Examining how post-secondary L2 readers make use of background knowledge when reading literary texts an exploratory study

Literary texts offer rich opportunities for language learning. However, can second language (L2) learners fully understand L2 literary texts? According to Bernhardt (2001):"the act of reading in a second language is extremely tricky -- is even trickier with literary texts that are inherently ambiguous, full of metaphor and intertextual relations to texts to which the readers have no access" (p.198). In other words, L2 readers are often poorly equipped grammatically, linguistically and culturally to cope with literary texts in which it might be difficult to recognize figurative language, to comprehend metaphors, to identify underlying cultural assumptions and above all to think critically while navigating those complexities. Therefore, during the reading process, L2 readers encounter gaps in the text which necessarily compel them to use whatever background knowledge they possess in order to create meaning. The purpose of this research is to see exactly how post-secondary L2 readers use their existing background knowledge to understand literary texts and what they do when confronted with text passages for which they lack such knowledge.

Working with physical therapists to develop and evaluate an evidence-based online module for Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD): bridging the knowledge-to-practice gap

Aims: Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) is a chronic condition with potential negative health consequences. Clinicians working with children with DCD need access to tailored, synthesized, evidence-based DCD information; however a knowledge-to-practice gap exists. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate an evidence-based online DCD module tailored to physical therapists’ (PTs) identified needs. Methods: Guided by the Knowledge to Action framework, we interviewed PTs working with children with DCD (n=9) to identify their information needs. Their recommendations, along with synthesized DCD research evidence, informed module development. PTs (n=50) responded to scaled items and open-ended questions to evaluate module usefulness. Results: The module incorporated important PT DCD content areas including: 1) Identification; 2) Planning Interventions and Goals; 3) Evidence-Based Practice; 4) Management; and, 5) Resources. Case scenarios, clinical applications, interactive media, links to resources, and interactive learning opportunities were also embedded. PTs perceived the module to be comprehensive and useful and provided feedback to improve module navigation. Conclusions: Involving end-users throughout the development and evaluation of an online PT DCD module contributed to its relevance, applicability, and utility. The ongoing clinical use of this module may have the potential to improve the quality of PT DCD services.