to considering how to teach reading and writing through ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing,’

it would be essential to survey which topics that students are interested in and which proficiency

levels they are at beforehand. Their ages would need to be taken into consideration as well.

As found in this study, whether or not the participants were at a lower or higher proficiency level,

they not only expressed great satisfaction with the topics of some selected texts but also their

difficulty levels were appropriate for them. Without being motivated to read and write, it would

be difficult for students to get as many advantages as possible from ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing.’

Second, once texts are selected based on students’ interests, proficiency levels, and ages,

teachers would need to provide explicit explanations about ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing,’ show

how they should do each of them, and what benefits they can obtain through these activities.

Then, it would be important for teachers to help students assess what and how much they know

about a text topic before reading and review what they have learned through the text before

‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ it, especially for those who are younger and/or at a lower proficiency

level. They might lose interest in reading the text without having any ideas of its topic and also

might not be successful in checking their understanding of the text without teachers’ guidance.

A ‘K-W-L’ chart, for example, could be used in order to help them think about what they want to

learn and record what they have learned once they finish reading a text. ‘K’ stands for ‘what I

know,’ ‘W,’ ‘what I want to learn,’ and ‘L,’ ‘what I learned.’ Before reading, teachers can ask

students to write about what they know about the text topic. They may write in simple words,

phrases, or sentences. Then, students can fill in the ‘W’ column by writing down what they

301
would like to know about the topic. After reading the text, teachers can give the following

directions and ask students to fill in the ‘L’ column:

1) After reading the text, go back to the ‘K’ column and see if any of your prior knowledge

conflicts with the text. Check any of them that disagree with the text. Also, rewrite any of

your statements that agree with the text.

2) Then, go to the ‘W’ column and check any of your questions that the text did not answer. Be

prepared to bring these unanswered questions up in class, or tell how you will find answers to

them and where you will look to get the answers.

A sample of a ‘K-W-L’ chart is shown below:

302
Table 54
A Sample of a ‘K-W-L’ Chart
K (What I know) W (What I want to learn) L (What I learned)
Life in the ocean
-Fish -What makes some fish saltwater fish and
others fresh water fish? What kind of
water does bass and trout live in?
What’s the name of the flat fish that just
has one eye on the side of his head? Do
fish have eyelids? How do they sleep?

-Sharks -What are the man-eating sharks? Could

there every really be a shark like Jaws?

-Why is it called blue whale? Why do

-Whales whales live in the ocean but have to
breathe air?
Characteristics about the
Ocean
-Some is cold and some is -What makes it different temperatures?
warm Do different fish live in different ocean
because of the temperature?

-Has low tides and high -Where does the water go during low tide?
tides Is it causing a flood somewhere else?

-What makes it salty? Is it the same kind

-It is salty of salt that’s in your salt shaker? How
come the salt in the ocean burns your eyes
but the salt in your tears doesn’t?
Exciting things about
oceans
-Pirates -Who are pirates?

-Sunken ships -What are some sunken ships other than

the Titanic? If you find one, can you
keep its treasure?
(adapted from Beers, 2003, pp. 84-85)

By using a K-W-L chart, students will be able to practice reading and writing at the same time by

getting clear ideas about the text and also checking if their understanding of its content is correct

while doing a ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activity.

303
 Third, in this dissertation study, the students who were engaged in the ‘copying’ activity

gave much less attention to the correct use of mechanics than those who did the ‘summarizing’

activity. They tended to check if they were correctly using mechanics while ‘copying,’ but they

rarely reviewed their copied texts once they had finished it. On the other hand, the students who

were engaged in the ‘summarizing’ activity carefully reviewed their writing after their work and

mostly focused on finding and correcting mechanical mistakes because they were producing their

own sentences and thus were concerned about if they had used spelling, punctuation, and

capitalization correctly. Accordingly, when using the ‘copying’ activity, it would be good to

constantly remind students to check the accuracy of spelling, punctuation, and capitalization in

their writing after finishing ‘copying’ so that they can correctly use mechanics when producing

their own sentences for any kinds of writing tasks. Meanwhile, the students who did the

‘summarizing’ activity in the study showed much less improvement than those who did the

‘copying’ activity in applying new vocabulary appropriately to their own writing. While reading

and ‘copying’ the given texts, the latter paid careful attention to how unfamiliar vocabulary was

used appropriately within sentences and hence they were able to expand their vocabulary

knowledge. However, since the former were not supposed to use exactly the same words or

expressions as written in the original texts for their summary and had to look for synonyms or

other expressions, they had less opportunity to practice applying the words they had learned to

their summary. Thus, when using the ‘summarizing’ activity, it would be good to ask students to

create their own sentences by using new words or expressions they have found from texts after

they finish writing a summary so that they can get a chance to practice applying new words or

expressions to their own writing and clearly understand the meanings and usages.

Fourth, in this study, whether the students were engaged in the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’

304
activity, those who were at between a shallow or perceptual level and a deeper level stage were

able to develop the abilities to ‘make inferences’ and ‘guess the meaning of new vocabulary,’

while they were relatively less successful in developing the abilities to ‘find main and supporting

ideas of a text,’ ‘identify important details,’ and ‘apply new vocabulary appropriately in writing.’

In contrast, the students who were at a deeper level of stage showed even much less improvement

in the abilities to ‘find main and supporting ideas of a text’ and ‘identify important details’ than

the ability to ‘make inferences.’ Accordingly, it would be a good way to help students at all

proficiency levels specifically focus on finding the gist of a text and distinguishing important

points from unimportant ones. For example, an outline of a text could be provided after students

finish reading which includes incomplete sentences of main ideas and important details of each

paragraph. Teachers could ask them to complete the sentences which could enhance their ability

to clearly understand and identify what is important about the text. In addition, especially for

those who are younger and/or at a lower proficiency level, since they are likely to spend much

time in finding the meanings of unfamiliar words to understand the whole text content, they rarely

would think about how those words could be used with different forms or different meanings in

different contexts. Thus, providing them with an opportunity to build a vocabulary tree (See

Figure 8 for a sample.) might be helpful for them to learn new words. For example, teachers

could ask them to write down a new word or phrase in the root of a tree. Under the root,

students could write its definition(s). They could first guess its meaning(s) by using contextual

clues. Then, they can use a dictionary to check if their guess is right (It would be good to

encourage them to use an English-English dictionary rather than an English-Korean dictionary.).

In the trunk of the tree, they could write a key word or phrase which uses that word or phrase.

They could create their own sentence which includes it. In addition, it would be possible to let

305
them think about whether some of the words and phrases can be related in terms of roots (e.g.

‘subtract’ and ‘detract’) and meanings (e.g. ‘arrive’ and ‘leave’). They could then draw lines to

indicate the relations between or among those words and phrases.

Figure 8
A Sample of a Vocabulary Tree

tractor: a machine that pulls

“A tractor was used to pull the
car out of the mud.”

subtract: to take away

“When you subtract two students
from our class, only 12 will be left.”

contract: an official agreement

between two or more people
“Dad signed a contract to join his detract: to take away from
business with Mr. Han’s business.” “Too many patterns will detract
from the beauty of your design.”

attract: to make someone interested in something

original sentence: “What attract me most to the
job was the chance to travel.”
my own sentence: “The story has attracted a lot
of interest from the media.”

tract: to pull, drag

It would take much time for the younger and/or lower proficiency level students to get used to

producing their own sentences by using new words and expressions, but they would gradually

306
become much better in doing so. Also, the number of unfamiliar words and expressions would

be decreased.

In the meantime, for those who are older and/or at a higher proficiency level, teachers

could help them practice finding inferred meanings of sentences, paragraphs, or texts by asking

them questions (i.e. what is important, why it is important, how a certain event influences another,

how one happening leads to another, etc.) so that they could not only get the facts in the text but

also think about what those facts mean to them and thereby draw their own conclusions. It

might be good for them to have a small group or whole class discussion by answering the given

questions and talking about their personal opinions.

Fifth, as it was found in the study that the students’ metacognitive awareness of learning

and their use of reading and writing strategies played important roles in the process of ‘copying’

and ‘summarizing,’ raising students’ awareness would be crucial in helping them improve their

overall reading and writing ability. With growing attention to integrating reading and writing,

students’ metacognitive thinking processes such as how they plan, monitor, and evaluate their

reading and writing, and how metacognitively they use reading and writing strategies are also

considered as important. The students who were at the higher proficiency level and engaged in

a deeper level of processing in the study were well aware of what their weaknesses in reading

and writing were, which areas they should focus on in order to overcome their weaknesses, and

what kinds strategies they should use and how to use them. The lower proficiency level

students tended to use as many strategies as or even more than the higher level students did, but

they were often not very successful in applying those strategies appropriately for the given task.

In addition, they sometimes focused on so many things that were not very important and were

not clearly aware of specifically which areas of reading and writing they should work on more.

307
Nevertheless, the lower proficiency level students showed their potential ability to use the

strategies effectively and approach to a deeper level stage if guidelines and modeling are

explicitly provided by teachers in that they were very thoughtful about thinking-aloud their

reasons why they actually used or did not use the strategies they had reported in the survey.

Accordingly, it would be good to help lower level students recognize what kinds of strategies

they could use and how effectively they should use them. For example, teachers could first

explain about the three types of strategies related to metacognition—planning, monitoring, and

evaluating strategies—and present a list of questions that students could ask themselves as

shown in Table 55.

Table 55
Questions that Students could Ask themselves for the Use of Metacognitive Strategies
Questions that you can ask yourself when working on a task
Planning What do I already know that will help me with this particular task?
Where is this learning experience going to take me?
What should I do first?
Why am I doing this?
How much time do I have to do this?
Monitoring How am I doing?
Am I on the right track?
How should I continue with the task?
What information is important to remember?
Should I slow down in certain areas due to difficulty?
What should I do if I do not understand the lesson?
What kind of help should I seek?
Where can I find this help?
Evaluating How well did I do?
Did I meet my expectations?
What could I have done differently?
How may I apply these insights to other areas of learning?
Do I need to go back and work on my weaknesses?

Especially for younger students, rather than simply explaining about the kinds of strategies or

providing the list of questions, directly asking them the questions would be more helpful. For

308
example, when they seem to encounter difficulties while reading a text, teachers could ask them

questions such as “What are your difficulties?”, “Are there any unfamiliar words that you cannot

understand? Or is this paragraph too difficult to understand?”, etc. Once teachers discover

what difficulties students have, they could continue asking such questions as “What will you do

to understand this paragraph better?”, “Will you read this whole paragraph again? Or will you

find more information about this paragraph on the Internet?”, “Do you think it would be helpful

and why do you think so?”, etc.

Furthermore, teachers could help all levels of students understand why metacognition is

important in learning and how their metacognition works when reading and writing. They

could explicitly suggest what kinds of metacongnitive strategies of planning, monitoring, and

evaluating students can use. Sample strategies that students could use are presented below:

Table 56
Sample Metacognitive Reading and Writing Strategies that Students could Use
Samples strategies that you can use
Planning -- Setting up specific goals for reading a text and writing a paper
-- Thinking about what one already knows about the topic or of the
information in a text
-- Writing an outline or an idea map of a paper before writing
-- Noting down words or phrases related to a writing topic
Monitoring -- Writing down some of the important points of each paragraph or
the whole text when reading
-- Adjusting reading speed or re-reading a text when it becomes
difficult
-- Stopping after a few sentences or a whole paragraph to check if
one is writing correctly and logically
-- Skipping a paragraph and writing the next paragraph when one
gets stuck and going back to it later
Evaluating -- Critically analyzing and evaluating the information presented in a
text after reading
-- Reviewing a text and trying to identify important points in order
to check one’s understanding after reading
-- Making changes in vocabulary after writing

309
In order to help students recognize what kinds of strategies they use, how they use those

strategies, and whether or not their use of strategies is helpful, teachers could ask them to talk

about the ways they are using certain strategies, the reasons why they are using those strategies,

and how helpful using those strategies are within small groups. Students may become better

aware of their strategy use, share their use of strategies with others, and consequently learn and

develop much more effective ways of carrying out different kinds of strategies.

Finally, the students in the study, even those at the lower proficiency level, mostly had

reflective and thoughtful understanding of how they were doing ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing,’

specifically what advantages they were getting through the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’

activities, and what efforts they were making to make the best of their learning. This implies

that one’s awareness and thoughtfulness on what s/he is learning could play an important role to

help him/her focus on his/her weak areas of reading and writing and thus improve them.

Accordingly, it might be good for teachers to have several discussion sessions with students

during the semester. At the beginning, teachers and students could talk about their previous

experiences of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities and what possible advantages they could

get through those activities. Then, when students complete ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ a

reading text, teachers could ask them to either talk or briefly write about what new things they

learned and what they thought of the text content or difficulty level. This could help students

reflect on their learning. In addition, teachers could introduce the nine different areas of

reading and writing specified in this dissertation study and then ask them to check the area(s)

they focused on the most after ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ task by providing one or two

examples from the text. For instance, one could check ‘W_Gram’ as the most focused area,

provide a new grammar rule s/he learned, and possibly provide his/her own sentence in which

310
the new grammar was applied. At the end of the semester, teachers could have a final

discussion with students by asking them about what they learned through the ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ activities, what difficulties they had, how they tried to overcome the difficulties,

and specifically which areas of reading and writing they think they improved the most and/or

least and why. In so doing, teachers could stimulate students’ awareness and thoughtfulness on

their own learning, and consequently help them approach to a deeper level of ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing.’

As surmised from the positive effects that the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities

brought to different proficiency levels of English language learners at a university level in Korea,

English teachers who are teaching students at different proficiency levels and different age

groups in Korea will be able to teach reading and writing in integrative ways through ‘copying’

and ‘summarizing’ activities and help them develop their overall reading and writing ability by

taking into account the five suggested ideas in this section.

Challenges and Limitations

In the process of undertaking this dissertation study, some challenges and limitations

were encountered. First, some of the students who participated in the study were eliminated

and thus the pre-test mean scores of the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ groups had to be re-

calculated. Originally, 75 students participated in the study, but three students dropped the

course, four registered for the course late and missed the chance to take the pre-test, and the

other eight failed to complete or submit their portfolios. Accordingly, only 60 students were

taken into account as the study participants. The re-calculated pre-test mean scores between the

two higher level groups (i.e. CH and SH) and also between the two lower level groups (i.e. CL

311
and SL) respectively thus were not exactly the same and showed slight differences. Fortunately,

the differences were statistically not significant and thus there was a no problem with the 60

students as the study participants.

Second, even though the writing section on the pre- and post-tests was an open-ended

question type, the reading section was mixed with multiple-choice and open-ended questions.

The students’ improvement in the overall writing areas was found, but no significant

improvement in the overall reading areas. Many of their performance in the overall reading

areas had worsened on the post-test even though they perceived that their overall reading

proficiency had improved, and they also had paid much attention to overall reading areas while

being engaged in the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities during the think-aloud task. Some

of them pointed out that they read the test texts and selected the answers much less carefully on

the post-test than they had done on the pre-test since they were given the identical questions for

both the pre- and post-tests and since most of the reading questions were multiple-choice

question type. It might have been possible to observe a much greater improvement in the

overall reading areas from the students if more of the open-ended questions rather than multiple-

choice questions had been provided for the reading section.

Third, due to time and expense restrictions, only eight students out of 60 were selected

to participate in think-aloud task, and only one text was given to them. Observing what the

eight students actually did and how they responded while doing their task made it possible for

the researcher to understand how the students in different proficiency and/or task groups

generally read and wrote while ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing,’ what kinds of strategies they used,

how they used them, etc. However, it might be too presumptuous to say that all of the 60

students would do the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ in the same way as the eight students did.

312
In addition, it might also be too presumptuous to say that the students would read and ‘copy’ and

‘summarize’ other texts in the same way and use the same strategies in the same way as they did

during the think-aloud task. Therefore, including more students for the think-aloud task and

providing them with more than one topic of a text during the task would have made the study

more reliable.

Fourth, it was possible to hear clear and convincing explanations from the eight think-

aloud task participants about the reasons why there was a match or mismatch between their

reported and actual use of strategies. However, since the researcher did not have an opportunity

to ask them why there was a gap between their actual reading and writing proficiency changes

from the pre- to the post-test and their perception of them, she was not able to hear the students’

answers of why they undervalued some of their reading and writing proficiency even though

their actual proficiency had been enhanced or why they felt confident about their reading and

writing improvement even though their actual proficiency had worsened or had not changed.

Therefore, having a short interview with the think-aloud participants both after they had

responded to the reflection questionnaire and after they had finished taking the post-test would

have made it possible for the researcher to hear more about their in-depth thoughts and

explanations about why there was a mismatch between their actual proficiency improvement and

their perception of proficiency improvement.

Fifth, the self-report measures, the SORWS and the self-perception questionnaire, which

were used in this study had some shortcomings. Some of the students could have simply

answered the questions without thinking seriously about what they actually did and thus some of

their answers could have not been true. Also, the answers to the SORWS could vary regarding

different task purposes. To be specific, the students responded to the SORWS thinking about

313
what they usually did while reading and writing academic texts. They might have shown more

match between what they reported in the survey and what they actually did if they had been

asked to respond to the SORWS thinking about what they did while doing the ‘copying’ or

‘summarizing’ task. In addition, the SORWS itself could only assess the types and the

frequency of the strategy use, but not its effectiveness. Despite these drawbacks of the self-

report measures, the SORWS and the self-perception questionnaire played important roles by

making it possible for the researcher to find what was different from what the students actually

did and why.

Sixth, not all of the students included their answers to the questions about their

familiarity with the topics of the texts and motivation to read them into their portfolios.

Accordingly, only 55 students out of 60 were taken into consideration when estimating the scores

for the degrees of their familiarity and motivation. There might have been no major differences

for the total mean scores even if all of the 60 students’ scores had been taken in to account.

However, it might have been better if the instructor had more carefully and constantly monitored

the students’ portfolios during the semester to get all of their answers to the familiarity and

motivation questions.

Seventh, the students’ extra practice of reading and writing in addition to the given task

(i.e. ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’) might have affected their improvement in reading and writing

on the post-test to some extent. The students responded that they read other English materials

such as their textbooks, class materials, literary work, TOEIC or TOFEL related texts,

vocabulary books like Word Smart, sports articles, and wrote short reports or practiced writing

essays for the TOEIC or TOFEL during the semester. They mentioned that they did not give

much attention to specific areas of reading and writing when reading or writing other kinds of

314
texts, but said that they had become much more aware of which areas of reading and writing they

should focus on in order to overcome their weaknesses and eventually improve their overall

reading and writing ability when doing the given ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ tasks. They

mentioned that they were able to concentrate on the tasks because firstly, they wanted to do so,

and secondly, a certain extent of outside forces urged them to do so because the tasks were part

of their class requirement. However, it would be difficult to totally exclude the possible

influences that the students might have gotten from other kinds of reading and writing practices.

Other reading and writing activities they had done during the semester besides the ‘copying’ and

‘summarizing’ tasks might have unnoticeably affected them in some ways to improve their

reading and writing proficiency. Accordingly, the positive results from this study might not be

solely from the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities, but nevertheless, it is clear that they

greatly helped the students develop their reading and writing ability.

Finally, the majority of the students in the study were juniors who were mostly majoring

in English Education or English Language & Literature. Furthermore, their academic goals

were to become secondary school English teachers, and thus even those who were at the lower

level would have had more advanced reading and writing proficiency and had more desire to

improve their reading and writing skills than others who had different majors and had different

purposes of learning English. Accordingly, strictly speaking, the advantages of the ‘copying’

and ‘summarizing’ activities that the lower proficiency level students had obtained in the study

might not be applied to students in other majors not related to English, who may rarely have

motivation or willingness to enhance their reading and writing ability, and are at the lowest

proficiency level. If the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ tasks had been given to those students,

other kinds of advantages or even some disadvantages of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ might

315
have been discovered.

Suggestions for Future Studies

Some suggestions for future studies are provided as follows: First, the focus of this

dissertation study was only given to the effectiveness of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ for

improving English reading and writing ability. Since ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities

have been proved effective for Korean students to improve their foreign language, English, in

reading and writing, it might be worthwhile to examine possible advantages that students at a

shallow or perceptual stage and a deeper level stage can get through ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’

for developing their first language, Korean, in reading and writing. Also, by comparing the

effectiveness of ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ for students’ Korean learning with their English

learning might make it possible for Korean and English teachers to discover better ways of

teaching Korean and English reading and writing through ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ and also

to find better ways to help students develop Korean and English reading and writing ability.

Second, it might be beneficial to investigate how different proficiency levels of young

children would develop their reading and writing ability through ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’

activities and to compare them with adult language learners. Since this study only recruited and

considered university level students, potential benefits that younger children could get through

‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities were not examined. Even though Wignograd (1984)

found in his study that the proficiency level was a more important factor than age in influencing

students’ performance in a ‘summarizing’ task (cf. No research was found which discussed

advantages or disadvantages of ‘copying’ for different proficiency levels of students.), the age

difference also might somehow affect students’ performances in the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’

316
tasks. Accordingly, it might be worth investigating how different proficiency levels of young

children would improve their reading and writing ability through ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’

activities, and whether or not there would be differences between younger and older students.

This could make it possible for researchers and teachers to discover distinctive ways of teaching

reading and writing and of raising awareness on language learning and strategy use for both

adults and children, and consequently provide them with explicit instructions.

Third, taking into account not only the students with English related majors with having

strong and positive personal goals of learning but also those with other majors with having

weaker goals of learning, considering what kinds of advantages non-language major students

rather than language major students can get through ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities, and

comparing the former with the latter would make it possible to examine whether or not non-

language major students with weak learning goals would get the same benefits as language major

students with strong learning goals do. Eventually, how similarly or differently the ‘copying’

and ‘summarizing’ activities could be used for students with language and non-language majors

and with strong and weak goals of learning to develop their reading and writing ability will

possibly be discovered.

Finally, it would be important to focus on the degrees of students’ thoughtfulness on

their ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ processes and examine whether or not the varying degrees

would make any difference for students in improving their reading and writing ability.

Investigating the degrees of improvement of students’ reading and writing proficiency depending

on the degrees of their thoughtfulness through in-depth interviews and long-term observations

would make it possible for researchers to find ways to maximize students’ thoughtfulness on

their own learning through the ‘copying’ and ‘summarizing’ activities.

317
 References

Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and
testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.

Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 20, 1001-106.

Anderson, N. J. (2004). Developing metacongitive awareness. In J. Bamford, and R. R. Day,

(eds.), Extensive reading activities for teaching language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 175-180.

Anderson, N. J. (2008). Metacognition and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.), Lessons
from Good Language Learners (pp.99-109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bae, D. B., Park, S. S., Kim, J. R., Kim, J. S., Lee, D. J., & Dusthimer, C. (2003). Middle School
English 3 manual. Seoul: Kyohaksa.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.),
Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.

Beers, K. (2003). When kids can’t read: What teachers can do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic
discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language:
Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 231-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition.
In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Vol. 1. (pp. 77-165). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to
learn from text. Educational Researcher, 10, 14-21.

Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1978). The development of strategies for studying texts. Child
Development, 49, 1076-1088.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). NY: Addison
Wesley Longman.

Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others words: Using background reading text in academic
compositions. In b. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the
classroom (pp. 211-230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

318
Carrell, P.L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading.
Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-134.

Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. J. (1983). A classroom demonstration of depth of processing.

Teaching of Psychology. 10(2), 105-107.

Chamot, A. U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M. P.

Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp.
25-43).

Cho, B. E. (2004). Issues concerning Korean learners of English: English education in Korea and
some common difficulties of Korean students. The East Asian Learner, 1(2), 31-36.

Coffman, G. A. (1994). The influence of question and story variations on sixth graders’
summarization behaviors. Reading Research and Instruction, 34, 19-38.

Cohen, A. and E. Macaro (eds.) (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research
and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Copying. (2009a). In Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved January 31, 2009, from
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=17078&dict=CALD

Copying. (2009b). In Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from

http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl

Copying. (2009c). In Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copying

Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and methods. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104.

Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 7(1), 1-18.

Devine, J., Railey, k., & Boshoff, P. (1993). The implications of cognitive models in L1 and L2
writing. Journal of Second Language writing, 2(3), 203-225.

Dong, Y. R. (1996). Learning how to use citations for knowledge transformational Non-native
doctoral students’ dissertation writing in science. Research in the Teaching of English,
30, 428-457.

Educational Testing Service. (2003). Preparing teachers around the world. Princeton, NJ: Policy
Information Center.

Flavell, J. H. (1971). First discussant’s comments: What is memory development the

development of? Human Development, 14(4), 272-278.

319
Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.),
Structural process theories of complex human behavior. The Netherlands: Sijthoff &
Noordhoff.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). Plans that guide the composing process. In C. H. Frederiksen
& J. H. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written
communication (Vol. 2, pp. 39-58). Hillsadle, JK: Erlbaum.

Fraser, C., Bellugi, U., & Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension,
and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 121-135.

Garner, R. (1985). Text summarization deficiencies among older students: Awareness or

production ability? American Educational Research Journal, 22, 539-560.

Garner, R., & McCaleb, J. L. (1985). Effects of text manipulations on quality of written
summaries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 139-149.

Gleim J. A., & Gleim, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s
Alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research to Practice
Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, 82-88.

Gregersen, T., Martinez, R. V., Rojas, P. P., & Alvarado, L. E. (2001). Can foreign language
learning strategies turn into crutches?: A pilot study on the use of strategies by successful
and unsuccessful language learners. Revista Signos, 34(49-50), 101-111.

Guido, B., & Colwell, C. G. (1987). A rational for direct instruction to teach summary writing
following expository text reading. Reading Research and Instruction, 26, 89-98.

Hacker, D. (2004). Rules for writers (5th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Hahn, J. (2006). Exploring Korean EFL university students’ perceptions of grammar instruction.
English Teaching, 61(3), 29-43.

Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive
operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56,
473-493.

Hong, J. H. (2008). Wow! Smart elementary English 4-2. Gyeonggi-do: Darakwon.

Hopkins, D., & Nettle, M. (1994). Second language acquisition research: A response to Rod Ellis.
ELT Journal, 48, 157-161.

Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and

nonsuccessful second language learners. System, 5(2), 110–123.

320
Hunminjeongeum. (2010). In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 30, 2010 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunminjeongeum

Jeong, Y. (2004). A chapter of English teaching in Korea. English Today, 20(2), 40-46.

Joh, J. (2000). Using the summarization task as a post-reading activity at college EFL classroom.
English Teaching, 55(3), 193-216.

Johns, A. M. (1985). Summary protocols of “under-prepared” and “adept” university students:

Replications and distortions of the original. Language Learning, 35(4), 497-517.

Johns, A. M., & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students.
Applied Linguistics, 11, 253-271.

Johnson, N. (1983). What do you do if you can’t tell the whole story? The development of
summarization skills. In K. E. Nelson, (Ed.), Children’s language (Vol. 4) (pp. 315-383).
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jwa, S. (2007). An analysis of the writing sections in EFL English textbooks in Korea sing a
process approach. English Teaching, 62(4), 117-144.

Kahng, J. (2006). Needs analysis of 6th-9th graders at an English writing camp: English writing
proficiency and needs on English writing. English Teaching, 61(3).

Kim S. J. (2004) Coping with cultural obstacles to speaking English in the Korean secondary
school context. Asian EFL Journal, 6(3), Retrieved February 8, 2009 from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_04_ksj.pdf

Kim, S. (2007). The role of L2 proficiency in using sources: The college ESL composition class.
Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 59-82.

King, J. R., Biggs, S., & Lipsky, S. (1984). Students’ self-questioning and summarizing as
reading study strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 205-218.

King, K. (2003, January). Just don’t make me think: Metacognition in the composition classroom.
Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Education, Hawaii, USA.

Kirkland, M. R., & Saunders, M. A. P. (1991). Maximizing student performance in summary

writing: Managing cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 105-121.

Kolich, A. M. (1983). Plagiarism: The worm of reason. English English, 45(2), 141-148.

Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kwon, O. N. (2004, July). Teacher education in Korea. Paper presented at the 10th International
congress on mathematical education, Copenhagen, Denmark.

321
La Berge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.

Lee, B. O. (2003). A writing-based integrative method for development of listening, reading, and
speaking skills in the high school English classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Konkuk University, Seoul.

Lee, K. & Kim, H. (2006). The acquisition of Korean grammatical functions in Korean-Chinese
bilingual infants. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the XVth Biennial
International Conference on Infant Studies, Westin Miyako, Kyoto, Japan. Retrieved
April 20, 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p94005_index.html

Lee, S. (2001). How is reading instruction practiced in high schools? English Teaching, 56(4),
243-263.

Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1994). Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction writing needs
across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 85-101.

Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Completely different words: EAP and the experiences of ESL
students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 39-69.

Lennon, C., & Burdick, H. (2004). The Lexile Framework as an approach for reading
measurement and success. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc.

Lightbown, P. M., Halter, R. H., & Horst, R. H. (2002). Comprehension based learning: The
limits of ‘do it yourself.’ The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 427-464.

Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Lougheed, L., (2008), Barron’s Writing for the TOEFL iBT (3rd ed.). NY: Barron’s Educational
Series Inc.

McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading
Research Quarterly, 27, 226-248.

McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” versus “unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24,

617-634.

Middle Search Plus (2008). In Indiana University Bloomington Homepage. Retrieved February
20, 2009, from http://www.libraries.iub.edu/index.php?pageId=400&resourceId=185648

Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development (2007). Introduction to elementary and
secondary school curriculum. Seoul: Ministry of Education & Human Resources
Development.

322
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies.
Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2-10.

Moon, Y. (2002). Korean university students’ awareness of plagiarism in summary writings.

Language Research, 38(4), 1349-1365.

Moscovitch, M. & Craik, F. J. M. (1976). Depth of processing, retrieval cues, and uniqueness of
encoding as factors in recall, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15,
447-458.

Newfields, T. (2001). Teaching summarizing skills: Some practical hints. ELJ Journal, 2(2), 1-7.

Oh, H. (2007). Korean students’ awareness and the use of the summarizing rules in English.
English Teaching, 62(2), 123-145.

Olson, C. B. (2007). The reading/writing connection: Strategies for teaching and learning in the
secondary classroom. Boston: Pearson Education.

Palinscar, A. S. (1985, April). Unpacking “multicomponet, metacognitive training packages.”

Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago.

Paris, S.G.and Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory and study strategies of
good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5-22.

Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Metacognition in academic learning and instruction. In b. F.
Jones and L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Park, S. (2000). English Language Teaching Technique. Seoul: Shinasa.

Park, S. (2008). A study on the effect of English grammar teaching: Focus on middle school
students. English Language Teaching, 20(3), 199-223.

Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to
improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76(6), 1239-1252.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The complex contexts of plagiarism: A reply to Deckert. The Journal of
Second Language Writing, 3(3), 277-284.

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201-230.

Porte, G. K. (1995). Writing wrongs: copying as a strategy for underachieving EFL writers. ELT
Journal, 49(2). 144-151.

323
Prochaska, E., & Moon, Y. (2004). The relation of writing ability to instances of “plagiarism” in
Korean EFL university students’ summary writings. Foreign Languages Education,
11(1), 1-26.

Prowse, P. (2003). Extensive reading. English Teaching Professional Issue, 27, 40.

Pyeon, S. E. (2006). Wow! Smart elementary English 6-2. Gyeonggi-do: Darakwon.

QEnglish.com (2006). TOEFL Reading Class Unit 1_Passage 20_Question 210-220. Retrieved
April, 20, 2009, from http://www.qenglish.com/samples/15280.html

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1987). A comprehensive grammar of English.
New York: Longman.

Rinehart, S. D., & Thomas, K. F. (1993). Summarization ability and text recall by novice studiers.
Reading Research and Introduction, 32, 24-32.

Roehler, L. R., & Duffy, G. G. (1984). Direct explanation of comprehension processes. In G. G.

Duffy, L. R. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and
suggestions (pp. 265-280). New York: Longman.

Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors,
Ethnics & Behavior. 11(3), 307-323.

Samuels, S. J., Ediger, K. M., Willcutt, J. R., & Palumbo, T. J. (2005). Role of automaticity in
metacognition and literacy instruction. In S. Israel & C. C. Block (Eds.), Metacognition
in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development
(pp. 41-59). Abingdon: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schallert, D. L. (1976). Improving memory for prose: The relationship between depth of
processing and context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 621-632.

Scott, P., & Andrea, P. (1993). Metacognitive aspects of adult literacy. NCAL Technical Report
TR93-9. Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy. Retrieved February 1, 2009,
from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/13/2c/e
a.pdf

Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic
constraints. Science, 275, 1592-1603.

Sengupta, S. (1999). Rhetorical consciousness raising in the L2 reading classroom. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 291-319.

324
Shariati, M. (2007). How consciousness-raising affects intonation and facilitates reading
comprehension. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved April 20, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6730/is_1_33/ai_n28455828/

Sharpe, P. J. (2006). Barron’s TOEFL iBT (12th ed.). NY: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.

Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431-449.

Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second language writing. Written Communication, 21,
171-200.

Shi, L. (2006). Cultural backgrounds and textual appropriation. Language Awareness, 15(4),
264-282.

Shin, I., & Ahn, B. (2006). The effects of different types of extensive reading materials on
reading, amount, attitude, and motivation. English Teaching, 61(1), 67-88.

Shim, J. (2004). Exploring reading and writing connection: A structural equation modeling
approach. English Teaching, 59(2), 59-74.

Shin, J. H., Jung, S. J., Jang, Y. O., Choi, C. H., & Miller, L. K. (2009). High School English II
manual. Seoul: YBM Si-sa.

Singhal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2

readers. The Reading Matrix, 1(1), 1-9.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. NY: Appleton.

So, H. J., Lee, J. Y., Roh, S. Z., & Lee, S. K. (2010). Examining epistemological beliefs of pre-
service teacher in Korea. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 79-97.

Song, H. (2000). A study of the teaching of reading English as a foreign language in Korea.
English Teaching, 55(4), 367-388.

Song, M. (1998). Teaching reading strategies in an ongoing EFL university reading classroom.
Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8, 41-54.

Song, K. S., & Lee, K. (2007). New teaching method of English verb tenses with physical action.
English Teaching, 62(4), 429-451.

Tsai, J. (2006). Connecting reading and writing in college EFL courses. The Internet TESL
Journal, XII(12), Retrieved February 27, 2008 from
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Tsai-ReadingWritingConnection.html

325
Taylor, B. M. (1982). A summarizing strategy to improve middle grade students’ reading and
writing skills. Reading Teacher, 36, 202-205.

Taylor, B. M. (1986). Summary writing by young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,
193-208.

Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle grade
students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly,
19, 134-146.

Thamraksa, C. (2005). Metacognition: A key to success for EFL learners. BU Academic Review,
4(1), 95-99.

Tierney, R. J., Soter, O’Flahavan, & McGinley, (1989). The effects of reading and writing upon
thinking critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134-173.

Tompkins, G. E. (1997). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Trosky, O. S., & Wood, C. C. (1982). Using a writing model to teach reading. Journal of Reading,
26, 34-40.

Waxman, H.C., & Padron, Y. (1987). The effect of ESL students' perceptions of their cognitive
strategies on reading achievement. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest
Educational Research Association, Dallas.

Wignograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly,

19, 404-425.

Xiao, Y. (2007). Applying metacognition in EFL writing instruction in China. Reflections on

English Language Teaching, 6(1), 19-33.

Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism?: Analyses of 10
North-American college websites. System, 31, 247-258.

Yang, L., & Shi, L. (2003). Exploring six MBA students’ summary writing by introspection.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 165-192.

Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EF: students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading

strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268-288.

326
 Appendix 1. Background Information Questions

1. What is your name, gender, and major?

1) Name: ( )
2) Gender: Male ( ) Female ( )
3) Major: ( )

2. Age and English learning (Write down numbers.)

1) How old are you? ( )
2) How many years have you studied English in school? ( )
3) How many years have you studied English outside of school (e.g. from an English tutor, from
parents) or from private institutes? ( )

3. Why are you learning English? (Circle all that apply.)

1) I need to use English in my work. ( )
2) English will help me earn a higher salary. ( )
3) I want to make friends with native English speakers. ( )
4) I am interested in understanding cultures where English is spoken. ( )
5) Knowing English will bring me prestige or status. ( )
7) I must know English to study abroad (e.g. to apply for universities in English speaking
countries). ( )
8) I am learning English because it is interesting. ( )
9) Other (Please specify in either English or Korean.)
( )

4. Write down your answers to the following questions.

1) Have you ever taken the TOEFL (CBT or iBT) or TOEIC? If so, please provide your scores
here.
( )

327
2) Have you taken English reading or writing related courses in the previous semester? If so,
what was the subject(s) of the course(s) and what was(were) your final grade(s) (e.g. A+, A,
A-, B+, B, B-) for each?

5. How many hours per day do you spend reading and writing in English?
1) Less than 1 hour ( )
2) Between 1 and 2 hours ( )
3) Between 2 and 3 hours ( )
4) Between 3 and 4 hours ( )
5) More than 4 hours ( )
6) Other (Please specify in either English or Korean.) ( )

6. What do you mostly read in English? (Check all that apply.)

Blogs/personal websites ( ) Class materials ( ) Comic books ( )
E-mails ( ) Journals ( ) Local news ( )
World news ( ) Magazines ( ) Gossip columns ( )
Other (Please specify in either English or Korean.)
( )

7. What do you mostly write in English? (Check all that apply.)

E-mails ( ) Personal diaries ( ) Dialogue journals ( )
Cause/effect essays ( ) Comparison/contrast essays ( )
Short stories ( ) Persuasive or Argument essays ( )
Explanatory or Informative essays ( ) Poetry ( ) Drama/Dialogues ( )
Other (Please specify in either English or Korean.) ( )

328
8. What topics would you like to read the most in English? (Check all that apply.)
Language educational issues ( ) Language teaching methods/tips ( )
Science ( ) Sports ( ) Music ( ) Travel ( )
Fashion ( ) Movies/celebrities ( ) Political and economic issues ( )
Technology ( ) Health ( ) Food ( )
Other (Please specify in either English or Korean.) ( )

9. Have you ever experienced ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ activities when learning either
Korean or English? (Circle the one that applies.) Yes No

---- If you answered ‘Yes,’

1) What did you copy and why? Did you do ‘copying’ for learning Korean, English, or both?
(Write in Korean.)

2) What did you summarize and why? Did you do ‘summarizing’ for learning Korean, English,
or both? (Write in Korean.)

329
 Appendix 2. Pre-test and Post-test

Name:
Major:
Student ID#:

Reading Test

Reading Passage 1. Read the following passage and answer the questions provided.

Paragraph 1
Clocks were made in the United States long before entrepreneurs began to
produce them in large numbers in factories. From the early eighteenth century, skilled
craftspeople, many of them immigrants from England, made tall clocks with long cases.
Clockmakers used many tools, among them hand-powered wheel cutting engines to cut gear
wheels from imported cast brass. Cabinetmakers applied their skill to clock cases. Clockmakers,
working in small shops, produced small numbers of timepieces; their clocks were works of art.
They were expensive, usually more than fifty dollars without a case. Like many products of craft
shops, clocks were often the work of more than one set of hands. American clockmakers
bought parts from one another, and imported parts and sometimes whole mechanisms from
Europe to take advantage of the benefits of the division of labor.

Paragraph 2
The cost and scarcity of brass encouraged the production of clocks with wood
mechanisms. By 1800 wood clocks accounted for the majority of American clock production.
Many of the same techniques used in making brass clocks were modified and used for producing
wood clocks. Their gears were cut on hand engines; their parts turned on foot-powered lathes.
Their form, too, imitated brass clocks; most were long-case clocks. Clocks with wooden gears
cost less than half the price of clocks with brass gears. Like their brass counterparts, these
wooden clocks were made one at a time, by hand. Making clocks this way was a slow process.
Daniel Burnap, one of the best-known makers, produced an average of only four clock
mechanisms per year from 1787 to 1805.

Paragraph 3
In the eighteenth century, timepieces were expensive and few in number. One
historian has calculated that there were about 42,500 clocks in the United States in 1800, and
about 64,000 watches. Approximately one American adult in fifty had a clock, one in thirty-two a
watch. The vast majority of the population depended on other means of telling the time. City
dwellers could rely on public time tower clocks, church bells, and town criers. In the
countryside, sundials and noon marks were common.

330
1. What is the passage mainly about?

a. The contributions of clockmakers to the economic development of North America

b. The history of the clock-making industry in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
c. The artistic value of clocks made in North America
d. Factors that influenced the materials used in clock-making

2. The word them in paragraph 1 refers to

a. tall clocks
b. clockmakers
c. tools
d. engines

3. In stating that clocks were often the work of more than one set of hands (paragraph 1) the
author means that

a. a variety of tools were needed to make clocks

b. most clockmakers worked in factories
c. each clock was produced by several workers
d. many clockmakers developed unusual techniques

4. What would be the closest meaning of the word scarcity in the passage? Write a similar word
or phrase which can be substituted for the word scarcity and create a sentence by using the word
scarcity.

5. Why were clocks with wood mechanisms produced in greater numbers than clocks with brass
movements?

a. Wood mechanisms allowed for greater variety of design.

b. Wood mechanisms combined size with precision.
c. Wood mechanisms were less expensive to produce.
d. It was possible to make several wood mechanisms at one time.

6. Wood and brass clocks were similar in their

a. appearance
b. value
c. durability
d. popularity

331
7. Daniel Burnap is mentioned in paragraph 2 to

a. illustrate how rapidly the clock industry grew in North America

b. describe an original technique of clock-making
c. describe the variety in quality of clocks made during the late eighteenth century
d. illustrate how long it took to make clocks at the time

8. What would be the closest meaning of the word vast in the passage? Write a similar word or
phrase which can be substituted for the word vast and create a sentence using the word vast.

9. Why were tower clocks, church bells, and town criers needed (Paragraph 3)?

a. People who lived in the country found them more reliable than wooden clocks.
b. They made it possible for everyone in the city to know the time.
c. Most people used them to set the time on their watches.
d. They were used to introduce the work of clockmakers to the public.

10. What can be inferred from the passage about clock factories in North America?

a. They produced more expensive clocks than those made by hand.

b. They did not produce any tall clocks.
c. They used imported clock cases for the clocks they made.
d. They did not exist until after the early nineteenth century.

332
Reading Passage 2. Read the following passage and answer the questions provided.

“The Digital Divide”

The challenges of technology and equity

Paragraph 1
Information technology is influencing the way many of us live and work today.
We use the Internet to look and apply for jobs, shop, conduct research, make airline reservations,
and explore areas of interest, We use e-mail and the Internet to communicate instantaneously
with friends and business associates around the world. Computers are commonplace in homes
and the workplace.
Paragraph 2
Although the number of Internet users is growing exponentially each year,
most of the world’s population does not have access to computers or the Internet. Only 6
percent of the population in developing countries are connected to telephones. Although more
than 94 percent of U.S. households have a telephone, only 42 percent have personal computers at
home and 26 percent have Internet access. The lack of what most of us would consider a basic
communications necessity – the telephone – does not occur just in developing nations. On some
Native American reservations only 60 percent of the residents have a telephone. The move to
wireless connections may eliminate the need for telephone lines, but it does not remove the
barrier to equipment costs.
Paragraph 3
Who has Internet access? Fifty percent of the children in urban households with
an income over $75,000 have Internet access, compared with 2 percent of the children in low-
income, rural households. Nearly half of college-educated people have Internet access, compared
to 6 percent of those with only some high school education. Forty percent of households with
two parents have white households, 11 percent of black households, and 13 percent of Hispanic
households have access. Teens and children are the two fastest-growing segments of Internet
users. The digital divide between the populations who have access to the Internet and
information technology tools is based on income, race, education, household type, and
geographic location. Only 16 percent of the rural poor, rural and central city minorities, young
householders, and single parent female households are connected.
Paragraph 4
Another problem that exacerbates these disparities is that African-Americans,
Hispanics, and Native Americans hold few of the jobs in information technology. Women hold
about 20 percent of these jobs and are receiving fewer than 30 percent of the computer science
degrees. The result is that women and members of the most oppressed ethnic groups are not
eligible for the jobs with the highest salaries at graduation. Baccalaureate candidates with
degrees in computer science were offered the highest salaries of all new college graduates in
1998 at $44, 949.
Paragraph 5
Do similar disparities exist in schools? A More than 90 percent of all schools in
the country are wired with at least one Internet connection. B The number of classrooms with
Internet connections differs by the income level of students. Using the percentage of students
who are eligible for free lunches at a school to determine income level, we see that nearly twice
as many of the schools with more affluent students have wired classrooms as those with high
concentrations of low-income students. C
Paragraph 6
Access to computers and the Internet will be important in reducing disparities
between groups. D It will require greater equality across diverse groups whose members develop
knowledge and skills in computer and information technologies. If computers and the Internet

333
are to be used to promote equality, they will have to become accessible to populations that cannot
currently afford the equipment which needs to be updated every three years or so. However,
access alone is not enough. Students will have to be interacting with the technology in authentic
settings. As technology becomes a tool for learning in almost all courses taken by students, it will
be seen as means to an end rather than an end in itself. If it is used in culturally relevant ways, all
students can benefit from its power.

1. Why does the author mention the telephone in paragraph 2?

a. To demonstrate that even technology like the telephone is not available to all
b. To argue that basic telephone service is a first step to using the Internet
c. To contrast the absence of telephone usage with that of Internet usage
d. To describe the development of communications from telephone to Internet

2. Which of the sentences below best expresses the information in the highlighted statement in
the passage? The other choices change the meaning and leave out important information.

a. Most of the people in the world use the Internet now because the number of computers
has been increasing every year.
b. The number of people who use computers and the Internet is increasing every year, but
most people in the world still do not have connections.
c. The number of computers that can make the Internet available to most of the people in
the world is not increasing fast enough.
d. The Internet is available to most of the people in the world, even though they don’t have
their own computer terminals.

3. What would be the closest meaning of the word eliminate in the passage? Write a similar
word or phrase which can be substituted for the word eliminate and create a sentence by
using the word eliminate.

4. What would be the closest meaning of the word exacerbates in the passage? Write a similar
word or phrase which can be substituted for the word exacerbates and create a sentence by
using the word exacerbates.

334
5. Based on the information in paragraph 3, which of the following best explains the term
“digital divide?”

a. The number of Internet users in developing nations

b. The disparity in the opportunity to use the Internet
c. Differences in socioeconomic levels among Internet users
d. Segments of the population with Internet access

6. Why does the author give details about the percentages of Internet users in paragraph 3?

a. To prove that there are differences in opportunities among social groups

b. To argue for more Internet connections at all levels of society
c. To suggest that improvements in Internet access are beginning to take place
d. To explain why many people have Internet connections now

7. According to paragraph 3, which of the following households would be least likely to have
access to the Internet?

a. A household with one parent

b. A black household
c. A Hispanic household
d. A household with both parents

8. The word those in the passage refers to

a. classrooms
b. students
c. schools
d. concentrations

9. According to paragraph 4, why are fewer women and minorities employed in the field of
computer technology?

a. They are not admitted to the degree programs.

b. They do not possess the educational qualifications.
c. They do not have an interest in technology.
d. They prefer training for jobs with higher salaries.

10. What would be the closest meaning of the word concentrations in the passage? Write a
similar word or phrase which can be substituted for the word concentrations and create a
sentence using the word concentrations.

335
11. What can be inferred from paragraph 6 about Internet access?

a. Better computers need to be designed.

b. Schools should provide newer computers for students.
c. The cost of replacing equipment is a problem.
d. Technology will be more helpful in three years.

12. Look at the four marks (A, B, C, and D in paragraph 5 and 6) that show where the following
sentence could be inserted in the passage. Select the best place for it.

Thus, the students who are most unlikely to have access at home also do not have access in
their schools, increasing the divide between groups even further.

13. An introduction for a short summary of the passage appears below. Complete the summary
by selecting the THREE answer choices that mention the most important points in the
passage. Some sentences do not belong in the summary because they express ideas that are
not included in the passage or are minor points from the passage.

The availability of technology is unequal throughout the world.

*
*
*

<Answer choices>
A. Currently, only about 10 percent of all the schools in the United States are not wired for
Internet access.
B. Less affluent schools have fewer Internet connections, and minorities as well as women hold
fewer computer science degrees.
C. Children and teenagers are the two fastest growing segments of the population gaining access
to the Internet.
D. Internet access is limited by education, income, geographic location, race, and the age and
marital status of the head of household.
E. Computer science graduates can earn almost $50,000.
F. Access to the Internet is one way to encourage equality among diverse groups.

336
 Writing Test

Some people think the Internet provides people with a lot of valuable information. Others think
access to so much information creates problems. Which view do you agree with? Use specific
reasons and examples to support your opinion. Write an essay about 350-400 words long using 2-
3 paragraphs.

337
 Appendix 3. Rubric for the Writing Section of the Pre-test and Post-test

Evaluation 4 3 2 1
Score
for writing Exemplary Accomplished Developing Beginning
Organizational Organizational Organizational Organizational
structure fits the structure fits the structure often does structure does not
topic and topic and establishes not fit the topic and fit the topic and
establishes relationships establishes little does not establish
relationships between/among relationship connections
between/among sentences, between/among between/among
Organization
sentences, paragraphs, and some of the sentences,
paragraphs, and ideas although minor sentences, paragraphs, and
ideas. lapses may be paragraphs, and ideas. The overall
present. ideas. The structure structure is
is minimally incomplete or
complete. confusing.
The writing has an The writing has an The writing flows. The writing does
effective flow and easy flow and There is some not flow well.
rhythm. It shows rhythm. Sentence variety of simple Sentence patterns
extensive variation patterns are varied, sentence structure, are monotonous
Sentence
in sentence but some repeated but many repetitive (e.g. subject-verb
Structure/
structure. patterns of sentence sentence patterns or subject-verb-
Fluency
structure are shown. are shown. object) with a
number of awkward
or rambling
constructions.
The writer makes The writer makes a The writer makes The writer makes
very few mistakes few mistakes (5-7) in several mistakes serious mistakes in
(less than 3-4) in grammar that (8-10) in grammar grammar (more
Grammar grammar that distracts the reader that distracts the than 10) that
distracts the reader from the content. reader from the distracts the reader
from the content. content. from the content.

Vocabulary/Idioms Vocabulary/idioms Vocabulary/idioms Vocabulary/idioms

are sophisticated are varied, specific, are used properly are
and correct as are and appropriate. The though sentences unsophisticated,
sentences which writer frequently uses may be simple. The and not used
vary in structure subject specific writer uses subject properly in very
Vocabulary/
and length. The vocabulary/idioms specific simple sentences.
Idioms
writer uses and correctly. vocabulary/idioms The writer uses
manipulates correctly. subject specific
subject specific vocabulary/idioms
vocabulary/idioms too sparingly.
for effect.
The writer makes The writer makes a The writer makes The writer makes
very few errors few errors (5-7) in occasional errors frequent errors
(less than 3-4) in spelling, punctuation (8-10) in spelling, (more than 10) in
Mechanics
spelling, or capitalization. punctuation or spelling,
punctuation or capitalization. punctuation or
capitalization. capitalization.

338
 Appendix 4. Survey of Reading and Writing Strategies (SORWS)

The purpose of this survey is to collect information about the various strategies you generally use
when you read academic materials (e.g. reading textbooks for homework, reading journals, etc.)
and write academic papers (e.g. writing essays for homework, writing persuasive papers or
dialogue journals, etc.) in English.

Each statement is followed by five numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and each number means the
following:

‘1’ means that ‘I never or almost never do this.’

‘2’ means that ‘I only occasionally do this.’
‘3’ means that ‘I sometimes do this.’ (about 50% of the time.)
‘4’ means that ‘I usually do this.’
‘5’ means that ‘I always or almost always do this.’

After reading each statement, circle the number (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) which applies to you. Note
that there are no right or wrong responses to any of the items on this survey. The whole survey
will take about 10-15 minutes.

Never Always
1 I have a clear and specific purpose for reading a text and 1 2 3 4 5
writing a paper in English and think about what is expected of
me.

2 I think about what I already know about the topic or 1 2 3 4 5

information in a text to understand what I read better.

3 I think about what I already know about the writing topic to 1 2 3 4 5

write better.

4 I skim through a text to see what it is about before reading it. 1 2 3 4 5

5 I decide how I should read a text or write a paper to achieve 1 2 3 4 5

my purpose/goal of reading or writing.

6 I write an outline of my paper before writing it. 1 2 3 4 5

7 I note down words, phrases, or short sentences related to a 1 2 3 4 5

writing topic before writing.

8 I take notes (e.g. write down some of the important points of 1 2 3 4 5

each paragraph or the whole text) to better understand what
I read.

9 I adjust my reading speed or re-read a text when it becomes 1 2 3 4 5

difficult or when I want to increase my understanding.

339
 Never Always
10 I re-read what I have written so far or adjust my writing 1 2 3 4 5
speed when I come across difficulties in continuing writing.

11 I stop after a few sentences or a whole paragraph to check if I 1 2 3 4 5

am writing correctly and logically.

12 While reading, I underline, highlight, or circle information in a 1 2 3 4 5

text to help me remember it.

13 I use reference materials such as books, articles, and Internet 1 2 3 4 5

resources related to the topic of a text to understand what I
read better.
14 I use reference materials such as books, articles and Internet 1 2 3 4 5
recourses related to the writing topic to write better.
15 I look at tables, figures, and pictures in a text to increase my 1 2 3 4 5
understanding.

16 I try to picture or visualize information by drawing tables, 1 2 3 4 5

figures, or pictures to help remember what I read better.
17 I go back and forth in a text to find relationships among ideas 1 2 3 4 5
in it (e.g. cause/effect, problem/solution, chronological order
of events).

18 When reading, I skip a paragraph and move on to the next 1 2 3 4 5

paragraph when it becomes too difficult, and I go back to it
later.

19 When writing, I skip a paragraph and write another paragraph 1 2 3 4 5

when I get stuck and later go back to the skipped part.

20 When I read, I guess the meanings of unknown words or 1 2 3 4 5

phrases by using context clues without using a dictionary.

21 When I read, I guess the meanings of unknown words or 1 2 3 4 5

phrases, but later I use a dictionary to check for the exact
meanings of them.

22 When I find new words/expressions when reading and writing, 1 2 3 4 5

I create a list of them with their meanings/uses to remember
them better.

23 While reading, I use a dictionary right away whenever I see 1 2 3 4 5

unknown words or phrases.

24 While writing, I use a dictionary right away if I don’t know a 1 2 3 4 5

word or expression in English.

25 If I don’t know a word or expression in English, I try to use a 1 2 3 4 5

simple word or expression that I know without using a
dictionary.

340
 Never Always
26 If I don’t know a word or expression in English, I write it in 1 2 3 4 5
my native language and later try to find an appropriate
English word or expression.

27 When reading, I translate some sentences or the whole text 1 2 3 4 5

from English into my native language.

28 When reading, I think about the information in both English 1 2 3 4 5

and my native language.

29 When reading, I ask myself questions I would like to have 1 2 3 4 5

answered in a text and try to find the answers for them.

30 After reading, I critically analyze and evaluate the information 1 2 3 4 5

presented in a text thinking about if the information is fact or
opinion, what the author’s stance is, and which stance I
personally would take.

31 After reading, I review a text (or notes that I took while 1 2 3 4 5

reading) and try to identify important points in order to check
if I understood the text correctly.

32 After writing, I make changes in vocabulary. 1 2 3 4 5

33 After writing, I make changes in grammar. 1 2 3 4 5

34 After writing, I make changes in spelling, punctuation, and 1 2 3 4 5

capitalization.

35 After writing, I make changes in the structures of sentences 1 2 3 4 5

(e.g. checking for the correct use of subject-verb-objective,
noun clauses, prepositional phrases, etc., and revising it).

36 After writing, I make changes in the content and ideas (e.g. 1 2 3 4 5

checking if the content and ideas fit the writing topic and if
the ideas are coherently and logically connected, and revising
those parts).

341
 Appendix 5. Self-scoring Guidelines for the SORWS

1. Write the number you circled for each statement (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) in the appropriate
blanks below.
2. Add up the scores under each column and place the result on the line under each column.
3. Divide the subscale score by the number of statements in each column to get the
average for each subscale.
4. Calculate the average for the whole survey by adding up the subscale scores and
dividing by 36.
5. Use the interpretation guidelines below to understand your averages.

Planning Strategies Monitoring Strategies Evaluating Strategies

(Planning Subscale) (Monitoring (Evaluating Overall Strategies
Subscale) Subscale)
1. 8. 31. Planning:
2. 9. 32. Monitoring:
3. 10. 33. Evaluating:
4. 11. 34.
5. 12. 35.
6. 13. 36.
7. 14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.

____Planning Score/7 ____Monitoring Score/22 ____Evaluating Score/7 ____Overall Score/36

____Planning Average ____Monitoring Average ____Evaluating Average ____Overall Average

Key to Averages: 3.5 or higher = High, 2.5 ~ 3.4 = Medium, 2.4 or lower = Lower

Interpreting Your Scores: The overall average indicates how often you use reading and
*I
writing strategies when reading academic materials and writing academic papers. The
average for each subscale shows which group of strategies (i.e. planning, monitoring, and
evaluating strategies) you use most often when reading and writing. It is important to note,
however, that the best possible use of these strategies depends on your reading and writing
ability in English, the type of material you read, and your reading purpose. A low score on
any of the subscales or parts of the survey indicates that there may be some strategies in
these parts that you might want to learn about and consider using when reading and writing.

342
 Appendix 6. Warm-up Session Text for the Think-aloud Protocol
RESEARCH MATTERS

ONLINE WRITING COURSES

Virtual classes are convenient and economical, but they're

not for everyone

SOME SAY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to teach a writer to write. Sure, they say, you can teach
grammar and vocabulary, structure and plot, but how do you teach someone to breathe life
into a short story? To create characters that stir readers' emotions? In short, to create art?

Whatever your view on the art of writing, there's no doubt that basic writing skills can be
taught. And in today's increasingly wired world, more and more writers are turning to the
Web when the urge to brush up on craft strikes.

Online courses let students take tests, submit homework, and interact with instructors and
other students from the comfort of their home computer. From one-on-one electronic
coaching sessions to virtual workshops and university-accredited programs, online courses
are convenient, relatively inexpensive and available for just about every genre and skill
level.

With all of that going for them, however, online courses aren't for every writer. Here's how
to select the one that's right for you--and get the most out of your online tuition dollar.

The pros and cons of online courses

ONLINE WRITING COURSES have a lot to recommend them--especially for the

geographically isolated and time-strapped among us.

Convenience. Most online courses are largely self-paced. Instead of blocking out a day,
a week or more to attend a formal, face-to-face class, online students can log on anytime to
fit class activities around the demands of their daily schedules. More than anything else,
it's convenience that tempts students to sign up for their first online course. "Going to
class in my pajamas was pretty nice," admits Darcie McNally, whose first online course
focused on travel writing.

Low cost. Course fees vary based on length, provider and other criteria, but by and large,
fees are far less than those for comparable face-to-face classes. Another bonus: There are
no travel, parking or lodging expenses involved.

Low stress. The anonymity of online education attracts new writers, who tend to be shy
about sharing their work in a face-to-face setting. "When I discovered I could take writing
classes online and never have to read my work aloud, I thought I'd died and gone to
heaven," says Vicky Mlyniec, who discovered online courses early in her career. She now
writes regularly for national magazines. "It was a great way to build confidence."

343
But the same flexibility and anonymity that have made online education one of the fastest-
growing e-commerce industries (annual online tuition revenues are expected to top $1
billion by 2002) can pose drawbacks for some students.

Self-discipline is a must. Not all students are able to learn effectively in self-paced
settings; some need the structure and stimulation of an in-person instructor and classmates.
"For me, I discovered that putting myself in a [face-to-face] class situation is a good way to
get myself to produce," says Mlyniec, who admits to being a "major" procrastinator--a
learning style that adapts poorly to online courses.

Online doesn't mean instant. "An online class can actually take more of your time than a
traditional class," says Ann McCutchan. Once an online student herself, McCutchan now
teaches online writing courses through the Austin (Texas) Writers League, as well as face-
to-face classes through the University of Wyoming. "When you're asking a question or
discussing a manuscript in class, the whole process takes just minutes. It takes a lot
longer to compose those thoughts in written form. It takes time to word critical feedback
properly when you don't have voice tone and body language to rely on."

Computer savvy is required. Depending on the course, you may be requested to

contribute to real-time chats, attach or FTP homework files, log on to a secure server or
subscribe to a mailing list. If you don't know your way around a computer and the Internet
enough to be able to perform these actions (or at least ask the right questions to get help),
you won't be able to participate in the class.

Virtual isolation can be frustrating. Traditional classroom settings encourage students

to interact with each other in person, which often leads to lasting personal relationships.
Building connections is as important in terms of writing support as the formal curriculum.
While many online writing courses help foster community among students by offering online
chats and bulletin boards, these alternatives can't replace face-to-face communication.

"The absence of face-to-face discussions was a crucial point," says McNally, whose first
foray into online education fell short of her expectations. "Though a discussion board was
offered, it wasn't used much. Plus, there's a creative spark in live discussions you just
can't get on message boards."

Scams abound. Thanks to the anonymity of the Web, there's a much higher chance that
an instructor will abscond with students' money online than off. "My online instructor
disappeared after just a week," says Mark Patterson, who eventually had to contact his
credit card company to get the course charges reversed. "The class sounded great, and the
instructor seemed not only genuine, but knowledgeable, talented and experienced."
Registering with an established course provider--and paying course fees via credit card,
rather than check or money order--can help reduce the financial risk.

344
 The bottom line

FOR COMPUTER-LITERATE, self-motivated writers, online courses can be a great way to

polish old skills, learn new ones and connect with other writers. For many, however, online
writing courses are more useful as a supplement to offline studies than as a replacement.

"I've found that mixing the two is great, when that's possible," McCutchan says. "It really
helps classroom dynamics to get together face-to-face occasionally--say, at the beginning of
the class and midway through."

At the end of the day, of course, it's the teacher-student relationship that matters most, not
the method of delivery.

"If the teacher can't teach, it's as obvious online as it would be in an offline course," McNally
says. "In that way, online and offline classes are the same."

345
 Appendix 7. Actual Text for the Think-aloud Protocol

Electronic Portfolios in the K-12 Classroom

The use of personal portfolios for assessment and presentation long has been a component
of higher education. In fact, personal portfolios are a graduation requirement at many
colleges and universities. Now, electronic portfolios have begun to enter the world of K-12
education as well.

WHAT IS A PORTFOLIO?

"A portfolio is a purposeful collection of student work demonstrating the student's

achievement or growth as characterized by a strong vision of content," according to Todd
Bergman , an independent consultant and a teacher at Mt. Edgecumbe High School in Sitka,
Alaska.

Helen Barrett, an assistant professor and educational technology coordinator for the School
of Education at the University of Alaska, Anchorage, provides another definition, one
developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association:

A portfolio is a purposeful collection of student work that exhibits the student's efforts,
progress, and achievements in one or more areas. The collection must include student
participation in selecting content, the criteria for selection, the criteria for judging merit, and
evidence of student self-reflection.

"Portfolios can serve multiple purposes," Barrett told Education World. "They can support
learning, play an assessment role, or support employment. The purpose dictates the
structure and contents of a portfolio."

The three most common types of portfolios are:

• the working portfolio, which contains projects the student is currently working on or has
recently completed.
• the display portfolio, which showcases samples of the student's best work.
• the assessment portfolio, which presents work demonstrating that the student has met
specific learning goals and requirements.

THE PROCESS OF PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT

Most portfolios programs begin with the working portfolio. Over time, a student selects
items from the working portfolio and uses them to create a display portfolio. Finally, the
student develops an assessment portfolio, containing examples of his or her best work, as
well as an explanation of why each work is significant. The explanation, or reflection,
discusses how the particular work illustrates mastery of specific curriculum requirements or
learning goals.

346
Barrett identified five steps inherent in the development of effective electronic portfolios:

1. Selection: the development of criteria for choosing items to include in the portfolio
based on established learning objectives.
2. Collection: the gathering of items based on the portfolio's purpose, audience, and
future use.
3. Reflection: statements about the significance of each item and of the collection as a
whole.
4. Direction: a review of the reflections that looks ahead and sets future goals.
5. Connection: the creation of hypertext links and publication, providing the
opportunity for feedback.

WHY ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS?

"The power of a digital portfolio," Barrett said, "is that it allows different access to different
artifacts. The user can modify the contents of the digital portfolio to meet specific goals. As
a student progresses from a working portfolio to a display or assessment portfolio, he or she
can emphasize different portions of the content by creating pertinent hyperlinks.

"For example," Barrett notes, "a student can link a piece of work to a statement describing
a particular curriculum standard and to an explanation of why the piece of work meets that
standard. That reflection on the work turns the item into evidence that the standard has
been met."

The ability to use hyperlinks to connect sections of portfolio content is one advantage of
using electronic portfolios instead of paper portfolios. "A paper portfolio is static," Barrett
points out. "In addition, a paper portfolio usually represents the only copy of portfolio
content. When the portfolio is in digital format, students can easily duplicate and transport
it."

WHAT AGE GROUP?

"I've helped teachers develop electronic portfolios for students of all ages --from primary
students through adults," Todd Bergman told Education World. "Students in about fourth or
fifth grade -- sometimes younger -- are capable of using Web-based publishing tools to
build digital portfolios."

Helen Barrett agreed, saying, "Electronic portfolios work best with students who have the
technological capabilities to develop and maintain their own portfolios."

Electronic portfolios are more popular in higher education than in K-12, Barrett added,
because they require access to technology in classrooms. For electronic portfolios to become
more commonplace at the K-12 level, schools need more computers in individual classrooms.

347
TOOLS FOR PERSONAL GROWTH

"Developing personal portfolios incorporates many different technology tools," Bergman told
Education World. "But it is also a process of self-reflection and personal growth. The process
is very personal -- a story of self that involves a great deal of self-reflection and thought.

"Kids really take ownership and pride in the portfolio process," Bergman added, "developing
particular aspects of their portfolios based on what is important to them, their unique
knowledge, and their unique skills. Demonstrations or displays in the portfolio include an
explanation of the context of the material, where the demonstration was done, why it was
done (its purpose), and what learning or capacities are demonstrated through its inclusion.
Some students demonstrate a capacity for written expression, for example, while others
highlight mathematical ability. Some illustrate leadership qualities, while others showcase
musical talent."

NOT A DIGITAL SCRAPBOOK

"Many people emphasize the electronic side of electronic portfolios," Barrett said. "I tend to
emphasize the portfolio side. People often approach electronic portfolios as a multimedia or
Web development project and lose sight of the portfolio component. Reflection, however,
plays a critical role in the development of a portfolio. An electronic portfolio is not a digital
scrapbook."

Bergman sees electronic portfolios as a natural extension of the technology that today's K-
12 students are growing up with. "This is an exciting time for digital technologies and digital
tools and today's kids are tuned into this environment," he told Education World. "Digital
portfolios are a natural fit."

348
 Appendix 8. Reflection Questionnaire

Name: RESEARCH MATTERS

Major:
Student ID#:
Which group were you in? (Circle the one that applies.) Copying Summarizing

The purpose of this questionnaire is to investigate how satisfied you are with the ‘copying’ or
‘summarizing’ activities. It will take about 10-15 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

1. How many hours, on average, did you spend ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’ each text?

1) Less than 1 hour ( )

2) Between 1 and 2 hours ( )
3) Between 2 and 3 hours ( )
4) Between 3 and 4 hours ( )
5) More than 4 hours ( )
6) Other (Please specify in either English or Korean.) ( )

2. Up to what extent do you think your reading and writing abilities have improved
through ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’? Which specific areas of reading and writing have
been improved?

Each statement is followed by five numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and each number means the
following:
‘1’ means that ‘Gotten much worse.’
‘2’ means that ‘Gotten somewhat worse.’
‘3’ means that ‘Stayed the same.’
‘4’ means that ‘Gotten somewhat better.’
‘5’ means that ‘Gotten much better.’

After reading each statement, circle the number (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) which applies to you.

349
 Gotten Gotten
much much
worse better
1 Finding main ideas and supporting ideas of each paragraph or 1 2 3 4 5
the whole text

2 Making an inference [Answering questions requiring 1 2 3 4 5

information outside the text]

3 Understanding and identifying the details that are relevant to 1 2 3 4 5

main ideas and supporting ideas

4 Guessing the meaning of new words or expressions by using 1 2 3 4 5

context clues

5 Applying new words and expressions appropriately in your 1 2 3 4 5

writing

6 Learning better ways to organize sentences/phrases/ideas 1 2 3 4 5

7 Understanding and using various sentence structures/patterns 1 2 3 4 5

in your writing

8 Using correct grammar in your writing 1 2 3 4 5

9 Using spelling, punctuation and capitalization correctly 1 2 3 4 5

10 Please specify other areas of reading and writing that you

think improved. Write in Korean.

3. What were the most helpful and most difficult aspects of the ‘copying’ or ‘summarizing’
activity? Why do you think so? (Write in Korean.)

350
4. Did you study to improve your reading and writing in addition to the ‘copying’ or
‘summarizing’ activity during this semester? (Circle the one that applies.) Yes No

---- If you answered ‘Yes,’ about how many hours a day did you spend studying?
(Write in Korean.)

---- What did you read and write in English, and how did you study reading and writing?
(Write in Korean.)

351
 CURRICULUM VITAE
Yoo-Jean (Jinnie) Lee
E-mail: yl14@indiana.edu; dabin8201@hotmail.com

Education
2010 Ph.D. in the Department of Literacy, Culture, and Language Education,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
2006 M.A. in the Department of TESOL and Applied Linguistics Department,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
2005 B.A. in English Education, Hongik University, Seoul, Korea

Certification/Licenses
2005 Certificate in Korean language teaching, Korea University,
Seoul, Korea
2005 Second-degree certificate in English language teaching,
Hongik University, Seoul, Korea

Work Experience
Lecturer
2009 Action English course at Dongduk Women’s University, Seoul, Korea
• taught how to listen and speak better in English
• developed course materials and rubrics
• assessed students’ presentations and role plays

Teaching Assistance
2008 L650 Internship in Language Education course at Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN, USA
• designed syllabus for a summer intensive course, L530 Topical
Workshop in Language Education (‘Strategy-based language
teaching foreign language/English as a second language’)
• planned lessons, selected course readings, and developed course
materials with the professor and other teaching assistants
• assessed students’ presentations and papers
• participated in and helped group discussions in the class
 Internship Trainer
2008 Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
• helped students, who were preparing to teach online courses, create
discussion forums
• helped students how to upload class schedule, syllabus, course
readings, etc. on the online course webpage
• helped students practice how to respond to common questions asked
in the discussion forums, how to provide feedback to assignment
papers

Online Instructor
2007-2008 L530 ESL/EFL Assessment course offered at Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN, USA
• taught how to assess students in different EFL contexts
• led discussions and encouraged participations of teachers from
different countries nominated by the Office of English Language
Programs of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S.
Department of State
• developed course materials and rubrics
• designed syllabus

ESL Instructor
2006 EIE (English in the Evening) course offered at Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN, USA
• taught English to beginning and advanced adult students
• planned lessons, designed syllabus and level goals

English Practice Teacher

2004 Hongik Boy’s High School, Seoul, Korea
• taught English (speaking, listening, reading, grammar) to four
classes of the first grade
• advised students
• filed and wrote school documents
 English Test Examiner
2003 Hanul Education Center, Seoul, Korea
• made national English exam for elementary and middle school
students
• opted out good questions and made appropriate questions for gifted
children
• studied about good English texts for gifted and talented children
• organized all questions into test format using computer

Publications
Park, S. O., & Lee, Y. J. (2009). Comparing the effectiveness of copying and summarizing
practice in English education: Based on the case study. Modern English Education,
10(2), 60-86.

Lee, Y. J. (2009). Will a U. S. earned Ph.D. help a teacher educator apply theory to practice
in Korea?: A case study. English Language & Literature Teaching, 15(3), 199-222.

Conference Presentations
Lee, Y. J. (July, 2010). How do You Read Online? Exploring Korean University Students’
Metacognitive Online Reading Strategies. Paper presented at the Korea Association
of Teachers of English (KATE) 2010 International Conference, Seoul National
University, Seoul, Korea.

Cornett, A. C., Huang, Y. C. S., Lee, S. H., Lee, Y. J., Lundgren, E. A., Peng, C. Y.J., Dong, Y.,
& Rybak-Webb, K. (May, 2010). Multiple Comparison Procedures Revisited. Paper
session at 2010 American Education Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting,
Denver, CO.

In, V., Kigamwa J., Lee, Y. J., & Pookcharoen, S. (March, 2009). Exploring Metacognitive
Online Reading Strategies among EFL Students. Doctoral Forum Poster Presentation
at TESOL Convention, Denver, CO.

In, V., Lee, Y. J., Kigamwa J., & Pookcharoen, S. (February, 2009). What are You Thinking?:
Metacognitive Strategy during Online Reading. Student-Led Symposium (SLED) at
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

Lee, Y. J. (November, 2008). Scribing and Summarizing: Teaching Academic and Social
Language Patterns. Paper presented at Indiana Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages (INTESOL) 2008 Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN.

Lee, Y. J. (April, 2007). Let’s Have Fun with Drama. Foreign/Second Language Share Fair at
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Grants and Awards Received
2009 Won the first place for the TESOL research poster, chosen at the International
TESOL 2009 Conference in Denver
2007-2009 Philanthropic Educational Organization (PEO) International Scholarship

Membership
2009 The English Teachers Association in Korea, Korea
2009 The Korea Association of Teachers of English, Korea
2009 The Modern English Education Society, Korea