In this chapter, the results shown in Chapter Four will be discussed in details. An overview of the study with its purposes and findings will be presented. The major findings with the possible interpretation will be discussed in light of the literature from the perspectives of reading research, English for specific purposes, as well as in SLA.
Implications for teaching and learning in relations to domain-specific reading will be provided.
Overview of the Study
The present study is concerned with how L2 domain-specific reading can be enhanced through the provision of pre-reading resource in L1 or L2. As tertiary-level learners in EFL environments are oftentimes assumed to have advanced a certain understanding in the domain-specific field and also developed a certain level of L2 linguistic proficiency, this study investigated how the pre-reading treatment in different languages influenced Taiwanese EFL learners with different content knowledge and L2 proficiency. These issues were addressed by comparing the data obtained from quantitative and qualitative measurements.
The quantitative data were obtained from testing the EFL students‘
performances on the designed instruments, and the qualitative data were collected through open-ended questions from the survey questionnaire designed for the study.
The findings will be discussed based on these two sources of data to explore the actual performances and self-reported effects on (1) the provision of L1/L2 pre-reading input; (2) learners with high/low levels of discipline-related content knowledge; and (3) learners with high/low levels of English reading proficiency. The following section discusses the results and findings that address the above three issues under investigation.
Effects of Pre-reading Treatment
The comparative effects of the first independent variable, different pre-reading inputs (i.e., Chinese input, English input, and no input), on EFL university students‘
domain-specific reading comprehension were summarized. Results of the one-way ANOVA on the domain-specific reading comprehension performance of the EFL students revealed that the students who received either L1 or L2 input performed significantly better on their domain-specific reading than the control group. Based on this finding, the importance of schematic support from pre-reading input will be discussed under the theoretical framework of reading theories and its pedagogical implications will be drawn.
Even though reading support was useful, there was no statistical difference between L1 and L2 pre-reading groups in their reading performance. Given that there was no difference between the groups, it would be reasonable to expect the
participants either in L1 or L2 group to report similar preferences for their pre-reading input. On the contrary, the participants perceived the effects of L1 and L2 pre-reading input differently. Most of them found L1 more effective than L2. The related theories which were substantiated by the evidence from the finding and the implication that arises which might help close the gap between the actual effects and the reported effects from L1 and L2 pre-reading input are discussed.
Providing pre-reading guidance
Reading is the primary means by which academic knowledge is obtained.
However, students are often left on their own to find ways to tackle academic reading.
Pre-reading input seems to play an important role to help students survive in the sea of academic reading. The ultimate goal in domain-specific reading is to enable readers to read the required L2 text materials with ease. When major gaps emerge in readers‘
preparedness for domain-specific reading, conceptual pre-reading input could have assisted the readers to make better connections and comprehend an academic article.
This study provided the empirical evidence for the importance of pre-reading input. The survey questionnaire revealed that the majority of the respondents (93%) reported the benefits of pre-reading input. The findings from the survey questionnaire were consistent with the actual performance in which the experimental groups
outperformed the control group in reading comprehension. With the presence of the pre-reading input, the students performed statistically better than those without the pre-reading input. Therefore, pre-reading input not only was favored by most of the participants, its actual effect on domain-specific reading was also evident. Based on this, the theoretical implications on L2 academic reading regarding schema theory could be drawn.
Schematic support, a form of top-down reading support is generally recognized as the process in which some form of stimuli direct the reader to look for and evoke the relevant schemata from memory into the present reading task (e.g., Anderson, 1978). The researcher applied the external stimuli, i.e., the key academic terminology list as the pre-reading input in this study to facilitate the comprehension of the text, the positive results of the pre-reading input provided evidence to support the theories associated with top-down reading model (e.g., Rumelhart, 1980). The following section discusses in detail how the results confirm the reading model which associated with schematic support.
Confirming top-down reading models
Reading academic texts requires students to process different levels of
information (e.g. Holley et al, 1979). Comprehension of academic texts presupposes that higher-order understandings are based on the acquisition of lower-order
knowledge. To process higher level information, background knowledge needs to be activated and previously learned material needs to be linked to the new one.
Connections must also be made thematically between concepts, so that a reader can synthesize and evaluate new information based on their existing knowledge.
In the present study, the researcher designed three types of questions, i.e., literal, inferential, and evaluative questions to assess students‘ reading comprehension. The findings showed that most of the participants who answered evaluative and inferential questions correctly were in the experimental groups who received the pre-reading support to activate the related schemata. They seemed to be able to answer the higher-order evaluative or inferential questions better. The participants in the control group did not receive any pre-reading material. As a result, although they were able to answer the literal comprehension questions, they performed relatively unsatisfactory on the higher-order comprehension questions. The findings of this study reiterated the importance of schemata theory (Carrell, 1984a, 1988; Goodman, 1970). For details of the findings, please see the descriptive statistics in Chapter Four.
Top-down processing is important for readers to read efficiently. In this study, the reading comprehension is addressed from a more holistic perspective. When students make connections to the text they are reading, their comprehension increases. It seems evident that we cannot assume all students have the right schemata for academic reading. University teachers could provide appropriate guidance so that readers could develop proper schemata to make inference. Readers constantly attempt to make sense of what they read by comparing how it fits with what they already know. The
overlapping significance of comprehension skills and the integration of the information on the text into one‘s cognitive structure seem to match both the
interactive model and the top-down schematic model (Rumelhart,1980). The former involves the application of both lower-level and higher-level comprehension skills;
while the latter focuses on prior knowledge.
It appeared that the terminology cues used as the pre-reading support greatly increased the participants‘ comprehension. It served much more than simply
introducing words. Developing academic sense of terminology in a domain-specific text means developing concepts for words and seeing how they are implied in the texts, which helps the readers understand texts in a conceptually-driven manner. From the schematic point of view, as Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) and Alderson (2000) stated, through textual cues, appropriate content schema can be accessed. In the present study, a reader-friendly terminology list was provided to facilitate L2 readers‘
understanding of the low-frequency academic words (for details please refer to Chapter Three under the heading of Selection of Reading Support). As Cook (1992) claimed, the mind can be stimulated by key words or phrases in the text or by the context that activates a knowledge schema. This bilingual terminology list might just activate the knowledge schema for the readers. The comprehensible explanations followed by each terminology drew the participants‘ attention to how the word was used in the text. The present study has proven that terminology list was an effective way to activate background knowledge, and this approach might merit further research attention.
Important implications for teaching L2 domain-specific reading have emerged from this finding. We could conclude that the pre-reading input provided readers with the concepts embedded in the material and activated their prior knowledge. With that, readers associated and related the incoming information to their memory and used this information as scaffolding to grasp the meaning of written passages. Therefore, in L2 academic learning and teaching, prior knowledge in academic reading should not be assumed. As many students cannot make connections to the text they are reading, their comprehension is limited. Readers should be actively encouraged to establish
meaningful connections between their current knowledge and the content of the targeted academic texts. Therefore, readers‘ conceptual preparedness for the targeted academic texts needs to be taken into consideration when choosing pre-reading materials.
L1 and L2 Pre-reading Support
The first research question investigated what EFL students‘ reading
performances were after different treatments and the researcher also explored how the participants‘ perceived the benefits of the treatments. Given the complex interaction between L1 and L2 in the act of domain-specific reading, the study examined the impacts of L1 and L2 treatments on tertiary level EFL students who read a
domain-specific text in English. The results reported in Chapter Four have indicated that for university students majoring in English, L2 input functioned similarly to L1 input.
Statistically, the conceptual knowledge gained through L2 was no less effective than the knowledge gained through L1. Either L1 or L2 input helped participants establish the same connections between the thematic knowledge and the required knowledge for the academic text. One possible reason was that, on the L2 definition list used in this study, the lexical terms being explained were provided with the equivalent L1 translation before the detailed descriptions in L2 were presented (see Appendix D). Since both L1 and L2 terminologies were presented bilingually, the translations in L1, even though only appeared once, might have already provided a certain link to activate the L2 readers‘ content schemata. The processing of L2 text might have been mediated by the L1 translations provided in the terminology list.
This hybrid lexical presentation employed in this situation might have facilitated readers to continue reading with adequate understanding in the L2 text. The findings implied that the thematic subject matter information written in L2 was at the
manageable level for these English majors.
The findings regarding the above-mentioned treatment effects of L1 and L2 pre-reading inputs have helped researchers understand the mind of L2 users. L1 or L2 conceptual terminology list produced similar effects on the participants‘
comprehension, and domain-specific concepts on reading were not affected by different language of the pre-reading input. Reading information in two language systems still led to one set of common concepts in domain-specific comprehension.
Therefore, in the next section, the similarity and difference in L2 domain-specific reading process with the input of L1 or L2 pre-reading materials are discussed.
Clarifying the roles of L1/L2 pre-reading inputs
This study unveiled the relationship between the use of Chinese and English inputs to support L2 domain-specific reading. The study has provided a window
through which the effect of inter-language (L1 and L2) and intra-language (L2 and L2) support can be observed. This study also contributed to our understanding of the
relationship between English and Chinese. Chinese differs markedly from English in various aspects (Leong & Tamaoka, 1998). For instance, different information
processing mechanism is involved between reading in Chinese and reading in English (Perfetti, et. al., 2007). Even though the linguistic distance is far from each other, it seemed that for readers, the two languages share the same conceptual system (See Figure 18) and have the same repertoire of concepts which align with the memory system. In the memory research for bilinguals, many studies (e.g., Just & Carpenter, 1992; Kroll & De Groot, 1997) have indicated that bilinguals are able to integrate their lexical semantic representations. That is, bilingual memory is conceived as represented in separate but interconnected lexicons (See Figure 18; see also, Kroll &
Stewart, 1994 for a complete review).
Figure 18. The bilingual model (from Kroll & Stewart, 1994)
Figure18 indicates that bilinguals develop a weak link from their L1 to their L2;
and also a weak link from L2 to concepts compared with the L1 link. In the present study, the participants might have gone through a similar process in reading as the bilinguals in Kroll and Stewart‘s (1994) study. While reading the terminology list, the participants have access to the concepts either through L1 or L2 input. Although their L2 lexicon might not provide sufficient information regarding concepts or meaning of the target language, the terminology list provided meaning to the word they were about to read by associating it to the information they already know. The figure shows that for bilingual readers, L2 to L1 lexical links are more active. For the participants in this study, as L1 is their dominant language, pre-reading input in L1 provided access which could easily activate the underneath conceptual store.
However, the link to the conceptual store from L2 lexicons might be inactive, if the pre-reading input from L2 did not help readers reach the conceptual store.
The conceptual store contains abstract representations about the world (e.g., Potter et al., 1984). Since the hypothetical links between the L1 lexicon and the conceptual store are stronger and the hypothetical links between the L2 lexicon and the conceptual store are weaker, the indication was that the L2 pre-reading support needed to be designed to generate a similar access to the conceptual store as the access from L1. In other words, when exposed to L2 terminology list, the students
need to utilize the links to access the conceptual store. In short, the link from L2 to the conceptual store has a weaker association route, which requires more mental effort to activate it. Obviously, the pre-reading material, be it in L1 or L2, is very important, as it determines whether the link is built or broken.
Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis
Another attempt to explain the relationships between L1/L2 is what Alderson (1984) mentioned ―linguistic interdependence hypothesis in reading.‖ This study confirms what Cummins (1979) purported that language proficiencies involving more cognitively demanding tasks (i.e., such as domain-specific reading and abstract thinking) were common across languages. Even though Chinese and English each contains its surface features, underlying those surface manifestations of language are proficiencies that are transferable across languages. The researcher has established that at the tertiary level, the participants can use either L1 or L2 to access the same store of domain knowledge. This knowledge is available in reading regardless of how the knowledge was acquired in the first place. The transfer of literacy skills between languages occurred because the readers could access the same cognitive resources.
This hypothesis allows for any information or abilities gained from L1 to be transferred to L2 in reading regardless of their L2 linguistic proficiency.
L2 domain-specific reading is understood as a sophisticated process entailing a number of factors. To succeed, a student had to rely on a variety of cognitive facilities and was influenced by psychological factors. This study attempted to explain some of the sophistication, as the researcher inspected the factor of linguistic knowledge, background knowledge, and the effect of L1/L2 pre-reading support. The effects of providing background knowledge through a L1/L2 terminology list suggest that
pre-reading prompts could maximize students‘ domain-specific comprehension. The above discussion has shown the interconnections between L1 and L2 concepts from a cognitive perspective. Aside from cognitive perspective on relationships between the two languages in the reading process, the findings of the present study also offered insights to help researchers understand the affective domains of L2 reading due to the divergence occurred between actual and perceived performance between L1 and L2 input.
Closing the Gap of Perceived Effects between L1/L2 Pre-reading Input While the differential effects between the input of L1 and L2 was not found in the ANOVA, the self-reported survey questionnaire has reflected that learners held different perspectives toward the effects of L1/L2 input. Psychological and affective factors such as anxiety and fear that may have influenced the choice for pre-reading input were also identified. Informed by the students‘ perspectives, the study compared the findings between the participants‘ actual performances and their reported effects.
A discrepancy between the perceived and actual effects was observed. This implies that many EFL university students carried psychological burdens when they are faced with L2 domain-specific texts.
It seems that these participants‘ perceptions were not based on their abilities, but instead on their belief systems which might be influenced by a range of factors such as students‘ prior learning experiences. The majority of the participants clearly indicated that they preferred Chinese as many of them stressed that a non-threatening atmosphere in reading would be established if L1 was provided. For them, the sense of security has outweighed the other advantages provided by L2 pre-reading material.
L1 added a humanistic element in reading. Such views can be attributed to English education in general and L2 reading in particular. It is possible that the pedagogy of
L2 reading had not built students‘ confidence, and consequently students‘ concepts about L2 reading were influenced psychologically by their negative emotions when reading in L2. The common belief is that L2 is less effective in facilitating reading, and therefore less preferred. This might affect students‘ inclination to read in English and also provide an excuse for those students who do not want to engage in
disciplinary academic reading in English.
Some EFL students may be reluctant to leave their comfort zone. This is especially true for the lower English proficiency participants. The psychological barrier could easily hinder a reader‘s English performances if the academic texts required are relatively more difficult. Chinese is positively evaluated in this study because most EFL students find it natural to read in their mother tongue. Reading and learning subject matters in Chinese is their common experiences, and reading in L2 involves taking the necessary risks of incomprehension. Hence L1 is a safer channel for most readers to obtain a full understanding.
At the tertiary level, adult EFL readers read differently from monolingual readers. L2 reading involves a dual-language system. For the participants who were already literate in their L1, Mandarin in this case, their English reading experience is relatively limited compared to that in their L1. Building readers‘ confidence in
reading L2 texts and improving their L2 proficiency is important. By illuminating the intricate links between cognitive and affective factors on L2 reading performance, this study might contribute to how domain-specific texts can be better used for EFL
students to read in an optimal state academically. Pedagogically, to reduce the gap between perceived effects and actual effects of L2 reading, ways should be found to relieve the stress that comes from engaging in L2 reading.
L2 Reading Anxiety
As mentioned above, when comparing the perceived effects of L1 and L2
As mentioned above, when comparing the perceived effects of L1 and L2