Does Field of Study Influence EFL Learning Process: A Case of Humanities and Engineering Students
Saeedeh Karbalaee Kamran, Iran
Saeedeh Karbalaee Kamran is an EFL instructor at Kish Institute of Science and Technology in Tehran, Iran. She holds an MA in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) from Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. She is interested in SLA, language learning strategies, syllabus design, and CALL.
E-mail: s.kamran@srbiau.ac.ir, and saeedehkamran@gmail.com.
Menu
Introduction
Background
Purpose of the study
Research questions
Participants
Instrumentation
Procedure
Results and discussion
Conclusion
References
Reading is a process of activating relevant knowledge and language skills in order to transfer information from one person to another. It is also considered as a decoding skill, derived from the idea in which language is regarded as a code (Chastain, 1988). Similarly, Urquhart and Weir (1998) maintain that "reading is the process of receiving and interpreting information encoded in language form via the medium of print" (p. 22). Furthermore, in traditional English Language classroom, reading is the most emphasized skill (Susser & Robb,1990) considers reading as "an essential skill which is the most important skill to master for most of the learners of English in order to ensure success in learning" (p.2). Macaro (2003) claims that the vital role which reading plays in an EFL context is not surprising; because when learners moves beyond the beginning level, or in case of university education, the vast majority of learners' input will be in written form, which calls for extensive reading in L2. Flavell (1979) who introduced the issue of metacognition, defined it as ''knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena'' (p. 906). It conveys that metacognition is the awareness of cognition, or simply thinking about thinking. When learning process is deeply pondered, carefully organized, or meticulously manipulated, the task objective is highly expected to be obtained. On the part of reading, metacognitive awareness can help one, better understand the mechanisms involved and employed in reading, and provide the readers with awareness of the ways through which they can use strategies to maximize their text comprehension. Several studies have investigated the role of metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension and as Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) state, the consensus is that strategic awareness and monitoring of the comprehension process, known as metacognition, are crucial dimensions of the qualified reading. When learning strategies are associated with each of language skills, they provide us with specific skill related strategies, like reading strategies, writing strategies, speaking strategies, and listening strategies. Reading strategies are the cognitive and metacognitive actions that individuals use consciously or automatically when trying to access a text. Successful strategy use varies according to the level of the text and cognitive demand of the task (Macaro, 2003). Reading strategies are of interest for what they reveal about the way readers manage their interaction with written text and how these strategies are related to text comprehension. The use of reading strategies can positively influence reading in a foreign language, with respect to Chastain's (1988) belief that "reading strategies enable learners to read at a much higher level of proficiency"(p. 224). Reading strategies are classified in various ways in the literature of reading research. Block (1986), shed light on different existing classifications of reading strategies:
Johnston (1983) identified two types of strategies: One aided the reader in constructing a model of the meaning of text, a framework for understanding; the other was used to monitor understanding and take action when necessary. Hosenfeld’s (1977) division of strategies into “main meaning line” and “word-solving strategies” and Olshavsky’s (1976, 1977) into “clause related” and "word related” also distinguished between levels of strategies (p. 465)
According to Chamot and O'Malley(1994) three interrelated strategy clusters are available; cognitive strategies, which are used to accomplish a specific cognitive task during reading, such as inference, metacognitive strategies, which are used to regulate cognitive processing, as in comprehension monitoring and repairs, and social and affective strategies, which are used when interacting cooperatively with others during reading, such as seeking outside assistance. There is also a reading strategy categorization pertaining to three phases of reading. Paris, Wasik, and Turner (1991) based their grouping on the time of reading strategy use: Before reading, during reading, and after reading strategies. Pre-reading strategies help activation of prior knowledge relevant to the text. During-reading strategies help detecting and differencing the main idea of the text (by using top-down, and bottom-up strategies, predicting, getting the gist of a text, and skimming). After-reading strategies comprise activities for reviewing the content.
In pasts two decades several studies have probed the relationship between EFL learners' reading strategy use and their reading comprehension scores, regarding the role of reading strategy use in helping readers achieve a better comprehension when reading a passage (Macaro, 2003; Paris et al., 1991; Pressley and Harris, 2006). However, few studies were found to investigate the influence of field of study on reading strategy use.
Hosseini Nezhad (2006), in her study on 301 Birjand national university undergraduate students of three fields of study, namely, humanities, engineering, and sciences, found that field of the study was greatly related to participants' performance on reading with the engineering students outperforming other two groups especially the humanities. As derived from findings of Hosseini Nezhad (2006), and Park (2010), metacognitive reading strategies are found to be used significantly more by skillful readers. Moreover, Cogmen and Saracaloglu (2009) tried to identify the frequency level of reading strategies that the 230 college students attending the Faculty of Education in Pamukkale University use while they are reading. Metacognitive Reading Strategies Questionnaire (MRSQ) developed by Taraban and his collegues (2004) and adapted to Turkish by Cogmen (2008) was used to collect the data. Findings indicated that students in Turkish Language Teaching Department use the pragmatic strategies less frequently than the students in Fine Art Education and Primary Teacher Education Department; however, no significant difference was sought on the analytic strategies dimension according to departments.
As Macaro and Erler (2008) state, a considerable body of research exists on the area of strategies applied by learners who use or learn a second language. General strategy use has been investigated quantitatively, while specific skills, like reading have has been explored quantitatively, and also qualitatively. Exploring in the area of reading strategy seems to be vital, as efficient reading comprehension performance is hardly achieved without appealing to such strategies. Dole, Valencia, Greer, and Wardrop (1991) further clarify the issue by claiming that unthinking people can view the art of reading comprehension as something just happens as an individual becomes more skilled in reading. However, in recent research, reading comprehension is seen as a constructive process that uses learners' cognitive and metacognitive strategies to build the understanding of the text.
Reaching an insight to reading strategy use of EFL learners from different fields can provide language teachers with a better understanding of their students' attitudes in reading tasks. As different backgrounds, concerning EFL learners' field of study can influence their learning style and also their strategy use, and considering the few number of past research on the role of field of study in reading strategy use, current study tries to investigate the influence of the field of study on reading strategy use of Iranian EFL learners. Narrowed down to EFL learners in to fields of engineering and humanities, this study investigates whether any statistically significant difference existed between reading strategy use of EFL learners in the field of humanities and engineering. In this regard, four research questions were formed.
- Is there any statistically significant difference between overall reading strategy use of EFL learners in the field of humanities and engineering?
- Is there any statistically significant difference between global reading strategy use of EFL learners in the field of humanities and engineering?
- Is there any statistically significant difference between support reading strategy use of EFL learners in the field of humanities and engineering?
- Is there any statistically significant difference between problem solving reading strategy use of EFL learners in the field of humanities and engineering?
Participants of the current study were 103 Iranian EFL learners, comprising 46 university students of humanities (45%), and 57 university students of engineering (55%). They were 48 girls (47 %), and 55 boys (53%).
Two instruments were used in this study: 1) Persian version of Survey of Reading Strategy (SORS), and 2) a demographic inquiry sheet.
Persian Version of Survey of Reading Strategy (SORS): To measure metacognitive awareness of reading strategies, SORS developed by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) was used. It was designed to measure metagonitive awareness of reading strategies of adolescent and adult students who had English as their second or foreign language. Based on guidelines of Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) SORS was a 5 point Likert scale that included 30 items in three categories (subscales): Global Reading Strategies (GLOB) which are 13 items of "intentional, carefully planned techniques by which learners monitor or manage their reading" (p. 4), Problem Solving Strategies (PROB) that are 8 items, including "actions and procedures that readers use while working directly with the text. These are localized, and focused techniques used when problems develop in understanding textual information" (p. 4), and Support Strategies (SUP) which are 9 items which involve "basic support mechanisms intended to aid the reader in comprehending the text" (p. 4). In order to be able to interpret the findings of SORS, Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) suggested an interpretation key. Three levers of reading strategy usage are: High (mean of 3.5 or higher), Moderate (mean of 2.5 to 3.4), and low (mean of 2.4 or lower). SORS was designed in English and had an internal reliability of .89; however, to eliminate any possible misunderstanding of the statements, it was translated into Persian by the researcher. The Persian version of SORS manifested Cronbach's alpha internal consistency reliability of .829 when piloted.
Demographic Inquiry Sheet: It included questions on participant's gender, age, field of study, degree, and language learning experience.
The instruments were distributed among the participants and they were required to complete the questionnaires after accomplishing a reading task. This was to help students reflect their reading strategy use smoothly. The SORS scoring rubric was as follows: I never use it: 1 mark; I occasionally use it: 2 marks; I sometimes use it: 3 marks; I usually use it: 4 marks; I always use it: 5 marks. Minimum mark was 30, and the maximum was 150. The data analysis was performed by applying SPSS (version 19.0).
According to the descriptive statistics provided in table 1, EFL learners in both fields of humanities (M=3.51, S.D. = .76), and engineering (M=3.59, S.D. = .62) had high usage of reading strategies in general. Regarding the subscales, both groups displayed high usage of problem solving reading strategies (humanities: M=3.88, S.D. = .35; engineering: M=3.88, S.D. = .29); however, in support reading strategies both groups were found to have moderate usage (humanities: M=3.35, S.D. = .31; engineering: M=3.34, S.D. = .38). Considering global reading strategies, engineering group performed high usage (M= 3.58, S.D. = .41) and surpassed the humanities group with moderate usage (M=3.41, S.D. =.54).
To answer each research question an independent samples t-test was run. As presented in table 2, findings on research question one showed that, assuming equal variances no statistically significant difference existed between engineering group and humanities group in their overall reading strategy use [t (101) = -1.14, p=.25 (2-tailed)]. On the part of research question two which investigated global reading strategy subscale, as displayed in table 3, assuming equal variances a statistically significant difference was sought between engineering group and humanities group in their global reading strategy use [t (101) = -2.25, p=.02 (2-tailed)], with engineering group exceeding humanities one. Regarding findings on research question three reflected in table 4, with assumption of equal variances, no statistically significant difference was found between engineering group and humanities group in their support reading strategy use [t (101) = .10, p=.91 (2-tailed)]. According to table 5,investigation on research question four revealed that assuming equal variances, no statistically significant difference was found between engineering group and humanities group in their problem solving reading strategy use [t (101) = -.06, p=.94 (2-tailed)].
Current study tried to investigate the influence of the field of study on reading strategy use of Iranian EFL learners. As descriptive statistics manifested, EFL learners in both fields of humanities and engineering had high reading strategy usage in general. Also both group performed high usage of problem solving strategies and moderate usage of support strategies. However, in global reading strategies, engineering group performed high usage and surpassed the humanities group with moderate usage. Moreover, the results revealed that no statistically significant difference existed between engineering group and humanities group in their overall reading strategy use, and also in their use of support and problem solving strategies. A statistically significant difference existed between two groups in global reading strategy use in which engineering group exceeded humanities group. Based on the results of the current study, it is inferred that reading strategy use of EFL learners in the fields of humanities and engineering does not differ largely. It is implied that field of the study does not influence the reading strategy use of EFL learners vastly. EFL teachers of the courses in which students come from various fields, are not recommended to consider their student's field of study as a variable which plays a vital role in their strategy use. However, it is suggested to conduct further studies on the influence of field of study on reading strategy use of EFL learners of other fields, i.e., arts, science, medicine, etc. Moreover, it is recommended to apply alternative instruments of portfolio, think aloud protocol, or interview to collect data on reading strategy use of EFL learners.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463-492.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second-language skills: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Cogmen, S. & Saracaloglu, A. S. (2009). Students' usage of reading strategies in the faculty of education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 248-251.
Dole, J.A., Valencia, S.W., Greer, E.A. and Wardrop, J.L. (1991). Effects of two types of prereading instruction on the comprehension of narrative and expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(2), 142-159.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Hosseini Nezhad, N. (2006). On the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and the reading comprehension of Iranian non-English major university students. Unpublished master's thesis, Al-Zahra University, Tehran, Iran.
Macaro, E. (2003). Teaching and learning a second language. London: Continuum.
Macaro, E., & Erler, L. (2008). Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 90-119.
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students' awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2-10.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Monsenthal, & D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol II, pp. 609-640). New York: Longman.
Park, Y. (2010). Korean EFL college students' reading strategy use to comprehend authentic expository/technical texts in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, United States.
Pressley, M., & Harris, S. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. In P. Alexander, & P. Winn (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 265-286). Mahwah, NJ: L.Erlbaum.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431-449.
Susser, B., & Robb, T. N. (1990). EFL extensive reading instruction: Research and procedure.
JALT Journal, 12(2). [Online] Available: http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/~trobb/sussrobb.html (June 6, 2011)
Urquhart, S., & Weir, C. J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice. New York: Longman.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Teaching Academic English course at Pilgrims website.
|
