an ivestigation into the relationship between students perception of cohesive devices and their reading comprehension at a high school in ho chi minh city

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY - HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE An investigation into the relationship between

Background to the study

Reading comprehension is a crucial aspect of language acquisition and development (Sadeghi et al., 2012) with numerous benefits that enhance the language skills of learners Reading comprehension is important in the improvement of vocabulary and understanding of words as it enables language learners to learn new words in context, which is essential for language development (Alahirsh, 2014) Reading comprehension also plays a vital role in enhancing critical thinking skills, according to Tung, Chi-An & Chang, Shu-Ying (2009), and improve learners’ productive skills, as stated by Sreena & Ilankumaran (2018) Reading comprehension also plays a crucial role not just in a person's educational development and their personal growth (Mckee, 2012) This is because it keeps the readers informed, stimulates thought and offers pleasure It is a fundamental skill necessary for success in life

Despite the many benefits of reading comprehension, the process is not always easy As Cook (1989) pointed out, reading is a complex and actively thinking mental activity that requires the reader to interact with the writer through the text and experience, predict, verify and acknowledge information based on the reader's previous information, knowledge and experience This complex process can sometimes result in the reader failing to grasp the relationship among sentences in a reading passage

2 Cohesive devices are traditionally stressed in writing (Nindya & Widiati, 2020; Tian et al., 2021; Ludji et al., 2022) They are pivotal in ensuring a written piece is coherent and logically structured When employed correctly, cohesive devices bridge disparate ideas, ensuring the content remains unified, aiding reader comprehension However, the role of cohesive devices in reading is profound Connor (1984) asserts that the proper use of cohesive devices allows the reader to grasp the connection between different language elements in the text In the wrttien text reception framework proposed by (McCarthy, 1991), cohesion is a component of language knowledge in bottom-up processing, which in turn is a component of the whole reading comprehension process In the field of pedagogy, the theories of cohesion have been found to be of great help in improving understanding and interpretation of reading passages (Fu, 2021)

Multiple studies have shown that texts with high cohesion are easier to read and comprehend compared to those with low cohesion (Tsai et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2019) Consistent with these findings, eye-tracking data indicates that cohesive sentences can significantly enhance reading comprehension When a sentence is more cohesive, readers tend to make fewer fixations per word, suggesting that the content is more straightforward to grasp (Acarturk et al., 2013) Bo (2018) highlights that direct teaching of cohesive devices can significantly improve students' reading comprehension skills When readers are acquainted with these devices, they can more proficiently understand the relationships within different parts of a text, a skill indispensable for foreign language learners

On top of that, sharpened reading capability, with the help of a profound understanding of cohesive devices, invariably leads to improved writing As learners become proficient in discerning these devices during reading, they can harness this knowledge in their writing, as demonstrated by Lubelska (1991)

3 Figure 1.1: The relationship between reading and writing

In the Vietnamese context, EFL learners face several challenges in reading comprehension Studies reveal that students often struggle with vocabulary, grammar, and the effective use of reading strategies (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2017) Bui (2016) highlights the role of implicit and explicit grammatical knowledge in understanding texts, indicating a need for grammatical competence A significant intervention, cognitive reading strategy training, has shown promise in improving reading performance by addressing reading anxiety and comprehension barriers (Lạc et al., 2019)

These challenges underscore the importance of cohesive devices in reading comprehension Cohesion instruction emerges as a potential solution, facilitating a deeper understanding of texts and enhancing learners' ability to navigate complex grammatical structures and vocabulary effectively This calls for more research to explore the roles of cohesive devices and suitable teaching methods to integrate them into EFL curricula effectively

Statement of the problem

During my teaching experience at Vĩnh Viễn High School, I observed that many students struggle with reading comprehension They often resort to translating texts word by word, which make them only able to understand only isolated sentences without connecting them into a coherent narrative or argument Consequently, students struggle across various text types including narrative, expository, descriptive, persuasive, instructional, etc and with different comprehension questions like identifying the main ideas, evaluating and synthesizing information, making inferences, or understanding the writer’s purpose

To address this issue, enhancing their reading skills through both top-down and bottom-up processing strategies is crucial According to Chen and Yang (2015), high school students tend to favor bottom-up strategies for reading Cohesion, a key element of bottom-up processing (McCarthy, 1991), is particularly appealing because, unlike grammar and vocabulary, it can be relatively quick to learn and can significantly aid in text comprehension I believe that emphasizing the teaching of cohesive devices could greatly benefit students' reading comprehension By teaching students how to recognize and understand the role of these devices in texts, we can significantly enhance their ability to follow the flow of information and connect ideas However, despite the potential of cohesive devices to improve understanding and interpretation of texts, there remains a lack of research on how the perception - understood as the way the readers recognize, interpret, and organize their sensory experiences to comprehend texts - of cohesion influences reading comprehension, especially within the high school context This observation has led me to pursue this research.

Aims of the study

The objectives of this study are twofold Firstly, it seeks to investigate high school students' perceptions of cohesive devices within texts, including references, conjunctions, substitutions, ellipsis, and repetition and collocation Secondly, the study aims to examine

5 the relationship between high school students' ability to identify and understand cohesive devices in texts and their overall reading comprehension.

Research questions

Two research questions have been formulated to anchor this study:

1 How do students at Vĩnh Viễn high school perceive cohesive devices in reading texts?

2 What is the relationship between the students’ perception of cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance?

Significance of the study

This study is an effort to highlight the importance of incorporating cohesive devices into English language instruction, particularly at the high school level Despite their critical role in text comprehension, cohesive devices often receive less emphasis in teaching compared to more tangible aspects of language like grammar and vocabulary This is largely due to their abstract nature, which presents unique challenges in both learning and teaching

The findings of this research provides the evidence for the benefits of incorporating cohesive devices into reading lessons Understanding the impact of cohesive devices on reading comprehension can inform the development of teaching materials and activities that focus on these linguistic elements, making teachers’ reading instructions more effective As a result, students would be better equipped to tackle a wide range of texts, improving their overall academic performance and preparing them for future educational and professional challenges

Moreover, this study also offers a theoretical contribution by deepening the understanding of how learners' perception of cohesion influences their reading comprehension This insight will not only pave the way for future research but also suggest ideas for pedagogical approaches, enabling educators to devise more effective strategies for teaching cohesive devices in reading

Scope of the study

The study is conducted on two grade 12 classes at Vĩnh Viễn high school Therefore, the findings are most relevant to this school and may not be generalizable to other schools without further study Moreover, while the study encompasses all cohesive devices, due to constraints related to the sample size, it will specifically draw correlations for the major types of cohesion: grammatical and lexical

On top of that, the study focuses on students' perceptions of cohesive devices to examine their ability to recognize and interpret these linguistic elements within texts, which is different from investigating whether students have explicit knowledge of these linguistic constructs This means that the emphasis of this study is on understanding how students intuitively use cohesive devices in their reading process, rather than their ability to identify or define these linguistic elements.

Organization of thesis chapters

The research is organized into five chapters:

Chapter 1 offers an overview of the study's background and the particular context in which it was carried out It outlines the aims and the research questions of the study It also discusses the significance and the scope of the study

Chapter 2 contains the literature review of cohesion and reading comprehension It also presents the theoretical framework of the study

Chapter 3 outlines the research methodology, the design of the study, participant details, the research tools and methods employed for gathering and analyzing data

Chapter 4 presents the data results, examining how students perceive cohesive devices and the relationship between students’ ability to recognize cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance This chapter also discusses the implications of these findings

7 Chapter 5 concludes the research by answering the research questions, discussing the pedagogical significance and recommendations, acknowledging the study's contributions, and noting its limitations along with proposals for future research

Cohesion and coherence

Cohesion is the semantic relation between one element and another in a text (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) Accroding to O’Halloran (2008), Cohesion involves the process of recognizing the links that are signaled through linguistic means

Coherence is an abstract notion, so each author has a different definition for it One of the definitions is coherence gives the feeling that a text is unified and not merely a random collection of sentences (McCarthy, 1991) Givon (1993) suggests what is often described as text coherence is a cognitive phenomenon in which the brain organizes memories of the text

Cohesion is viewed as the observable part of text construction, including the use of connectives, pronouns, and lexical repetitions that link sentences and clauses together Coherence, however, is more abstract, encompassing the reader's perception of how the text components come together in a meaningful whole, influenced by their understanding and knowledge of the world (Carrell, 1982) This distinction underscores that while cohesion can be systematically analyzed in the text, coherence is a product of the reader's interaction with the text, making it more subjective and variable across individuals (Tierney

Cohesive devices

Cohesive devices refer to the linguistic elements within a text that link sentences and paragraphs together Cohesive devices have been widely acknowledged as a key feature of good academic writing (Nindya & Widiati, 2020; Tian et al., 2021; Ludji et al., 2022) However, there are researches that highlights the significance of cohesive devices not only in writing but also in reading comprehension Yu (2003) found that cohesive devices enhance the reader's ability to build a coherent mental representation of the text by increasing contextual effects and reducing cognitive burden Bo (2018) observed that explicit instruction in cohesive devices led to enhanced reading comprehension among learners

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), there are two types of cohesion cohesion which are grammatical and lexial cohesion

Grammatical cohesion is achieved through the use of grammatical structures that connect components of a text Grammatical cohesion comprises reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Reference is the use of a word to refer to another in a text (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) References are generally of two types Exophoric reference is a reference to a situation outside the text For example, in the sentence “That is a wonderful idea!”, the pronound

“that” refered to an referent outside the text (Bahaziq, 2016) On the other hand, endophoric reference points to an element within the text For example, in “Amy went to the party She sat with Sara.” The pronoun “she” refered back to Amy (Bahaziq, 2016, p.113) Endophoric reference can be further divided into cataphoric (forward pointing) or anaphoric (backward pointing) Only endophoric reference is cohesive

10 There are three different types of coherence reference, being personal, demonstrative and comparative (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

1 Personal pronouns could be in the forms of personal pronouns, possessive pronouns or possessive identifiers

2 Demonstrative reference comprises demonstratives, definite article and adverbs

3 Comparative reference can either express a connection or make a comparision between things.

Substitution occurs when an element is replaced by another element in the text to avoid repetition Substitution also creates a tighter connection within the context and making the expression more succinct (Chu, 2017) There are three types of substitution which are nominal, verbal and clausal (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

1 Nominal substitution uses a noun to substitute for a head noun For example, in “My axe is too blunt I must get a sharper one.”, the word “one” is a nominal substitution for “axe” (Jackson, 1982, p 103)

2 Verbal substitution uses a verb to substitute for a lexical verb, like in “Did you see

Jim last week – I did on Thursday” where “did” preplaced “see” (Jackson, 1982, p 103)

3 Clausal substitution uses a word to substitute for a clause For example, in “Are you going to the conference? If so, we could travel together.”, the word “so” substituted for “Are you going to the conference?” (Jackson, 1982, p 103)

Ellipsis is the process of removing an unnecessary element that was mentioned earlier in the text and substituting it with nothing According to Wang & Cho (2010), ellipsis refers to the process of leaving out information that has been mentioned before Chu (2017) posited that an element can be considered elliptical if it does not have to explicitly display all the characteristics or meanings that have contributed to its formation Moreover, ellipsis is seen as a form of anaphoric relation since the omitted information is related to previous content within the text (Bahaziq, 2016) The three types of ellipsis are nominal, verbal and clausal (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

1 Nominal ellipsis involves the removal of a head noun For example, in “Four other oysters followed them And yet another four”, the head noun “oysters” was omitted

2 Verbal ellipsis involes the removal of a lexical verb For example, in “It may or it may not”, the verb was omitted (Jackson, 1982, p 104)

3 Clausal ellipsis is the removal of many parts of a clause For example, in “Who was playing the piano? – Peter was”, both the verb and the noun that follows it was omitted (Jackson, 1982, p 104)

Conjunctions are devices that link a sentence, or a clause, to another Hu (1994) believes that conjunction involves linking two adjacent sentences or groups of sentences According to Mohammed (2015), conjunction is essentially how the author guides the reader to connect upcoming information with what has already been mentioned Bahaziq (2016) claimed that conjunctions organize the text in a logical sequence that makes sense to the reader or listener There are four groups of conjunction: additive, adversative, causal, and temporal (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

12 Additve conjunctions adds additional information to the sentence with words like furthermore, besides, incidentally, etc (Jackson, 1982, p 104)

Adversative conjuncitons add new information that is contrasting in meaning to the sentence with words like however, nevertheless, on the other hand, etc (Jackson, 1982, p 104)

Causal conjunction “make a causal links between the two sentences” (Jackson, 1982, p 104) with words like consequently, hence, as a result, etc

Temporal conjunction make a connection between two sentences in a sequential order with words like then, previously, after that, meanwhile, etc (Jackson, 1982, p 104)

Lexical cohesion is concerned with the choice of vocabulary and the relationship that exists between lexical items in a text Nunan (1993) stipulated that lexical cohesion appears when two words in a text have a semantic connection or relation Liu (1999) suggested that lexical cohesion creates a chain within a text to ensure its coherence by selecting specific words, thereby ensuring the text's continuity Hoey (1991) views lexical cohesion as a primary tool for organizing text According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), lexical cohesion can be divided into reiteration and collocation Reitreation can be further divided into subtypes of repetition, synonym, hypernym (superordinate term) and general word

Reiteration involves repeating a specific word or using a similar term in meaning to refer to the same thing (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) According to Chu (2017), every form of repetition has a shared purpose, allowing a speaker or writer to restate something so that new information can be introduced into the text Reiteration can be in the form repetition, synonym, hypernym or a general word

13 Repetition is when a word is repeated in different places in the text For example, in “There was a large mushroom growing near her She stretched herself up on tiptoe, and peeped over the edge of the mushroom.”, the repeated use of “mushroom” created a sense of cohesion in the excerpt (Jackson, 1982, p 105)

Synonym is the use of words that has similar meaning to connect different parts of the text For example, in “I turned to the ascent of the peak The climb is perfectly easy,”, the word

“ascent” and “climb” are synonymous to each other (Jackson, 1982, p 105)

Hypernym is the use of a word and its superordinate term to achieve cohesion in a text For example, in “Henry's bought himself a new Jaguar He practically lives in the car.”, the word “car” is the superordinate term of “Jaguar” (Jackson, 1982, p 105)

Genearl word means the word that “describes a general class of objects” (Jackson, 1982, p 105) like in the case of “people”, “creature”, “stuff”, etc

Collocation refers to the occurrence of a word that is somehow linked to another word earlier in the text, either through direct repetition, synonymy, or because it typically appears in similar lexical contexts, as described by Halliday and Hasan (1976) Collocation is the cohesion achived by the use of words that usually accompany each other, like in the case of “book” and “page” (Jackson, 1982, p 105)

Definition of reading comprehension

Reading is defined as a constructive process, where the reader actively constructs meaning from the text based on their existing knowledge and the information provided by the text (Smith, 1971)

Comprehension is defined as the act of connecting two or more pieces of information (Kintsch, 1998) Reading comprehensionis the process of understanding the message within a text (Kirby, 2007; Sadeghi et al., 2012) Reading comprehension helps the reader to identify what is important or relevant in the text and decide what should be learned from the new information read (Ashbaugh, 2018)

Reading comprehension performance is how well a reader comprehend the text Magliano et al (2007) stipulated that reading comprehension assessment can be divided into two categories, depending on their goals The first category aims to categorize readers into different levels of proficiency while the second category focuses on identifying specific weaknesses or challenges individual readers may face Magliano et al (2007) also mantained that standardized tests are genrally effective for the goal of categorizing readers whereas diagnosis-centric tools, such as think-aloud protocols, are more appropriate in identifying readers’ weaknesses

There are two main approaches in reading which are top-down and bottom- up, according to Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, E (2000)

Top-down processing in reading is a concept-driven approach It utilizes the reader's background knowledge, experiences, and expectations According to Celce-Murcia and Olshtain, readers using top-down processing begin with a general understanding of the text and use their cognitive abilities and pre-existing knowledge to understand it

Recent research provides further insights into the intricacies of top-down processing in reading For instance, a study by Brothers, Swaab and Traxler (2017) highlights the influence of top-down factors on anticipatory language processing Through two experiments, it was demonstrated that lexical prediction, a critical component of language comprehension, is significantly affected by the reader's top-down comprehension strategies Yang, Tsai and Kikaru (2019) found that better readers often use more top-down strategies when reading This idea is supported by Tsai and Huang (2023), who observed similar reliance on top-down processing among students with higher English proficiency levels

However, it is not to say top-down processing sholud only be taught to students with higher reading comprehention skill or at higher educational levels Studies suggest that children start using top-down processing quite early Angosto, Sánchez, Álvarez, Cueva, and León (2013) mentioned that kids begin to use these strategies by the second year of primary school, and the effectivenss in how they use top-down processing is comparable to that of bottom-up processing in later school years

Contrasting to the top-down approach, bottom-up processing is data-driven (Celce-Murcia

& Olshtain, 2000) This model focuses on the linguistic elements of a text like vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, cohesion, ect This approach is more about the literal comprehension of the material A study by Fatemi, Vahedi and Seyyedrezaie (2014) further

16 explores the importance of bottom-up processing in the context of reading comprehension among Iranian EFL learners The research suggests that the bottom-up approach may be particularly beneficial for field-independent (FI) learners, who likely benefit from the structured, detail-oriented nature of this method Moreover, a research by Chen and Yang (2015) underscores the preference among highschool students for bottom-up reading strategies

Celce-Murcia and Olshtain also introduce the interactive model which combines elements of both top-down and bottom-up processing The authors assert that proficient reading involves an interaction between the reader's knowledge and the text information In this model, reading is seen as a dynamic process where readers use both their background knowledge and the cues from the text to comprehend the passage This approach suggests that efficient reading requires the combination of both cognitive skills and text analysis ability Qasserras (2023) maintained that keeping a balance between top-down and bottom- up strategies can not only aid comprehension but also increase reading interest among learners

2.3.2 Factors that impede reading comprehension

Nuttal (1982) identifies aspects of the text that may impede reading comprehension, which can be grouped as: (1) metalinguistic knowledge and metacognition; (2) inferential comphrehension; and (3) linguistic knowledges Metalinguistic knowledge is the explicit understanding about the language (DeKeyser, 2020) while metacognition is the act of recognizing one's own cognitive processes (Fleming & Lau, 2014) Inferential comprehension is the ability to infer additional information beyond the text (Paris et al., 1977) Linguistic knowledges consist of knowledge about vocabulary, grammar, punctuantion, cohesion, and orthography of a language (McCarthy, 1991)

Lazarus (2020) suggested that reading comprehension is also influenced by socio- demographic factors like social setting and the learners' gender

Perception

Lopes (1997) describes perception as the process through which organisms interpret and organize their sensory experiences to understand the world As Lindsay & Norman (2013) and Kostek (2005) articulate, perception enables organisms to interpret sensations in a way that creates a coherent understanding of their surroundings Bernstein (1988) further clarifies that perception is an active process where standard sensations are interpreted using knowledge and understanding, transforming them into meaningful experiences Passer & Smith (2009) define perception as the organization and interpretation of sensory information to imbue it with meaning As regard students' perception, according to Ansow et al (2022), is how students react and think about their actions or what they have learned

The concept of perception can be classified into two primary types according to Priyeti & Shintia (2010) Positive perception refers to an individual's knowledge and positive response to the objects they perceive, facilitating easier adaptation to new situations, particularly in learning contexts In contrast, negative perception encompasses the knowledge and response to objects perceived negatively, indicating a mismatch with the object of perception

Perception is influenced by many factors, both internal and external Internal factors include feelings, attitudes, individual character, prejudices, expectations, focus, learning processes, physical and psychological conditions, values, interests, and motivation (Mangoki, 2015) These elements significantly shape how individuals perceive their environment External factors, such as family background, acquired information,

18 knowledge, and the characteristics of the surrounding environment, also play crucial roles in shaping perception

The perception process is not only about receiving information but also involves how this information is organized, interpreted, and ultimately integrated into the individual's worldview This continuous interaction between the internal and external factors, along with the sensory data, leads to a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the environment and oneself.

Previous studies about the relationship between perception of cohesive devices

This section begins by summarizing research on EFL learners' perception of cohesive devices across various countries Following that, it delves into a detailed examination of studies exploring the connection between the perception of cohesive devices and reading comprehension in Vietnam and other countries

2.5.1 EFL learners’ perception of cohesive devices in other countries

Chu (2017) conducted a study to identify and analyze cohesion errors in the English writings of junior high school students The focus of this study was on conjunctions The research aimed at examining how these students used cohesive devices in their compositions, identify common mistakes, and provide insights to enhance English writing instruction The study analyzed texts from 40 students These students shared the same English teacher and the same textbook, providing a consistent educational background for the study

The primary research instrument was the students' written compositions Students were assigned with a task of composing a 120-word composition that describes a set of pictures within 30 minutes This approach was chosen because of its feasibility and the popularity

19 of the narrative genre To ensure the reliability, three qualified and experienced teachers were invited to objectively review and analyze the compositions

The data collection procedure involved several steps The first step is the quantifying of the cohesive devices in each composition, followed by categorizing the types of cohesion errors made This was achieved through manual counting The cohesive devices and errors were then coded according to a pre-determined error coding scheme

To facilitate a structured analysis, the connectives used by students were divided into six categories based on semantic logic: additive, adversative, causative, temporal, order, and conditional This classification provided a framework for assessing the students' use of conjunctions and their understanding of cohesive relationships within texts

The research highlights common issues faced by Chinese EFL learners, including the excessive use of simple conjunctions, underuse of varied conjunction types, and errors in their application Another significant observation was the influence of the Chinese thinking mode on the use of conjunctions, leading to incorrect or awkward constructions For instance, the misuse of "because" or the conflicting use of "though" and "but" in a single sentence which reflects a direct translation from Chinese thought patterns

Chu's findings highlighted a significant issue: the students' use of conjunctions was not only limited but also improperly diversified, suggesting a shortcoming in vocabulary knowledge This observation led to the conclusion that English writing instruction at the junior high school level requires a more focus The study suggests that teachers should pay more attention to the influence of learners’ first language on their English thinking mode and provide explicit instruction on cohesive devices

The research conducted by Chu (2017) contributes valuable insights to the field of EFL education, particularly in the context of junior middle school students However, its limitation is that the study only foucus on conjunctions, one of many grammatical cohesive devices

20 Nurhidayat et al (2021) conducted a similar study, yet the participants were undergraduate students in Indonesia The study analyzed the types of cohesive devices used by tertiary students in writing and the challenges they encounter in utilizing these devices effectively

In its research methodology, the study utilized a qualitative approach to analyze the occurance and variety of cohesive devices in paragraphs written by the students Furthermore, through interviews, the researchers were able to discover the students' struggles in the application of these linguistic tools The first instrument involved the analysis of written paragraphs provided by the students To collect data for the first research instrument, each participant was asked to write a paragraph on a given topic This was to ensure that the writing task was relevant and engaging for the students, which could help them to demonstrate their use of cohesive devices better The paragraphs written by the students served as primary data sources for examining the types and frequency of cohesive devices employed in their writing This analysis aimed to identify the types of cohesive devices students were utilizing, including references (personal pronouns and demonstrative references), conjunctions (additive, adversative, and clausal conjunctions), and reiteration The second instrument, semi-structured interviews, was used to delve deeper into the students' experiences and challenges in using cohesive devices The interviews were semi- structured, allowing the use of follow-up questions based on the participants' responses to offer deeper insights into the problems students faced when using cohesive devices in their writing

Findings from this study revealed that students predominantly used references, such as personal pronouns and demonstrative references, and various forms of conjunctions, including additive, adversative, and clausal conjunctions They also frequently employed reiteration through word repetition This indicates a moderate level of proficiency among students in applying general cohesive devices in their writing However, the research identified that more complex devices, such as comparative references, various forms of substitution and ellipsis, temporal conjunctions, and certain types of reiteration, were

21 underutilized This suggests a gap in students' comprehensive understanding and application of cohesive devices

Regarding the challenges students faced in using certain cohesive devices, issues were noted in utilizing substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, reiteration, and collocation, suggesting a need for more focused instruction in these areas The researchers concluded that explicit teaching of cohesive devices could significantly aid students in overcoming these challenges, thereby enhancing their writing skills

2.5.2 EFL learners’ understanding of cohesive devices in Vietnam

Bui (2022) conducted a research that delves into the use of cohesive devices among Vietnamese EFL students as well as their misconception when using cohesive devices in writing This study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods Participants were Vietnamese college seniors in Ho Chi Minh City, all of whom had achieved the C1 level certificate on the CEFR

The research instruments of this study were 168 reports written by the participants and semi-structured interviews The data analysis focused on identifying cohesion errors potentially influenced by the students' first language (L1) and categorizing these errors into types and sub-types Interviews were then conducted in the students' L1 to delve deeper into the specific reasons behind the use and errors of cohesive devices in the participants' writing The interview data then underwent thematical analysis using a qualitative data analysis procedure to identify and examine emerging themes

The findings suggesting that the mistakes in using cohesive devices were not due to unfamiliarity but rather misconceptions about the devices themselves Specifically, students frequently misused and misunderstood references, conjunctions, and lexical cohesion, indicating a need for clearer instruction in these areas

The theoretical framework

Drawing from the literature review, a model was created to help the study address its research questions

28 Figure 2.1: The theoretical framework of this study

Figure 2.1 demonstrates that the study aims at investigating students’ perception of cohesive devices as well as the relationship between perception of cohesive devices and reading comprehension In the interactive model of reading, comprehension is a dynamic process that involves both bottom-up and top-down processing Bottom-up processing refers to the decoding of elements in the text, starting from the smallest units (such as letters and words) and moving towards understanding sentences and larger units of meaning This approach is data-driven and essential for literal comprehension In contrast, top-down processing involves using prior knowledge, predictions, and other cognitive strategies to understand the text, which is concept-driven

The perception of cohesive devices falls under the category of bottom-up processing because it involves the recognition of grammatical and lexical elements that contribute to the coherence of a text Cohesive devices, such as reference, substitution, ellipsis,

29 conjunction, reiteration, and collocation, are linguistic cues that readers must decode to understand the relationships between parts of the text As readers identify and interpret these devices, they are engaging in bottom-up processing, building comprehension from the ground up.

Summary of chapter 2

This literature review chapter discusses the importance of cohesion and coherence in texts, focusing on their roles in enhancing reading comprehension and academic writing Cohesion, the semantic relationship between elements in a text, and coherence, the overall unity of a text, are vital for understanding and organizing information Cohesive devices, including grammatical structures like reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction, and lexical strategies such as reiteration and collocation, play a crucial role in linking sentences and paragraphs Research has shown that cohesive devices not only aid in writing but also significantly enhance reading comprehension The chapter further explores reading as a constructive process, highlighting the interaction between top-down and bottom-up processing approaches in understanding texts The chapter then presents previous studies that explore learners’ perception of cohesive devices and how such perception correlate with reading comprehension in different settings The chapter concludes by examining the relationship between the perception of cohesive devices and reading comprehension and propose a theoretical framework

Research Design

The comprehension of cohesive devices is not just fundamental to writing, but also reading and understanding texts, yet this aspect of language learning often receives less attention in the high school curriculum Observations at Vĩnh Viễn High School suggest that students' reading comprehension skills are underdeveloped, potentially as a result of their inadequate understanding of cohesive devices To date, limited research has explored this potential correlation, especially in the high shool context Therefore, this study is designed to systematically investigate the perception of cohesive devices by students and how it correlates with students’ performance in reading comprehension

The study is structured around two research questions:

1 How do students at Vĩnh Viễn High School perceive cohesive devices in reading texts?

2 What is the relationship between the students' perception of cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance?

To address these questions, the study employed a correlational research design, which is appropriate for examining the extent to which two variables are related, without the use of intervention on participants This is particularly effective for determining the degree of

31 association between variables (Creswell, 2014) Through the use of this design, the research aims to describe and analyze the relationship between the students' perception of cohesive devices and their reading comprehension The data collected helped decide whether a statistically significant relationship exists between the two variables.

Context of the study

The research was conducted at Vĩnh Viễn High School in Tân Phú district, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam The school has a total number of nine classes across three grades

Specifically, the school consists of four classes for grade ten, three for grade eleven, and two for grade twelve The total number of students is approximately 250 There are about

30 teachers recruited by the school In grade 12, class 12A1 has 39 students, while 12A2 accommodates 30 students

Vĩnh Viễn high school is dedicated to fostering an environment that is both advanced and modern, while also remains welcoming and secure for its students The school is committed to the holistic development of its students, emphasizing not only knowledge and skills but also ethical values Moreover, the school prioritizes innovative teaching methods that are learner-centered and emphasize practical application Additionally, the school offers a wide range of clubs and extracurricular activities which help increase students’ interest in studying

3.2.2 English curriculum for grade 12 at Vĩnh Viễn high school

The English curriculum at Vĩnh Viễn high school follows a comprehensive program designed to enhance the linguistic capabilities of students in their final year of secondary education For grade 12, the curriculum is has the textbook "Tiếng Anh 12 Friends Global" as the English textbook for students

32 The curriculum is structured to promote a balanced development of language skills: reading, writing, speaking, and listening It is aligned with the national educational standards and tailored to prepare students for both academic and real-world communication The content is divided into various thematic units, each focusing on a specific topic relevant to the students’ needs

Each unit comprises several lessons that progressively build upon one another, introducing and reinforcing vocabulary, grammar, and cohesive devices within authentic texts and dialogues The lessons are designed to engage students with diverse learning activities that include individual, pair, and group work, encouraging active participation and collaboration among peers

Reading comprehension is a central component of the curriculum, with a variety of texts presented to students, including narratives, expository writings, factual information, etc These texts are selected not only for their linguistic appropriateness but also for their cultural and educational value, providing students with insights into different perspectives and experiences

The curriculum at Vĩnh Viễn High School, while comprehensive in scope, tends to address the teaching of cohesive devices in a largely implicit manner Instructions on employing cohesive elements like reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, reiteration, and collocation are sparse and often integrated into broader language exercises This infrequent and indirect approach to such a fundamental aspect of language acquisition could be seen as a shortcoming, as it may not provide students with systematic understanding

To assess students' English competence, the curriculum incorporates various formative and summative evaluation methods Regular quizzes, tests, and project-based assessments provide feedback on students' progress and comprehension

Participants of the study

This study involved 69 grade 12 students from a Vĩnh Viễn high school; however, due to the absence of some students during the testing period, data were successfully collected from only 56 participants These students were all enrolled in their final year of high school education The gender disparity within the two classes was moderate The age range of these participants was predominantly 17 to 18 years, categorizing them as adolescents All participants had been exposed to English as a subject for several years as part of their high school curriculum It is noteworthy that while all students have been introduced to the concept of cohesive devices through their English textbooks, the coverage of this topic is often implicit This might influence their awareness and understanding of cohesive devices.

Sample and sampling procedures

The selection of participants was based on convenience sampling, given the accessibility of the students for participation in the study The use of random sampling, while ideal for reducing selection bias, was infeasible due to the tight timeline of the study and the challenges in recruiting randomized students within the academic calendar For the selection of two grade 12 classes at Vĩnh Viễn high school as participants in the study, there are several key justifications

Firstly, grade 12 students are at a pivotal stage in their academic development At this point, they have reached a level of cognitive maturity that enables them to handle complex reading and comprehension tasks, making them a suitable group for the study Ethically, students of this age are capable of understanding the research's aims and providing informed consent, ensuring that the study meets ethical standards Lastly, examining the reading comprehension of grade 12 students holds significant value These students have nearly completed their pre-university education, and understanding their reading processes can offer important insights Such information could influence teaching methods and curricular decisions that may benefit future students' learning experiences Although the total number of students in these two classes are 69 students, data could only be collected

34 from 56 participants This was due to the number of sudent present the period when the tests were administered.

Research instruments

The instruments employed for data collection comprised a cohesive devices perception test and a reading comprehention test (See Appendix 1, Appendix 3)

This test assessed students' perception of various cohesive devices in a given text This test was constructed using reading passages from the A2 Key provided by Cambridge The choice of these passages ensures that the test items are relevant and challenging enough to accurately assess the students' abilities without exceeding their linguistic level The test included 19 short answer question items Each question assessed learner’s perception of each type of cohesive device The decision to utilize short answer questions is because this format helps gauge students’ perception of cohesive devices more accurately, unlike multiple-choice questions which can sometimes be guessed with cues from the options provided There were six categories that include these question, matching six types of cohesive devices which are reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, reiteration and collocation

Table 3.1: Description of the items in the perception of cohesive devices test

As can be seen in Table 3.1, question item 2 and 5 were used to test students’ perception of reference By means of illustration, in question item 5, the students were asked to determine the referent of the pronoun “they” in the sentence “I like my room best when they're here.” Successfully answer this question can indicate perception of referent as a cohesive device

For the substitution category, question item 8, 14, and 19 tested students' grasp of substitution Specifically, in question item 8, students were asked to identify the word replaced by “another” in the sentence "His school work is on one shelf, and on another he has all his books” Correctly answering this question shows an understanding of substitution as a cohesive device

In the ellipsis category, question item 3, 13, and 18 evaluated students' perception of ellipsis As an example, question item 3 asked students to identify the omitted noun in the sentence "Robert wants to have more” Successfully answer this question indicates perception of subsitution as a cohesive device

For the conjunction category, question item 1, 4 and 15 were used to test students’ perception of conjunction By means of illustration, in question item 3, the students were asked to intify the word that was helps connect the two clauses that are contrasting in meaning in the sentence “Robert likes his room to be tidy, but it's difficult.” Successfully answer this question indicates perception of subsitution as a cohesive device

In the reiteration category, question item 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, and 17 assessed students' awareness of reiteration For instance, question item 17 involved identifying a synonym of "store" found in the third paragraph of the reading passage Successfully answering this question indicates a comprehension of reiteration as a cohesive device

Finally, for the colocation category, question item 11 and 12 were used to test students’ perception of collocation By means of illustration, in question item 11, the students were asked to indentify a collocation that refer to famous sport players Successfully answer this question indicates perception of collocation as a cohesive device

To increase the reliability of the test, each type of cohesive device was thoroughly examined through various sub-categories, each targeted by specific questions For example, in the substituition categoy while question item 8 required perception of nominal substitution from the test taker, question 14 item aimed at verbal substitution and question item 19 at clausal substitution Similarly, in the reiteration category, while question item 6 tested perception of repetition, question item 9 did so with synonym, question item 7 with general word, question item 10 with hyponym

The marking scheme for the cohesive devices perception test is straightforward, with each correct answer awarding the student one point For example, if a student correctly

37 determines the referent of a pronoun in a sentence, they earn a full point However, there is a special consideration for question item 6, which is designed to assess the students' recognition of repeated words within a paragraph Due to the nature of this question— where students need to identify five instances of lexical repetition—the scoring for this item is more detaile Each correctly identified repeated word is valued at 0.2 points This recognizes the varying degrees of perception among students and provides a more accurate measurement

The A2 Key was chosen as the standardized reading comprehension test to evaluate students' comprehension According to the scheme on foreign language teaching and learning in the national education system in the 2008-2020 period of the prime minister of Vietnam, which is then called Project 2025, the objective for upper secondary school graduates is to reach level 3 in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (Government of Vietnam, 2008)

As a result, the B1 Preliminary (PET) exam, which is aimed at B1 level learners, would be a suitable choice for testing students’ reading comprehension skills However, the writer’s teaching experience at Vĩnh Viễn highschool, it is clear that most students are not at this level The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) self-assessment grids suggest that B1 learners should be able to understand various texts, including descriptions of events and feelings (Council of Euroupe, 2024), which the writer think does not apply to the majority of participants in this study This observation is supported by a study from

Vu et al (2020) which reveal doubts from Vietnamese teachers about the feasibility of the new curriculum, which highlights Vietnamese teachers' skepticism about the feasibility of the new curriculum Therefore, the A2 Key exam was selected to evaluate the students' reading comprehension skills instead of PET

38 A2 Key is a comprehensive assessment divided into five sections Each section tests different reading skills through a variety of texts and questions Below is the description of this test

In Part 1, candidates are given with six real-world notices, messages, and other short texts The questions in this part help assess the reader’s understanding of the main message of each text For example, in the message: "Hi Ben I've booked concert tickets for both of us online Can you give me the money this afternoon when I see you? Tim", test takers are presented with three options:

A Tim thinks Ben should look on the concert website

B Tim hopes that Ben will be able to come with him

C Tim wants to know if Ben can pay him back

Option C is the correct choice because it reflects the main idea of the message accuratley Each question in this part is worth one mark

Part 2 involves a matching task where test takers use information in three descriptions of people to answer seven questions For example, consider the question “Who plans to stop writing her blog soon?”, test takers are given three options of “Tasha”, “Danni” and

“Chrissie” They then need to read through the description of each person mentioned to decide which option is correct In this example, it is option B because Danni mentioned in the description of her that she was busy and wanted to do something new Each correct answer in this part is worth one mark

Data Collection Procedure

The data collection was conducted with the followng procedure:

1 The preliminary preparations involve obtaining permissions from Vĩnh Viễn high school, preparing the test materials, and informing the participants about the study's objectives and procedures

2 The second step was administrating the perception of cohesive devices test In this step, students took a test designed to gauge their understanding of cohesive devices The test had a duration of 40 minutes

3 The third step was administrating the reading comprehension test after a week to the same group of students The test also lasted 40 minutes

The preliminary preparations, which included securing permissions from Vĩnh Viễn high school, readying the test materials, and briefing the participants about the study's aims and procedures, were conducted in December 2023 Following this, the pilot study was carried out in the first week of January 2024 to validate the testing procedures and instruments Subsequently, the main study commenced two weeks after the pilot, where the perception

41 of cohesive devices test was administered The reading comprehension test was administered one week after the perception of cohesive devices test This structured timeline ensured that the data collection was methodical.

Data analysis scheme

The analysis of the data was conducted once all the data had been gathered To answer the two research questions, the procedure for analyzing the collected data is outlined as follows

3.7.1 Students’ perception of cohesive devices

To address the research question, the students' responses on the perception of cohesive devices test were compared with the answer keys Unlike multiple-choice formats, which can sometimes allow for guessing, the test utilized exclusively short-answer questions This format is considered more accurate at testing the students' genuine understanding The evaluation of the students' answers was conducted using a binary value of correct and incorrect This approach facilitated the assessment of each participant's understanding of cohesive devices The analysis framework adopted Halliday and Hasan's classification system for cohesive devices By analyzing the number of correct and incorrect responses from the participants, insights were gained into their perception and understanding of English cohesive devices

3.7.2 The relationship between the students' perception of cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance

To investigate the relationship between the students' perception of cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance, data from both the cohesion perception test and the reading comprehension test were utilized Specifically, the Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between these two variables The choice of the Pearson correlation was based on its

42 appropriateness for measuring the degree of linear relationship between two variables By this way, it was possible to claim whether a significant correlation existed.

Summary of chapter 3

This chapter outlines the methodology used to explore the impact of students' understanding of cohesive devices on their reading comprehension at Vĩnh Viễn high school It began with a correlational research design Data was collected through a perception test on cohesive devices and a reading comprehension test The Pearson correlation coefficient was used for analysis A pilot study was conducted to help refine the test implementation which provided useful feedback for the adjustments of the research instrument

Reports on the findings

This section presents the outcomes of the tests conducted, providing an overview of the students' perception of cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance

4.1.1 Findings from cohesive devices perception test

This section examines the outcomes of the cohesive devices perception test, categorizing student responses into two groups: grammatical and lexical cohesive devices

4.1.1.1 Students’ perception of gramatical cohesive devcies a Students’ perception of reference

In question item 2 and 5, the focus was to test students’ perception of reference

44 Figure 4.1: Students' perception of reference

According to Figure 4.1, in the section of reference in the test, students performed well with 75% correct responses Even the question that get more wrong answers still had its percentage above the 50% mark This indicates that students generally have a good understanding of the use of reference as a cohesive device

COHESION_ Q2 COHESION_ Q5 TOTAL pe rce nta ge of Cas e s

Figure 4.2: Students' perception of substitution

According to Figure 4.2, in the substitution section, the majority of the students provided incorrect answers With only 37.5% correct answers, this shows that students were quite weak in recognizing substitution in a text

Specifically, for question item 14, as many as 67.9% of the answers were incorrect In questions item 8 and 19, the number of students who answered correctly was higher, but still could not reach the 50% mark This suggests that students’ performance in this category was lacking and needed improvement

COHESION_ Q8 COHESION_ Q14 COHESION_ Q19 TOTAL pe rce nta ge O F CA SES

Figure 4.3: Students' perception of ellipsis

According to Figure 4.3, for ellipsis, the situation was somewhat better In all questions, the number of students who answered correctly was higher than the number of those who answered incorrectly Across all questions, the percentage of correct answers were higher than 55% This indicates that most students could identify ellipsis in the reading passages, although at a moderate success

COHESION_ Q3 COHESION_ Q13 COHESION_ Q18 TOTAL pe rce nta ge of c a s e s

Figure 4.4: Students' perception of conjunction

The analysis of the results from Figure 4.4 indicates that the majority of students (69%) answered these questions correctly 90% of answers for question item 1 and 4 were correct However, the situation for question 15 was the opposite, where the majority of students answered incorrectly This raises questions about the differences between item 1, 4, and

15, although they all fall under the category of conjunction

This discrepancy leads to a shift in the overall results of the conjunction section Although the majority of students answered other questions correctly, the high number of incorrect answers for 15 increased the average number of incorrect responses

COHESION_ Q1 COHESION_ Q4 COHESION_ Q15 TOTAL pe rce nta ge O F CA SES

4.1.1.2 Students’ perception of lexical cohesive devices a Students’ perception of reiteration

Figure 4.5: Students' perception of reiteration

According to Figure 4.5, in the reiteration category, because question 6 had multiple grading scales, the distinction in students’ score was clearer, ranging from completely incorrect answers, through scores like 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, to completely correct answers For this question, the number of students who answered completely wrong was not high, at 12.5% of the total, while 41.1% of students answered completely correctly, and 46.4% recognized and answered partially correctly This indicates that the majority of students were able to identify reiteration in the reading passages

However, for question item 9 and 16, the situation is reversed, with the majority of students answering incorrectly This shows that these questions were more challenging Overall, although the majority of responses in this section were correct, the difference between the number of correct and incorrect responses is not overly significant (32.2 over 19.5), indicating that students still had uncertainties about the cohesive device

57.1 50.0 34.8 pe rce nta ge O F CA SES

Figure 4.6: Students' perception of collocation

According to Figure 4.6, overall, there was a clear difference between the two questions in the collocation section For question 11, 58.9% of students answered correctly as opposed to 19.6% for question 12

The average results for the collocation section show that the ratio of students who answered incorrectly to those who answered correctly is not excessively high, yet the number of students who answered incorrectly still constitutes the majority, at 61%

4.1.1.3 Summary of students’ perception of cohesive devices

Table 4.1 Students' perception of grammatical and lexical cohesive device

COHESION_ Q11 COHESION_ Q12 TOTAL pe rce nta ge O F CA SES

Answers Gramatical Reference Conjunction Elipsis Substitutions Lexical Reiteration Collocation

50 Looking at Table 4.1, it is evident that students understood grammatical cohesive devices better than lexical ones Within the grammatical category, reference stood out as the strongest area, with three-quarters of the students answering correctly, which suggests a solid grasp of this cohesive device Conjunctions also saw a good rate of correct responses, with over two-thirds of students showing they could effectively identify these linking words

On the other hand, ellipsis presented a bigger challenge to the students, but the majority of them still managed to respond correctly to these items The real struggle within the grammatical category was with substitution Only a little over one-third of the students could correctly identify this cohesive devive, indicating a significant area of weakness

Looking at the lexical category, reiteration was handled relatively well, with nearly two- thirds of the students giving correct answers Nevertheless, collocation proved difficult, with the correct rate dropping to just over one-third of all answers

In essence, while students showed high results in reference and reiteration, which involves linking ideas and similar concepts, they found it considerably more challenging to deal with substitution and collocation, where a deeper understanding of language is required

4.1.2 Findings from reading comprehension test

In this section, the data derived from the reading comprehension test and the relationship between students' perception of cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance are analyzed

Figure 4.7: Students' reading comprehension performance

The data in Figure 4.7 indicates that students performed best on the open-cloze type of questions, with a significant 66.7% of responses being correct In contrast, multiple choice questions for long text posed the greatest challenge, where only 46.1% of answers were correct This suggests that students may find longer texts more difficult to interpret Multiple choice questions for short text and multiple matching types showed comparable outcomes, at 58.9% and 58.4%, respectively The multiple choice for cloze questions had a correct response rate of 59.2%, which was just above the average performance

Overall, the total average of correct responses across all question types was 57.9% This means incorrect responses accounted for 42.1% of the total, suggesting that there is a considerable amount of room for improvement in students' reading comprehension

53.9 40.8 33.3 42.1 pe rce nta ge oF CA SES

4.1.2.2 The correlation between the students’ ability to recognize cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.2: Pearson correlation coefficient between perception of cohesive devices and reading comprehension

Discussion of the findings

The purpose of this discussion is to give answer to the two research questions in this study using the analyized data

4.2.1 Students’ perception of cohesive devices a Students’ perception of reference

Regarding reference, students generally showed a good understanding of this cohesive device, as evidenced by the high number of correct answers compared to incorrect ones This aligns closely with a study by Nguyen et al (2023) In their investigation into the use

59 of cohesive devices in paragraph writing by EFL students at English language centers in Vietnam, it was found that reference and conjunction were the most prevalent, whereas substitution and ellipsis were seldom utilized The author suggested that this might be due to their familiarity with using personal pronouns when communicate

In Vietnam, most EFL learners are exposed to the concept of reference from the early stages of language learning Most textbooks begin with the teaching of pronouns as a way to refer to things, people, and oneself This early and consistent exposure likely plays a crucial role in enhancing EFL learners’ understanding and usage of reference as a cohesive device, contributing significantly to their competence in this area b Students’ perception of substitution

In the substitution category, most students answered incorrectly This suggests that students had difficulty identifying substitution within a text The underperformance in substitution aligns with findings from Al-Jarf (2001), where substitution was the most challenging cohesive device for students to grasp Al-Jarf explained that such difficulties in understanding cohesion stemmed from a lack of linguistic proficiency, particularly in syntax and semantics, as well as a limited or incorrect understanding of cohesion

Adding to this, interference might play a significant role in these difficulties For example, instead of using "They say so," many Vietnamese EFL learners would say "They say like that," which is a direct translation from Vietnamese This tendency could stem from the habit of word-for-word translation of their thoughts from Vietnamese to English This makes them less familiar with the concept of substitution in English Such interference showcases how the characteristics of a learner's first language can significantly impact their understanding and application of cohesive devices in English

The performance of students on ellipsis was generally positive, with more students answering correctly than incorrectly, indicating a good level of recognition of ellipsis in texts Despite this positive trend, the fact that more than 40% answers were incorrect suggests there is still room for improvement According to Trần (2011), some cohesive devices could pose challenges for readers, like reference and ellipsis, because they do not contain the message by themselves; instead, they act as signals directing readers to different parts of the text to find the actual information d Students’ perception of conjunction

Conjunction was one of the most recognized cohesive device, just behind reference However, most students could not identify the temporal conjunction “then” This is very similar to a study by Tickoo (2002) which investigated how Vietnamese and Chinese students learning English in Hong Kong used the word “then” Despite “then” being a very popular conjunction, many students misused it Since “then” is supposed to come after something has happened and before telling something new that is not already known, the author suggested that students' difficulty in distinguishing between old and new information caused them to use the conjunction incorrectly e Students’ perception of reiteration

Concerning reiteration, it was observed that most students could identify this type of cohesive device in the text Nevertheless, they encountered more challenges with certain subtypes of reiteration, notably synonyms and hypernyms, where only slightly more than 40% of the students answered correctly This can be explained by Trần (2011) that readers may struggle to identify synonyms and hypernyms when they appear in different sentences or paragraphs, making it might be difficult to recognise and connect them together

61 Adding to this discussion, it is important to note that the successful utilization of reiteration requires a robust lexical resource Even with a solid understanding of cohesion, the task of identifying links within the text becomes difficult if students are unable to recognize synonyms or hypernyms This challenge underscores the critical role of vocabulary knowledge in effectively employing cohesive devices like reiteration f Students’ perception of collocation

Collocation emerged as one of the cohesive devices most frequently misidentified by students, with a correct identification rate of only 39.3% This finding align with a study by (Lestari et al., 2023), where collocation was also one of the least used cohesive devices in writing among high school students

Students’ underperformance with this cohesive device can be attributed to a lack of exposure Unlike other aspects of language learning, such as grammar, collocation is governed by very few rules Its successful use necessitates the absorption of authentic materials and input In a research conducted by Bueraheng, N., & Laohawiriyanon, C (2014), students enrolled in international programs demonstrated superior performance compared to English majors in both understanding and using collocations Students' limited interaction with genuine language use in varied contexts may hinder their ability to recognize and employ collocations accurately This highlights the importance of integrating authentic texts and real-life language usage into the learning process, which enables students to naturally acquire collocation knowledge through exposure and practice g Students’ perception of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices

The analysed data suggested that students had a better understanding of grammatical cohesive devices than lexical ones The number of correct answer in grammatical cohesion questions was higher than lexical by 20% This resonates with a study by Nguyen et al (2023) This research investigated the use of cohesive devices in paragraph writing by EFL students at English language centers in Vietnam, revealing that learners predominantly

62 employed grammatical cohesive devices, while lexical cohesive means were used to a significantly lesser extent, primarily involving repetition

This phenomenon reflects the strength of Vietnamese EFL learners in grammar The rules of grammar are comparatively straightforward and require significantly less time to accumulate than vocabulary Therefore, Vietnamese learners usually find grammar easier to comprehend and apply, whereas building a rich lexical vault for language production demands much more time

4.2.2 The relationship between the students’ perception of cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance

In relation to the second research question, it is notable that the observed correlation coefficient of 0.324, indicating a moderate correlation According to the framework of the interactive model of reading comprehension proposed by Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000), reading comprehension is a dynamic process that involves both bottom-up and top- down strategies Cohesive devices, as examined in our study, constitute a fundamental component of the bottom-up processing, where readers construct meaning from the text by piecing together linguistic elements such as grammar, vocabulary, and cohesion

The correlation coefficient of 0.324 in this study, while modest, presents the complexity of the reading comprehension process It suggests that while cohesive devices are crucial for understanding texts, they are just one element in a collection of skills and knowledge that contribute to reading comprehension The interactive model posits that effective comprehension results from the interaction between the reader's linguistic competencies and their ability to engage in higher-level cognitive processes, such as making inferences and utilizing background knowledge

Contrasting our findings with those of Septiyana et al (2021), who reported a higher correlation coefficient of 0.728 between cohesion understanding and reading

Summary of chapter 4

This chapter outlines the results from the cohesive devices perception test and the reading comprehention test Overall, students showed a stronger understanding of grammatical cohesive devices than lexical ones The results also differed across various types of cohesive devices Additionally, the chapter provided a thorough examination and discussion of these findings The following chapter will suggest implications for teaching and learning

Conclusion

This section presents conclusions from the previous discussion, organised accordingly to the two research questions of the study

Research question 1: How do students at Vĩnh Viễn high school perceive cohesive devices in reading texts?

The discussion for first research question reveals insights into how students at Vĩnh Viễn High School perceive various cohesive devices in reading texts Students generally displayed a strong grasp of grammatical cohesive devices, particularly reference and conjunction, which they understood better than lexical cohesive devices like collocation and reiteration This proficiency is likely due to the early introduction and consistent exposure to these grammatical elements in their language learning, as well as the positive language transfer from Vietnamese to English, especially in the use of conjunctions

However, challenges were noted in areas such as substitution and collocation These difficulties may stem from a lack of linguistic proficiency, particularly in syntax and semantics, and a limited understanding of cohesion Additionally, interference from direct translation habits and a lack of exposure to authentic language materials contribute to these challenges For example, the misuse of the conjunction "then" highlighted a difficulty in distinguishing between old and new information, while the struggle with collocation pointed to a need for more engagement with genuine language use and practice

Moreover, while students could identify reiteration, they faced difficulties with specific subtypes like synonyms and hypernyms, underscoring the importance of a rich vocabulary

65 for effective language use The overall better performance in grammatical cohesive devices over lexical ones reflects the students' strengths in grammar, attributed to its straightforward rules compared to the extensive learning required for vocabulary development

In conclusion, while Vĩnh Viễn high school students have a good understanding of certain cohesive devices, particularly those related to grammar, there remains room for improvement in areas requiring deeper linguistic knowledge and exposure to authentic language use This suggests a need for targeted teaching strategies to address these gaps, particularly in enhancing lexical resource and comprehension of less familiar cohesive devices

Research question 2: What is the relationship between the students’ ability to recognize cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance?

In addressing the second research question regarding the relationship between the students’ ability to recognize cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance, our findings revealed a moderate correlation, with a coefficient of 0.324 This correlation underscores the significance of cohesive devices in the reading process, aligning with the interactive model of reading comprehension proposed by Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) According to this model, reading is a dynamic process that integrates both bottom- up strategies—like understanding grammar, vocabulary, and cohesion—and top-down strategies, which involve cognitive processes and background knowledge

This study also found that this significant relationship did not extend to lexical cohesive devices, which had a positive but non-significant correlation with reading comprehension This distinction emphasizes the particular importance of grammatical cohesion in supporting reading comprehension for the high school students at Vĩnh Viễn high school, as part of their developing linguistic skills

66 The modest correlation coefficient between the students’ ability to recognize cohesive devices and their reading comprehension performance observed in our study highlights the complexity of reading comprehension, suggesting that while important, cohesive devices are just one of many skills necessary for reading comprehension This is further illustrated by contrasting our results with Septiyana et al (2021), who found a stronger correlation in a study involving university students The difference likely reflects the advanced linguistic skills and greater text exposure of university students compared to the high school students in our study

In summary, our study confirms a moderate relationship between the recognition of cohesive devices and reading comprehension performance among high school students This relationship illustrates the multifaceted nature of reading comprehension, which not only relies on linguistic elements like cohesive devices but also on the reader's ability to utilize cognitive skills and prior knowledge The variance in correlation strength across different learner groups suggests that the impact of cohesive devices on reading comprehension may change according to the learner's linguistic competence.

Pedagogical implications and recommendations

Based on the findings drawn from the study regarding students' perception of cohesive devices and their relationship to reading comprehension, several pedagogical implications emerge: a Regarding the positive correlation between cohesive devices perception and reading comprehension:

The findings reveal a moderate positive correlation between the cohesive devices perception and reading comprehension performance Pedagogically, this implies that educators should integrate targeted instruction on cohesive devices within the reading

67 curriculum Teachers could employ strategies such as explicit teaching of each type of cohesive device, accompanied by practice opportunities within various text types Furthermore, regular assessment of these skills can help ensure that students are able to recognize and utilize cohesive devices effectively, ultimately aiding their comprehension of texts b Regarding types of cohesive devices where students underperformed:

The underperformance in identifying cohesive devices such as substitution, ellipsis, and collocation asked for specific pedagogical attention

For substitution, it is imperative to design exercises that isolate this device, allowing students to practice it in a focused manner Teachers can create tasks where students must replace phrases or sentences using appropriate substitution to simplify or vary expression, thereby reinforcing their understanding

In the case of ellipsis, strategies should include teaching sessions that explicitly point out and practice omitted information in sentences, encouraging students to infer missing elements based on context Drills can be developed where students are asked to complete sentences with omitted words, thus improving their grasp of ellipsis

For collocations, which students found particularly challenging, the implication is for educators to expose students to a wide range of authentic texts By encountering collocations in context, students can develop an intuitive sense of correct word pairings This can be supplemented with activities such as matching exercises or collocation 'bingo' games to make learning engaging

Additionally, considering students' struggles with certain subtypes of reiteration like synonyms and hypernyms, there is a need for vocabulary enhancement activities These could involve synonym and hypernym hunts within texts, followed by creative writing tasks where students must use newly learned vocabulary items in context

Educational institutions hold the key to enhancing students' overall language proficiency

To achieve this, a focus on curriculum design and teacher professional development is recommended

For curriculum design, it is imperative to prioritize the teaching of cohesive devices as a fundamental aspect of language learning This entails giving explicit instructions on both grammatical and lexical cohesive devices within the curriculum Such a focus ensures that students are not only exposed to these concepts but also have ample opportunities to apply them in practice The inclusion of authentical materials, from literature to multimedia resources, can facilitate a deeper understanding of how cohesive devices function in natural discourse

Simultaneously, the professional development of teachers is essential Educational institutions should offer ongoing training opportunities that equip educators with the latest research findings and innovative teaching strategies focused on cohesive devices By enhancing teachers' knowledge and skills in this area, they can be more effective in guiding students in the area of cohesive devices

Teachers play a crucial role in developing students' language skills, particularly in the nuanced area of cohesive devices To effectively enhance students' understanding and use of these devices, several recommendations are offered

First and foremost, teachers should integrate the teaching of cohesive devices directly into their language instruction To effectively teach cohesive devices, teachers should employ a blend of explicit and implicit instruction in their lessons

69 For explicit instruction, it is essential to directly teach the role and function of cohesive devices The teachers should also use a variety of examples from authentic texts to show students how these devices at work in real-world contexts This makes the abstract concepts easier to understand

Simultaneously, implicit instruction can be incorporated into the curriculum through interactive and engaging activities that encourage the practical application of cohesive devices By designing tasks that involve using these devices in both writing and speaking, such as collaborative writing projects, peer review sessions, and discussion groups, teachers can create opportunities for students to experiment with and apply cohesive devices in a supportive setting This approach allows students to learn from context and experience, reinforcing their understanding and encouraging deeper engagement with the material

Understanding the common challenges students face with cohesive devices, such as direct translation issues or confusion between similar devices, is also crucial Teachers can address these challenges through exercises that focus on such problems

Encouraging a culture of reading in and out of the classroom can also significantly impact students' familiarity with cohesive devices Teachers can recommend books, articles, and other materials that showcase effective use of cohesive devices, inspiring students to notice and reflect on their use in everyday reading

Professional development is another key area for teachers Teachers can attend workshops, courses, and professional learning communities to improve their teaching methodology, espcially for cohesive devices

For students, a proactive and strategic approach to learning is recommended Firstly, it is important for students to actively engage with the study of cohesive devices This involves

Contribution of the study

The contribution of this study include both theoretical and pedagogical aspects, offering valuable insights into the field of language learning and teaching

From a theoretical standpoint, this study enriches the existing knowledge on the acquisition and understanding of cohesive devices in language learning By examining how students at Vĩnh Viễn High School perceive and utilize cohesive devices in reading texts, the research sheds light on the cognitive processes involved in navigating textual coherence and cohesion It underscores the importance of cohesive devices as fundamental elements in constructing meaning and enhancing reading comprehension Furthermore, the study's findings on the correlation between the ability to recognize cohesive devices and reading comprehension contribute to the understanding of the interactive model of reading This adds a nuanced layer to our understanding of how bottom-up and top-down processing strategies interact in the comprehension of written texts

Pedagogically, the study offers practical implications for educators and curriculum developers The identification of specific challenges students face with different types of cohesive devices—such as substitution and collocation—highlights areas where targeted instruction could significantly impact learners' proficiency The research advocates for a more explicit focus on teaching both grammatical and lexical cohesive devices, suggesting that integrating authentic texts and creating interactive learning activities could enhance students' engagement and understanding Additionally, the study emphasizes the need for professional development opportunities for teachers, so they can effectively teach cohesive devices.

Limitations of the study

The study, while providing valuable insights into the perception and use of cohesive devices among students, still has certain limitations that must be acknowledged One of the primary constraints is the small sample size, which may limit the generalizability of the

72 findings With a limited number of participants, the results might not fully represent the broader population of students

Additionally, the study was exclusively conducted at Vĩnh Viễn high school This restricts the ability to generalize the findings across different educational contexts or regions Schools vary greatly in their teaching methodologies, student demographics, and learning environments, which can all influence students' understanding and use of cohesive devices Therefore, the results obtained from this study might not accurately reflect the experiences and competencies of students from other schools or different educational systems

These limitations highlight the need for caution in interpreting the study's findings and suggest areas for further research.

Recommendations for further study

Given the limitations of the current study, including its small sample size and a single educational setting, several recommendations for further research emerge These suggestions aim to enhance the understanding of students' perception and use of cohesive devices in language learning:

1 Expand the sample size: Future studies should consider using a larger group of participants An increased sample size would enhance the reliability of the findings and allow for more generalizable conclusions about students' understanding and application of cohesive devices

2 Investigate individual cohesive device components: It is recommended that subsequent research focus on examining each specific type of cohesive device— grammatical and lexical—and their individual contributions to reading comprehension This could provide a more nuanced understanding of how different aspects of cohesion influence reading skills and potentially other language skills like listening comprehension, writing and speaking

3 Diversify research settings: To gain a broader perspective, subsequent research should be conducted across multiple educational institutions, including schools with different teaching methodologies, student demographics, and geographic locations This would provide insights into how various factors influence the mastery of cohesive devices

4 Diversify study designs: Further investigation into students’ grasp of cohesive devices would benefit from employing a variety of study designs These should include longitudinal analyses to observe changes over time, as well as cross- sectional comparisons that highlight differences across learning contexts

5 Investigate teaching methods: Further research could explore the effectiveness of various teaching methods and instructional materials in enhancing students' understanding of cohesive devices This includes examining the role of digital tools and multimedia resources.

Summary of chapter 5

This chapter give the conclusion to the answers of the two researche questions in this study

It also discussed the implications of the study and made pedagogical and theoretcial recommendations for relevant stakeholders Furthermore, this chapter highlighted the contribution of the study as well as mentioned its limitation Finally, it gave advice to future research in the field

Alahirsh, H (2014) Exploring the effectiveness of extensive reading on incidental vocabulary acquisition by EFL learners: An experimental case study in a Libyan University [Thesis (University of Nottingham only)] University of Nottingham http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/27722/

Al-Jarf, R (2001) Processing of cohesive ties by EFL Arab college students Foreign

Language Annals, 34, 141–151 https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1944- 9720.2001.TB02819.X

Ansow, D F., Olii, S T., & Kumayas, T (2022) A study on students’ perception toward

English learning at SMP Katolik St Theresia Tanawangko JoTELL : Journal of Teaching English, Linguistics, and Literature, 1(3), Article 3 https://doi.org/10.36582/jotell.v1i3.3757

Ashbaugh, C (2018) The enhancing reading comprehension performance using the strategy of highlighting electronic text Electronic theses and dissertations Stephen F.Austin State University https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds/285

Bahaziq, A (2016) Cohesive devices in written discourse: a discourse analysis of a student’s essay writing English Language Teaching, 9(7), 112–119

Bo, T L (2018) The impacts of explicit instructions on cohesive devices on improving reading comprehension VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(4), Article 4 https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4288

75 Bui, H P (2022) Vietnamese EFL students’ use and misconceptions of cohesive devices in writing SAGE Open, 12(3), 21582440221126993 https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221126993

Bui, S (2016) Implicit and explicit grammatical knowledge in predicting reading comprehension of Vietnamese EFL learners Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics,

Carrell, P L (1982) Cohesion is not coherence TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479–488 https://doi.org/10.2307/3586466

Chu, L (2017) Cohesion errors in writing among EFL junior middle school students In

Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Language, Art and Intercultural Communication (ICELAIC 2017) (pp 140–147) https://doi.org/10.2991/icelaic-17.2017.32

DeKeyser, R (2020) Skill acquisition theory In Theories in Second Language Acquisition

Fleming, S M., & Lau, H C (2014) How to measure metacognition Frontiers in Human

Neuroscience, 8 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443

Givon, T (1993) English Grammar In Z.engram2 John Benjamins Publishing Company https://benjamins.com/catalog/z.engram2

Halliday, M A K., & Hasan, R (1976) Cohesion in English Routledge

Ho, T K O., & Huynh, T V (2023) Cohesion errors in argumentative essays committed by third-year English-majored students at Thu Dau Mot University, Vietnam

International Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 5(1), Article 1

76 Hoey, M (1991) Patterns of lexis in text Oxford University Press

Jackson, H (1982) Analyzing English: An introduction to descriptive linguistics (2nd ed)

Kintsch, W (1998) Comprehension: Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition

Kirby, J (2007) Reading comprehension: Its nature and development

Kostek, B (2005) Perception-based data processing in acoustics: Applications to music information retrieval and psychophysiology of hearing Springer Science &

Lạc, M T., Khâu, H A., & Nguyễn, T P N (2019) Effects of cognitive reading strategy training on reading performance of EFL students: A case of a high school in Vietnam Dalat University Journal of Science, 87–105 https://doi.org/10.37569/DalatUniversity.9.4.562(2019)

Lazarus, K U (2020) Socio-demographic factors affecting reading comprehension achievement among secondary school students with learning disabilities in Ibadan, Nigeria IAFOR Journal of Education, 8(1), 145–157

Lestari, F T., Astutik, I., & Werdiningsih, I (2023) An analysis on cohesive devices of students’ recount paragraphs writing Pubmedia Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,

Lindsay, P H., & Norman, D A (2013) Human information processing: An introduction to psychology Academic Press

77 Lopes, L L (1997) Human information processing: An introduction to psychology

Ludji, I., Hambandima, E S N., & Christiani, Y N (2022) Cohesive devices used in students’ argumentative essay; A discourse analysis VELES (Voices of English

Magliano, J., Millis, K., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D (2007) A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools Reading Comprehension

Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies

Mangoki, D (2015) The English teachers’ perception toward the implementation of educational unit level curriculum (KTSP) and 2013 curriculum at junior high school in Tana Toraja Regency Teaching English as a Foreign Language Overseas Journal, 1(1), Article 1 https://doi.org/10.47178/teflo.v1i1.210

McCarthy, M (1991) Discourse analysis for language teachers Cambridge University

Mckee, S (2012) Reading comprehension, what we know: A review of research 1995 to

2011 Language Testing in Asia, 2, 45 https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-2-1-45 Mohammed, A S (2015) Conjunctions as cohesive devices in the writings of English as second language learners Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208, 74–81 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.182

Nguyen, B H., & Nguyen, T K N (2017) Summarizing strategy: Potential tool to promote English as a foreign language (EFL) students’ reading comprehension at a

78 vocational school, Vietnam European Journal of Education Studies, Article 0 https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.857

Nguyen, Q T., Nguyen, T B T., & Nguyen, V Q N (2023) Use of cohesive devices in paragraph writing by EFL students at English language centers in Vietnam VNU

Journal of Foreign Studies, 39(3), Article 3

Nindya, M A., & Widiati, U (2020) Cohesive devices in argumentative essays by

Indonesian EFL learners Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 10(2), 337–

Nunan, D (1993) Introducing discourse analysis Penguin English

Nurhidayat, E F., Apriani, E., & Edy, S (2021) The analysis of cohesive devices used by tertiary English students in writing English paragraphs International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 8(4), Article 4 https://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v8i4.2443

O’Halloran, K (2008) Discourse analysis—By H.G Widdowson International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 106–110 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473- 4192.2008.00185.x

Paltridge, B (2012) Discourse analysis: an introduction Bloomsbury Publishing

Paris, S G., Lindauer, B K., & Cox, G L (1977) The development of inferential comprehension Child Development, 48(4), 1728–1733 https://doi.org/10.2307/1128546

Passer, M W., & Smith, R E (2009) Psychology: The science of mind and behavior (4th ed) McGraw-Hill Higher Education

79 Renkema, J (2004) Introduction to discourse studies John Benjamins Publishing

Sadeghi, N., Mohd Kasim, Z., Hoon Tan, B., & Sathi Abdullah, F (2012) Learning styles, personality types and reading comprehension performance English Language Teaching, 5(4), p116 https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n4p116

Septiyana, L., Safitri, A., & Aminatun, D (2021) The correlation between EFL learners cohesion and their reading comprehension Journal of Research on Language Education, 2(2), Article 2 https://doi.org/10.33365/jorle.v2i2.1154

Sreena, S., & Ilankumaran, M (2018) Developing productive skills through receptive skills – A cognitive approach International Journal of Engineering and Technology(UAE), 7, 669–673 https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.36.24220

Tian, Y., Kim, M., Crossley, S., & Wan, Q (2021) Cohesive devices as an indicator of L2 students’ writing fluency Reading and Writing https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-

Tickoo, A (2002) On the use of ‘then’/ ‘after that’ in the marking of chronological order:

Insights from Vietnamese and Chinese learners of ESL System, 30 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00049-5

Tierney, R J., & Mosenthal, J H (1983) Cohesion and textual coherence Research in the

Trần, H P (2011) How to identify and use cohesive devices in effective English reading comprehension and vocabulary studying a case study of ESP fourth-year students at FTU: M.A : 60.14.10 http://elib.hcmussh.edu.vn/handle/HCMUSSH/7284

80 Utomo, A T., Asrori, M., & Sulistyawati, H (2019) Correlation between cohesive devices mastery and learning motivation toward reading comprehension English Education, 6(2), Article 2 https://doi.org/10.20961/eed.v6i2.35892

Vu, T., Winser, W., & Walsh, J (2020) Teacher attitudes towards the English language curriculum change: The case of Vietnam TESOL International Journal, 15(6), 84–

Wang, X., & Cho, K (2010) Computational linguistic assessment of genre differences focusing on text cohesive devices of student writing: Implications for library instruction Journal of Academic Librarianship - J ACAD LIBR, 36, 501–510 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.08.006

Yu, X.-Y (2003) Textual cohesion and mental coherence Shandong Foreign Languages

Journal https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Textual-Cohesion-and-Mental-Coherence-Yu/657bd1c14b05fcf6f38aea8a1bbf691fdd23102a

Which word helps connect the two clauses that are contrasting in meaning in “Robert likes his room to be tidy, but it's difficult”? Write your answer below

Who does the underlined word in “he does his homework or listens to music” refer to?

Write the name of that person in your answer

Which noun that follows the word “more” has been omitted in "Robert wants to have more”?

Which word helps present the two choices for Robert in “he does his homework or listens to music”?

Who does the underlined word in “I like my room best when they're here.” refer to? Your answer:

Identify nouns that appear more than once from line 2 to line 7 in the reading passage and put them in the table below Also, write the line number where you find each word

What is the word that encompasses the concepts of school, room, bedroom and kitchen in the second paragraph?

What does the underlined word substitute for in the sentence "His school work is on one shelf, and on another he has all his books”?

What is the synonym of the word “photos”? Choose one word in the reading passage and write your answer below

What is the word that includes the meaning of “tennis” in the third paragraph? (Example:

“color” includes the meaning of “red”; “season” includes the meaning of “winter”.)

What is the specific noun-noun collocation in the reading passage that Harry uses to describe famous players in a sport he likes?

What is the specific verb-noun collocation in the reading passage that Harry uses to describe his participation in athletic activities?

My name is Anna King and I was born in a small town called Madison in Wyoming in the center of the USA When I was twenty, I moved to the east coast, to a town just south of New York, to start a job in a department store One day, a young man with short brown hair who was shopping in the store looked at me and asked, 'Are you Michelle Golden?’

'No,' I said 'But do you mean Michelle Golden from Madison?' He did I told him that I was at school with Michelle She wasn't much older than me and people often said that we looked just like each other Then the young man told me that Michelle was in the same history class at university as he was

Six months later, I got a better job with another department store and moved to the west coast to work at their San Francisco store One day on my way home from work, a young man with short brown hair passed me in the street and asked, 'Are you Michelle Golden?’ 'No,' I answered 'You asked me that when we met in a shop several thousand miles away, near New York.’

In the second paragraph, a clause that follows the word “No” has been omitted What is the omitted clause in this context?

Which word in “'No,' I said 'But do you mean Michelle Golden from Madison?' He did I told him that I was at school with Michelle.” substitutes for the underlined word?

In the second paragraph, which word shows that the young man and Michelle were in the same history class happened after Anna told him she and Michelle were at the same school? Your answer:

What is the word that includes the meaning of “class” in the second paragraph? (Example:

“color” is a more general category of “red”; “season” is a more general category of

Which word in the text is the synonym of the word “store” in the third paragraph?

In the fourth paragraph, a clause that follows the word “No” has been omitted What is the omitted clause in this context?

What does the underlined word substitutes for in the sentence “You asked me that when we met in a shop several thousand miles away, near New York.”

ANSWER KEY FOR THE COHESION PERCEPTION TEST

5 his sister’s children/ Robert’s sister’s children