Title Y: A Study of the intercultural communicative competence and the effects of cultural familiarity on

reading comprehension based on ethnicity.

Title X: The role of cultural reading to promote student’s critical thinking and reading comprehension

Theories:
Methodology:

Methodology Y:

With the purpose of academic research. We (researchers) used the study of Elnaz Khataee and
Hamidreza Dowtalabadi on intercultural communicative competence and the effects of cultural
familiarity on reading comprehension based on ethnicity. To have a strong foundations and references
when we conduct our study.

Data and method

2.1. Participants

The participants of the study were 130 Iranian EFL students studying in the field of English language

With two ethnic backgrounds (Fars and Turk). The participants of the study were selected purposely
from

Three universities located in Iran (Arak University, Hormozgan University, and Zanjan University). Each

Ethnic group included an experimental group of 28 participants and a control group of 27, therefore, we

Had two experimental groups and two control groups (see Tables 1 and 2).

The participants of the study were both females and males. The age range was between 18 and 28

And their English language proficiency was advanced. The Oxford Placement Test (OPT) consisting of

60 multiple-choice items was given to participants to check their proficiency level. According to the
results

Of the Oxford Placement Test, the participants were approximately at the identical level of English

Proficiency.

2.2. Pilot study

The items of the reading comprehension tests were piloted with 14 EFL learners of similar

educational backgrounds and cultures to the participants in the study, who had OPT scores in the same

range as those of the participants. The purpose of the pilot study was to identify test items that were too

easy or too difficult. The study revealed that each item performed satisfactorily, suggesting that the

reading comprehension tests were considered to be consistent enough to go on conducting the tests to
the

real sample. Test validation was done by three TEFL professors, and the problems were solved.

2.3. Materials and instruments

For the study, Oxford Placement Test, reading comprehension texts and tests, and the ICC

Questionnaire (Mirzaei and Forouzandeh, 2013) were prepared and used. The Intercultural

Communicative Competence Questionnaire (ICCQ), which was developed by Mirzaei and Forouzandeh

(2013), was used to explore the level of intercultural communicative competence of the participants.
This

Questionnaire includes 12 items for evaluating the participants’ knowledge about cultural self-
awareness,

Culture-related information, linguistic knowledge and socio-linguistic awareness, five items to assess

Participants’ ability to communicate across cultures and also five items for assessing participants’ respect

For other cultures, so it has a total of 22 items (Mirzaci and Forouzandch, 2013). The items have been

Rated on a five-point Likert scale type ranging from one strongly disagree to five strongly agree by the

Participants.

The material used for the treatment of the study was authentic English texts with a high load of

Cultural information. The original and nativized version of the text one and the original and the

Relevant background knowledge of the text two (prepared by the researchers), were also applied to the

EFL learners.

2.4. Data collection procedures

This experiment was conducted over two months and in four phases as follows: Week 1 (First phase):

Administration of Oxford Placement Test/Week 3 (Second phase): Treatment 1 (Nativization

Process)/Week 5 (Third phase): Treatment 2 (Providing Relevant Background Knowledge)/Week 7

(Fourth phase): ICC Questionnaire. In the first week, the participants were asked to complete the Oxford
Placement test to ensure that they are homogeneous. Nine students were excluded from the study since

Their test scores were extremely low or high.

Then, in week 3, the original and nativized version of the first text with a high load of cultural

Knowledge were used for the experimental and control groups. There were two experimental and two

Control groups (Turk and Fars). Members of the control groups were the ones who studied the original

Version of the first text, and members of the experimental groups were the ones who received the

Treatment (nativization process) of the study and studied the nativized version of the same text.

After that, in week 5, a culturally loaded text (text two) was given to both experimental and control

Groups. The students in the experimental groups were provided with the appropriate background

Knowledge. The members of the control groups were provided with no background knowledge.

Comprehension tests, aimed at testing the participants’ reading comprehension of the cultural content
of

The texts were conducted after the administration of each text in weeks 3 and 5.

At last, all the participants were asked to complete the ICC Questionnaire (Mirzaei and

Forouzandeh, 2013) to explore their level of intercultural communicative competence. Each

Questionnaire took about 20 to 25 minutes to be completed. After that, the participants sent the
answers

Through email to the researchers. The questionnaire includes 12 items for evaluating the participants’

Knowledge about cultural self-awareness, culture-related information, linguistic knowledge and socio-

Linguistic awareness, 5 items to assess participants’ ability to communicate across cultures and also 5

Items for assessing participants’ respect for other cultures, so it has a total of 22 items.
With the purpose of academic research. We (researchers) used the study of Prof. Dr. Hamka from
university of Jakarta Indonesia. On The role of cultural reading to promote student’s critical thinking and
reading comprehension To clearly manifest the factors that impacts reading comprehension.

Methodology X:

Materials and Methods

The research is a case study of the techniques used by lecturers to introduce critical

Reading to students. The research, which was carried out from May to June 2020, comprises

Of 7 (seven) undergraduate students in the 2019 2020 academic year majoring in Social

And Political Sciences whose English were still at the intermediate level.

A total of 7 students were purposively selected from 25 students for in-depth

Observation. The selected students were taught by the researcher in the first semester,

Therefore, they were already introduced to critical reading and thinking, even though it was

Not comprehensive. Another reason that led to the use of limited participants was that the

Research result acts as a reference to teach reading for the upcoming semesters, therefore, an

In-depth observation was essential in order to achieve real information.

The Role of Critical Reading to Promote Students Critical Thinking and Reading Comprehension

The selected participants had a different level of English knowledge, with three (P5,

P6. And P7), two (P3, and P4), and two (P1, and P2) students in the poor, moderate, and

High categories based on their performances in semester one and two (semester 2 was not

Over yet at that time).

This is a qualitative research with data obtained from interview answers of seven (7)

Undergraduates majoring in Social and Political Sciences. The data were discussed, analyzed.

And evaluated by two raters using the rubric method adapted from Leist et al. (2012).

Furthermore, the semi-structured interview was used to triangulate the data gathered from the

Students’ answers. This interview was also intended to discover their opinion on critical
Reading, thereby fostering their critical thinking and comprehension abilities.

Students’ answers were analyzed in the second meeting, which indicated and noted that

They encountered some difficulties, such as lack of English mastery, writing a conclusion.

Identifying implied meaning, and expressing an opinion. In this session, students’

Problematic parts and the inability to practice writing conclusions were analyzed. Some

Grammatical points, such as tenses, prepositions, and sentences, which previously taught,

Were also reviewed. The discussion and practice session is very important to improve

Students’ critical thinking and comprehension.

The procedures of collecting data for the third to the eight meetings were the same as

Those in the first and second meetings. Each topic was followed by six (6) questions, which

The students expected to answer individually.

The lecturers were assisted by their colleagues to rate the students’ answers based on

Their critical thinking components when reading using the rubric process. Each point was

Elaborated in the rubric of Critical Thinking for Critical Reading, as shown in Table 1.

Paul and Elder’s (2007b) framework applies a particular method of analysis and

Evaluation to provide students instructions on ways to increase their critical thinking skills.

They also propose some Universal Intellectual Standards, such as clarity, accuracy,

Relevance, logicalness, breadth, precision, significance, Completeness, fairness, and depth.

These standards need to be applied by ensuring consistency, and they need to be clearly

Instructed to understand the standards. Therefore, the ultimate aim is to infuse these

Principles into students’ thoughts by becoming part of their inner speech and leading them to

A better purpose. These standards have to be applied to the element of thought, namely

Purposes, Questions, Points of view, Information, Inferences, Concepts, Implications, and

Assumptions.

Leist et al. (2012) adopted 6 Universal Intellectual Standards created by Paul & Elder

(2007b) with the criteria and points shown 1 Table 1. The scoring system is concentrated on a

Chart form with four elements, namely (a) assignment characterization (reading prompt), (b)

A range supporting degrees of accomplishment, © preferred skill types or dimensions, as

Well as (d) performance level categories. In this current study, the scoring system of Critical
Thinking and reading are shown in table 1 was used to assess the student’s written responses.
Debate

Which methodology is more effective and more reliable in terms of data gathering

In this part. The researchers would like to see in comparison of the two methodologies if there are
difference, Effectiveness (in terms of usage) and reliability of the datas gathered using various means of
data gathering. We (researchers) would like to see what is the most effective and most appropriate
means of gathering data that would give us clear and reliable answers in accordance with the research
problem.

In methodology Y. They studied on intercultural communicative competence and the effects of cultural
familiarity on reading comprehension based on ethnicity. The participants of their study are 130 EFL
Iranian students. They were able to garner datas through using Oxford Placement Test consisting of 60
items multiple choice and ICC questionnaires. While on methodology X. They did a quantitative case
study on The role of cultural reading to promote student’s critical thinking and reading comprehension.
Their participants are 7 undergraduate students whose English are intermediate level. The researchers
were able to identify the difficulties encountered by the participants by adopting the 6 Universal
Intellectual Standards created by Paul & Elder(2007b) such as lack of English mastery, identifying implied
meaning and writing conclusion. The researchers obtained data through interview questions. Does using
more research tools such as Oxford Placement Test and ICC Questionnaires guarantee better and more
accurate findings? Or just by using interview questions such as the 6 universal intellectual standards
provide enough data to be evaluated? Methodology Y had pilot tested their tools to test if the questions
are too easy or too difficult and they also used another tool which is ICC questionnaires to assess
students while on the other hand. The second methodology only used a universal intellectual questions
making the answers more common and less valid. Therefore. We researchers concluded that using
verified and less used tools as much as 2 tools is enough to thoroughly filter information; providing only
quality and accurate data to answer research questions.
Result:

Result X:

Results and Discussion

The six standards of critical thinking skills in students were examined and assessed by

Two raters, namely the researcher and another English lecturer. Table 2 indicates the

Students’ scores in each topic using Leist et al. (2012) critical thinking scoring system.

In the second meeting, the lecturer discussed the students' problem when accomplishing

the first task. In each reading passage, students were expected to explain six questions.

When answering task 1, some students indicated that it was not easy for them to use critical

thinking to analyze the texts, while the weak ones had problems in all elements. However,

the lecturer found two elements of critical thinking that caused much greater problems than

others, namely identifying/generating conclusion as well as expressing a personal opinion

The Role of Critical Reading to Promote Students' Critical Thinking and Reading Comprehension

(SES), and identifying the writer's purpose (SE1). The following are possible reasons

students had problems in these particular areas:

Lack of English mastery (P5, P6, and P7).

Here is the excerpt of the interview in Indonesian when answering question 5 (S5)

P5: "sebenarnya saya mengerti... tapi... saya kesulitan menulisnya secara mendetail dalam

bahasa Inggris... karena saya harus menerangkan dengan lengkap....hal lain kosa kata

yang terbatas juga masalah....jadi saya menulis sebisa saya saja....... Although I

understand the topic... I find it difficult to provide a detailed explanation in English due to

my limited vocabulary... However, I write as much as I can......

Here is the excerpt of student P5 (topic 1) when answering question 5 (S5):

In my opinion, it was all true because many of my friends were like that and after

graduating from college, had gotten a permanent job with a high position. if he wants to get

out, must adapt again.

However, students with better English did not have problems drawing conclusions and

expressing their opinion. Here is the excerpt of student P1 (topic 1) when answering

question 5 (S5).

In my personal opinion, I agree that working while attending school is a good idea. It

makes students to be more appreciative of everything they have and encourages them to

learn how to save money because earning it is not easy. They also learn to respect time,

when to work, study, and play to understand that life does not always go according to their

wishes. By working, they are also exposed to knowing more people and understand that not

everyone has similar characteristics. The greatest lesson students failed to acquire from

college was getting used to the difficulties of life out there.

Lack of prior knowledge and practice (P5, P6, and P7)

The second hardest question is to determine the purpose of the text. Here is the excerpt

From the interview in Indonesian.

P5 “Sulit untuk saya memahami arti yang tersirat dalam membaca……. Saya harus

Menemukan dan memahami arti yang tersirat di dalam teks.” It is difficult for me to

Understand the implied meaning in reading… therefore, I tend to make out time to find

And understand the meaning in every text…….

The act of reading is also associated with some information, which is difficult to

Determine without knowing the writer’s purpose. Therefore, students tend to find it difficult

When the text contains implied meaning because they had no knowledge of what the writer

Means and are not used to practicing critical reading.

According to Heidari (2020), a number of readers read between and beyond the lines

Of a text. Reading between the lines involves making a relationship between the

Information explicitly said in various parts of a text and understanding their

Interrelationship. While reading beyond the lines means the ability to relate the information

Expressed in the reading passage to background knowledge in order to grasp the

Understanding and interpretation of the author’s envisioned meaning.

Besides a lack of English mastery, students P5, P6, and P7 only read the line where

They found explicit information. The finding showed that students that do not have good

Language mastery and lacked background knowledge found it difficult to establish their

Critical thinking and comprehension. Although it is important to practice their

Comprehension skills, however, background knowledge and vocabulary are more important

As they have to relate them to the topic in order to achieve their comprehension (Sedita,

2018). Therefore, readers with strong background knowledge comprehend better than those

With a poor background (Aloqaili, 2012). Meanwhile, average students can improve their

Critical thinking through sequential reading because they had adequate English language

Mastery (P3, and P4).

Result Y:

3. Results

The second phase of this study aimed at investigating the effect of cultural familiarity by using text

Forum for Linguistic Studies 2023; 5(2): 1699.

nativization (Treatment 1) on reading comprehension based on ethnicity and also to examine whether

there are any differences in the performance of Turk and Fars EFL learners. Table 3 shows the descriptive

statistics giving the mean scores of the experimental and control groups of both Turk and Fars EFL

learners. According to Table 3 and also Figure 1, the participants of the experimental groups who

received the nativized version of the original text in both Fars and Turk groups had higher mean scores

than the control groups (Turk experimental mean = 6.68, Turk control mean = 4.96, Fars experimental

mean = 7.00, and Fars control mean = 4.93).

Figure 1. Mean differences in experimental and control groups of Turk and Fars EFL learners (Treatment
1).

Table 4 is the presentation of descriptive statistics giving the mean scores of the experimental and

Control groups of both Turk and Fars EFL learners for Treatment 2, which is providing the

Relevant background knowledge. According to Table 4 and also Figure 2, the participants of the

Experimental groups in both Fars and Turk groups had higher mean scores than the control groups (Turk

Experimental mean = 6.93, Turk control mean = 5.00, Fars experimental mean = 6.50, and Fars control

Mean = 4.89) (See Table 2 and also Figure 2).

Experimental Control

Figure 2. Mean differences in experimental and control groups of Turk and Fars EFL learners (Treatment
2).

Independent-sample t-test was used to examine the differences between Fars and Turk experimental

and control groups regarding their familiarity with the cultural content of the texts. Based on the results

of the t-test, Table 5 indicates that students differ significantly in experimental and control groups in
both

treatments 1 and 2. Treatment 1: Turk groups (t = 4.2797, df = 53, p < 0.000) and Fars groups (t = 5.5470,

df = 53, p <0.000). Treatment 2: Turk groups (t = 4.9664, df = 53, p<0.000) and Fars groups (t = 4.1525,

df = 53, p < 0.000).

As seen in the Tables 3, 4, and 5, there is an affirmative answer to the first and second research

Questions; the participants who received the treatment of the study, which was text nativization as

Treatment 1 and providing relevant background knowledge as Treatment 2 outscored and outperformed

The other groups (both Turks and Fars). Therefore, cultural familiarity has a significantly positive effect

On the reading comprehension of both Turk and Fars EFL learners.

To explore whether there is any difference between experimental and control groups based on

Ethnicity, an independent-sample t-test was used (see Table 6). Results of the t-test showed that EFL

Learners of the Fars experimental group were not significantly different from the Turk experimental
group

(t = 1.0495, df = 54) and (t = 1.4240, df = 0.1602). Table 6 demonstrated that Turk and Fars language

Learners have a similar reaction in response to cultural familiarization in reading comprehension, and

Ethnic differences cannot be the reason for the difference in reading comprehension performance of EFL

Learners in Iran.

At last, the participants were asked to complete the ICC Questionnaire (Mirzaci and Forouzandeh,

2013). To find out whether there is any difference between groups' ICC level based on ethnicity,

descriptive statistics and an independent sample t-test was conducted. Table 7 shows the results of the

descriptive statistics for participants' scores on the questionnaire. As it is shown in the table, there were

65 Turk (50%) and 65 Fars (50%) EFL learners and a total of 130 participants who completed the

questionnaire. Regarding the participants' ICC scores (Min = 57 and Max = 89), the mean score of the

Turk participants is (74.98) and the mean score of the Fars participants is (75.12). According to Table 7,
the mean score of the Turk participants is similar to the mean score of the Fars participants.

Finally, an independent sample t-test was computed to find out whether there is any significant

Difference between the ICC scores of Turk and Fars participants. Table 8 indicated the t-test results for

ICC scores of the two groups of participants. As is presented in Table 8, there was no significant

Difference between both ethnic groups’ mean scores. Turk mean score (M = 74.98, SD = 6.08) and Fars

Mean score (M = 75.12, SD = 7.78), (t = 0.1143, p = 0.9092). Table 8 demonstrates that the Turk and

Fars EFL learners did not perform differently on the ICC questionnaire. Therefore, in the present study,

Ethnic differences do not seem to have resulted in significant differences in the EFL learners’ ICC level.

Debate:

Does ethnicity has something to do with reading comprehension?

In result Y: They conducted a study on intercultural communicative competence and the effects of
cultural familiarity on reading comprehension based on ethnicity. They found out that. Cultural
familiarity has something to do with reading comprehension. The more a student can relate into
something they read it activates their schema;”pattern of learning, linking perceptions, ideas and actions
to make sense of the world”. ( Adexcel, 2019). For example. If a teacher talks about snow. The students
who live in a tropical country cannot relate to it. They aren’t familiar with the words related to snow
such as “ thaw, snowflakes, Fahrenheit and more. Simply because they haven’t experienced snow. While
on the other hand. Result X studied the role of cultural reading to promote student’s critical thinking
and reading comprehension. The use of traditional means of reading such as; books, pamphlets and
magazines. The researcher found out that "students are inclined to develop their critical thinking when
the topics are thought- provoking and familiar. The use of critical reading strategies can also expand their
interest in reading, thereby making them aware of the importance of literacy"( Hamka, 2020). Therefore.
After thoroughly contrasting study X vs study Y. We ( researchers) concluded that reading comprehension
has something to do with cultural familiarity. If students were to read something they aren't familiar
based on the studies above. More likely they'll struggle comprehending it because its foreign to them.
The value of debating these two different studies is that it gave us (researchers) clarity on what entice
students to read freely on their own. Since our study is all about the impact of pleasure reading on
reading comprehension it gave us insights on what materials to use when we conduct our study,
materials that they're familiar with that would entice them to read.