This section provides the final words on the issues raised in this study. A brief summary of the main findings to each research question will be provided. The information should matter to university teachers in general and EFL reading teachers especially.
This study adopted both quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigate the effects of pre-reading inputs, content knowledge, and L2 proficiency toward domain-specific reading comprehension. As it was hypothesized that first language might better guide the conceptual understanding in the domain-specific reading, the researcher explored the comparative effects of L1/L2 pre-reading input on EFL students with high/low content knowledge as well as those with high/low L2 reading proficiency. The corresponding answers to the four research questions addressing the above-mentioned issues are briefly summarized.
Research Question 1:
Is there an effect of the pre-reading treatment on the comprehension of L2
domain-specific reading by EFL university students? Is there a difference between the effects of L1/L2 pre-reading treatments?
This research set out to explore the effects of pre-reading input in L1 and L2.
The One-Way ANOVA analysis indicated that pre-reading input presented in either L1 or L2 improved students‘ L2 domain-specific reading comprehension significantly.
The statistical results showed that the participants benefited from both language sources equally. In other words, there is no difference between L1 and L2 pre-reading treatment. As it is generally expected that L1 pre-reading support could be more
effective, a new insight gained from this finding might ignite language teachers‘
interests in how to better utilize readers‘ L2 to facilitate their academic reading. This ANOVA analysis indicates that L2 information might exert the same effect to help learners work out L2 academic messages, thus EFL readers probably should use L2 more and rely less on L1.
In general, this finding from investigating the cross-linguistic relationship between L1/L2 pre-reading inputs on L2 academic reading comprehension has contributed to a more complete picture of L2 reading process. It also provides a clearer understanding of the contributions made by L1 and L2 to facilitate academic reading.
Research Question 2:
Does the effect of L1/L2 pre-reading treatment on the EFL students‘ comprehension of L2 domain-specific reading interact with their level of content knowledge?
The Two-Way ANOVA was adopted to explore whether the variables of
treatment and content knowledge interact. The result showed that these two variables did not interact, as no particular combination of variables led to a more effective academic reading comprehension. Nonetheless, there was a main effect as High/Low levels of content knowledge affects the EFL reader‘s comprehension differently. The content knowledge level exhibited an apparent influence on the results; the more content knowledge, the better academic reading comprehension.
The study highlighted the importance of schema theory as it found that readers relied on their prior knowledge when trying to comprehend a text. It was this organized knowledge that was accessed during reading when readers related what they already knew (their schemata) to the ideas appearing in a text. The richer the
schema was, the better the readers understood the academic article. Content
knowledge is the foundation for academic reading which helps make connections and understand the main ideas. Content area reading instructions should focus on teaching the concepts and also addressing learners‘ needs to build, activate, and refine the related content schemata.
Research Question 3:
Does the effect of L1/L2 pre-reading treatment on the EFL students‘ comprehension of L2 domain-specific reading interact with their level of L2 reading proficiency?
Again, the Two-Way ANOVA showed no interaction. Yet, there were two main effects. First, the treatment groups‘ mean was higher than the control group‘s; and second, the high English proficiency group performed better than the low English proficiency group.
Based on these effects, pre-reading support seems necessary for students to
perform better. Also, good language competence in English may be a positive variable on the performance of students‘ academic reading. Students‘ level of English
proficiency influenced their success in content area reading.
Research Question 4:
In domain-specific reading, how important is content knowledge and L2 reading proficiency for students? How do students of varying content knowledge and English proficiency perceive the contributions of pre-reading materials in different languages?
Through the analysis of the responses to the questions posed in the
questionnaire, the finding shows that the students believed that the factors of content
knowledge and English proficiency had significant impact on their reading comprehension. Interestingly, for higher English proficiency learners, content knowledge was perceived of higher importance than English proficiency. Some expressed that the content knowledge was indispensable. They believed that they struggled to make sense of reading when they lacked the background knowledge on the topic of the academic reading.
A difference in perceived effects toward L1 and L2 was also found between participants of different English language proficiency levels. The lower reading proficiency readers perceived L1 to be more effective than L2 in facilitating their reading of content area text. However, believing that L2 was less effective did not actually make L2 ineffective. However, from the qualitative analysis on the written responses, it was found that reading a domain-specific article in L2 can be anxiety provoking.
In general, the findings of the study provide useful information to better understand how to improve EFL university students‘ performance on content area reading. The information from this study is expected to aid the planning of ESP courses. English should not be taught as a subject separated from the students‘
domain-specific field. Instead, it should be integrated into a subject matter area important to the students. The study also generated information about EFL students‘
need for content information and schema activation. Most importantly, the EFL students‘ psychological need in learning English was addressed.
REFERENCES
Alba, J., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203- 231.
Alderson, C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem. In C. Alderson, & A. H. Urquuhart (Eds.), Reading in foreign language (pp.114-141). London: Longman
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: CUP.
Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H (1985).The effect of students' academic discipline on their performance on ESP reading tests. Language Testing, 2, 192-204.
Alderson, J.C., & Urquhart, A.H. (1988). This test is unfair: I'm not an economist. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp.168-182). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP essentials: A teacher’s guide to principles and practice. Reading: Garnet.
Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and
strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 373-404.
Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M. & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-mater knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64, 201-252.
Al-Shumaimeri, Y. A. N. (2006). The effects of content familiarity and language ability on reading comprehension performance of low-and high-ability Saudi tertiary students studying English as a foreign language. King Saud University, Educational Sciences & Islamic Studies, 18(2), 1-19.
Anderson, R.C. (1978). Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. In A.
Lesgold, J. Pellegrino, S. Fokkema, & R. Glaser (eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction (pp. 37-55). New York, NY: Plenum.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Anderson, R. C. (1985). Role of the reader‘s schema in comprehension, learning and memory. In H. Singer, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp.372-384). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, D. P. (1998). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.),
Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 37-55). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1-12.
Anderson, R. C., Pichert, J. W., & Shirey, L. L. (1983). Effects of the reader‘s schema at different points in time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 271–279.
Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of information in connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 15 (3), 433-440.
Anderson, T. H. (1980). Study strategies and adjunct aids. In R. I. Spiro, B. C. Bruce,
& W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, and education (pp.
483-502). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anton, M., & Decamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314-342.
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ETL Journal, 41, 241–247
Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32.
Ausubel , D. P. (1961). In defense of verbal learning. Educational Theory. 11, 15-24.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Bartlett, F. C. (1932/reissued 1995). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bean, T. W. (1997). Preservice teachers‘ selection and use of content area literacy strategies. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(3), 154-169.
Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bernhardt, E. B. & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 15-34.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133-150.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New York: Routledge.
Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies
contributing to children‘s comprehension of narrative and expository texts.
Reading Psychology, 29, 137–164.
Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). OE versus MC response formats-It does make a difference for diagnostic purposes. Applied Psychological measurement, 11, 385-395.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-494.
Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 319-343.
Braine, G. (ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brandao, A. C. P., & Oakhill, J. (2005). ―How do you know this answer?‖
Brandford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for
understanding: Some investigation of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 711-726.
Brown, C. (1992). International relations theory: New normative approaches. New York: Columbia University Press.
Children‘s use of text data and general knowledge in story comprehension.
Reading and Writing, 18, 687–713.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
Campion, M. E. & Elley, W. B. (1971). An academic vocabulary list. Wellington:
New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Carpini, D .& Keeter, S. (1993). Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1179-1206.
Carpini, D. & Keeter, S. (1991). Stability and change in the U.S. public‘s knowledge
of politics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 583-612.
Carrell, P.L. & Eisterhold, J.C. (1983). Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy.
In P.L. Carrell , J. Devine & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 73-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning, 33, 183-207.
Carrell, P. L. (1984a). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 441-469.
Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 461-81.
Carrell, P. L. (1988). Interactive text processing: Implications for ESL and second language classrooms. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading (pp. 239-259). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge UP.
Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12, 159-179.
Carrell, P. L.(1984b). Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language Learning, 34, 87-112.
Carroll, J. B., & Maxwell, S. E. (1979). Individual differences in cognitive abilities.
Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 603–640.
Carter, R. (1988). Vocabulary, cloze and discourse: An applied linguistics view. In R.
Carter, & M. McCarthy (Eds.) Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 161-180).
New York: Longman.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classroom: Research on teaching and learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, H.C. & Graves, M. F. (1995). Effects of previewing and providing background knowledge on Taiwanese college students‘ comprehension of American short stories. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 663–686.
Clapham, C. (1996). The Development of IELTS: A study of the effect of background knowledge on reading comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, M. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading--or when language competence interferes with reading performance. The Modern Language Journal, 64 (2), 203-209.
Colina, A., & Garcia, M. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. IRAL, 47(3/4), 325-345.
Cook, G. W. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, L. K. & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Reading strategy training for meaningful learning from prose. In M. Pressley, & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research:
Educational applications (pp. 87- 126). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557-591.
Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Review, 57 (3), 402-423.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251.
Cummins, J. (1980). The construct of language proficiency in bilingual education. In J.
E. Alatis (Ed.). Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiency in
bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2005). Teaching for cross-language transfer in dual language education:
Possibilities and pitfalls. TESOL Symposium on Dual Language Education, Bogazici University, Turkey, September 23.
Cziko, G. A. (1978). Difference in first and second language reading; the use of syntactic, semantic and discourse constraints. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 473-489.
De Groot, A. M. B., & Nas, G. L. (1991). Lexical representationof cognates and non-cognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90–123.
Diakidoy, I. N., Stylianou, P., Karefillidou, C., & Papageorgiou, P. (2004). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of text at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology, 26, 55–80.
Dornyei, Z. & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing language for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. (1998). Developments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunne, T., Kurki, M. & Smith, S. (2010). International relations theory: Discipline and diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunston, P. J. (1992). A critique of graphic organizer research. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 57-65.
Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012).
Reader-text interactions: How differential text and question types influence