Investigating Impact of Analysis Matrix Summarization Technique on Iranian University Students’ Reading Comprehension Enhancement




Content-based academic reading, non-English majors, summarization, graphic organizers, analysis matrix summarization technique, reading habit, reading promotion.


The present study was an attempt to investigate the effect of the analysis matrix, a type of graphic organizer, as a language improvement supportive attempt on fostering reading comprehension in an EFL academic context. The main question this study tried to answer was whether using this technique might enhance reading comprehension abilities among Iranian non-English majors. To achieve this goal, 120 nursing and microbiology majors were randomly selected from a population of the non-English majors enrolled for the Academic English course. They were divided into four groups of 30 and were randomly assigned to two experimental groups and two control groups. A pre-test of reading comprehension was administered to all groups. Then, they were taught passages to read for eight sessions with different methods; the experimental groups received a treatment of analysis matrix technique instruction while the control groups were taught with the traditional method, including no summarization instruction. A post-test of reading comprehension was finally administered to all groups. The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to control the effects of the pre-test on the outcomes. The results indicated a statistically significant difference due to pedagogical intervention; the two experimental groups outperformed on the post-test after being treated with analysis matrix technique for eight sessions.

To reference this article (APA) / Para citar este artículo (APA) / Para citar este artigo (APA)

Bahrami, S., & Rahimy, R. (2020). Investigating impact of analysis matrix summarization technique on Iranian university students’ reading comprehension enhancement. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 13(2), 191–214.

Received: 27/01/2020

Accepted: 03/05/2020


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Samaneh Bahrami, Ph.D. Candidate of TEFL, Islamic Azad University of Tonekabon, Tonekabon, Iran.

Samaneh Bahrami is a Ph.D. candidate in the English Department at Islamic Azad University of Tonekabon, Tonekabon, Iran. Her main research interests include applied linguistics,second language acquisition and material development.

Ramin Rahimy, Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University of Tonekabon, Tonekabon, Iran

Dr. Rahimy is an assistant professor in the English Department at Islamic Azad University of Tonekabon, Tonekabon, Iran. His research interests include applied linguistics, second language acquisition, material development and translation.


Anderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies. Heinle & Heinle.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2013). Introduction to

research in education. Cengage Learning.

Baleghizadeh, S., & Babapur, M. (2011). The effect of summary writing on reading comprehension and recall of EFL students. New England Reading Association Journal, 47(1), 44–57.

Biria, R., & Sharifi, M. M. (2013). Graphic organizers and reading comprehension ability: Evidence from Iranian EFL university students. Sino-US English Teaching, 10(5), 358–365.­Comprehension_Ability_Evidence_from_Iranian_University_­Students

Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, I. D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 2002, 71(1), 5–23.

Chaury, P. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on reading comprehension in English as a Foreign Language. Concordia Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 6, 2–24.

Chmielewski, T., & Dansereau, D. F. (1998). Enhancing the recall of text: Knowledge mapping training promotes implicit transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 407–413.

Ellis, E., & Howard, P. (2005). Graphic organizers: Power tools for teaching students with learning disabilities. Graphic Organizers and Learning Disabilities, 1, 1–5.

Fisher, A. L. (2001). Implementing graphic organizer notebooks: The art and science of content. Reading Teacher, 55(2), 116–120.

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, L., F. (2011). Teaching and researching reading. Routledge.

Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Second language reading-writing relations. In A. S. Horning & E. W. Kreamer (Eds.), Reconnecting reading and writing (pp. 108–133). Parlor Press and WAC Clearinghouse.

Graney, M. J. (1992). A framework for using text graphing. System, 20, 161–167.

Harris, T., & Hodges, R. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. International Reading Association.

Hibbard, K. M., & Wagner, E. A. (2003). Assessing and teaching reading comprehension and writing, K-3. Eye on Education.

Hirvela, A. (2016). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. University of Michigan.

Hodaeian, M. & Biria, R. (2015). The effect of backward design on intermediate EFL learners’ L2 reading comprehension: Focusing on learners’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(7), 80–93.

Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2007). Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research findings and issues. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19, 34–55.

Kamil, M. L. (2004). Vocabulary and comprehension instruction: Summary and implications of the national reading panel findings. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 12, 113–122.

Kiewra, K. A., Kauffman, D. F., Robinson, D. H., Dubois, N. F., & Stanley, R. K. (1999). Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays. Instructional Science, 27, 373–401.

Lee, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Nelson, D. (2005). Supporting problem solving performance through the construction of knowledge maps. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(2), 117–131.

Lin, H. Y., & Chern, L. C. (2014). The effects of background knowledge and L2 reading proficiency on Taiwanese university students’ summarization performance. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 22(4), 149–186.

Mall Amiri, B., & Sarlak, H. (2010). The comparative effect of summarizing and concept mapping on ESP learners’ reading comprehension of EAP texts. JELS, 1(4), 113–136.

Manoli, P., & Papadopoulou, M. (2012). Graphic organizers as a reading strategy: Research findings and issues. Creative Education, 3(3), 348–356.

McKnight, K. (2010). The teacher’s big book of graphic organizers. Jossey-Bass.

Mohammad Hoseinpur, R. (2015). The impact of teaching summarizing on EFL learners’ microgenetic development of summary writing. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 7(2), 69–92.

Naseri, H., Asadi, N., & Zoughi, M. (2013). The effect of teaching systemic-oriented summarization strategies on the reading comprehension of advanced Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics word (IJLLALW), 4(4), 74–87.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

O’Donnell, M. P., & Wood, M. (2004). Becoming a reader: A developmental approach to reading instruction (3rd Ed.). Pearson Education.

Pakzadian, M., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2012). The effects of using summarization strategies on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension. English Language Research, 1(1), 118–125.

Palmer, J. C. (2003). Summarizing techniques in the English language classroom: An international perspective. PASAA, 34, 54–63.

Parker, C. (2007). 30 Graphic organizers for reading. Shell Education.

Pearson, R. S., & Denner, P. R. (1989). Semantic organizers: A study for special needs learners. Aspen.

Praveen, S. D., & Premalatha, R. (2013). Using graphic organizers to improve reading comprehension skills for the middle school ESL students. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 155–170.

Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientist and Practitioner researcher. Blackwell.

Salehi, D. A., Jahandar, S., & Khodabandehlou, M. (2013). The impact of concept mapping on EFL students. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 3(3), 241–280.

Schwartz, S. H., & Fattaleh, D. L. (1972). Representation in deductive problem solving: The matrix. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 95, 343–348.

Sotiriou, E. P. (2002). Reading to write: Composition in context. Heinle & Heinle.

Tarshaei, G., & Karbalaei, A. (2015). The effect of three phase approach on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 4(2), 362–372.

van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, 265–287.­instruction_in_high_school_Program_completion_vs_Program_­generation

Wallace, R., Pearman, C., Hail, C., & Hurst, B. (2007). Writing for comprehension. Reading Horizons, 48(1), 41–56.

Wormeli, R. (2005). Summerization in any subject: 50 techniques to improve student reading. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Design (ASCD).

Zafarani, P. & Kabgani, S. (2014). Summarization strategy training and reading comprehension of Iranian ESP learners. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1959–1965.

Zahedi, Z., & Tabatabaei, O. (2015). The effect of blended teaching on reading strategy use by Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 3(11), 25–38.

Zhao, R., & Hirvela, A. (2015). Undergraduate ESL students’ engagement in academic reading and writing in learning to write a synthesis paper. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 219–241.




How to Cite

Bahrami, S., & Rahimy, R. (2021). Investigating Impact of Analysis Matrix Summarization Technique on Iranian University Students’ Reading Comprehension Enhancement. Latin American Journal of Content &Amp; Language Integrated Learning, 13(2), 191–214.